The Evolution of The Burqa

While we have educated,cultured,and clean women like Khadija,those wallowing in the sewers of english `CULTture`(whatever that is) must be immensely savouring the flavours & armas.Stay there please.Do not bring your impurities close to muslim families. __________________________________________________

Khadijah

umm_fatima@yahoo.com

Assalamu Alaikum everyone,

Well, I`m a UAE resident, but not a citizen. I`ve lived 21 years Alhamdulillah in the UAE. And, it`s pretty much my home, although the government unfortunately doesn`t seem to think so :) they prefer giving their land to the Kuffar, like the Americans who are ill treating them so much. My fault being I`ve dedicated myself to defending UAE and other muslim countries (although I`m not holding their passports). Currently, I live in the United States, and I`m studying here. I wear the Abaya and the niqaab Alhamdulillah. Infact, I`m the only one dressed like this in my university. We are just three women in our city who Alhamdulillah wear the niqaab. So what, should we leave it for the fear of people, or run because of the fear of people. Who will save us from Allah? No one can harm us if Allah is on our side.

I was too pressurized by my family to leave my hijaab, but Alhamdulillah I didn`t.

I think we go out of our way to be nice to the kuffar and there is nothing wrong in that, Islam is all about hospitality. But, what I want to know is at what cost. We are willing to change ourselves to become like them for them to accept us. Please go back and read the Quran. They cannot be our allies. I only wish that we realize that the Gulf states MashAllah have the money to buy the manpower and the technology and we don`t have to bend our ways to please the kafir to get them. Who is going to buy their stuff, but the muslims who have the money? If we had dignity in our religion and our culture, the FBI and the American government would have thought ten times before doing such things. I have been shouted at on the street. I know many girls who just wear the scarf were harassed terribly. Some who looked like Arabs (like mexicans in my city) were bitten up. SubhanAllah! And we still don`t know what we should be doing. Ofcourse, we shouldn`t leave this place now like cowards. Wallahu A`alam, I feel we should today take the opportunity and teach these people what we are and what we have. If you respect yourself, people will respect you. My sincere request to my muslim brothers and sisters who are in the west and back in the Gulf is not to leave your originality to please the kafir. The reason all this is happening because they don`t know anything about your culture and our religion. How come I understand the Gulf people although I`m not one of them? Because I know them. They don`t, why, because we have changed ourselves to be like them, how would they know what is Islam and who are Arabs and what kind of people they are originally. SubhanAllah, in bosnia, muslim brothers and sisters were killed and raped because they had muslim names, they were not even practicing there. Doesn`t this make you guys think a little? They will never accept us as one of them. We have to make them understand our religion and culture and the importance of it. So that for weird/freek things that happen they shouldn`t blame our religion and shouldn`t generalize across nation of arabs and muslims.

Muslims return back to Islam and preach it to others. Feel dignity in your religion. You don`t have to be ashamed of your dishdasha or your abaya because they don`t wear it. So what? They are wrong, you aren`t. Alhamdulillah, things have cooled down in our city now, we have been doing a lot of conferences and explaining Islam and the muslim culture and the Arab culture to these people. We have been explaining to them the liberation of women in Islam and about equality and that we don`t need feminism and why. SubhanAllah, not all but there are people who understand and we are progressing. It is our fault if we don`t explain ourselves to them and because of that they misunderstand us. Everything can`t be all their fault. SubhanAllah, these people think all muslims are Arabs, they were shocked in a conferences when we told them that only around 19% of the muslims are Arabs.

I`m either mistaken to be an Arab or an Afghani on the road, why, partially their fault of not learning about us and looking beyond the west and partially ours because when we go to west we become like them. So they never got the chance to find out that my dressing style is muslim not Arab or Afghani.

We should come out and explain that our women wear hijaab to please Allah not because they are oppressed or forced to. SubhanAllah, we are also confusing muslims now. Who, Astaghfirullah think Islam is unfair to women. I find myself always explaining my religion and my independence to people. I don`t mind, and I think other brothers and sisters should do the same. And, inshAllah we will make the difference. And, Allah knows best.

Wassalam

Khadijah

-Friday, November 09, 2001 at 09:14:17 (PST)

Khadijah

umm_fatimah@yahoo.com

Sorry, I`m back again. I didn`t read your comments, the firt time. I just wanted to remind our muslim brothers and sisters, that we are one ummah and one body. No, this war will not finish here, but things are cooling down with time. People will get used to the idea. This is what happens when we think that it`s their problem or their country. No, we are muslims it`s our problem. If we took the palestinian, bosnian, kashmiri and chechnyan problems seriously, we citizens of different muslim countries would be more ready for this day. But, we thought things like this would never happen to us. Well, this is time for us to think again, and think united. It is unfair what`s happening in Afghanistan and in Palestine and it`s every muslims business. We can make the difference by educating the people in the States about our religion and muslims so that they at least side us if not their government and one day InshAllah, if we have our imaan strong, victory will come to only Islam and the truth. And, people will understand us better.

And, one more thing, it`s absolutely wrong to run back to our countries, because this is not only going to hurt our education, but also show them that we are scared and had something to hide and so we ran. We are innocent of any crime and we will stay back to prove our innocence. They are doing their duty investigating and InshAllah we will do ours by educating them that Islam is free of all their suspicion and muslims are not fundamentalists and terrorists.

Wassalam

Khadijah

-Friday, November 09, 2001 at 09:56:18 (PST)

Musulman #225 So you address strange women as ``Queen Lolita``. Since you live in the Saudi Arabia, and if you really are a musulman, you should present yourself to a Saudi court with this evidence of harassment of women against you. Ask them to administer a thrashing per Islamic law. Of course, if you are merely another harasser of women in the guise of a musulman, you may ignore this call to travel the right path and continue with your hypocrisy.

I may of course be mistaken, and you may be using the term Queen Lolita as an effectionate term with your mother and daughters, in which case you should make that clear.

To Queen Lolita

Assalam laykum

I live in saudi arabia where women wear the black cloaks and veils about which you said:

``Now, when I see a woman walking down the street on a 49 degree day wearing a heavy black robe, her face almost completely covered, while her lavish husband slips on a comfortable T-shirt and gets ready to head to the beach with his friends - I am sorry, but that is sick and insane.``

I`m sorry to tell you that doesn`t bother me one bit,you know why???because i am answering to Allah only and He ordered me to wear full hijab.

THEN you said: ``Women and Men differ only in the very small physical ways, the rest is shaped by society - views, opinions, beliefs. I come from a Muslim Country - Bosnia - where YOU HAVE A CHOICE as a woman, and noone has the right to tell you otherwise.``

I only have a choice when it does not interfere with Allah`s direct commands.

THE you said: ``WE do NOT wear veils all the time, we work and do all jobs you can think of, and we do NOT just sit at home with the kids, but participate in life.``

I say here in Saudi Arabia we wear veils all the time ,we have women doctors ,nurses,medical technologists(my daughter is one),teachers,adminstrators,Deans of girls faculties,(women)professors in almost all subjects(they teach our girls in the university), business-women,secretaries,dress-makers,hairdressers,accountants(I`m one),interior designers,computer experts,writers,journalists.........etc.

The Question of Dress and Hairstyles

These quotes are taken from the highly recommended book which can be ordered by clicking on the link:

“WHAT PAUL REALLY SAID ABOUT WOMEN”

An Apostle`s Liberating Views on Equality in Marriage, Leadership, and Love: With Questions by John Temple Bristow.

Paul faced a problem. He envisioned a unity between Jews and Gentiles through a common faith in Christ. In the Church, Jew­ish Christians and Gentile Christians, slaves and masters, wom­en and men, would all be equal. But in his grand attempt to make this dream come true, Paul found an obstacle that had to be removed: the different meanings given to head coverings and hair lengths and styles.

For Jews, worshiping’ without one`s head covered was regard­ed with stern disapproval. Jewish men recited each morning the prayer ``Blessed be Thou, 0 God, Who crowns Israel with beauty.`` They believed that the Shekhinah, the glory and radi­ance of the Almighty, surrounds the worshiper and rests upon the man and woman who please God. Therefore, it was regarded as an act of reverence and humility for a person to wear a head covering during worship, just as Moses wore a veil after descending Mount Sinai to hide the radiance of his face after being near God (Exod. 34:29-35). Some people wore something on their heads at all times, whether awake or asleep.

Jewish women were required to wear their hair bound up whenever they left their homes. Unbound, flowing hair was regarded as sensual and almost a form of nudity. If a woman let her hair down in public she was seen as tempting men to sin. Therefore, the Mishnah declared that a husband might di­vorce his wife and not have to return her dowry in the event that she ``goes out with her hair unbound ... or speaks to any man.``` Men might let their hair grow long, but they were under no such compulsion to tie up their locks. ``How does a man differ from a woman?`` the Mishnah asks. ``He may go with hair unbound and with garments rent, but she may not go with hair unbound and with garments rent.

Some Jewish women would refrain from letting their hair down even in the privacy of their own homes, choosing instead to wear a head covering at all times. The Jewish Talmud tells of a high priest who was accidentally defiled on the Day of Atone­ment and therefore was prevented from officiating. When his brother officiated in his stead, their mother bragged that she saw two high priests in one day. When wise men asked her what she had done to merit such, she answered, ``Throughout the days of my life the beams of my house have not seen the plaits of my hair.113 (The wise men observed, however, that many other women did likewise without receiving such an hon­or.)

Modern Christians sometimes suppose that Jewish women of the Bible days were required to wear veils across their faces. Although this practice may have appeared from time to time, a veil was not required as a sign of modesty or humility. In fact,, in the Old Testament a face veil may have been a sign of a, prostitute, as indicated by the following story.

In the age, of the Hebrew patriarchs, it was a law that if a woman were widowed without children, her deceased hus­band`s brother would be obligated to take her into his house and provide her with a son, who would maintain the fancily line and inherit the deceased man`s property. This arrangement was known as the law of levirate marriage. Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob, himself had three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah. Er married a woman named Tamar, and he died with­out issue. Judah therefore provided Onan to Tamar, but he too died without issue. Judah feared giving his last son, Shelah, to Tamar, thinking that he too might perish. So Judah put her off, year after year. At last, after Judah himself was widowed, Ta­mar decided to bear an heir by tricking Judah himself into fa­thering her son. When Judah traveled to a nearby city, Tamar put off her mourning clothes and wore normal garments, and also she wore a veil across her face. Then she sat at the city gate and waited for Judah. When he saw her, ``he thought her to be a harlot, for she had covered her face`` (Gen. 38:15). So he propositioned her, and through this ruse Tamar became pregnant with twin sons of the lineage of Judah. This story indicates that veils at the time of Judah were symbols of pros­titution among the Hebrews.

The words used in the Old Testament to describe women`s clothing are not well understood, especially regarding head coverings. The Assyrian artist`s portrayal of the destruction of the Judean city of Lachish shows Jewish women wearing long strips of cloth over their heads, like shawls that hung down behind them to the length of their hemlines. None of these women were pictured wearing veils.

What we know about Gentile styles is the following. During the classical period in Greece, wives wore scarves similar to those of the women of Lachish, long enough so that the Greek matrons could wrap one end of the cloth around their faces, hiding all but their eyes and foreheads when appearing in pub­lic places. By the time of Paul, men of Hellenized culture wore their hair relatively short. As Ovid(43B.C.-A.D. 17), a roman poet, advised young men in The Art of Love, ``Don`t let your hair grow long, and when you visit a barber, patronize only the best. Don`t let him mangle your beard.114 Greek girls wore long hair, and matrons wore their hair bound up on their heads in braids or with hairpins. Prostitutes, however (other than the sophis­ticated hetairai who served as courtesans of the wealthy), wore their hair quite short, often clipped closer than that of their male customers. Greek men would have found the Jewish insis­tence upon wearing head coverings during worship strange if not distasteful.

Paul`s Instructions Regarding Hair and Head Coverings



In attempting to unify both Gentile and Jewish believers into one church, Paul felt the need to address the question of head coverings and hairstyles. In 1 Corinthians, he wrote specific instructions in an attempt to uphold one central principle: ``Be without offense both to Jews and to Greeks and to the church of God, as I also in all things please all, not seeking my own advantage, but that of the many, in order that they may be saved`` (1 Cor. 10:32). Paul wanted his readers to accommo­date themselves to practices that would not offend either Jewish or Gentile believers.

Paul then immediately entered into the matter of head cov­erings and hairstyles. A literal translation of this passage into English discloses how confusing Paul`s words are:

But I praise you because you have remembered all things of me and you hold fast to you the traditions as I delivered to you. But I wish you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and head of a wife, the husband, and head of Christ, God. Every man praying or prophe­sying (while) having (anything) down over (his) head shames the head of him. But, every women praying or prophesying with the head un­covered shames the head of her, for it is one and the same thing with the woman who has been shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her be shorn; but if (it is) ugly for a woman to be shorn or to be shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed is obligated not to be covered, the head being the image and glory of God; but the wife is glory of husband. For man is not from woman, but woman because of the man. Therefore the woman ought to have authority on the head because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither woman separate from man nor man separate from woman in (the) Lord, for as the woman from the man, so also the man through the woman; but all things of God. Among you yourselves judge: is it fitting, a woman to pray to God uncovered? (Does) not nature itself teach you that a man indeed ff he wears his hair long, it is a dishonor to him, but a woman, if she wears her hair long, it is a glory to her? The long hair has been given to her instead of a covering. (1 Cor. 11:2-15)

Traditionally, this passage has been interpreted to mean that men are required to wear their hair short (in fact, the medieval practice of priests having their pates plucked bare--tonsured­—was an overzealous application of this scripture) and keep their heads uncovered during worship, while women are to cover their heads during worship. Moreover, this passage has been interpreted to justify the notion that women, while they have souls, are by nature between men and animals in terms of pow­ers of reason, ethical understanding, and theological insights. (After all, man is the glory of God, while woman is the glory of man.) This led in turn to a denial of education to women during the Middle Ages.

As has been noted already in chapter 3, a closer look at Paul`s actual words affirms rather than debases women. The apostle rejected the idea of the inferiority of women to men that had been based on the story of Adam and Eve. Paul pointed out that Eve was created because Adam was incomplete without her, and that the wife is the glory of her husband. He also added that while Eve was taken out of Adam`s side, every man since then has come from his mother`s body. And so he sum­marized the question this way: ``Neither woman separate from man nor man separate from woman in the Lord,`` for all things are from God. Men and women are not to be separate during worship-both men and women are to lead in worship by pray­ing and prophesying.

But what about prohibitions and customs regarding head coverings and hairstyles?

A Closer Look at Paul`s Solution



In order to understand Paul`s solution to the problem, one must be introduced to the meaning of several key words in this passage.

For example, the Greek words for man and woman also mean ``husband`` and ``wife.`` This was not Paul`s choosing, but is inherent in the Greek language. Paul could have chosen words meaning ``male`` and ``female`` when he intended to indicate persons of each sex who are not necessarily married, but these words in Greek connote more than Paul wanted to say and they would have misled his readers. So in this passage (as in many New Testament writings) the decision whether to translate one word ``husband`` or ``man`` and the other ``wife`` or ``woman`` is determined by their context. In the literal translation given ear­lier, the words are translated ``husband`` and ``wife`` only when one can be fairly certain that Paul was referring to married cou­ples.

The word Paul used in this passage for head is kephale (kef­ah-LAY), and not arche (ar-KAY). As was noted in chapter 3, arche means ``beginning,`` ``boss,`` or ``chief,`` while kephale means ``physical head,`` or, figuratively, ``one who proceeds an­other into battle.`` Although Paul did describe Christ as arche of the Church in Col. 1:18, in this passage whenever ``head`` ap­pears, it is a translation of kephale.

``Shorn`` translates a form of the verb keiro (KY-roe), which means ``shear`` (as, a sheep) or ``cut short`` (as one`s hair).

``Covered`` is the verb katakalupto (kata-ka-LOOP-toe), which is used nowhere ` else in the New Testament. Elsewhere, kalupto (ka-LOOP-toe) is used to mean ``cover,`` ``hide,`` or ``conceal.,, When Paul added the preposition kata to the verb, he was de­liberately altering its meaning from just ``cover`` to ``cover down over.`` In verse 4, when Paul spoke of a man praying or pro­phesying with something down over his head, he used the same preposition, kata (ka-TAH), ``down over.`` Now, at all other times in the New Testament, including the writings of Paul, when something is said to be ``on`` someone`s head, the prepo­sition epi (eh-PEE) was used. Only here did Paul write of some­thing being kata, ``down over,`` one`s head. Some translators render katakalupto as ``wearing a vefl.`` If veil implies a face cov­ering, then such a translation is misleading.

``Hair`` in Greek is thrix, but Paul, in this passage, chose a different word, kome (KOH-mee). It too is used nowhere else in the New Testament. It does not mean, simply, ``hair.`` Rather, it denotes hair that is long and ornamentals ``Nature,`` which Paul said teaches that long hair on a man is dishonorable, is phusis (FOO-sis). It means ``nature`` and ``the natural order,`` but it also can be used to describe a mode of feeling or acting that is almost instinctive because of long habit. In that sense, phusis means ``long-established custom.``

What, then, was Paul saying?

He began by referring to the ``tradition`` that he had already delivered to the church in Corinth. This may mean the gospel, but usually Paul used the word we translate ``gospel`` when he meant the good news of Christ. It is much more likely that by ``tradition`` Paul was reminding church members of teachings and interpretations he gave to them concerning how they could apply the gospel to their daily lives. But since modern readers were not present when Paul preached in Corinth, it is often difficult to reconstruct the oral teachings he gave that church from his all-too-brief references to those teachings in subse­quent correspondence.

However, an argument Paul made in 2 Corinthians may en­able us to understand more fully the attitude among Jews re­garding covering one`s head during worship as well as Paul`s puzzling instructions to that church about head coverings.

In 2 Cor. 3:7-18, Paul referred to the veil that Moses put over his face after descending from Mt. Sinai because his skin shone with a brightness that frightened the Israelites (Exod. 34:29-35). Paul remarked that this glory on Moses faded, just as the splen­dor of the old covenant through Moses had faded away. Now, Paul declared, the new covenant we have through Christ is of greater splendor, for this covenant is permanent.

The Jewish custom of wearing head coverings during worship was linked to the idea of God`s radiance (Shekhinah) shining upon the devout. Just as one might wear a hat to keep off the sun`s rays, one would wear a hat when entering the brilliance of God`s splendor. The custom of wearing something on top of one`s head became a symbol of the kind of glory that Moses covered with a veil. The head covering in Paul`s day was usually a prayer shawl, the tallit, which would hang down from the devout man`s or woman`s head.

Now, in 1 Corinthians Paul gave a theological reason why a Christian man ought not to wear something hanging down from the head while praying or prophesying. He began by re­minding his readers that their head is not Moses, but Christ.

His next sentences imply that what one does with one`s head makes a theological statement about Christ. To cover one`s head, Paul seems to be saying, is to act as if one were ashamed of Christ, our head, who is the image and glory of God. The question is not what a man does with his head, but what a man says by what he does with his head.

Jewish custom demanded that women too cover their heads when worshiping. If Paul wished to be consistent in his insis­tence on the oneness of men and women in Christ, one would expect him to offer the same instructions to women concerning head coverings as he did to men. But what a woman did with her head held different social significance from what a man did with his.

Married Jewish women were obligated to keep their hair bound up on their heads or else covered over whenever they appeared in public, as was the practice of many Greek ma­trons, as well. It was a symbol of their married state, much like a wedding ring today. For a Jewish woman to loosen her hair in public would have been even more dramatic than for a wom­an today to throw her wedding ring away.

Therefore, Paul objected to those wives who appeared in pub­lic worship with hair hanging loose, uncovered before the eyes of the congregation. It was the same, he argued, as if they had their hair cut close (the style of prostitutes) or as if they had their heads shaved. To take such a liberty with her hair would shame a wife`s ``head,`` her husband. It was not a matter of a woman`s hair being unseemly-Paul stated that it is her ``glory.`` But she herself is the glory of her husband, and she should not shame him. The question is not what a woman does with her head, but what she says by what she does with her head.

Since customs have changed and hairstyles no longer mean what they did in the societies of Paul`s time, his specific instruc­tions are no longer relevant to modern Christians. However, the principle behind these instructions, of being sensitive to what message our dress codes and styles convey to others, still holds.

What of the Angels?



In the midst of this passage, Paul made a strong assertion that has puzzled many readers. He wrote, ``Therefore the wom­an ought to have authority on the head, because of the angels`` (1 Cor. 11:10). Some translators assume that Paul was speaking metaphorically when he wrote of authority for women, and so they word this sentence, ``Therefore, a woman ought to wear a veil, because of the angels.`` What would wearing a veil have to do with angels? Tertuilian offered one suggestion. He believed that if angels looked down and saw women without veils, they might fall in love with them!

The word Paul used, however, is not the word for veil. It is exousia (ex-OU-see-ah), a word used of kings and magistrates. It was used by Christ when he said that he had the authority to forgive sins (Matt. 9:6) and that he was given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). It is used many times in the New Testament, and it means just what the English equivalent says-``power,`` ``right,`` ``strength,`` ``authority.`` It is never used metaphorically to stand for a piece of clothing.

To explain with certainty the phrase ``on the head`` is impos­sible. The ``therefore`` at the beginning of the sentence refers back to Paul`s phrase ``woman is the glory of man``-``therefore`` a woman ought to have authority ``on the head.`` Does ``head`` designate her own physical head or does it mean her husband? The use of epi with exousia strongly suggests the latter, because elsewhere exousia epi means ``authority over`` someone or some­thing (for example, in Matt. 9:6 and 28:18 those words are used in the phrase ``authority on earth,`` and in Luke 9:1 they are used in the phrase ``authority over demons``).

If this is what Paul meant, he did not elaborate on how much or what kind of authority a woman is to exercise over her hus­band. One thing is certain, however: Paul affirmed that women are given authority in the Church.

Then what do angels have to do with authority? Before Pen­tecost, women were not recognized as spiritually equal with men. But on that day, Peter proclaimed that Joel’s words had now come true, that both sons and daughters would prophesy and both men slaves and women slaves would receive the Holy Spirit. Women as well as men would receive communication from God.

This spiritual authority now given to women as well as men was foreshadowed in the Gospels by the action of angels. An angel came to Mary to enlist her cooperation in the birth of the Christ child. And two angels announced the resurrection of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James at the empty tomb (Luke 24:1-12).6 The fact that angels came to women affirms the spiritual authority women may en­joy from God and that they may exercise within the church of Christ.

Perhaps this is what Paul had in mind when he said that a woman should have authority on the head ``because of the an­gels.`` But this interpretation is by no means certain. It may be that the thought Paul had was known only to him and the re­cipients of his letter, and is now lost.

Paul`s Message About Women`s Attire



In one of Paul`s letters to his beloved Timothy, he added an appeal regarding women`s attire (1 Tim. 2:8-10). He began by stating a desire that men should lift up ``holy hands without wrath and doubting.`` The word translated `doubting`` is dialo­gismos (dee-ah-lo-gis-MOS). It can mean either ``doubting`` or ``quarreling.`` In the context, it would seem likely that Paul meant to say doubting, but since the word is associated with one meaning ``wrath,`` it could just as well mean ``quarreling. Perhaps Paul meant both.



Then Paul turned to another matter that, like quarreling, can divide people within the Church: the matter of how women dress. ``In like manner also,`` the Authorized (King James) Ver­sion reads, ``that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.`` More modern trans­lations replace the word shamefacedness with its modern equiv­alent, modesty. The Greek word aidous (aye-DOUS) also means ``reverence`` and ``respect.`` Its partner word, sophrosune (so-fro­SOON-ay), translated ``sobriety,`` is not a word referring to al­coholic drinks. Instead, it describes someone who has good judgment, self-control, who can act with moderation.



Paul asked that the clothing women choose be modest (the Revised Standard Version reads ``seemly``). Once Jesus de­scribed a man who drove out demons from his house. Later the demons returned and found the house empty, swept clean, and put in order (Matt. 12:44; Luke 11:25). The word for ``put in order`` is kosmeo (kos-ME-o). When Paul asked women to choose modest clothing, he used a form of this word. It means ``put in order,`` ``adorn,`` ``make beautiful or attractive.`` In other words, Paul admonished Christian women to choose clothing that is orderly and attractive, but to do so with a sense of good judg­ment and moderation.

Paul then added a note about jewelry. Unfortunately, most translations overlook one word, and leave the impression that Paul was forbidding women from wearing any kind of jewelry or braiding their hair. The literal translation reads, ``not with braiding and gold, or pearls or costly outer clothing.``

Paul mentioned pearls because they were the most expensive gems of the ancient world (compare Jesus` parable of the pearl of great price, so costly that a man had to sell all he owned in order to buy it [Matt. 13:45-46]). Modern cultured pearls have brought this item of beauty to within modest prices. But even before mentioning costly pearls, Paul wrote of ``braiding and gold.`` Here he used the word kai (and), braiding and gold. Then he wrote ``or`` pearls, ``or`` costly outer clothing. Paul was not forbidding the wearing of gold nor the braiding of hair per se, but the practice of braiding gold items into one`s hair.

In the time of Paul, the Greek hetairai were schooled by older prostitutes in the fine art of cosmetics, fashion, and adornment.

One of their practices involved braiding pieces of gold jewelry into their hair, an artistic touch that more wealthy matrons be­gan to imitate. It may seem strange that respectable women would follow the styles of courtesans, but in Rome, where pros­titutes were required by law to make their hair yellow, it became a fad among married women to peroxide their hair or else to wear blond wigs!

Paul warned women in the Church not to adorn themselves in the style of courtesans. Or to wear extremely expensive pearls.

Last, Paul urged women to avoid costly ``array,`` a word that in Greek refers to outer garments (a cloak or robe or stole). The arrangement of the wording places the emphasis on ``costly,`` indicating that Paul was not denying women the right to wear warm clothing, but urging them to choose garments that are modest in cost.

A woman who manages a jewelry store once related to me how another woman wearing an expensive fur coat entered the store and informed the salesperson that true Christians do not wear gold jewelry because it is forbidden by Scripture. The woman misunderstood Paul`s admonition to women: wear clothing that is tasteful and attractive, not disheveled or osten­tatious, and avoid jewelry that is extravagant in cost or worn in the style associated with courtesans. Rather, women are to adorn themselves in ways suitable to one who professes the faith, remembering that the most beautiful aspect of a woman`s appearance is not her attire but her good works in Christian love.

Questions for Thought and Discussion

Paul spent some time writing about hairstyles, head cov­erings, cost of clothing, and symbolism of jewelry. Are these matters really that important? Why or why not?



2. In this chapter the statement is made, ``since customs have changed and hair styles no longer mean what they did in the societies of Paul’s time, his specific instructions are no longer relevant to modern Christians.`` Do you agree or disagree? Why?



3.Many women in Muslim countries even today prefer to wear veils across their faces whenever they go out in pub­lic places. Why do you think they find this custom com­fortable?



4.This chapter states that Paul based his instructions about head wear on the belief that ``what one does with one`s head ... makes a theological statement.`` Is it true today that what we wear during worship makes a statement about our religious beliefs? If so, what statements are being made in our churches? Should clothing be given such theological importance in the church? Why or why not?



5.Paul`s words indicate that what a wife may do with her hair, will reflect on her husband. In what ways would this be true today for wives?



6.Paul states that women are to have authority, and he does so at the conclusion of his discourse on hairstyles and head wear. How are hair and dress styles today associated with the matter of authority?>

Hijab: The Muslim Veil

By Shezray Tenver

Average Rating: 6.75

The myth, beliefs and reality behind the Hijab, the muslim veil.

The black kohl is smeared and tears cling to her eyelashes. She stares out with eyes full of anguish from behind her shroud as if asking the world to comprehend her tormenting existence and wordlessly pleads for help. Though she is only gazing out from the cover of the famed book `Princess`, (Jean Sasson) she is as real as any woman. Her pain can be felt and her distress shared as her muffled scream echoes from the silent picture.

You will see these `abaaya` clad women featured on covers of books like `Not Without My Daughter,` `Rage Against The Veil` and `Daughters Of Arabia`. What you will feel might be more then heartrending compassion but what you might not realize is they have started to symbolize the entire Muslim women and what leaps out of the book covers are not the beseeching eyes but the black hijab.

September 1994, 13-year-old Emilie Ouimet was sent home from Montreal`s Louis Riel High School (Quebec, Canada) because her hijab did not conform to the school`s uniform.

In two Caribbean islands (Trinidad and Tobago) that are largely populated with Muslims; the Catholic, Anglican, Baptist and Hindu boards of education issued a joint statement prohibiting Muslim girls from wearing hijab to school.

The French national minister of education issued a law that banned headscarves from the classrooms. The Moroccan government forbade its citizens in France to join protests against hijab strictures there.

In Britain (1990) two Muslim girls were sent home from college for wearing hijabs. Turkey, Algeria and Tunisia, has had a prohibition on wearing it as well. More recently, Europeans and Americans have made moves against the hijab and sardonically all these nations eloquently stress against any bigotry.

These loosely linked chains of events found their places somewhere away from front-pages of national newspapers mitigating various reasons like: the hijab is a threat to secularism and the separation of religion and state. Or it is responsible for dividing Muslim and non-Muslim students by introducing religious influences in schools and creating pointless strain on other students to kowtow to Islamic dress or moral code. That the hijab constitutes to violation of female`s human rights as a form of discrimination is the most popular. Interestingly so, these reporters who seem to know everything backward and forward left out some very basis queries that fill me with curiosity. Questions like, when will the times come for equal rights of Muslim minorities? When there will be no dilemmas left to solve? Are their avowed human rights only worth the material value of the paper they are written on? And if the hajibs are being prohibited socially, will similar measures follow against the Jewish yarmulkes (skullcap), the Christian nun`s habits, the turbans the Sikh wear and then will Christian students be forbidden from wearing crosses to schools too?

I am not being vindictive, what I am trying to point out is that what is a very personal act of worship for a Muslim has startlingly become one of the most controversial and debated subject concerning Muslim women in the contemporary society, and that too for the wrong reasons and priorities! What I pen down is not in defense of the religion. Islam needs no such defense, period. But in corroboration of the Muslim veil after seeing how wrongly it is being perceived and interpreted. What is actually incredulous is that all-inclusive, there seems to be a rising consensus that a few yards of cloth on a woman`s head is a threat to her education, rights, freedom, public security etc and actually associated with Islam rather then the accountable cultures.

Before we get to the bottom of this, let me just give you the bottom-line; a Muslim woman has the right and liberty by her religion to choose how she construes her hijab! It is not a societal concern according to the Qur`an and no chastisement for failing to observe it have been specified as for adultery, murder, slander etc. This basic acknowledgement of her innate gift towards choosing the path of Allah is much more significant than any type of particulars about what composes her hijab.

You see, the Qur`an does not mandate the practice of hijab among Muslim women; rather it is based on the religious doctrine that comes from the Hadith of Sahih Bukhari. (The Hadith being the traditions of Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, revealing his teachings to his followers.)

``O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed...`` (Qur`an 33:59)

Then what went wrong and how did things become to full of twists and turns for some believers of the Muslim faith? The answer is rooted with the fact that for many centuries the veiling of women has been deal with exclusive male interpretation of laws carried the weight of divine sanction while actually suppressing their ignorant women. A most recent modern day example is that of the radical Taliban rule and it is sad that women are being used as victims in men`s control and opinionated struggles and that it is being done in the name of Islam.

The motive behind wearing the hijab is modesty but because the word `hijab` is translated as `veil`, people assume that Islam wants it`s women to stay put behind a drape isolated from the society, imprisoned within the four walls of their houses leaving only when direly required. In reality, nothing in the hijab restrict a woman`s freedom of movement, outlook and opinion or stops her from educating herself, having a profession, choosing a husband or remaining single. Common sense points out that women would not have been told to observe the hijab if they were supposed to stay confined at home; the hijab is meant for the public life because women does not observe hijab at home while with family! It is indeed a pity that scores of cultures embedded in Muslim nations have still not properly comprehended the ideal status Islam gives women and more so have mislead non-Muslims too.

But since the Non-Muslim world is forever keen on accenting the comparatively exploited minorities, the hijab alone has come to symbolize forced silence, debauched militancy and sheer terror on behalf of the wearer. This assertion might baffle some readers but try seeing it from this angle; a falcon with its wings spread signifies Harley-Davidson, a swoosh sign on a jogger will immediately bring to mind Nike. Why? The reason being that logos, signs and even minimal words have explicit impact. So in a culture where people use clothes to label individuality, send a message and indicate what groups they belong to, the hajib has become more of a statement.

For the oblivious onlookers, a woman wearing the Muslim hijab is just ``the veiled woman``, a mystifying exotic figure that intrigues their inquisitiveness. Some see her as making a sweeping declaration about her fanatic political and religious notions. Others view her as a symbol of utter helplessness, in dire need of being salvaged from her male persecutor and Islam, both that are seen as poisoning the western free and democratic culture with weak and submissive ways for women.

It is of essence to add here that since the hijab is associated with oppression and inferior status for women, many people believe that deliverance and freedom shall come with unveiling. But what remains to be answered is that has a woman who is free of the hijab really ever found freedom? Has the unveiling given her an equal status with men? The whole thing is that a woman cannot find equality and dignity in a society that does not respect her for who she is, with or without the hijab. She cannot be honored if her appearance is more significant than her potential and character. Is it not ironic that the so-called unprejudiced west sees the hijab as sheer discrimination against women by Islam yet women who do don the hijab willingly in the west have been discrimination by their peers, society in general, employers and the western authorities?

The fact that the hijab can actually pose as a nagging problem for western people is food for thought. Is it actually posing as a threat? Maybe so! Hijab is not merely a covering cloth but more importantly, it is behavior, manners, speech and appearance in public for the dress is only one facade of the whole person. A female professional may be appreciated in the work environment for her skill but never the less she is valued as a woman and that interferes with business relations with men since evaluation should be for intelligence and skills instead of looks and sexuality. Here the hijab put the other person on guard, indicated limitations and hence the person is dealt as more of a professional then a woman.

Then many believe that the veil is a way to secure personal liberty by allowing freedom of movement and control of bodies. Understood in such terms, hijab protects women from the male gaze and allows them to become autonomous subjects. The woman is covering her head out of her love for God and is not just stating something about what she accepts but she is also about what she rejects. In the west where women dress not to cover, but to advantageously expose their bodies, these Muslim women are sending out a very strong message that they choose not to chip in, in the gender game of show-and-seek. Other women see it as a personal attack that the wearer automatically and candidly disapproved of everything they do. What adds fuel to this fire is that when these women who are believed to be forced, demoralized and desperate are seen contented, educated, cultured and liberated, important stereotypes are crushed without a word being spoken.

The liberation of women cannot escalate by defending women from the hajib but by defending their decision to keep their bodies to themselves as and how they please. True equality will not be when women are told to discard this cover but only when women don`t need to display themselves to get attention. Hijab does not denigrate woman but it raises and honors her. It is a barrier and a shield, not because women are weak, but because the society is.

So shed tears for the woman you see gawking from book covers, suffer for the wretched women born in warped cultures, remonstration for women chained away from freedom by their men and customs; but don`t waste your crystal-clear tears for the virtuous women who wear the hijab. Don`t waste your time deeming that the hajib is a symbol of terrorism, distinguish it, as the identity of a Muslim, who follows the religion of peace by will.

Islam in America

Muslims move to the mainstream

by David Johnson Send this Page to a Friend!



During Dec. 2000 a crescent symbolizing Islam stood along with the Christmas tree and the Hanukkah candelabra on the Ellipse in Washington, DC. In 2001 the postal service issued a stamp for the Muslim feast of Eid-al-Fitr at the request of thousands of Muslim school children.

According to the Washington Times, the stamp is one indication that the more than six million American Muslims have arrived as a political and social force.

Mosques Dot the Country

Once confined to the nation`s biggest cities, mosques, Islamic houses of worship, are rapidly becoming a familiar site on Main Streets across the country. There are some 3,000 mosques in the U.S. Fueled by immigration and conversions, Islam is the fastest growing religion in America. (It is also the fastest growing faith in the world.) It is on the verge of surpassing Judaism as the largest non-Christian faith in the country.

Many People Confuse Terms

Many people mistakenly assume `Muslim` and `Arab` are interchangeable. Many Arabs are Christian. There are two million Christian Arabs—mainly Orthodox and Roman Catholic—living the U.S.

The majority of Muslims in the world are not Arab. In fact, Indonesia, in Southeast Asia, is the largest Islamic country in the world. Millions of Muslims live in such non-Arab areas as India, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Central Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa.

Diverse Origins

The American Muslim Council (AMC) in Washington, DC states that American Muslims have the following origins: Middle Eastern Arabs, 26.2%; South Asian (countries from Iran to Bangladesh), 24.7%; American blacks, 23.8%; non-Arabs from the Middle East (mostly Turkish), 10.3%; East Asia (Indonesia, China, etc.), 6.4%; other, (white American converts, Europeans, sub-Saharan Aricans, 11.6%.

More Muslims Favored Bush

RELATED LINKS

Islam Primer

Islam

Glossary of Islam

Ramadan

Non-Christians in U.S.



According to Neveen Salem, director of communications and media at the AMC, 70% of all U.S. Mulsims voted for George Bush. The remainder of the vote was split between Albert Gore and Ralph Nader.

However, 46% of American Muslims are registered Democrats, 15.8% are Republicans, and 26.4% are independents, according to the AMC.

A Zogby poll of Muslims of Arab origin only, commissioned by Abu Dhabi Television, and released in the U.S. by the Arab American Institute, states that 58.5% of Arab Muslims voted for Bush, while 22.5% supported Gore, and 16.5% chose Nader, who is of Lebanese Christian heritage.

One reason for Bush`s support was his criticism of ``secret evidence,`` which is used to hold a person suspected of belonging to a terrorist organization, but which is not shown to the suspect for fear of compromising intelligence sources. The law is used almost exclusively against Arabs.

In 1996, 57% of Arab Muslims voted for Clinton and 22% for Republican candidate Bob Dole.

Senator Abraham Defeated

Yet, Republican Spencer Abraham, of Michigan the only Arab American in the U.S. senate, was defeated in the 2000 elections, despite large concentrations of Muslims and of Arabs in Michigan.

Either It Is Controlled, Selective Polygamy Or Social Disorder And Moral Corruption.

M. Vazir Ali And Musa Qutub Ph.D.

Islam and polygamy: Islam preserves purity, but West by allowing adultery, fornication, cripples morals.

First, several misperceptions must be cleared up:

The Westerners, especially the maliciously jealous crusaders, envious of Islam` spectacular rise to instant glory, generated a false propaganda blitz against Islam conjuring up the practice of polygamy as the mainstay of all Muslim societies. In order to prevent the spread of Islam, they played up to the emotions of the innocent Western people and rammed home the message that all Muslims are polygamous. But this was totally warped and false, and in fact, they (in the Western system) are the ones practicing illegitimate polygamy (one man sleeping around with as many as 17 women before marriage according to the states, spreading the deadliest and most destructive v.d.s, and producing millions of illegitimate children, for the State Welfare to support.)

Many labels the Western practices as ILLEGMMATE POLYGAMY. And it is 100% factual.

In Western ways, men are interested only in the sensual and the erotica. West sets up no barriers to man`s sexual adventures, whereas Islam punishes them. A big difference to the health of women.

The facts based on states are Muslims practice the true monogamy, the states are: almost all Muslims, 95% to 99% of them, practice monogamy only-without ever looking at, or touching any other woman in their entire lifetime, whereas in the West 75% of the married men commit adultery even after having enjoyed 17 girlfriends (on an average) before their first marriage. When marriage is defined as a relationship of giving the woman a place in the heart and sex, and home of a man, true monogamy exists only in Islamic society, and never in Western cultures.

Elizabeth Fernea, quoting H. Barakat in her book WOMEN AND THE FAMILY IN THE MIDDLE EAST -New Voices of change`` writes, ``In reality, however, polygamy is now rare. It is almost entirely limited to some tribal chiefs, feudal lords, childless husbands, and a few peasants in need of labor. Official statistics show that in the 1960s it was practiced by less than 2 percent of married Muslim men in Lebanon, 4 percent in Syria, 8 percent in Jordan, and in Egypt and 2% in Algeria..``

Whereas in the (US) West 75 percent of married men and 70% of married women practice adultery-writes Shere Hite in her HITE REPORT-WOMEN & LOVE, A CULTURAL REVOLUTION IN PROGRESS. Which is better?

A shocking 75% committing adultery? to treat women as personal sexual conveniences, to come in and hurriedly go out as one pleases? or Islamic true monogamy?

Based on states, conclusion is: Islam alone is truly monogamous, and very rarely polygamous, but West is almost all adulterous and fornicatorous.

Ask yourself this question: which system is better?

The one that allows adultery, fornication and prostitution, spread of AIDS, v.d.s, or the ones that punishes every evil act and allows nothing outside marriage, keeps the society immaculately pure?

The one that makes marriage and sex the center of love and affection, or adultery the center of life, making a mess of family-life?

In countries like England and in many states in the US, adultery is not a criminal offence; it is rarely punished in other states. Whereas in Islam, it is an extremely severe crime, calls for very stiff punishment in all states at all times.

Bible Itself has lot of unlimited polygamy:

By the way, Bible is full of polygamy. Biblical patriarchs like Solomon the Wise, had 1000 wives - 700 wives and 300 concubines, David had about 100, Abraham, Jacob, Moses had 3 or 4 wives each. And many others had lot more wives than Christians care to remember. Without looking at their own book they seem to attack Islam. That is ridiculous, even blindness.

Neither the Jews, nor the Christians, nor the Vedic Hindus, nor the Zoroastrians ever prescribed limits on the number of wives.

In Hinduism, 5 brothers (the Pandavas) had one common wife.

The New Testament does not prohibit polygamy at all except in case of a bishop of deacon. Such issues to Jesus were of no importance at all, so it seems. It was Roman King Justinian (d. 565), supposed to be an atheist, who first framed the Monogamy law for his subjects but was not really followed.

Christendom glutted with illicit sex with mistresses:

Many Christians used to marry many wives. Christian King Constantine had many wives. Charlemagne had 2 official wives and many concubines on the side. The famous King Henry VIII (1491-1547) of England had many women, a wife but many girlfriends on the side, married 6 times. It was when he wanted to divorce his wife and marry his mistress on the side, and the Popes` refusal for granting him the divorce that led to the split of England from Catholicism and the creation of the (Anglican) Church of England. On and on.

Agence France-Presse reported ``UNWED PREGNANCY A ROYAL FLAP.`` It said, ``Pregnant and unwed, the daughter of a cousin of Queen Elizabeth II is under family pressure to have an abortion or get married, the newspaper Today said Monday.

Marina Ogilvy, 23, the daughter of princess Alexandria, who is cousin to the queen, was reported in desperate straits when her family cut off support upon hearing the news she was pregnant by her boyfriend, a 26-year- old photographer, Today said.

The paper said she had appealed to the queen in a letter to Buckingham Palace that began, ``Dear Cousin Lilibet ... Her mother, according to Today, told her: ``You have two options: either get it aborted or get married by special license.``

Today in an editorial, called the parents ``outrageous snobs, ``adding, ``We expect our royals to treat their horses better than that.`` [Chicago Sun Times, Oct 10,1989]

In many Christian countries, when marriage relations are strained, the husband simply deserts his wife, and since he can not marry (if he is a catholic), he just shacks up with a girlfriend or sleeps with prostitutes and other immoral women-in fornication and adultery. The offspring thus born, are illegitimate, are cursed by society and given over to the government to pay for them (through public Welfare). The wife at home also gets turned on by other men and she too does the same thing. The society stinks.

Such illegitimate sexual affairs stink the history of Christendom. Many Christian evangelists, popes, bishops and cardinals also have or had illegitimate affairs.

Cases of adultery by Rev. Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert,.. are just a few across-the -world screaming headlines.

H.G.Wells in his book THE OUTLINE OF HISTORY writes that Marozia, daughter of Theodora, ``made her illegitimate son pope, under the title of John XI.``

This illegitimate son of Marozia was supposed to have been fathered by the earlier pope Sergius III. Wells also explains, another Pope John X ``owed his tiara to his mistress, the elder Theodora.``

Is this better? or legal marriage? You figure it out:

A man in the US looks at so many dirty magazines; according to one survey before marriage, on an average sleeps with 17 girls (not counting after marriage affairs), uses their body Oust like a wife), makes some of them pregnant, and sires illegitimate children through their wombs and bodies, and then claims he is single. Can you believe that? Can you really call him a bachelor? or monogamous man after he has slept with so many women? berthed so many kids?

Call him a fraud, or an adulterer or fornicator, but never a ``Single.`` So whom are you kidding? Only those who are ignorant?

So the truth is that men of West are adulterers, and fornicators, and prostitutes, but they are neither monogamous nor single. Absolutely not.

Islam only is the win for women all the way around.

[PS: Some example of the Western law itself protecting illegitimate polygamy, or fraud sexual affairs. The US news agency and papers all across the US reported, ``Nadia moving in with married pal.`` It said, ``Gymnast Nadia Comaneci said tuesday that she plans to move in with a married boyfriend who helped her escape from Romania last week.. The star of the 1976 Montreal Olympics, now 28, arrived in Miami Monday and was whisked to a hotel by State Department officials. She spent the night with her boyfriend Constantin Panait, a Romanian exile who lives north of

Miami and has a wife and four children.. When asked at a press conference if he had told her he was married, Comaneci replied, ``Yes, so what?``..] [Chicago Sun Time, Dec.6,1989]

Anyway, coming back to Islam, and legitimate polygamy,

It is clear that Islam did not initiate polygamy, unlimited polygamy was already there. Islam just removed and restricted the polygamy of earlier times. Since Koran is for all times, it had to prescribe solutions for all situations, even when wars kill millions of young men which is a daily occurrence with the human race.

Polygamy is not a requirement in Islam at all-monogamy is preferable and is enjoined by the Koran. Most marriages in Islam are only monogamous and Islam does not disrupt monogamous marriages. At the same time, it tolerates no outside marriage activities. Absolutely not.

Polygamy is a great financial burden and hardship imposed on man during the troubling times, such as in a war, when women are in surplus, and excess number of women cant` find a husband. Many men some times, can`t even put up with one wifes` demands; they have hard time even with one wife, who wants more headaches? they think.

Muslims, theoretically speaking, believe polygamy will automatically be out when the gender numerical balance is achieved.

Also, Koran allows absolutely no polygamy, unless one can meet many rigid conditions such as: financial affordability, equitable treatment, and consent of the wife. The second wife, knowing he already has a wife, does not have to consent to the marriage at all, even if he is an emperor. There is no forcible marriage in Islam-it is forbidden by the Koran. No other religion had any such restrictions; no other religion had the condition of even equitable treatment. Find one, if you can locate.

Islam strictly regulates and watches mans` conduct and womans’ need in relation to the needs of times such as wars.

WESTERN WAYS ARE ECCENTRIC, CHAOTIC, EXPLOSIVELY PROMISCUOUS AND NOT WORKABLE -it doesn`t reflect reality at all:

IT IS EITHER RESTRICTED/CONTROLLED POLYGAMY OR PROSTITUTION, ILLICIT AFFAIRS AND FOOLING AROUND (SECRETLY) IN FORNICATION, ADULTERY, NO 2 WAYS ABOUT IT: WEST MUST DISCARD ITS SYSTEM, IF IT WANTS TO KEEP THE HOUSE PURE. Take your choice.

``You can see it yourself to believe it.`` Remember! ``When you ignore reality it is going to get you sooner or later.``

You can feel it in your mind, in your heart, even in your bones that Western system is not working for women at all, that SOCIAL DISORDER has taken over the lifestyles. It is pathetic how some (in government and in religions) can not see what the rest of mankind can see everywhere-THF, BREAK- DOWN OF THE SYSTEM. Can some be that blind as if they have no functional energy left in them.

Here is the ``fatal`` evidence. Today, in the United States there are about at least IO mil - lion surplus women and that creates a problem, if we have a mind to think. These surplus women can`t find husbands at all. Since World War I, and II, Europe and America when many millions and millions of young men from US, from Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Poland... were totally wiped out, only a very small fraction survived, it caused great shortage of men. Consequently, many single women can`t find a man. They have the same ovulation needs; they have as hot sizzling passions as any body else, isn`t it? They are human too.

Human body being so structured for feelings of love, passions and companionship, women need husbands, and children to fulfil their human desire for ``motherhood`, to love, hug and cuddle them, and call them, ``My Mommy dear!`` and ``My wise loving grandma``. They need children to love and to support them when they are 70, 80 years old, when their body functions fail them, at least to hand them a glass of water, and a bottle of pills, isn`t it? or at least to shed a few tears of love at their gave? when no money, no government, no boyfriends, no dogs can help them? Don`t they deserve a family? What then do you do in the Western system with so many surplus women? Does the system have a right to deny them the right to companionship, to love and procreation? to take their right away?

so such surplus women are forced by the system to:

a) just resort to secret illicit affairs with married men in motels, hotels in adultery and fornication, even prostitution. What else can they do?

The Western system forces them to sneak around and have sexed with married men, but not man-y them. The system stinks. The system creates more evils and problems than solve them. The system creates a) illegitimate affairs, fornication and adultery, and prostitutes, causing millions of marriage break-ups, b) produces unwed mothers and the attendant problems, VDs., etc) and illegitimate children to suffer and sob without fathers. The problem is so serious; it is a crisis in Western countries.

In the US today, in her book HITE REPORT writes Shere Hite, ``a surprising 45 percent of single women are remarkably blase about seeing married men.``

Some women comment: ``we did not go out because he was married``, another one, and ``he has still not divorced his wife.`` ``Eventually he told me he can not marry me.``

SOME CRITICAL TIMES AND SITUATIONS DEMAND POLYGAMY:

During World War I, writes Tom Weidlinger in his ``The Great War-1918``. At the time of entry into the World War had a standing army of only 400,000 soldiers. ``To take on Germany, a force of 4 million was required.

So the US recruited boys and men from theaters and fought the war`` and millions of men were killed. American death toll in just a year and a half was 120,000. [PBS documentary, ch 11, Tuesday, Oct 31,89].

Question: How do you make up the sudden loss of 4million men from a society? How? Here is a challenge, a reward for you, if you can solve the problem [without Islam.] you can try million years, you won`t find a moral solution outside of Islam. Try it anyway-with a sudden loss of say 4 million husbands from any society.

In Europe during World War II, about 50 million lives were shredded by Hitlers` machines-most were husbands too.

Many single women, who could not find a husband anywhere in sight, not even on an island, went to the so called ``Breeding Farms`` begging for men, just to get pregnant by ``the farm men`` and bear the illegitimate children to fight in the nations` ``Army. Is this the solution? good news to the devil? So if Islam is not practiced, devil is the way to go.

In us today, many unmarried women use similar methods (friends, or semen banks) to get pregnant - don`t even know who the man is? Is that good?

Is this healthy or allowing another legitimate wife, if the circumstances permit with the consent and will of the other.

Look around the world preceding and following Islam. Such Sexual Degradation, adultery, fornication, the physical batterings, emotional and psychological batterings, pornography as is practiced in the West today, were also common in many of them. Islam stopped all that. Islam is thus the only purifier and savior for womankind.

Islam is the dawning of the ``Pure Age.`` It is the PURE AGE, UFE SAVOR for women.

ISLAM ALONE CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEMSOFTHEEUROPEANDAMERICA. WAKE UP AND RISE TO THE DAWN OF ISLAM.

IT IS EITHER CONTROLLED POLYGAMY OR DEVASTATION OF CHILDREN THROUGH ILLEGITIMATE BIRTH; DEPRIVATION OF FATHER’S LOVE AND HIS INHERITANCE.

Here is a major cry for help: ``where is my daddy?`` ``Please daddy, I want to just see you!``

The Western system is the cruelest blow- THE ULTIMATE IN TYRANNY AND INHUMANITY. It is the greatest enemy to the children born through illicit sexual affairs of the surplus women.

Worldwide, it is a common attitude to treat legitimate children like ``the prince and princess, the real royalty` but the illegitimate children are treated less than ``the car exhaust fumes` of the society, as a disgrace to the human race. There are so many ugly dimensions to the badge of illegitimacy.

While the legitimate ones go on to sit on the thrones of the fathers, become princes and heirs of Rockefellers, the illegitimate ones are cut off from all love of fathers and dumped like the eyesore spots of leprosy, even though both spring from the same loins of the same father. Is this just? human at all? do children come into the world because of their own will? What did the child do to deserve this cruelty from the system?

To deserve this hatchet job from the system?

The children are created illegitimate by the system because the surplus women are forced into having illicit affairs with men. These women ran not marry because it is against the Western law.

Such illegitimate children gob and cry all their life for their fathers` love, even biological siblings. The Western law breaks these children` spirits and their love-connection to father. The law deprives them of their rightful inheritance, they get no care, no house, not even a little room in their fathers` mansions, no insurance benefits from father, and above all can`t even see or meet their own father.

What a cruel, inhuman, beastly system, much against the innocent children.

One such daughter writes to her rich celebrity father, who fathered her illicitly, `Daddy, I don`t want your money, Daddy I don`t want your palace. Daddy I just want to be held by you, I want only a little of your time, to meet you, to kiss you. Please, Please! Daddy! allow me to see you. I feel cheated and yet I did not do any thing wrong in coming into this world, please Daddy! ``The space does not permit us to catalogue the tears and sobs of the so many other millions of children who are ``FATHERED OUT OF WEDLOCK`` and left to wit her and rot in the gutters.

The Systems` inhumanity reaches the climax in the tears of millions of illegitimate children born in this country every year.

How much more nastier can the system get? Such an enemy to children?

Call this system a crime against the fate of the children, against their welfare.

If you have a ``throbbing heart``, if your heart gravitates even a little toward these little tearful children, who are stung by the system, and if in your mind the children are as human as their father, or mother, you should petition to change the law to Islams` law and prevent the system from driving the children into the ground, into pits of shame. Islam alone takes the ULNMATE interaction and interrelation- ship of the parties involved into consideration, the welfare of the children above all. Please don’t play the games with the children` lives, they should not be subject to such tortures. Let Islam govern the lands.

In situation like wars.. controlled, restricted Polygamy is the only solution or prostitution and promiscuity: IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SOLUTION LET’S KNOW.

Please relate to the reality, not to the fantasies. (Here every surplus woman is also having sex, and producing illegitimate children but as ``kept mistress` to ever- swinging married man or as a prostitute. There is no one on one relationship in the West at all, as it exists only in Islam.)

MIT Prof. Huston Smith, a brilliant scholar of many religions, greatly admires Islam, as he writes how Islam solves problem, while the West creates prostitution. In case of surplus women, he writes, ``The actual choice is between a recognized and moral polygyny in which sex is linked to responsibility, equality in material goods, and affection (as in Islam).. and on the other hand, a system of monogamy, which being unrealistic fosters prostitution in which sex is disjoined from affection and responsibility for women and their offsprings. It is this that ultimately leads a Western student of Islam Bosworth Smith.. ``to have a very high regard for Islam. (more later)

It is common sense, if we understand human being, from human emotions and feelings-design point of view that every woman needs a companion- a husband- to keep her life fulfilled? to keep the society pure.

But if there is a war, millions of men are killed and industries destroyed, jobs are lost, how do these women live alone as widows and support themselves? their children?

a) Their husbands, or would be husbands have been killed, b) they, being housewives all along have no skills, c) and they have children to support, they can`t leave their home and go to work.

d) there are no jobs, even for men. e) they have flashes and uncontrollable peaks of passions. Can they go through all life without a mate? A young 20/25-unmarried woman, bursting in youth, can be very hot and more dangerous than an explosion. For her, sexual urge is as powerful a drive as for food. How long can a body go without food? a year?

Even if one sacrifices and copes, the tension will always be there.

As Prof. Houston Smith writes, applauding Islam, ``Idealists may call for the exercise of heroic continence under such circumstances, but heroism can not be mass-produced.``

So how do such women live? What do you do?

Under such circumstances, controlled Polygamy is a wise option, even a must, the only practical alternative to sexual promiscuity, the only choice to keep the society pure and clean of VDs. and prostitution.

UNDER SUCH TRYING TIMES, WESTERN SYSTEMS` MONOGAMY IS INHUMM, A DISREGARD FOR THE WOMENS` EMOTIONS AND BODY NEEDS, THE SYSTEM ONLY BREEDS irresponsible ``womanizing tendencies``, and ``marriage-wrecking,`` family-destabilizing institutions.``

THE SYSTEM IS GOOD FOR BREEDING ILLICIT AFFAIRS ONLY. IT IS OPENLY INTERFERING WITH WOMAN`S SYSTEM. It is anti-women.

SUCH A WESTERN SYSTEM IS A CRIME AGAINST WOMENS’ DECENCY AND HUMAN INTERESTS; IT DOES NOT PROVIDE DECENT HOMES TO OUR LONELY SUFFERING DECENT SISTERS-IN-HUMANITY-the surplus women. It leaves them wandering and roaming the streets in search of the men and or for prostitution. Shame on such a systems` insensitivity.

Europe and America! wake up and accept Islamic solution.

ISLAM IS BRILLIANT AND WISE IN ITS RELEVANCE AND APPLICATION TO DIVERSE TIMES-PAST, PRESENT OR FUTURE, IN WAR AND IN PEACE. Can any system or religion match the flexible wisdom of Islam?

In the West, there is too much emphasis on sex with women, on the bedroom activity, not on their emotions and on their intelligence at all. Islam emphasizes all aspects of woman`s development and their children as well.

WHAT IS RESTRICTIVE POLYGAMY IN ISLAM?:

In fact, the verse in the Qur’an [4:129], enjoining man to marry more than one wife with CONDITION OF JUSTICE was revealed to the community after the Battle of Uhad in which many men were martyred, so that every woman would be cared for and her children found a caring father from among the surviving men.

The situation that had created multitudes of orphans and widows, entered into the picture. Who was to care for them? It was a time of sacrifice.

The marriage equation with more than 2 as a couple is not easy, it is complex and difficult one for balance and justice, says the Koran itself, ``If you fear you will not be able to deal justly with them, then marry only one...`` [4:3]. Islam discusses and recognizes that not many women may tolerate sharing of their spouses, the diminishing attention affects her sense of full, exclusive attention and her self-worth:`` If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husbands part, there is no blame on them if they (the couple) arrange an amicable settlement between themselves.. but if you do good, practice self-restraint (sacrifice) God (who will reward you) is well acquainted with all that ye do (with your intentions and ulterior motives.`` [Koran 4:128].

Also, not many men either want this extra headache, extra responsibility of more kids, more wives; their energy may not be sufficient. For many even one wife, if she is rough and -steamy, and the bearing-down kind, may forever keep her man on ``the line of scrimmage``; some donnybrook woman, with her forward passes, may even halve her man.

Those who want to marry even one wife have to think again. That is why in the West where they know marriage is a big responsibility, and where the spiritual value is almost zero, they want just sex (or divorce to bench their wives) and no marriage at all. Most men, in the West regard sex and marriage as two opposites.

Therefore, in Islam, only as a sacrifice, under difficult circumstances, polygamy is activated as a sacrifice on part of all men in the community. To maintain the wholesome standards of piety, the surviving small number of men and large number of women both must sacrifice. It was because of such circumstances, that the men after the battle of Uhad had to marry the widows of martyred men. Such a marriage was not for sex; it was for support- emotional, psychological, and companion- ship, also for the love of orphans. Providing a decent home for widows and orphans was the main feature of such marriages.

Islam, thus, being a reality-oriented, piety-based religion, is an exquisitely most detailed system of wisdom. Islam is always around to solve problems when the going gets tough, unlike other religions which are there only for wining and dining and for talking cheap. It recognizes the reality that, as the law of gravity, part of the mankind may be disobedient to God, may engage in wars, thus creating this ``surplus`` situation. Polygamy when practiced wisely can be a positive energy and has the awesome power of cleansing the societies.

Otherwise, look at the alternative. While some Muslims might take more than one wife, and for a good reason (to solve the surplus women problem), but in the West a big majority 90 % of men take many more than two or four women-they take 17 women- to practice their adultery and fornication and prostitution against them and then dump them and their children.

Islam is magnificent in bringing out the responsibility, the honesty, the sharing of property by all wives and offspring alike bring legitimacy to every relationship equitably, but the Western system brings out adultery and fornication and prostitution sneaking, dishonesty and illegitimacy. Which system is better?

Only Islam can lay claim to be the best system in the world:

While other religions (such as Christianity) automatically make themselves obsolete in crisis situations, hide behind face masks, or their doctrines fall like dominos, Islam is the ONLY religion that lives up to its billing as the fully rational, `all-embracing`` religion for all situations. It is a beauty to behold in celebrating the honor of the woman.

From the evidence all around, it is clear, the Western system is anti-women, it presides over the auction of the women`s nude anatomy-in lifting up her skirt. There is no bright side to the system as the system forces women to resign to remove their skirts so men may enjoy underside..

Islam alone succeeds in removing prostitution:

The only religion that puts a stop to the woman`s body being auctioned off in the bazaar for dollars, some times even for cents. It gives a boot to those who live for lifting her skirt.

This distinct beauty of Islam is not lost on the unbiased and the wise scholars of even the West, as many great Western scholars give great credit to Islam for its flexible Wise Laws that reach out to all situations and deliver STINGING ATTACKS AGAINST THE WESTERN VALUE SYSTEM which is creating so many prostitutes. They recommend West drop its ``arrogant destructive ways`` against women, their wanton-shipwrecking.

MIT Prof. Dr. Huston Smith calls it Islams` wise flexibility and wise relevance to diverse situations in solving societal problems, removing of prostitution. Prof. Smith says Islam succeeds as nothing else does.

Describing the genius of Islam, Islams` capacity to adjust to all situations, to the needs of adverse situations with monogamy and sometimes with polygamy, in his book THE RELIGIONS OF MAN, Prof. Smith writes that in situations like war which creates surplus women, a growing number of persons in the West now ``see in it (polygamy) another instance of Islams` flexible capacity to speak WITH WISE RELEVANCE to diverse situations.``

Admiration of Islam and stinging attacks on the western system by western scholars:

In a stinging attack on the Western and Christian Alliance of monogamy at all times, Prof. Huston Smith writes, in situations like a war which reduces the number of men to half the number of women, ``The actual choice is between a recognized and moral polygyny in which sex is kept linked with responsibility, equality in material goods, and affection- remember the requirement of equal love and esteem-and, on the other hand, a system of monogamy which being unrealistic fosters prostitution in which sex is disjointed from the affection and responsibility for women and their offspring. IT IS MS, ultimately, that leads a Western student of Islam, Bosworth Smith, to write: `By his severe laws at first, and by the strong moral sentiment aroused by thew laws afterwards, [Muhammad] has succeeded, down to this very day and to a greater extent THAN HAS EVER BEEN THE CASE ELSEWHERE, IN FREEING ALL MOHAMMADAN COUNTRIES from those professional outcasts who live by their own misery, and, by their existence as a recognized class, are a standing reproach to every member of the society of which they form a part.``



What a great and true tribute to Islam!

If you watch or read a transcript of TEEN PROS`NTUTES in America,

[Geraldo Riverra nationally syndicated Talk Show, Nov.8, 89], you will see the smut, the sleaze, the disgrace of prostitutes (of little girls) in America. You will cry. Girls as young as 12,13,14, are turning into ``Grease``, selling their bodies in the streets, for as little as fifty cents, just for survival-says Riverra.

There are millions and millions of such girls, and women. Sad, isn`t it?

yet you do nothing about it? What are you waiting for? Do you have any feelings for humanity at all?

Dr. Annie Basant, calling polygamy a practical safeguard against many evils of the Western society writes, ``Mere is pretended monogamy in the West, but in reality polygamy without responsibility. The mistress is cast off when the man is weary of her and she sinks gradually to be the woman of the street; for the lover has no responsibility for her future; and she is hundred times worm off than a sheltered wife and mother in a polygamous home. When we see thousands of miserable women who crowd the streets of the Western towns at night, we can not realize the hollowness of the Western reproach against the polygamy of Islam. It is better for a woman, happier for a woman, more respect- able for a woman, to be consorted by one man only with a legitimate child in her arms and surrounded with respect, than to be cast out in the streets perhaps with an illegitimate child, outside the pale of law, unsheltered after night, rendered incapable of motherhood, despised by all.``

Clare McFarlane, in her book THE CASE FOR POLYGAMY writes, `Whether the question is considered socially, ethically or religiously, it can be demonstrated that polygamy is not contrary to the highest standard of civilization. The suggestion offers a practical remedy for the Western problems of the destitute and the unwanted female. The alternative is continued and increased prostitution, concubine and distressing spinsterhood.. It is a beneficial institution which can save womanhood from destitution and prostitution.``

Westermack, in his FUTURE OF MARRIAGE IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION advocates polygamy for the sake of children, shunning of prostitution, VDs, etc

Quoting many other Western advocates of polygamy as the only solution, he writes, ``..In France, Dr. LeBon has predicted that European legislation in the future will recognize polygamy, the natural relationship between sexes would remedy many evils: prostitution, venereal diseases, abortion, the misery of illegitimate children, the misfortunes of millions of unmarried women, resulting from disproportion between the sexes, adultery, and even jealousy, since the disregarded wife would find consolation in her cognizance of not being secretly deceived by her husband.``

If US practices Islamic Law, all these millions of women will get husbands, homes, respect and honor, legitimate children; children also will get daddy’s, love, and respect and honor-women will be treated and respected as princess instead of as shunned as prostitutes and every child will be the ``apple`` of his own real dad. What a difference to be in the arms of ones` own Daddy, play with him, love and be loved by him! rather than shunned and ditched as b/astard outcast.

Oh women! run for your life, your children`s life in Islam.

Oh mankind! If you have eyes you will see, and if you have ears you will hear the beauty and message of Islam and accept it and practice it.

All other systems are illusions, forgery, and even crimes against women compared to Islam`s. Let Islam terminate the misery and humiliation of women, please!

SOME OTHER UNFAIR/IGNORANT CRITICISMS ANSWERED. ALL ISLAMIC TRUTHS ARE ROOTED IN UNMISTAKABLE, VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC FACTS AND TRUTHS:

The Islamic beliefs spring out of truth- the laws of nature, not from illusions.

Do men enjoy higher (physical) status than women do: Absolutely not. Only in physical strength, size, and muscles, are men stronger than woman is, and isn`t that a fact of life? However, where it counts, woman is the exact equal of the man: in intelligence, in mental developments, in creativity, and in all spiritual matters.

If an elephant is 100 times more powerful in physical strength than man, that does not mean, elephant is superior to man, does it?

Can anyone deny the fact that men surpass women in physical strength, mobility and agility? One reason pregnancy doesn`t hinder them.

Aren`t men more suited for plowing the fields, digging the rivers and mountains, fighting the ocean waves, and ship-wrecks and lifting the great big logs of forest trees and lumber than women? Any doubt? in general, in any family, the father is taller, and physically stronger than his wife or children; The sons stronger, even more aggressive than daughters, also larger in size and more muscular?

Even in animal kingdom, the bull, the bison, the tiger, the male is stronger than female. That is a law of nature.

If there is an intruder in the house, father is the one who is supposed to be the first one to pounce at the intruder and protect the family, not his wife. Or is the husband sup- posed to hide behind his wife?

Even in an army, aren`t the army generals, the soldiers guarding the nations` security always men? So it is all a purely biological, hormonal strength case.

But women too are superior in other skills, like linguistic developments, etc.

In the book MALE/FEMALF ROLES by Bruno Leon et al, Tim Hackler writes, ``Researchers are finding what they believe is evidence of a genetic component in certain kinds of behavior that have traditionally been identified as masculine or feminine. ``He writes that the aggression patterns between the male and female can be explained by the effects of genetically determined hormones, that men show spatial superiority while women show verbal superiority.``

Phylilis Schaffly, a conservative political activist, writes, ` The positive woman that, while there are some physical competitions in which women are better [and can command more money] than men, including those that put a premium on grace and beauty, such as figure skating, the superior physical strength of males over females in competition of strength, speed and short-term endurance is beyond rational dispute.``

She says, to consider women equal to men, that the world is gender-free is only make-believe, it is not real. The physical differences are ``ineradicable`` no matter what.

In his famous book, ``WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS -Understanding the Ideas and Ideal of the Constitution,`` Dr. Mortimer J. Adler, Chairman of the Board of Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in his 7th chapter ``Human Equality: writes, WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED what it means to say of any two objects under consideration that they are equal. It means that one of them is neither more nor less than the another in an explicitly indicated respect.`` Then he goes on to explain that any two things ``being considered may be equal in one respect and unequal in another.``

So he writes, ``Is there then any respect in which all human beings, without a single exception, can be declared equal? Yes, there is only one. It is that they are all human, all members of one species, called HOMO SAPIENS, and all having the same natural and thereby the same specific attributes that differentiate them from the members of all other species. In all other respects, any two human beings may be found unequal, one having more of a certain attribute than the on other, either as a result of native endowment or of individual attainment.``

Islamic viewpoints are thus confirmed by all evidence.

Men are supposed to protect and support the women, why?

Doesn`t the stronger member of a family lead the pack? Shouldn`t he?

Again purely based on physical strength characteristics of the man, man is assigned the role of protector of the family. It is a function of his physical strength only.

It is not efficient for a burly 6-foot guy, with all muscles, to do the house work and send the fragile, pregnant woman to do the outdoor work of cutting down trees, digging ditches, lifting the logs, or chasing animals for hunt as mankind had been doing 90% of their human existence.

It is only production wise efficient and normal to put a burly 6 -foot man to dig the mountains, lift the logs, and so assign him an outdoor work role, and which then makes him the bread-winner than send a smaller size, physically not-so-strong woman to do that work. Thus role are again the functions and assignment of one`s size and strength.

Supposing we want to reverse the roles. A woman is working in the field, or lifting logs, and she starts ``menstruating, or gets pregnant, or starts miscarrying in case of early stage of pregnancy. Doesn`t she need to be relieved of her duties, interrupting the work and sent home? But work, like harvesting, sowing can`t stop or wait. ``Time and tide wait for no man.`` Here man, the perennial worker is preferable to woman, so the breadwinner.

Or supposing a woman goes hunting, chasing her hunt, but then she, while chasing her hunt, gets the ``bleeding``, can she function then as a man would.

So all such activities and functions are gender-specific. Womens` physic sharply reduces her mobility.

Can a woman move around and function as the bread-earner of a family handicapped or interrupted by so many interruptions, menstruation every month, pregnancies every so often and then having to nurse the children for years? So the man is assigned the role of family`s bread-winner.

Of course, the Mothers` role is the most determining factor in the formative years of her children.

Ann Steinman and David J. Fox, in their THE MALE DILEMMA: HOW TO SURVWE THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION write on importance of biological origin, ``..role differences developed between the sexes, which originally stemmed from physiological differences relating to strength, menstruation and pregnancy..It gradually became apparent, in view of science at least, that the superiority of male was no more divinely ordained than the earth was the center of the universe.``

So, again, the evidence confirms the veracities of Islam.

INHERITANCE: Islam was the first religion to legitimatize and grant full inheritance to the womankind. No other religion had extended such reformation and rights to womankind earlier.

A womans` share is different, proportionately reduced, because her role as wife is different than from that of the man as a husband as a breadwinner.

It is really not any less in real terms, may even be more than man`s: because a) woman is allowed to keep her share to herself, but the man is not; man must spend his share of inheritance on that sister and also on the entire household, i.e. aging father, mother, even uncles and aunties, and grandparents, and this is a hardship on the male gender. Also, for reasons explained above (pregnancy, menstruation, child nursing), household financial maintenance is essentially man`s responsibility, woman is exempted from financial obligations.

b) Moreover, the sisters` husband gem2 shares from his father`s side, while the brothers wife gets only 1, thus all evens out in the end in the sum total.

VEIL: Nobody is hurt when a woman covers her body, but many are hurt (sexually aroused, feelings-teased, 1000 volts of sexual electricity surges through the man`s body) by revealing the body. Isn’t it the truth?

Covering the whole face is not the strict Islamic requirement, only dressing ``modestly`` is in order to achieve a goal-to avoid attracting attention of strangers. Faces may be left uncovered. What is seen in various countries, assortments of veil, is cultural appendage. Islam prescribes moderation in all things; it does not endorse or require extremism.

All human beings are created as sexual beings, with the desire and chemistry for sex. The fire bums within. Islamic veil correlates this sexuality with a code, which will keep the exercise of this sexuality within marriage bounds.

The covering helps both men and women to keep this chemistry cool in both direction-to maintain purity of eye and of marriage. Eye contacts, sex-contacts can be deadly things.

The modest covering helps the woman to move around ``unpropositioned`` by lusting men, men who enjoy the hunting for sex, and who let themselves go, even to the extent of rape. The women`s bodies may dehydrate the men, create pressures. It could translate into extreme stress.

It saves the women from competing for men`s attention-as is so common in the decadent Western societies.

It also avoids hurting the not-so-pretty girls, who will notice that all men are swarming around the pretty, gorgeous-looking bodies, while others are left out in ``slump``. Envy begins, tensions fly.

Also, it helps married woman maintain her dignity and modesty, as she does not like to be approached or gazed at like a piece of red meat by strangers in the street. It also prevents their husbands from engaging in beauty-face orgies, and eventually lose their husband-a common occurrence in the West.

``Say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that they should not expressly show off their beauty and (glitter in) ornaments except what unavoidably gets exposed; that they should pull the coverings over their bosoms,..`` [24:31]

``And the faithful of God are those who walk on the earth in humility.`` [25:63].

Thus the modest covering injunctions stem from the need to avoid sensual gazes, not to pull her down. It is prescribed because woman`s anatomy features-her figure, body curves, long hairs, and other parts of her anatomy may lure men, tempt them, so better if left invisible. The covering thus allows the woman in her prime to move around invisibly, unmolested around men who are not ``perfect``. It is for her own good.

Old ladies are exempted from such coverings: `` Such senior age women as are past the age of marriage, there is no blame on them if they lay aside their (outer) garments provided they make no wanton show of their beauty..`` [24:601.

Isn`t most of the Western societies tragically afflicted with woman` body-, curve- gazing.

If veil (modest dressing) were practiced in the West, the disease of societies in US- watching girls` bosoms, busts, hips,.. and grade their curves would vanish. Many advertising agencies teach these women all sorts of tricks to sensually dress tight perky bikinis, wax themselves, bulge their breasts, turn on a hose of perfume to generate charges of sexual electricity, which turns them into red hot, sensual, voluptuous objects for lustful men. One Ad says, a full 20,000 units of Estrogen Harmones will work hard on your busts to moisturize and lubricate.. with alarming results of sensual breasts. Let the other woman envy you for a change [Enqu. Dec 19,89]

They exist to get noticed, and start a trail of flirting men behind them like honeybees. They parade around among men to show off their polished waxed up flesh and body fat like animals in the circus, in the Wringling Brothers.

Don`t they need Islamic modesty badly? Islam smashes all such ``honey bee`` nests.

Islam must be commended for addressing all problems of the society.

Here is a summary of superb status, the excellence of women in Islam-in vivid focus.

TO SUM UP, ISLAM CATEGORICALLY DECLARES THAT THE WOMAN IS:

The best creature in the universe, created by Almighty God endowed with distinct attributes, same as a man. (absolutely no ugly taint of the distant ancestral Eve smears her as in some other religions.)

``Verily! We have created the human entity (male and female) from the choicest seed of excellence, quality and virtue (composing it into the best embryo)...`` [surah 77]

Woman is nobler in her virtues (of love and sparkling purity) than the brightest cluster of heavenly stars.

Worthy of the highest honor and dignity -deserves to be treated like a ``royal princess.``

Worthy of full human value, merit and importance, so important even paradise ran be found under her feet and not without her.

The repository of human life-there is no human life outside of her womb.

[Her person is the host of all lives; nothing of human life is processed and transmitted except through her body and effort. She is the riveting drama at the birth of every human being.]

She is the equal, the complementary reciprocal of man, and not a marginal appendage to him. (She is not a sponge].

She is equal the complementary reciprocal of man, not a marginal appendage to him. [She is not a sponge].

She is an equal functionary in a family life and not a subordinate accessory to man.

Deserves full love and consideration as a spouse, affection as a daughter, sister, and as a person.

She has the inalienable right in the free exercise of her choice, to seek and excel in her own pursuits.

She has the full right for self-determination, and self-expression in all matters of life.

Intellectually (as much as any man, not any less)

She is a brilliant person,

She is an intelligent person,

She is a creative person,

She has the inalienable right to be educated and mentally developed as much as any man. [For every father, a daughter is equal in standing with his sons in terms of development of the powers of her mind -her education is even a priority. She takes no backseat to the sons.]

In identity, she is

a legal person,

a ``commitment`` person,

a free person,

autonomous person, independent person. [No one can force his will on her.]

Financially, She is independent person, for business, for capital investments.

Can shape her own destiny.

Can venture anything a man possibly can, even into political waters.

In all these values, God-consciousness, the love of God, obedience to His commandments -both for woman and a man-is her anchor.

Briefly, contrast this dignity of woman divinely conferred by Islam with other religions: In Hinduism, a widow was routinely condemned to instant deaths in flames, in the barbarous RITUAL called SATI, to bum alive on her husband`s funeral pyres; in Judaism she is the object of scorn (man thanks God for not making him a woman); In Christianity, woman is eternally humiliated, bashed, and despised as the Wicked Eve, the cause of downfall of all humanity, also commonly assaulted and beaten due to alcoholism (which Christianity has not yet removed); Even the Western Feminism Movements grew out of anger against Christian degradation of woman. In the Roman law, the wife was not considered a person, but a ``thing.``

Islam thus taught humanity the true worth of woman kind, her equality, her human existence in mutual love, relationships and dignity, her shared role with mankind-all as one humankind. With Islam, the season for woman`s abuse, and sexual-exploitation by men was over.

In a world full of male- domination, male-prerogatives, of machoism, egocentricism, female-exclusion, these rights which Islam conferred on women were indeed dramatic and revolutionary - unparalleled in mankind`s history.

The ``ALLLANCE`` of Westenism and Christianity, has all failed:

They thought Westernism/feminism was a wizard of oz. But it is not. It is all acting, just cosmetic concocting, and just a stage show with all pain for women behind the facade and unrecognized hazards. When the pornographers, the skirt-lifters, adulterers, fornicators set the agenda so openly and everybody in the West follows their lead, it is disaster. It is repugnant. It is time for a change.

More so, when it is shooting down our future generations, our families, our marriages. Women are the biggest losers.

The problems arising out of such environment of the West are large, unwieldy, unmanageable, and undealable. Every one is bothered by its destructiveness. Many are openly acknowledging the failure of the system.

My experiances and how I find that Islam does not oppress women

by Sister Noor

I came from a purely Hindu family where we were always taught to regard ourselves (i.e. women) as beings who were eventually to be married off and have children and serve the husband - whether he was kind or not. Other than this I found that there were a lot of things which really oppressed women, such as:

* If a woman was widowed, she would always have to wear a white sari (costume), eat vegetarian meals, cut her hair short, and never re-marry. The bride always had to pay the dowry (bridal money) to the husband`s family. And the husband could ask for anything, irrespective of whether the bride would have difficulty giving it.

* Not only that, if after marriage she was not able to pay the full dowry she would be both emotionally and physically tortured, and could end up being a victim of ``kitchen death`` where the husband, or both the mother-in-law and the husband try to set fire to the wife while she is cooking or is in the kitchen, and try to make it look like an accidental death. More and more of these instances are taking place. The daughter of a friend of my own father`s had the same fate last year!

* In addition to all this, men in Hinduism are treated literally as among the gods. In one of the religious Hindu celebrations, unmarried girls pray for and worship an idol representing a particular god (Shira) so that they may have husbands like him. Even my own mother had asked me to do this. This made me see that the Hindu religion which is based on superstitions and things that have no manifest proof , but were merely traditions which oppressed women could not be right.

Subsequently, when I came to England to study, I thought that at least this is a country which gives equal rights to men and women, and does not oppress them. We all have the freedom to do as we like, I thought. Well, as I started to meet people and make new friends, learn about this new society, and go to all the places my friends went to in order to ``socialise`` (bars, dance halls, etc.). I realised that this ``equality`` was not so true in practice as it was in theory.

Outwardly, women were seen to be given equal rights in education, work, and so forth, but in reality women were still oppressed in a different, more subtle way. When I went with my friends to those places they hung out at, I found everybody interested to talk to me and I thought that was normal. But it was only later that I realised how naove I was, and recognised what these people were really looking for. I soon began to feel uncomfortable, as if I was not myself: I had to dress in a certain way so that people would like me, and had to talk in a certain way to please them. I soon found that I was feeling more and more uncomfortable, less and less myself, yet I could not get out. Everybody was saying they were enjoying themselves, but I don`t call this enjoying.

I think women in this way of life are oppressed; they have to dress in a certain way in order to please and appear more appealing, and also talk in a certain way so people like them. During this time I had not thought about Islam, even though I had some Muslim acquaintances. But I felt I really had to do something, to find something that I would be happy and secure with, and would feel respected with. Something to believe in that is the right belief, because everybody has a belief that they live according to. If having fun by getting off with other people is someone`s belief, they do this. If making money is someone`s belief, they do everything to achieve this. If they believe drinking is one way to enjoy life then they do it. But I feel all this leads to nowhere; no one is truly satisfied, and the respect women are looking for is diminishing in this way.

In these days of so called ``society of equal rights``, you are expected to have a boyfriend (or you`re weird!) and to not be a virgin. So this is a form of oppression even though some women do not realise it. When I came to Islam, it was obvious that I had finally found permanent security. A religion, a belief that was so complete and clear in every aspect of life. Many people have a misconception that Islam is an oppressive religion, where women are covered from head to toe, and are not allowed any freedom or rights. In fact, women in Islam are given more rights, and have been for the past 1400 years, compared to the only-recently rights given to non-Muslim women in some western and some other societies. But there are, even now, societies where women are still oppressed, as I mentioned earlier in relation to Hindu women.

Muslim women have the right to inheritance. They have the right to run their own trade and business. They have the full right to ownership, property, disposal over their wealth to which the husband has no right. They have the right to education, a right to refuse marriage as long as this refusal is according to reasonable and justifiable grounds. The Qur`an itself, which is the Word of God, contains many verses commanding men to be kind to their wives and stressing the rights of women. Islam gives the right set of rules, because they are NOT made by men, but made by God; hence it is a perfect religion.

Quite often Muslim women are asked why they are covered from head to toe, and are told that this is oppression - it is not. In Islam, marriage is an important part of life, the making of the society. Therefore, a woman should not go around showing herself to everybody, only for her husband. Even the man is not allowed to show certain parts of his body to none but his wife. In addition, God has commanded Muslim women to cover themselves for their modesty:

``O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) over their bodies (when outdoors). That is most convenient that they could be known as such (i.e. decent and chaste) and not molested.`` (Qur`an 33:59)

If we look around at any other society, we find that in the majority of cases women are attacked and molested because of how they are dressed. Another point I`d like to comment on is that the rules and regulation laid down in Islam by God do not apply just to women but to men also. There is no intermingling and free-running between men and women for the benefit of both. Whatever God commands is right, wholesome, pure and beneficial to mankind; there is no doubt about that. A verse in the Qur`an explains this concept clearly:

``Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and protect their private parts (i.e. from indecency, illegal sexual acts, etc.); that will make for greater purity for them. And God is well aware of what they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and protect their private parts (from indecency, illegal sexual intercourse, etc.); and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments . . . `` (Qur`an, Surah Al-Nur 24:31)

When I put on my hijab (veil), I was really happy to do it. In fact, I really want to do it. When I put on the hijab, I felt a great sense of satisfaction and happiness. Satisfied that I had obeyed God`s command. And happy with the good and blessings that come with it. I have felt secure and protected. In fact people respect me more for it. I could really see the difference in behaviour towards me.

Finally, I`d like to say that I had accepted Islam not blindly, or under any compulsion. In the Qur`an itself there is a verse which says ``Let there be no compulsion in religion``. I accepted Islam with conviction. I have seen, been there, done that, and seen both sides of the story. I know and have experienced what the other side is like, and I know that I have done the right thing. Islam does not oppress women, but rather Islam liberates them and gives them the respect they deserve. Islam is the religion God has chosen for the whole of mankind. Those who accept it are truly liberated from the chains and shackles of mankind whose ruling and legislating necessitates nothing but the oppression of one group by another and the exploitation and oppression of one sex by the other. This is not the case of Islam which truly liberated women and gave them an individuality not given by any other authority.

Sister Noor has been a Muslim for over a year and a half and is currently in her second year of undergraduate study in the Department of Biology at University of Essex, U. K.

In the Name of Allah, most Compassionate, most Merciful Salaam Alaikum (Peace be upon you), The following article appeared in the Japan Times on Thursday, November 19, 1992 and it may be of some interest to you. I have bracketed [ ] my comments and have used underscores _ to delineate non-English words.

Marriages lead women into Islam

By Lynne Y. Nakano, Staff Writer in Japan Times

``Aysha`` Abid Choudry - her given name is Harumi - adopted her Muslim name and faith four years ago, at the age of 26, to marry a Pakistani. Two years later, like many Japanese women married to Muslim men in Japan, she remained reluctant to abide by Islamic laws.

Then one day about two years ago, she decided to act on her own intuition that Islam meant having a personal relationship with Allah [Arabic for God]. She got on her knees to pray for the first time. Her husband, a devout Muslim who had never asked her to adopt Islam but had parayed silently on her behalf for years, cried openly at the sight.

Once distant and unknown in Japan, Islam has found converts among young Japanese women. Many are married to men who come to Japan to find work from countries with Islamic traditions such as Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Malaysia.

[...]

Islamic law mandates that those who intend to marry Muslims must convert, at least in name, to the Islamic faith, according to R. Siddiqi, director of the Islamic Center, Japan.

A hub of Islamic activity in Tokyo, the Islamic Center in Setagay-ku registered over 80 new members this year, the majority Japanese women.

Although some women converted with no thought of marriage, many more converted to Islam to marry Muslims; the center reports a record number of 40 marriages between foreign Muslims and Japanese women converts this year.

``Women are attracted to Islam because they want freedom. Islam gives them independence because they do not have to be a slave of any man. Islam is against moral aggression against women. The chastity and honor of women are protected. No illicit relations are allowed. All these things attract women,`` said Siddiqi.

Islamic law also provides that men may have more than one wife. ``This cannot seem to leave Japanese heads,`` said Siddiqi. ``We explain one thousand times that marrying four times is permissible only in certain unavoidable circumstances such as impotency, infertility and so forth. As a result there is no prostitution in Islam. If you need another women, then marry her, take care of her children.``

Asked why a woman can`t have more than one husband, Siddiqi explained, ``Because she can`t decide on whose child it is. It is confusing for her.`` (Japanese law uses the same logic, forbidding women to remarry within six months of divorce.) [In Islam the waiting period, _idda_, is shorter].

Japanese women who marry men from Islamic countries often face ostracism from their families and alienation from friends; living by Islamic laws requires major changes in nearly every every aspect of their lives.

The Muslim`s daily ritual of prayer (_salat_) facing Mecca, before sunrise, at noon, mid-afternoon, after sunset, and before sleep, for example, is a major hurdle for anyone who wants to hold onto a steady job. One resourceful young woman who works for a major electronics company in Tokyo manages to pray in the company changing room. [ an MIT-Japan Program Intern at another major elctronics company, Sharp, finds that prayer is no hurdle to holding onto a steady job.]

The new Muslim must also make major changes in her diet. Muslims who strictly follow the Koran may not consume pork, alcoholic beverages and animal products that have not been blessed.

Juices and _tsukemono_ may contain preservatives with low levels of alcohol; chocolate, ice cream, cakes and other processed desserts may contain animal fats, and gelatins may be made from animal bones.

Although blessed (_halal_) products have become increasingly available from shops that specialize in halal or imported products, many basic products sold in supermarkets are off limits to the Muslim.

``At first it was hard to know what foods were permitted, so a group of us got together and called the soy sauce, juice and pastry manufacturers to find out exactly which products were alright and which were not. We made a big checklist and that information had spread by word of mouth,`` Aysha said.

Another woman married to a Pakistani says, ``It`s not a problem. There`s a store selling _halal_ food that we order from in Saitama and we eat fish. As for cakes and juices, I usually make my own.``

The most obvious symbol of the Muslim woman is the veil (_hijab_) that covers her head, and the long sleeves, and pants that cover her limbs. Countries have variations on this; Saudi women cover the nose and mouth as well, while Malaysian Muslims [women] wear short scarves over their heads.

An energetic face framed within her black _hijab_, Aysha says, ``I wasn`t born a Muslim, so I`m strict (about Islam). Before I became a Muslim, I was the secretary to a company president so I drank alcohol, played, wore miniskirts, everything. After I became a Muslim, everything changed. I threw away or gave away five bags of clothing. To become a good Muslim takes time, though.``

Although strict Islamic life may not be incongrous with lifestyles with lifestyles in Saudi Arabia or Iran, in Japan, Islam means accepting a life radically different from the ordinary Japanese. Perhaps, for some, herein lies the appeal.

``Before I became a Muslim I didn`t know what I was put here on earth for. I though that the purpose of working was to make other people think highly of me. I beleived that a person`s worth was based on what university he went to and how much money he made. Now I know that work is to