Origins of Hijab

Dear Aiesha:

You are entirely correct in your views. This is exactly one of the points that I made in my paper. If you feel comfortable in hijab, it`s perfectly okay. And a non-hijabi sister (daughter) is not necessarily bad simply because she doesn`t wear hijab. My own daughter doesn`t wear hijab and some of her friends do. It`s personal choice. Some do to keep their Muslim identity, which is alright.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

I don`t get the point of the entire discussion :S I do hijab out of my own free will. Especially in America, it is as much representative of my identity as a muslim, as black hair+black nail paint+black facial make up is representative of a Goth-oriented average American.

Everyone has an opinion and a choice- if one person has the choice to NOT take hijab, then give me the choice to TAKE hijab. In my ideal Muslim community, everyone would just leave each other alone- alone to do as they please.

Unfortunately, that cannot be possible. Can`t have everything. Just as fundos preach complete hijab and call non-hijabi muslim females infidels, the extreme liberal people call me fundamentalist and opressed and whatnot. But does that make me one? I don`t think so. Does calling non-hijabi women bad muslimahs actually make them essentially satanic? Personally I believe that many non-hijabi sisters may even be better muslims- you can never tell.

Which is why we must not condemn a person based on rumors and our own observations, neither should we laud a person unnecessarily based on outer appearances. Only Allah can see beyond all hijabs and converings, and only He knows best.

Ralph,

But the people discussing all those things do indeed think like me. The conversations get disrupted when people like you bring in religion and invoke those people out of the blue.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

barachota:

I like your creative post. To be honest, it never occurred to me that way.

Mohammad Gill

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

again, I think people are missing the point.

Poeple dont cover to avoid rape. They cover because they think its the obligation upon them being a muslim.

Vertex

That`s all right. The original point was that it is not easy to discuss too many other aspects of Islamic societies without some mention of religion because, according to many Muslims, ``islam is a total way of life.` These Muslims live by their understanding of Islam, not yours.

Ralph,

Well, yes. I am calling those Pakis ignorant. That i know Islam better than these people is somewhat funny, and pathetic. Doesn`t change the facts though.

Quite frankly, I could care less what the ignorant of the world think, be it you or anyone else.

Vertex

One can`t read Pakistani newspapers for a week without repeatedly reading the claim that ``Islam is a total way of life.`` Now, you are calling these people ignoramuses. You seem to know Islam better than other people. Or is it that the real Islam out there doesn`t fit what you would want the world to know about it?

Ralph,

``Islam is a `total way of life.` Nothing escapes the influence of Islam in Islamic countries, nor does anything in the life of a true Muslim. ``

Blah blah blah. With concepts like ``what has been explicitly forbidden is so, and what is not is allowed`` hardly makes for the kind of all-encompassing ``way of life`` ignoramuses like to tout when the religion itself doesn`t make these claims. It`s an even bigger ignoramus who takes up their word over the more reasonable ones...for obvious reasons.

Yet I would like to thank you for proving my point...

ZahraJ #122
You are welcome. Just fyi, in India, talking of women covering their heads is generally seen as trying to impose other peoples` authority on them. If the effort is to make women more free and safe, that has generally meant giving women a choice NOT to wear a headcovering.

India has not reached the stage where it can be said that women are already free and safe, so propagating the use of a headcovering is simply propagating an individual choice.

vertex #129

Lack of these things will be unthinkingly blamed on religion

Islam is a `total way of life.` Nothing escapes the influence of Islam in Islamic countries, nor does anything in the life of a true Muslim.

Are those claims false?

fuzair,

``Anyone want to debate tax policy? OR the private spaceflight? Or cold fusion? Or something else remotely useful and interesting?``

What for? Lack of these things will be unthinkingly blamed on religion, and in the end we`ll be right back here, among other irrelevant places. Such is the chowk way...

Zahra_j, atif, et al
I think maybe Zahra was trying to say rape also happens in these countries, not that rape only happens in these countries. No matter how much you cover yourself, you will always remain at risk of rape.
Faiza, I hope you were joking that you`re the only person who has the right to an opinion on this. Hijab affects us all. It creates the standard for a `good` woman, so that the morals of all others are suspect. I refuse to cover my head, even in a dargah. I have done so only in Sikh gurudwaras, where men too have to cover their heads. This is my opinion alone. If you feel safer in hijab, good for you, but we all have the right to an opinion on this.

``Mr. Hamidm, you find a naked man walking around with wsj in his arm and a hijabi woman equally offensive. Well said!

So the thing is that I find this bible / old testament derived notion of covering your genitals in public VERY offensive.`` (Atif)

I agree.....covering ur genitals in public on a Nudist beach WILL be VERY offensive.....

covering head and covering genitals are not two different things.....its not like comparing `pears and oranges`....depends upon location...... if a head is located where the genitals are -- that head should definitely be covered -- or if a genital is located where the head is supposed to be -- that genital must be covered.....too.

Why are so many Muslims (and nonMuslims for that matter) discussing whether or not to wear a hijab or its genesis? I don`t see too many Christians arguing about whether or not women actually have to keep silent in Church (as per St. Paul`s diktat). They`ve got better things to do with their time and as long as we waste our time trying to recreate Nizam-e-Mustafa on earth, we are going to remain dirt poor and backwards.

Anyone want to debate tax policy? OR the private spaceflight? Or cold fusion? Or something else remotely useful and interesting?

fazia:

[All this ranting about evil Hijab by non Hijabis is like a virgin narrating the details of how it feels to have an orgasm. It is just not valid.
As a Hijabi, I hereby declare all the posts except mine to be invalid, irrational, insane, biased, etc. ]


I second the motion.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

atif #113 I think you can walk around in your birthday suit with WSJ in your armpt and wearing a pugree in your house even today without needing any change in laws. Some fine print applies (e.g. keep curtains closed so neighbors wife doesnt report a hairy chimpanzee reading WSJ in the neighbor`s house). You dont even need to claim that your faith requires you to do so.
What hamidm referred to was doing the same in public. Religious beliefs, like one`s rear end, are personal matters. Put another way, as Ron Reagan Jr said at his father`s eulogy, you dont wear religion on your sleeve.

# 119: [My intent was not to attack you but to somehow use ``shock therapy`` to bring to attention my point that making matter-of-fact blanket statements about as grand a thing as a religion followed by billions of people is not a trivial thing. ]

No worries. None of your responses were taken in a negative stride. You are certainly entitled to your perspective. My apologies for considering you in your pre-teens. You are certainly in your post teens :)

[Muslims have a lot more to look into than wrapping themselves in the confines of a scarf. It does not mean that the appropriate chapters/surahs do not hold much weight. Ironically, crimes happen where women are wrapped. Rapes take place where women wear dupattas/shawls/chadors. Debauchery and lies are preached and religiously practiced in countries claiming to have roots based on the principles of Islam. If you review the lay of the land, it`s like reading a comic strip. In my view, wherever men are weak, unbalanced and insecure, women will have to bear the brunt. ]

So, what I did not say and have to spell out: In order to have a well balanced environment anywhere in the world, you need to have a plan. From that plan, you must prioritize the most important and the least important tasks. I do get ticked off when I find all concentration and energies being spent on the concept of hijab when in different parts of the world both Muslims and Non-Muslims are getting beheaded by other Muslims. I gave a few examples to illustrate my point but then I am not in the habit of jotting down the nitty gritty details. I understand that I would run into audience who holds completely different perspectives and comprehension. And, that`s fine.

My previous remark that created a havoc was not a blanket statement. It was a harsh assessment. Probably, at times my practical side is taken over by the perfectionist and idealist in me. It does not mean that religion is bad or the practitioners are god forbid insane. I am no one to make such sweeping remarks.

To your point that human rights` violations take place in other countries and faiths is very true. But the topic under discussion did not invite a comparison study. When you are bleeding yourself should you care to look outside or get yourself a band-aid? I understand there are different answers to this questions and each person will adopt a different route.

[I still think you are a good person who seems to have the quest to know the ``truth`` - whatever that may be. ]

Thank you for farsightedness :)

Sadna: Thanks for being on the same page. Regards.

For anyone interested, there will be a discussion on cbc radio (cbc.ca, click on radio live, toronto, cbc one) on introducing sharia in ontario at 12 noon today.

hamidm:
`` ............ why do we have to be respectful of an obviously silly thing like faith ?``

I think that we agreed to make a distinction between individual faith and political creed; faith can perform miracle in people`s lives; I sometimes wish that I was blessed with it. I am not but can still get my spiritual kicks out of devotional music which I love, especially at dargahs.

Dear Freethinker: Thank you for sharing your candid views on a controversial subject. Please do contribute something on the lines of ``Introspection & Freethinking`` in future. Best Regards.

Urstruly: Thank you for validating my point that a muslim man`s view has little or no bearing on life threatening matters. I am so glad that you were around to prove my point :)

#110: Despite being rough on the edges, you do have a good sense of humor! Please keep it up.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Atif Sahib
Lets not digress any further. How about we call in a virgin who has made her hands useful in that arena and question her because I wouldnt know:)
Take care and sorry folks for the digression. But then again, not like most of us were staying on the topic to begin with;)

Faiza Hussain

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

nooralain #110
That`s what I`ve been guessing for a while - that this is a place where people who know each other from elsewhere want to continue their private conversations without interruption. Chalo, no sweat.

Hello

All this ranting about evil Hijab by non Hijabis is like a virgin narrating the details of how it feels to have an orgasm. It is just not valid.
As a Hijabi, I hereby declare all the posts except mine to be invalid, irrational, insane, biased, etc.

Phew, now lets hear it for some faizahussain bashing folks:)

Sincerely
Faiza Hussain

Re: 107
Urstruly you sound so cute giving veiled threats of eternal damnation to others... last resort for religous types really... no wonder rationality cannot work under those kind of threats and submission creeps in the heart of righteous souls before it is too late...

peace.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Well, whats with ZehraJ lately...

She sounds so bitter. I suppose Iqbal was right when he said...

na pardah, na taleem, nai ho kay puraani..
naswaaniyyat zun ka nagihbaan faqt mard

I hope everything works out well for her :P


I think atif made a very interesting point. Poeple will always commit crime. These measures certainly lower the rate, if not reduce it completely. Besides, women cover, and men grow beard, and lower their gaze primarily to please Allah swt. If there are any other benefits, they are secondary. When muslim woman covers herself, she doesnt do it to avoid rape, she does it because Allah swt asked the muslim women to dress modestly and cover herself properly before going out. Just like, muslim men are told to dress decently and lower their gaze and protect themselves.

Now if you dont agree with that, do whatever. Why bring all these justifications on how ``I know a niqabi who used to do that`. If you do hijab and indulge in some rubbish, it simply means that you didnt understand the the hukm of hijab clearly. It doesnt lessens the importance of the hukm of Allah swt

Well, whats with ZehraJ lately...

She sounds so bitter. I suppose Iqbal was right when he said...

na pardah, na taleem, nai ho kay puraani..
naswaaniyyat zun ka nagihbaan faqt mard

I hope everything works out well for her :P


I think atif made a very interesting point. Poeple will always commit crime. These measures certainly lower the rate, if not reduce it completely. Besides, women cover, and men grow beard, and lower their gaze primarily to please Allah swt. If there are any other benefits, they are secondary. When muslim woman covers herself, she doesnt do it to avoid rape, she does it because Allah swt asked the muslim women to dress modestly and cover herself properly before going out. Just like, muslim men are told to dress decently and lower their gaze and protect themselves.

Now if you dont agree with that, do whatever. Why bring all these justifications on how ``I know a niqabi who used to do that`. If you do hijab and indulge in some rubbish, it simply means that you didnt understand the the hukm of hijab clearly. It doesnt lessens the importance of the hukm of Allah swt

sadna:

your criticism of my point noted. :) as for zahra boosting herself by putting others down, it has nothing to do with this article, but rather her valid, and often arrogant opinions that she has expressed personally to some of us pakistanis on how unintelligent we are in other arenas. did not mean to and will not drag you into that. :)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

gill sahib,

............ i know you are trying to be a mature person and a nice guy when offer up this advice to the riff raff`` ``Don`t be judgmental about others` faith and beliefs`` .............. but don`t you think it is disingeneous and dishonest not to call a spade a spade when you see it come crashing down on yor head ............ why do we have to be respectful of an obviously silly thing like faith ?............. are we supposed to be respectful of idiots who might choose to walk around naked on the streets carrying a copy of the wsj rolled up under their arm just because it is their faith?............ no? ....... then why should we tolerate a silly woman trying to make some kind of a personal ( although i think it is more political ) statement by wrapping her head in an ominous headjob ?..............

.............. you know what really bothers me? ......... it is this darn notion that we have that somehow religious practices and idiosyncracies are to be tolerated even though they might border on the bizzare and ridiculous ............. don`t tell me that we are not allowed to laugh at elephant nosed gods, or circumcised body parts, or little boys who claim their mothers are virgins ............ get real!............it is time to put god back in heaven so that we can get on with the business of living .............

atif`s argument is correct. ZahraJ will go in her grave and guys who are beheading her friends will go in theirs. Zahraj will have to answer for her deeds and they will answer for theirs.

atif1#103
[that your argument held no logic, rationale, intelligence, intellect, thought, philosophy, cognition, or for that matter any characteristic that people typically associate with a sane argument.]

...zor kiss per hua sane argument ..dont expect that from zahraj... she is jungle ka badshah...anda day ya bachchaa...;)

#104
Yes, it is a valid argument. Rural N. India has a very large number of Hindu women who cover their heads and wear modest `Hindu` clothing aka saris. If someone was campaigning for said Hindu clothing, and I pointed out that rape and other crimes happen to those Hindu women inspite of it, would I boosting myself and putting other people down ?

It is not as if men are not bashed in other guises on chowk, I remember one Stephen Hawking being the pretext last time. It is amazing to be in the wrong on the other side of the argument as well.

oh atif, but it did. zahra khatoon`s argument is a `valid` argument after all. when she says

Ironically, crimes happen where women are wrapped. Rapes take place where women wear dupattas/shawls/chadors. Debauchery and lies are preached and religiously practiced in countries claiming to have roots based on the principles of Islam. If you review the lay of the land, it`s like reading a comic strip. In my view, wherever men are weak, unbalanced and insecure, women will have to bear the brunt.

how unintelligent are we indeed not to infer that zahra khatoon is interpreting a text ironically. and not only that. . that we are unintelligent for not reading between the lines. it must be comforting to know just how superior and intelligent a woman is, who boosts herself by putting others down.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

atif1:

My remarks although addressed to you are quite general; they apply as much to you as to Zaraj, or any body else. If you personally felt hurt, I apologise. My point is that we can interact and make our point(s) without being discourteous.

The discussion has drifted away from the central theme of my article and I choose to stay away from it. I wish you well and in your own respective ways, all of you are a group of great guys.

Mohammad Gill

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

atif1 #95
``ZahraJ writes ``Rapes take place where women wear dupattas/shawls/chadors. Debauchery and lies are preached and religiously practiced in countries claiming to have roots based on the principles of Islam.``

Zahraj - FYI, rapes take place even where women DO NOT wear dupattas/shawls/chadors. ``

Precisely. The dupatta, shawl or chador does not necessarily make women safer just as in countries claiming to have roots in principles of Islam, there are still debuchery and lies just like every where else.

One can not argue that the use of hijab/dupatta/chador/shawl results in women being safer than where they are not required to wear these. How long does it take to pull off a hijab or dupatta anyway.

Zahra`s point is quite valid and it is not clear why you are asking her to stop being a Muslim simply because her point is valid.

And, my observations continue...

[The religious injunctions need to be reinterpretted to suit the modern conditions. And reinterpretation of Quran, particularly on the issues which relate to the women, should be done by the Muslim women scholars. They should not be terrified into silence.]

Out of curiosity, I would like to ask the following question:

Q. When the muslims could not follow their own holy book which carries the crux of how to lead life as a sane human being and are busy in the horrifying practices of beheading fellow human beings, killing in the mosques, disregarding and disrespecting the other sects within their own religion, tearing apart their oppositions since that is a challenge to their insecure selves ... do you think they will go out of their way to hug the new provisions in the shariah provided by Mernessi and other women scholars ? Who will follow those revisions?

Lastly, please refer brother Atif to the women`s club working towards reinterpreting the existing shariah. I am sure being a passionate muslim male he will contribute to the best of his capabilities. In fact, his contribution may make some difference. Just like the jehadi boys were brainwashed in their early teens and dumped in the war fields, I am sure brother atif can be utilized in his pre-teen years for some good cause.

Regards.

gill saheb,

interesting how you should attempt to silence atif, but not address the blanket statement that zahra sahiba has made. crimes happen everywhere, where women are, be they covered or not covered. i should think that more intelligent people would challenge what zahra sahiba has said, but then again one cannot always see beyond their own prejudices and biases, or beyond their own inflated notions of superiority.

signed,
a woman who bears the brunt in the west as well.

Zahraj:

What I tried to suggest was that educated women like you should identify the `issues of women` which need fighting for. Then you should research the history of such issues and enlighten other women about those issues. Education and enlightenment is part of the struggle. Do not wait, get going.

atif1:

May I suggest you to cool down. Don`t be judgmental about others` faith and beliefs. Don`t call a person non-Muslim if she/he believes she/he is a Muslim. This is the tragedy in the Muslim world. All of them are itching to pass fatwas. Take time to express your views calmly and let others present their views calmly. Everyone doesn`t have to agree with you; likewise, you have the right to hold a different opinion from others.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Freethinker: A few other thoughts:

1. [But it`s a battle of the Muslim women and they should fight it. They should not leave it for the men to fight it for them. ]

Lack of participation on the said subject does not imply that women rely on a man`s judgment or reasoning. Also, just because a man happens to wear the label of muslimness on his forehead does not imply that he is capable of handling the nuances of some life-threatening matters like hijaab :)

2. [The field again was dominated by the males who laid down what the women should do and shouldn`t do.]

Who cares what a man prescribes for a woman? I don`t. I won`t.

3. [The religious injunctions need to be reinterpretted to suit the modern conditions. And reinterpretation of Quran, particularly on the issues which relate to the women, should be done by the Muslim women scholars.]

And, who is going to lead the effort? Have the muslims ever agreed upon the resolution of an issue as a group? There are 100s and 1000s of inconsistencies. Not that inconsistencies do not exist in other religions, beliefs and faiths, but since the topic of discussion is looking into hijab from the muslim angle therefore it`s important to realize the implications of such recommendations. Does it mean that one should sit and wait till the end? No. I am only suggesting that it`s important to view the lay of the land in its entirety before jumping into any such initiatives.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

rajsingh1:

Post # 92

The hijab that is the topic of so much heated discussion, particularly in the west, these days began in the Muslim society as I have described in the article. So the title of the article is quite appropriate.

The ``need`` kind of veil that you alluded to, is for the conditions out in the desert and not in ``the streets of Medina``. And this kind of veil is needed by every one, i.e., by both men and women. So this again is not the object of controversey.

A couple of years back, I had written an article on `Burqa` at The Pakistan Link. In that, I had mentioned a North African tribe, Tuareg. The Tuaregs are by and large Muslims and they have a matriarchal system in which men veil their faces while women go unveiled. The women are the leading part of the society. This veil has nothing to do with the traditional hijab, as much as I know about it. This is their tribal `thing`.

I had a Tuareg watchman in Nigeria. He and his male friends always covered their faces.

Mohammad Gill

Freethinker: I would like to see your perspective from a very different angle. Keeping that in mind, I`d propose the following:

[Religious metaphysics, physics, and philosophy can be a complex mix and many people may not be able to handle it in a well-adjusted and well-aligned manner.]

Religious metaphysics, physics, and philosophy can be a complex mix and many people ``may handle it completely differently even`` in a well-adjusted and well-aligned manner.

Freethinker


Post # 89

Quote:

``I provided some historical background in my article of its introduction into Muslim culture.``

Introduction of Hijab into Muslim culture (probably this will make more sense/better case, going by the article) is different from the title of the article, which is `` Origin of Hijab`` For, it is highly unlikely that Hijab would have been introduced as part of any religion. It is more likely that it was very much in use more as a matter of NEED than being a part of culture or any religion (referring to origin of Hijab).

In sand/desert, one has to cover one`s face as a matter of need and situation at that time would have been more difficult (lack or roads, means of transport and other things) than it is today. Perhaps, it has been overlooked that even men too cover their face/s when in desert. Need, for covering the face would have developed/culminated/evolved into culture, tradition, and then part of religion.

Three organised religions have come from Arabia/from that area and all three do have similar dress code for their preachers/religious hierarchy. And Islam is the youngest religion. So ...

#84 by vertex
rajsubghi1,
#85 by Ralph

If I may butt in…

Ralph, there is no such thing as “Muslim Liberal”. When you use this term you are mixing two different schools of thoughts and often they don’t meet in religious background.
The correct term should be “moderate Muslims”.

This is now an important debate; how to separate moderate Muslims from the Islamic fundamentalists who have fascist outlook of the world. If moderate Muslims are not separated from the OBL types, the west would continue to be hard-pressed to deal with them (OBL types) militarily. Once West takes the military path as it pathetically did in Iraq, it will continue alienating the moderate Muslims thus increasing terrorist support in the Muslim countries. It sounds like a catch 22 situation but it should not be so hard to separate both groups.

The OBL types mostly have their ideological support in two countries now i.e. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The west is right in identifying these two countries for ideological turned around. Both countries will need strong support from the West to stay this course. But the problem arises when the West or its leader, the US itself, gets caught in an ideological struggle within its own populace like it is now. It is likely that West may not be able to sustain the political will and this menace may not be tamed and eventually eliminated in the near future.

PS.
vertex, Hamidm-
Knock it off, You two are better than this.

Zahraj:

Religious metaphysics, physics, and philosophy can be a complex mix and many people may not be able to handle it in a well-adjusted and well-aligned manner. Much of metaphysics is subjective, and some philososphy may be sometime pointless and trivial like postmodernism. Physics and physical science lay emphasis on experimental and observational verification and its scope is necessarily limited for this very reason. I had discussed this issue partially in one of my earlier papers ``Limitations of Science``. If one is seeking answers for the metaphysical questions related to the reality of God, eschatology, and other esoteric questions, physics cannot much help in this quest. So Seyyed Nasr lost interest in Physics and sought peace and tranquility in religion and metaphysics. He tried however to correlate his areas of fundamental interest with science but such correlation is at best superficial.

Coming back to hijab, I provided some historical background in my article of its introduction into Muslim culture. My personal view is that the Muslim women have been repressed far too long by the well-meaning male chauvinists. The religious injunctions need to be reinterpretted to suit the modern conditions. And reinterpretation of Quran, particularly on the issues which relate to the women, should be done by the Muslim women scholars. They should not be terrified into silence. I agree with you when you say ``Muslims have a lot more to look into than wrapping themselves in the confines of a scarf.`` But it`s a battle of the Muslim women and they should fight it. They should not leave it for the men to fight it for them. The women have a lot more to fight for than the veil. Shariah prescribes, as I had described in my article also, that a woman does not have any right to become head of a Muslim state. I believe this is wrong and the option should be available to the women. In the interacts to my article, I guess, there were only two Muslim women, if I figured out correctly. The field again was dominated by the males who laid down what the women should do and shouldn`t do. If you have not read Mernissi yet, please do so. She is one heck of a fighter for the Muslim women`s rights.

You had asked me how I got interested in the hijab issue. For the obvious reason that it has become a hot potato in the western world.

One of my sons is looking for a wife and one of the girls that came under consideration wears a hijab. My wife asked my opinion. I said if hijab does not bother my son who has to live with his wife, it`s not important for me. However, it never became a big issue because the girl`s parents did not pursue the proposal any further for some other reasons. The girl is in Pakistan and probably she didn`t want to come over here.

Thanks for your interacts. Wish you well.

Mohammad Gill

hamidm2,

``vertex is the kind of pathetic drivel that goes to show that a large number of ``moderate`` muslims, regardless of their protestatations to the contrary, are terrorist sympathisers``

LOL, no, people like you keep spewing out the same kind of pathetic drivel that only exposes you for what you are...closet fascists. And what gets my goat is when fascists start demanding the pacifist credentials of others.

``vertex seems to suggest that somehow the civilized people of the world are to be blamed for hunting down the criminal vermin who use the scriptures to justify their crimes against humanity``

Well you see, I am accusing some people who claim they are civilized as being no better than the supposed vermin they are chasing. Your causation is wrong. America planning to attack Iraq prior to 9-11. Needless to say, using scriptures or invoking `freedom` dogma to commit crimes against humanity is exactly the same, something you and your ilk are incapable of comprehending.

`` ............ the cops are being blamed for ``greater`` violence by the criminal who is guilty of ``lesser`` violence !``

Well, yes! The cops are beating the snot out of rodny king. They’re the ones raping the j-walker. They`re the swat team who doesn`t negotiate, they blow up the entire city block without even evacuating it. Very good analogy, sir! And that you find nothing wrong with this is exactly what I find disturbing...

......post #84 by vertex is the kind of pathetic drivel that goes to show that a large number of ``moderate`` muslims, regardless of their protestatations to the contrary, are terrorist sympathisers ............. in this silly post - unless i am wrong - vertex seems to suggest that somehow the civilized people of the world are to be blamed for hunting down the criminal vermin who use the scriptures to justify their crimes against humanity ............ the cops are being blamed for ``greater`` violence by the criminal who is guilty of ``lesser`` violence !........... this is the kind of jihadi logic that befuddles the hijab covered head and creates suiciders and homiciders .............

#78 by nasah on June 26, 2004 9:09am PT

Wah nasah saheb!

Rajsingh1

Unfortunately the political variant of Islam has turned out to be the best platform for the maniacs like OBL to mobilize gullible persons onto their so called path of Jehad.

Freethinker: Thank you for spelling out his name. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to browse through his work in depth. But his stance on certain core issues is beautiful. I am not surprised on his efforts to further develop physics. That`s something in the blood of these physicists, regardless of their religiousness or irreligiousness :)

Muslims have a lot more to look into than wrapping themselves in the confines of a scarf. It does not mean that the appropriate chapters/surahs do not hold much weight. Ironically, crimes happen where women are wrapped. Rapes take place where women wear dupattas/shawls/chadors. Debauchery and lies are preached and religiously practiced in countries claiming to have roots based on the principles of Islam. If you review the lay of the land, it`s like reading a comic strip. In my view, wherever men are weak, unbalanced and insecure, women will have to bear the brunt.

rajsinghi and vertex

Muslim `liberals` don`t engage in debate with the supporters of the terrorism or the terrorists themselves because there is rarely such a person as a Muslim `liberal.` Most often a Muslim `liberal` is an Islamic extremist in a liberal`s clothing. His or her job is to defend and justify terrorism and Islamic murders by inventing excuses and feeding Islamic victimhood.

rajsubghi1,

It is a sadist who demands that the perpetrators of a lesser violence explain themselves while at the same time ignoring and even supporting a greater violence.

The ``alleged`` terrorists (they are, btw, but I just thought I`d adopt the patronizing language of the article you psted) do take sanction from history (which is reflected in scripture), however the idea is that they are defending and not waging war for the sake of it (which is a view that is projected, rightly imho, on the West by the alleged terrorists). Thus, the debate isn`t weather they are scriptually right or wrong, but weather their premise for waging this alleged Jihad is sound or not.

No one, not the allegedly benign Hindus or the allegedly advanced Westerners would tolerate what these terrorists accuse the West of doing. The question is, then, is there any substance to their rhetoric? And so at least on this matter, people are thinking on the right track...and the relative lack of support (say a tens of thousand active supporters to hundreds of thousands of military personnel on the other side plus massive public opinion) seems to indicate that this is for the most part a one-sided conflict...

It is one thing if a pacifist demands an explanation for a violent act, but when an activley war waging people do the same, the net effect is hypocrisy and not a valid ethical challenge.

i am waiting for urstruly`s next article on Hijab..

That should be good. (If he writes on this issue I suppose)

In continuation to the previously quoted post...

QUOTE:


If you talk injustice, you are on a slippery slope that leads to millenia of unresolved history.



What intrigues me is
notthe burning desire among Muslims to liberate MUSLIM lands ( lands that had ONCE been conquered by Muslims ) and recreating the dream Caliphate of Caliph Umer Farooq, but the undeniable fact that the Terrorists are able to present irrefutable scriptural sanctionto act upon it, and the Muslim intellectuals - so vehement in presenting the ugly face of modern powers - keeping mum about that.



Why is there nary a word except the cliche of ``Islam stands for peace`` ? Just like the DEMAND of Muslim intellectuals for a resolution of Palestine question and other such hypothetical ``injustices``, why don`t we see them DEBATE in mosques and open fora with these TERRORIST sympathising Salafi Alims with some passages from the Quran and Sunnah to counter their forceful arguments and shut offthe recruitment pipeline of these terrorists all over the world ?



Surely this isn`t difficult, if the brightest minds at Al-Azhar , Lahore, Aligarh and the US-based CAIR volunteers get their acts together and get going ?



So, why not ?

rajsinghi1

Muslims themselves won`t agree that ``Islam is no exception.``

Islam is not a religion of the self, but a religion of the other. Take out that otherness from Islam, and nothing remains, except some inane rituals like how one should clean up after relieving oneself. That is the knowledge base of Islam.

Following is from another board..and perhaps, relevant here..

I am trying to quote exactly the way it has been written..words in bold are by the writer himself...

Quote:



What is deemed good and bad by a believing Muslim ( a Mu`min ) , when restricted to application at an INDIVIDUAL level , is never a problem.



It is when that concept is thrust upon others in SOCIOLOGICAL INTERACTION does the problem start.



There is no problem when a Muslim believes that he is doing good to HIMSELF by praying, fasting, charity, Hajj pilgrimmage, and belief in Allah and his prophet(s), and preventing HIMSELF from doing bad by abstinence from alcohol, pork, idolatry, usury etc.



Many such INVARIANT Decrees are there in ALL religions, to foster personal spiritual growth for the average Joe Bloe.



Dualistic sects of Hinduism have a plethora of such ``Yama`` and ``Niyama`` ( dos and donts ) for believers.



The problemstarts when this ``good`` and ``bad`` comes in the way of SOCIAL INTERACTION with members of OWN community and members of a DIFFERENT community.



By enjoing others to do what YOU feel ( or learnt from your religious upbringing ) to be good , and preventing others from doing what YOU feel ( or learnt from your religious upbringing ) to be bad is at the heartof EXTREMIST BEHAVIOUR in ALL religions, whether you like it or not.



The Jews had their share in the ancient times, in their dealings with Midianites.



The Christians had their share in the Dark Ages, in their Crusades and Inquisitions.



The Hindus had their share in the degenerated evils in the preceding 1000 years of Ossified Caste System by Birth, Widow-Burning and other such horrible acts of ommission and commission.



All of the above are examples of EXTREMIST and INTOLERANT behaviour generated by the URGE for enjoining OTHERS to do good and preventing others from doing bad.



Islam is no exception.



Muslims - especially those of the Ahle Hadith and Salafi brand - have taken it upon themselves to purify Islam and Muslims from the Shirk of Sufism that has crept in from the mellowing influences of Hinduism, Kabbalistic/Essenic Judaism and Gnostic Christianity.



They sincerely believe - and they have the inviolable ``word of God`` to support their claims - that they are doing good to themselves and others by



(1) enjoining other Muslims to do good ( Tableeghi Jamaat ) by becoming PURE and unadulterated Salafi Muslims ( and joining their Jihad by pen or sword ) and becoming a true Saif-ul-Islam in such organisations as Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Al-Muhajiroun and the various shades of Al-Badr. The prime example of this is the spurt of volunteers from EDUCATED Muslims from as diverse areas as in UK, Europe, Asia, America and Africa, in the fighting forces of Taliban and Al Qaeda.



(2) preventingthe Hypocrites and Apostates ( Murtads ) from doing bad such as injecting their Kufr/Shirk ( polluting and idolatrous ) ideas that are deemed harmful for the Islam as they LITERALLY find in the Quran and Sunnah. The Fatwas against Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen, and the tendency of Honour Killings among as diverse an ethnic mix as Kurds, Arabs, Malayasians and Indian subcontinentals, are proof of this terrorist behaviour.



(3) preventing the imaginary Yahood-Hunood-Nazara Axis from doing bad to the Muslim Ummah by launching a full-frontal Jihad to liberate the imaginary Dar-ul-Islamof the Muslim glory days from occupiers and collaborators, and creating the staging ground for the FINAL ASSAULT on the Dar-ul-Harbto bring the whole world into submission, as literally foretold by the the Quran, Hadiths and the Sirah.



In conclusion of this point, let me repeat the salient points.



The Five Pillars of Islam are not a problem at all. It is the THEOLOGICAL component ( and the ritual component ) of Islam, and is a PRIVATE MATTER between the INDIVIDUAL believer and his perceived Creator.



The problem is the SOCIOLOGICAL doctrine of Islam, and how the invariant decrees in THAT field ( and the LITERAL interpretation thereof ) may be a cause of social tension, and a breeding ground of EXTREMIST and TERRORIST behaviour.


http://www.peoplesforum.com/cgi-bin/forum?14@96.T9b2aTWrfs9.431576@.6b699029/5265

Zahraj:

I am familiar with the works of Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr. He has published a lot on Islam. One of the things that ticked me off was his attempt of Islamising Science. I tried to understand how it can be done but I did not quite understand it. It is like putting a label of Islam on Science. I think it`s hypocritical but then I might be wrong. I personally believe what the Muslim world needs is the development of scientific knowledge; its acquisition not a claim to its ownership. How is one going to Islamise Quantum Mechanics and Theory of Relativity, for example? And to be honest, this is not needed.

In my opinion, hijab is not such a big issue. It should be left for the individual women. If any woman wants to wear it, it should be her choice. If she doesn`t want it, she should go without it. In the Middle Eastern countries, it is imposed by the society. This imposition should go away. Some of these countries are still in the medieval times. Every change is intolerably too slow. But then force is also futile. Let the globalization do its work. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

#76: [To be honest, it was kind of surprising to find ``you`` addressing this topic. ]

This topic = Hijab.

``The pre-Islamic society in Arabia, the so-called jahiliyya, was structured in a way that the women were totally handicapped; the men dominated in every conceivable way. The women were owned by men just like any other piece of property (many would probably like to argue that they still are!). They could acquire them, use them, and dump them in whatever way they wanted with impunity and without any moral compunction or punity.``(Gill)

PreIslamic? -- are we sure -- looks more like -- Ahade Jahiliya -- never ended for us -- the Post Islamic Muslims....

it is well -- its alive -- and it is KICKING -- in`Post Islamic` Wahabi Arabia -- in Post Islamic Talibani Afghanistan -- in Post Islamic Hudoodi Pakistan -- in almost all the Post-Islamic Muslimistans of the entire world -- in 2004....

btw -- will anybody care to explain why we Muslims should have such -- extraordinary pathological FETISH -- with a very ordinary common-place HAIR on a hirsute Muslima`s head...... ?

why such paranoia -- such obsession to cover it up....?...why to make such a beautiful thing so ugly...?

Freethinker: First of all congrats for spearheading the corner of ``Science and Sciencibility``. To be honest, it was kind of surprising to find ``you`` addressing this topic. I wanted to share with you some links on Imam Feisal:

1. http://www.interfaithhome.org/index.asp?section=1
2. http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s1075592.htm
3. http://www.asmasociety.org/about/b_rauf.html

Interestingly, the Imam has a major in Physics. There is another very smart guy, a scientist by background, who speaks very eloquently on the subject of religion and specific nuances. I think the said gentleman headed the department of physics or engineering at a prominent university in Iran. He left Iran after the revolution and is probably somewhere in Europe, if I am not mistaken. I have forgotten his exact name, but it`s something Nasir or Nasr. I have watched a few of his interviews at the interfaith discussions a few years back and he was solid and impressive. Nothing like Hamza Yousaf. I cannot stand that fellow! Somehow, I have always had more respect for both religious and non-religious people with a background in science/engg/technology. They don`t push Muslims to go back to the dinosaurs` times and live a destitute`s life in caves. I cannot generalize that for all the enlightened muslim teachers, speakers and preachers since I have not established a personal contact with all of them to pick their brains. Still my observation is based on my personal experience and liking. Also, something I really appreciate in the above two guys is the little focus on hijab, jilab and other derivatives. They have more focus on spiritual enlightenment.

The world will not fall apart if a woman does not cover her breasts or rear or upper arms or ankles. Some disturbed men may fall apart but that`s their issue. And, they should be treated accordingly for their mental disorder. The rest of the world ought to move on towards productivity, search for internal balance and enlightenment. There are 100s of other recommendations in Islam for living a productive and harmonious life, but surprisingly a certain category of muslims pays far more attention to the concepts of hijab and jilab(i do not even know what that stands for - probably a cousin of hijaab) than anything else. It`s a little weird.

Ok y’all … here’s a good one … “What’s right with Islam” …by none other than the honorable Imam Sahib. Must be a pocket version … no more than 12 pages … including a verbose, repugnant introduction… followed by a call of unity to the psychotic ummah … while reminding them of the hadith that beating of wives should not leave a permanent mark on their skin (“it’s the women’s skin … not the men’s … you moron …" Imam Sahib was once heard screaming out aloud during the jumma khutba ...)

These ullema are not making any sense ... this includes those grown and bred in the US … white and black … who basically suffer from a cultural inferiority complex … and yearn to be one with the ancient civilization of concubines, slaves, and bloody battles. Of course, watching Dianne Kruger in Troy only makes them more nostalgic. And this includes that bay area idiot … hamza yusuf … who went on the air awhile back singing praises of Muhammad’s midnight flight to the seventh cloud … it didn’t occur to him that the chief was probably referring to the sexual ecstasy of sleeping with a 14-year old … huh? did I just say that …?

dost-mittar #60
I agree with you about cause and effect and what is the judicious thing to do in such circumstances. But what to do, inside every individual resides a satyagrahi as Gandhiji knew:). It depends on community leaders whether this fervor is channeled into positive directions.

Hijab is very different. I cant explain why by logic. Its not a mere religious symbol.

e.g. if i see a Hassidic Jew in a bowler hat and hair-locks, what comes to my mind? Diamond merchants, bagels, sleazy camera shop owners on 42nd street, Amsterdam, Lox, whitefish, bad smell of chicken-soup, yeshiva university etc. no fear is felt.

if i see a turban sikh, it flashes bhangra, fish koliwada (or amritsar), bhangara, sardarji jokes, SikhLi, sport for support (or is it the other way), kadha prashad, sunday TV bhajans
sung by bhais, Langar at Hemkund-Sahib, little kid in kuch-kuch hota hai, field hockey, tire-shop owners, truckers, drunkern fights during Vaishakhi Celbrations, and other stereo-types (no, seeing a turban does not flash Economist from LSE).

hijab triggers folks jumping out of WTC towers, fierce-looking mujis carrying RPGs, the long sword on the Saudi flag, riots and communal conflicts, worrying future for poorer, ill-prepared oil states, indoctroinated gulf workers, talak-talak-talak, all the past conquering dynasties, pity for the hijaban (they somehow look sad).

So, logically, Hijab should somhow induce the feeling of peace in us (that the hijaban feels), but the left-side of the brain just does not co-operate. We need about at-least 50 years of peace with 200 Nobel Prize winners from the peaceful religion, 20% of them as women, and Al-Jazeera discussing Bahrain Stock-Exchange (and only one bombing per month), to make the left-brain co-operate with the right side.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#50 by malyck on June 24, 2004 1:22pm PT
ankit #236
``jus wanted to add that it is convenient to say that what teesta seetalvad professes is not secularism. ``

Not sure what you mean, but I will point out that it is convenient for Hindutva-vadis too, who inspite of many years in power have not stopped holding others responsible for their their own blatant biases and biased actions.

INEVER PASTED THIS MSG ON THIS ARTICLE MY MSG WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT ......... WHERE DOES THIS COME FROM ........... CHOWK STAFF I NEED AN URGENT REPLY

THE NEED FOR MODESTY IS THE SAME IN BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. AS CHASTITY IS A VIRTUE FOR MALE AND FEMALE IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY CONCESSIONS

The need for modesty is stressed for men too as in Sura Al Noor, Verse 30,

``Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purify for them ......``

And then the need is stressed for females to be modest and observe pardah (not hijab). It comes in next verse i.e., Sura Al Noor, Verse 31,

``And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and gueard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments ....``

So if we go the Islamic version then typical horney men should first have to leave their immodest evil x-ray eyes and then female are to observe pardah. Its similar to the idea that the prostitution can only be ended if men stop going to prostitutes.

Dont use pardah as an excuse to hide females behind thick walls of clothes ... first get ur (and offcourse mine too) eye lids in position and then talk about pardah.

Zahraj:

Thanks for your valueable input. Such personal experiences are more to the point than the ravings emanating from pre-formed prejudices. In my own department, there is an Arab woman holding a responsible position who wears a hijab. I have attended meetings with her, no body feels odd that she wears a hijab. It will be hard to believe that she is coerced by her family to wear it; as a matter of fact her family may be looking upto her.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Karauasch # 4

(I saw a documentary about Iran where women (chador clad) and men ``marry`` (he he) for a few hours. Some of these contracts take place in a mosque.)

Fiqhe Jafferiah is more liberal, generally more educated and is more organized. Although it suffers from the usual drawbacks of a formal dogma - meaning spiritual diktat of Mulla - and alien to the concept of democracy.

Incidently, how many women wear Hijab, Niqab or Burqa in Pakistan? An insignificant minority.

The village Women (around 70 %) who pick cotton, milch cattle or do household jobs have never even heard of these terminologies.

The NWFP women take Chaddor. Only Jamaat Islami women wear Niqab with a vengeance. Hijaab is worn more as a rebellion or a fashion statement in a very small group of upper class women.

Burqa in Pakistan has almost become non-existant unlike Afghanistan.

Doppatta or Chunni is the standard head cover.

It appears that the expatriot Muslim women have taken up this more seriously than others.

The age old concept keeps on coming back as Fatima Mernissi and others keep on bringing new books to the market. I am not sure if you have looked into the recent one by Imam Feisal on ``What`s Right With Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West.`` Some excerpts are quite interesting. Since I have met him in person a few times therefore it`s easy to see where the writer is coming from.

[Unfortunately, it has been politicized in several western countries which seem to be paranoid of the Muslim culture.]

I disagree with your take. There are very valid reasons behind the paranoia. The current affairs will continue to impart their negative effect.

[In the face of this opposition, many non-Arab Muslim women have also started wearing it to assert their Muslim identity.]

True. Sometimes it`s to assert their identity but other times it`s the inner call that makes some women take that route. Some people listen to their inner call and act upon it whereas others ignore that. It`s very personal and does not require another book of analysis in my opinion. To give an example: One of my aunts, a senior vp at a large financial institution in manhattan, took that route a few years back. She has been with the bank for over 15 years or so. I remembered her telling me about the request she had submitted to secure some privacy for her prayers almost a decade ago. The request was accepted. Out of the blue, in the last few years, she has started covering her hair with a scarf. To top it all, she went up to her management team to explain her step due to the visibility of her position. By the way, she just got promoted to an avp last year. Her promotion took place despite the fact that she wore a scarf. I am sure the journey was not as smooth and rosy as I have tried to portray, but I have always appreciated the fact that she never allowed that to be a road-block. Last but not least, her surroundings (western) appreciate her experience and talent as a person with little focus on her head gear, race, ethnicity or gender. So, there are all kinds of examples one can look into.

#57 by Romair on June 24, 2004 4:33pm PT

Yes, in democratic societies people have the right to adopt hijab in the manner they deem it fit (with or without a piece of cloth, or with just modesty in their daily conduct ) - provided they do not infringe upon any of the rights of the individual citizens.

Agreed, but the problem starts when the Islamists try to force a particular interpretation of `hijab` upon others and then run all over the streets with acid or batons in their hands trying to enforce it!!!

So the only issue is that of `hijab` versus the `ordinary citizen rights` in a democracy!!!
Can we tolerate our women folk not covering themselves appropriately before others just because she thinnks it goes against her right to live her life the way she wants to without breaking any law in the modern democratic societies??

Answer this- and you would know where you stand!!!

escapist: that was a statement of fact. not rhetoric. and these are questions below. not rhetoric:



1. what is important in the Quran (hint: read where it says that those who..have nothing to fear on the Judgement Day).



2. what part of the body does the Quran specifically call for being hidden (hint: it aint the head.)



These are BASICS to which the entire muslim world turns a blind eye. The hijab is a stupid act of political statement (no different than the black glove used by blacks in the US in the 1970`s). If anything, by directing attention to the wearer, the hijab is a direct violation of the spirit of the Quran.



and I have said this a zillion times on chowk, and didnt want to waste my breath with the hypocrisy of the islamist chauvinist pigs anymore.

There is one valid point that people seem to be missing here . . . while religious signs or gender defining apparel is one thing, blocking the economic/cultural amancipation and awareness and rights of a complete gender is another.

The full cover hijab/burqa, to the non-Muslim eye, and probably to the realistic Muslim eye also, seems to designate a major gender bias. Against women.

The chunni/veil, with Hindus/Sikhs/Christians and even many Muslims, on the other hand, does no such thing.

DullaBhatti # 45

(idhar asiN kuttay khasi karday rehnday aan.:-) )

HA. HA. HA. You come out with the most genuine Punjabi Quotes :-)

T ahmed.

again useless rhetorics.

If you think Gill has used those verses out of context, do let us know. Instead of telling us how ``you have been there and done that``.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

sadna#59:
``The point was that a perceived violation of boundaries of individual or group autonomy does lead to overt assertions of identity as response, as happened with increased appearance of turbans after 1984 and increased appearance of Muslim-specific dress in India after 9/11 (which is what I heard).``

Wasn`t there a backlash against the sikhs and isn`t there now a backlash against the muslims? It is probably less pronounced in India since hijab, burqas and beards are well-entrenched in the public mind as benign symbols of religious as against political identity. The Indian cinema has been promoting the stereotypes of kind and gentle bearded Kareem Chacha and the pious, kindly burqa clad hameeda chachi for ever. It is not the same here!

dost-mittar #56
``Your reference to southern baptist is not quite relevant. Their objection was to religious symbols; people lighting their houses were not considered to be a threat to anyone. In fact, the same people also object to Halloween as pagan worship. Moreover, they are themselves somewhat marginal and do not represent the mainstream.``

Their objection was not to religious symbols, it was to Hindus remaining Hindus and not converting to Christianity - that was what the pamphlet was about(it was reported on in the NY Times too, later).

I would not call them marginal, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are both Southern Baptists of some color(Clinton condemned the pamphlet and Carter has parted ways with the main Southern Baptists over the role of women in ministry). Moreover, these people are likely to command more organisation, more membership and more funding than any Hindu group in the US does, I will bet.

The point was that a perceived violation of boundaries of individual or group autonomy does lead to overt assertions of identity as response, as happened with increased appearance of turbans after 1984 and increased appearance of Muslim-specific dress in India after 9/11 (which is what I heard).

Romair#55:
``You seem addicted to the word, ``dar-ul-harb.`` :-) ``

This is what reading quran and hadis can do to one. :). And it is a very succinct and precise term which needs no elaboration.

More seriously, I think that this is the concept that drives the likes of Mohammad Atta and other followers of OBL. They are not even practising muslims in many cases but are fired with the zeal of political islam.

I have been to both Bangladesh and Pakistan. My observation was that Bangladeshi muslims are more devoted to their religion in terms of religious piety than Pakistanis. Yet, Pakistan is more troubled by jihadis than Bangladeshi. A possible explanation is that Pakistanis are more interested in political than religious islam.

...But you are right! Not too many muslims wake up every morning thinking of the ways in which they will try to expand dar-ul-islam. And I may have given that impression with the frquent use of that term.

If people want to make a political statement with their hijab or turban (or with anything else) what is wrong with that? And what kind of radar do individuals possess, who can pick out who is making a political statement and who is not making one?

Are they bothering anyone, by making such a statement?

I don`t have any friends who wear hijab, but I do have Sikh friends and colleagues who wear turbans and who do not wear them. I never really bothered about why they do or don`t wear it. Maybe they wear it to make a political statement. Maybe to make a religious statement. Maybe a cultural statement. Or maybe just because they were brought up that way.

What the hell business of it is of mine, as long as they don`t harm me? Which they haven`t, so far?

When one starts commenting on the intentions (which are obviously unknown) of certain actions of others, which are causing no harm to one`s own self, one crosses the line, and becomes a bigot. I am truly amazed at the biases and prejudices and pre-judgements individuals indulge in on this site........

I will start complaining, if a hijaban or a turbaned Sikh use the cloths of their hijabs or turbans to choke me. Until then, live and let live. Let people make any statement they want. It is the spice of life. As long as one is secure in one`s own personality and doesn`t have any complexes, one will not be affected by such statements. If one is not secure in one`s own skin, one will always feel threatened or annoyed by those who do things differently (for whatever reasons)......

digit:
``As a member of a first-generation community, can you please tell me what`s wrong with an `in-your-face` attitude? And I am asking this as in-your-face as possible :-)``

Simply put, it invites an in-your-face backlash. Yesterday, a muslim organisation in Ottawa published the results of its survey which showed that 75% of the muslims think that they are under suveillence. I think that this partly reflects the paranoia of the muslim community, but is also a reflection of the subtle hostility they encounter in their daily lives. I am now retired but still go for a beer with my old colleagues on Fridays. The resentment of these people is quite evident, despite all the sweet talk we hear on TV from the politicians of all stripes. The resentment is greater among the qubecois (we usually go to a pub in Hull) as they have this notion of social contract which expects a higher degree of adjustment on the part of the immigrant.
If this is the situation in the `civil` civil service town, one can imagine the situation in blue collar surroundings.
A couple of years ago, I had argued with tahmed on the opposite side; namely he was opposed to hijab and I supported it.The situation has changed since then.

sadna:
As I pointed out in my post to dullabhati/kaurasach, there is a difference between religious/cultural identities and political identities. When a high school girl born in Canada wears jeans and skirts and switches to hijab when she goes to university, it is not an assertion of religious but that of political import.

Your reference to southern baptist is not quite relevant. Their objection was to religious symbols; people lighting their houses were not considered to be a threat to anyone. In fact, the same people also object to Halloween as pagan worship. Moreover, they are themselves somewhat marginal and do not represent the mainstream

dost-mittar #23: ``hijab has become a threat to the society from a religious belief which treats the host society as dar-ul-harb. ``

You seem addicted to the word, ``dar-ul-harb.`` :-)

I have been a Muslim all my life, and have hung around with Muslims most of my life. Yet I have never heard them use this word. The only place where I have seen it is in writings of a tiny group of Muslim writers. Even Maulana Fazl etc. rarely, if ever (perhaps never) use this term. Yet you use it all the time........ And so many Indians on this site, use it all the time. Why do you think that is? Why do you see dar-al-harb everywhere.

P.S. Hoping for something different than the generic, ``I only see it because the Muslims see it`` type of an answer. Since, you seem to use it more than the hundreds to thousands of Muslims I may have run across in my life.