How serious is not wearing one? Why?
Ski masks are hot and prickly if you're not in snowy weather. Personally, I go for safety, then comfort in clothing, after that suiting the occasion, and finally self-expression.
I'm not trying to argue what others should or should not do.
I love it that in Ontario it is legal for women to go naked in public from the waist up - as it is for men. I've always thought it unfair that there be one standard of decency for men and a different one for women. I think it revolting that breasts are sexualized when their purpose is to feed babies.
At the beginning of this the discussion, the question was about veils, and what is right or not right for Muslim women according to their own faith. I think that issue has been thoroughly discussed and settled based on quotes from Quran and Hadith, and the difference between practices of moderate and conservative Muslims.
But somewhere along the line, the discussion has shifted to what we think others should wear or not wear.
I think if some behaviour causes no harm to others then it should be allowed.
I have actually worn a burqa. I could see quite well in front of me, but it prevented peripheral vision. I can imagine that there would be some circumstances in which this would be unsafe.
I used to attend Co-Dependent Anonymous meetings. One young woman turned up there dressed very revealingly, like a street worker. Several men objected that it was too provocative and distracting and tried to demand that a rule be passed against it.
The next week, I turned up in a full-length black skirt and burqa. This was long before 9.11. Their faces were stony. (After the meeting, most of them told me they were terrified when they saw me. Some thought that I might be carrying a gun under the covers.) When it came to my turn to speak I spoke of about freedom of self-expression. Then I stood up, took off the burqa and the skirt. Underneath I was wearing black riding boots, leopard skin leotard and tights and carried a riding whip. I whipped my boot. Then I pointed out that this was not me but an act to show outrageousness, to show that I was harming no one, and to show that if a man got stupid ideas in his head he had better restrain himself or end up regretting it and that if he thought he had no power over controlling his urges then he was less than human. Then I put the covers back on and sat down.
That day, with thirty-odd people in the room, the vote failed and freedom of dress continued, and the woman who'd worn scanty clothes before continued to do so whenever the weather was hot.
YF
1- Nobody here who supports the right of women to put on an extra piece of cloth on themselves, if they want to, has argued against your statement that "Facial identification is absolutely necessary in the world we live in," We all agree with that, I think. The police are fully entitled to stop and ask a person to identify themselves whenever they have a good reason to. It is their job. If they didn't do so when they should have, then it is THEIR failing. THEY have done a wrong, not every woman who chose to cover their face. Put the blame where it lies, don't point the finger at a tiny minority who have done no wrong but are going about peacefully doing their daily chores.
2- I don't think anyone will dispute that terrorists HAVE used backpacks to carry their bombs. Why aren't there voices calling for the banning of backpacks from public places?
3- "Western women have fought long and hard for equality" and look at where they have ended up - being used as objects to sell products, plus many other things you cannot discuss during children's story time. If you're referring to the brave suffragettes then don't forget that their fight for the vote came after women got recognition as legal entities. Before that, they couldn't even own their own property. England was the first among Europeans to grant them that right in the ‘Married women’s property law’ of 1882. Muslim women were granted the right to own property and to vote fourteen centuries ago. And even now, contrary to the belief being pushed into people's minds, Islam offers women more. Which perhaps explains why out of every four people who embrace Islam in the west THREE are women
4- I'm absolutely with you on "there is no equality in a woman being made to feel she has to cover her face in public" but do you think there is equality in a woman who WANTS to cover her face from the ordinary man on the street, who has no business with her face anyway, being told that she cannot do so?
YF
1- You're entitled to regard Geert Wilders as a person who "is telling the truth" and someone who is neutral about Islam or even as someone who loves Islam. That's your view. Equally I am entitled to express my view, and so is Van Doorn in the video above, Geert's former supporter.
2- "He [Geert] sees his country being taken over by Islam and is trying to warn people of the dangers" If you mean taken over as in a coup or a forced regime change operation then I agree with you and him that that is a dangerous thing and I am no fan of either a coup that does not have the support of the majority or a forced regime change.
3- "the birth rate among Muslims overtakes the birthrate of native Dutch people so in the not so distant future Muslims will outnumber the native Dutch and Sharia law will prevail" and if they all love one another and cooperate with one another for the common good what's the problem? Are you a racist? Do you not recognise the right of a country to decide what sort of law they want to govern themselves with?
4- "Geert Wilders has to spend his life either in a police station or an army barracks he has had so many death threats." I think death threats are wrong, don't you? However, I also don't think that just because a person has received so many death threats that he has to be placed under police and military protection I should sympathise with his views.
5- "Theo Van Gogh (great nephew of Vincent) was assassinated on the street for making a video about the miserable lives of Muslim women." I condemn murder as an extra judicial killing. However, again, just because he was murdered doesn't mean that I should agree with his views about the "miserable lives of Muslim women."
6- "I can't understand any religion who would attempt to kill or kill someone who criticizes them or their way of worship." change "religion" which has no arms or legs to "people" and I'm fully with you.
7- "We should each worship, or not, in our own way but one religion should never demand that anyone not of their mindset is the enemy." Wow! Bravo, YF. You started writing lines I couldn't possibly agree with and have slowly moved to statements which have my full support with a bit of reservation and have now ended with a line which I'd happily sing out loud together with you in chorus.
it 
it for number 7 and 
You have a right to dress as you wish hartfire. But others who see you have just as much right to their opinions about how you dress and therefore about you. I don't believe in censorship of any kind. Give people the freedom to show us whom they are and what they are. We are all safer for it because we know whom to avoid/distrust. If you want to cover up your face for whatever reason of course you can do so. It will invite stares and I will be among the starers. I like to be invisible when I'm out and about. That is to say I never wear anything that would call attention to me. I'm shy and I'm old. There is nothing to see here folks so move along. People with a lot of tats and metal piercings...folks whose hair is dyed rainbow colors..folks whose attire is immodest or dirty. They all want attention and they get it. Look at me. Look at me. Look at me. They have every right to do that and I have every right to think what I think about them. That's just how it is. I saw a woman who had no nose a few months ago...she wore a face mask and only her eyes showed but she was flat as a pancake where her nose should be. I could only imagine what she looked like underneath that. If you are disfigured I understand why you would cover your face. No one wants to be star
ed in horror. Other than that? I see no reason to cover up. Different strokes. Thank you for your reply hartfire! :)
I totally agr
ee with the Yogafan. Thank you for your reply and Happy Tuesday! :)
Yf :):):)
Thank you for your reply Mg and Happy Tuesday to thee. I did not watch the video. Apologies but I'm pretty sure it would upsetting and at 78 I try to avoid getting upset. :)
YF
1- I think this has turned out to be a very good subject really. It is forcing out into the open latent prejudices and and even bigotry in those who have so far come through as quite open minded and enlightened.
BTW, contrary to your allegation, I don't support the wearing of the veil, though I don't see much wrong with such support. I support the right to the wearing of the veil. A subtle difference.
2- "You're also contradicting yourself when you support the wearing of the veil since you agree that facial identification is absolutely necessary in the world we live in." I'm being a realist and honest and in that you see a contradiction. I don't. Even if we were living in a highly security conscious police state and anyone could be stopped in public at any time and asked to produce an ID, the authority to demand an ID would be vested in the police, not in every member of the public. The police would not be amused if an ordinary member of public stopped people and demanded their ID
3- "the police are not always on hand to stop a person and ask for identification that's where your argument that "it is their failing" if someone with a face covering gets away with a crime has no merit" - So why didn't you make a case with better merit. Perhaps you'd like to tell us when a terrorist "slips through the security net" to use the official phrase whose failing is it?
4- "You don't have to lecture me on the brave suffragettes" and this simple statement of fact is a lecture, really? "their [the suffragettes'] fight for the vote came after women got recognition as legal entities."
5- "This comment is insulting to the integrity of western women" Are you trying to define your values here? You see my reference to the degradation of women as insulting to the integrity of western women. You don't see the degradation itself as insulting to the integrity of western women. I don/t know, maybe you see it as uplifting.
6- "Given the choice, without being brainwashed from birth, I don't believe any woman would want to cover her face and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,," don't you think we should let the women speak for themselves. Of the western educated career women who embrace Islam some may choose to cover their face, Are they brainwashed from birth? Some girls born in Muslim households reach an age where they start covering up against the advice of their parents. How's that brainwashing from birth?
7- Regarding the last two paragraphs, I think your reading of my mindset is totally off course because you missed the crucial phrase "a woman who WANTS to cover her face" with emphasis on "WANTS" It's her choice, which people like you want to deny her. You want the freedom to look at women's faces [is there such a freedom?] but you want to deny women the freedom of covering their faces.
This is reminding me of the arguments between feminists during the 1980's. At one end were firebrands like Shulamith Firestone who asserted that women should have short hair, never shave, never wear make-up, wear trousers and cover their bodies so as not to be seen by men to be objects for their sexual fantasies or attempted approaches. Between 21 and 24 yrs, I was one of these - and I found that dressing very unattractively made no difference to men's behaviour. So I abandoned public transport and took to riding a bicycle - which worked perfectly.
It seemed that simply being between the age of 15 and 30 -the ages between which every woman surveyed in London reported being hassled every day in public by men (usually foreigners, drunks or on drugs) - was enough to cause me such unwelcome trouble.
In the opposite camp of feminists were the "lipsticks," such as Naomi Wolfe, who asserted that a woman should have the right to dress and express herself as she sees fit, without having to fear that how she dresses might make her a target for the unwelcome behaviour of men. They asserted this on the grounds that "No is no" and there is no excuse for not respecting a woman's right to say no at any time, place circumstance or to any man, including her husband. They asserted that it is a man's duty to behave himself properly irrespective of his emotions and urges. I joined the Reclaim the Night marches in which women en masse demonstrated against violence and rape, and for women's right to move about freely and unmolested in public places.
As I see it, Clurt's argument fits into the latter category, (Wolfe's). He supports the woman's right to choose for herself how she expresses herself through the way she dresses. I agree with his view - including the right of a Muslim woman to cover her self to the degree that she chooses. And I agree with it on the grounds of feminism.
Quote: [2- I read the HQ quite frequently including the battle verses. I also read the Bible too and know that it has far more violent verses than anything you'll find in the HQ.. I Samuel 15:3 is one example. In it God commands, "Now go and smite Amalek, andutterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman,infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."]
What was the result?
Did they utterly destroy Amalek?
Was the Quran as specific or did it just say to kill polytheist and nonbelievers?
glad there's nothing wrong in the quoted paragraph
it HF Many good points there.
I disagree that concern with appearance is inherently feminine. It is human, irrespective of gender. And it is entirely the product of cultural conditioning.
During the Elizabethan era, it was the men who were peacocks, and the women were mousy peahens, as has been the case in many cultures for different reasons.
But in hunter-gatherer times, which represents at least 55,000 years of humanity since the time we developed language and became adept with tools, both sexes wore just a cache-sex, plus furs for warmth at need. Jewellery was used to indicate tribe, role or status, symbols for spiritual rites and less frequently solely for ornamentation.
We know this from archeology, carbon14 dating, and the examples of modern day hunter-gatherers around the globe.
YF,
1- just for the record, I did not directly accuse you of bigotry and latent prejudice neither of which should be true of anyone if we want a society that is just, peaceful and working together for the common good.
2- Your assertion "you just don't like what I'm saying" is not true because
a) I DID LIKE it when you said, "I think that people should be free to worship as they chose so long as they don't insist others embrace their way of worship" and I said so. Also
b) when I don't agree with you it's not because I just don't like what you're saying. I do explain why I can't agree.
3- Yes, I did say, "I don't support the wearing of the veil" but I added that "I don't see much wrong with such support" and also said that "I support the RIGHT to the wearing of the veil." So naturally I support the RIGHT of "a woman who WANTS to cover her face from the ordinary man on the street"
4- Women may use the arguments that "For thousands of years women have been concerned with their appearance [how they appear to the man on the street?]" and "it is part of our femininity" to dress the way they want to. That's fine "so long as they don't insist others embrace their way" to use your words quoted above. However, there is nothing wrong in each side questioning the other about the reasons and wisdom of their chosen ways. This might explain to each side what seems puzzling and unfathomable about the other side, including "why so many Muslim women [wearing the face veil] slap on the eye makeup" or why [and this is puzzling to me] some Muslim women wear figure hugging clothing if their argument for wearing a headscarf is modesty or the hiding of their femininity
5- The idea that women simply comply with what "whichever male is in charge of the household dictates" is an over simplification. I think in most, if not all, cultures women learn "womanly" things from their mothers and from other women in their peer groups.
6- Honour killing is a cultural issue that crosses religious boundaries. It stems from the idea that it is alright to force people into compliance, which many answering this question here [including you?] seem to be advocating.
1- It's good that you "recognize the right of a country to have the laws and government which they had for so many years" now could you go one more step and recognise the country's right to CHANGE the laws and government which it has had for so many years or would you deny it that right?
2- We've already discussed people's intent to take over [a country] and establish Sharia law" or whatever other law.
3- Slogans like "Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer" and "Sharia for Europe" are foolish, offensive, counterproductive and in some cases meaningless. Like any slogan they should be open to question and debate.
4- "When you go to live [in] another country then it is disrespectful to the host country to try to recreate the country you just left." ok, let's give people marks out of 10 for that rule. The people who go to Europe to live there learn European languages and even use them in their homes. They live among Europeans, work in European industries, sometimes marry Europeans, always send their children to European places of learning, use European currencies, and even the tiny minority who put on face veils wear European makeup underneath. So even if we mark them very harshly we have to give them between 8 and 9 out of ten. What score do you think would be deserved by the Europeans who went, and still go, to live in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the USA and the Americas for not recreating the European countries they just left?
5- "In Britain, France and other European countries there are now no go zones for non Muslims" Didn't some American say that about Britain and was told very clearly by the British how wrong he was? As for your question "Would you call that integration?" Well, even if your allegation had been true which do you think was better integration - the Europeans in Australia or the Africans in Europe?
6- "You may waffle on" is that what you call responding to the new points YOU keep raising?
7- "it's there in your own words, "Men on the street have no business with her [the veiled woman's] face"" I would have thought that it's glaringly obvious that that is what the veiled woman thinks. Are you saying that the veiled woman's face is legitimate business of the man on the street? If so, you should take it up with the veiled woman and convince her to show her face to the men on the street because it's their legitimate business to see it. But what if she refuses, would you advocate force?
I was in London and Paris as a student in the late 1970's and early '80's. I can assure you from my own experience that there was a great deal of predatory behaviour on the part of men a long time before the Muslims arrived. The French even had a term for it, "faire le dragueur," meaning to dredge, harass or tease. Young French men roved the underground and streets, alone or in groups having fun at the expense of women. It was considered "natural," and the women responded by ignoring them with icy demeanors.
I live in Australia now, have done since 1982, but have been hearing reports of the behaviours of Muslim men in Europe. Something will have to be done to put a stop to it. In ancient Athens, the first police force in the world was developed for the sole purpose of protecting women in public places. It maybe that we need a new specialist women's police in places where women are not safe - as well as a massive public education campaign aimed at the Muslim community.
I am not surprised that they misunderstand our culture. Take a look at what we consider "entertainment" on TV and in films, or the puerile stuff that happened on EP.
But we must also understand theirs. When Muslim men harass women, they are defiling themselves in the eyes of their own faith - their behaviour is hypocritical in the extreme. Good, devout Muslims do not behave in that way.
P.S. to your post below, since 8 is the limit of posts, only aristocratic Elizabethan woman wore those tight waists, and a few of the upper middle class - the vast majority did indeed dress in dull and plain clothes. Gaily and elaborately dressed men were not necessarily fops in that time, as the history of portraiture of nobles and warriors shows. Men displayed their legs in hose, emphasised their waist and shoulders with padding and full sleeves, and wore codpieces as normal dress, emphasising masculine form, irrespective of class.
No Rosie, that's not what I said. I said I deplore the attacks. Mulsim women are frequently being verbally and sometimes physically abused and violently attacked for wearing veils, and also hijabs which show the face.
I believe that if we are to live in a liberal society, it must include the right to freedom of faith, and freedom of expression of faith. Prejudice against women on the grounds of how they dress is not consistent with liberty for all.
It has been very well established in this thread that for moderate Muslims (who are the vast majority of those living in Western countries), it is NOT compulsory for the women to cover their faces, nor even their hair and neck - and it is forbidden for anyone to try to compel them.
It has been proven here with reference to the relevant verses in the Koran and with video documentaries of interviews with devout Mulsim women taking various different positions and saying why.
Being here on aM is a part of my life, Surfdog, and I like it that way.
The rest of my life is full and abundant, managing orchards, vegie patch, land and horses, and spending time with friends and in volunteer work in the community.
A big part my life is developing myself as a novelist.
Every bit of writing I do, in any context, makes a contribution to my development of skills with words. Exchanges with others in writing have great value to me.
If you consider my words excessive, you can choose to ignore them. I certainly don't mind.
One day I hope you will choose to share a bit more of yourself with us, and let us know more about who you are.
The word ornaments is not defined.
It is possible to use a cloak or covering in a wide variety of ways which does not necessarily include covering the hands, face or eyes.
The word veil has two meanings: 1 to cover the face, 2 to cover, without specifying what is covered.
The Koran is full of many words in Arabic wich are ambiguous or have multiple meanings. Muslim scholars agree that all the possible meanings were intentional. So where there is ambiguity, the Koran says that the Muslim has freedom in his relationship with Allah to interpret the Koran according to his or her understanding. Thus differences arise between moderates and conservatives. Conservative theocracies of Islam do not allow this kind of freedom. Moderates, especially Sufis, see Islam as evolving socially and regard this evolution as important.
No, I was not equating them, Rosie. I was attempting to make the point, albeit badly, that freedom and liberty are as important for Muslim women as for non-Muslims.
I am beginning to wonder whether you have read all the material offered to you here. It seems to me that you believe that what conservative Muslims do in theocratic states overseas somehow represents the truth of Islam, and that what happens with the majority of Muslims elsewhere in the world is somehow not truly Muslim.
There is so much difference between the two positions that one could almost describe them as different denominations, like the difference between Catholics and Protestants.
Yes, Muslim women can go anywhere outside the home veil-less.
That is what I've been telling you all along.
I've posted at least four posts here, presenting as much information to you as I can. Have you read it?
Please, Rosie. I like you. I respect your right to hold whatever opinion you do, and to express it - but it seems to me that at least part of your objection to coverings is based on a mistaken view of Muslim religious requirements. I feel sad about that
and I respect it absolutely.
It seems to me that at least part of your objection to coverings is based on a mistaken view of Muslim religious requirements.
I feel sad about that
because Muslim women directly, literally, and daily suffer from the misconceptions of non-Muslims about them. Their suffering is not because Islam or some man forces to wear a veil, (it/they don't and can't) but from non-Musims verbally and physically every day attacking them for choosing to wear one.
Rosie, if it were only stares or private thoughts, I would not have so hotly debated this topic.
It is true that others will tend to react to what they don't understand, or what is unfamiliar to them.
There is a huge amount of misunderstanding of Islam and Muslims in Western society, and many of us are only just starting to meet it in our lives.
I first began to meet Middle Eastern culture when I was a student in London over 30 years ago.
At that time, many Muslims were coming to London for medical operations. Some came simply because they preferred Western culture. Others came as tourists.
What I encountered among the less educated Muslims was not comfortable for me, and I began to develop hatred as a result of my direct experiences.
It happens that I hate hatred, prejudice and bigotry of any kind. So I had the difficult job of trying to find a way to deal with what I saw as hypocrisy in myself. For this reason, I read two different translations of the Koran and began to read the writings of Sufi teachers, mainly Idries Shah, but also the classical Sufi poets.
I also met a very Westernised Lebanese Druze sheik and his German wife. We used to play chess together in a coffee house. Over quite a long period, he explained a lot of facets of Islamic culture to me. In addition, I've read Salman Rushdie, Naguib Mafouz and numerous other Muslim authors with different approaches to their faith and culture.
Later I was training Arabian horses and riding endurance here in Australia. At certain times of the year, Arabs from Arabia, UAE and Oman came to compete and buy our best horses. it was necessary to know and understand them. My horses' dentist at that time was a devout and fairly conservative Sunni. He was unfailingly polite and very willing to talk about his faith and culture - even invited my husband and I to dinner with his family and to a cultural outing.
From all these experiences I have learned to overcome my fear, and to understand and appreciate what the cultures and variants of faith in Islam are about. I don't pretend to be an expert. Nor do I like or condone some aspects of Conservative Islam as it is expressed in places like Iran. I do not accept what Isis stands for and believe it is an apostasy against the faith itself on many levels.
But I had hoped that I could share some of my understanding in order to reduce some of the intolerance of moderate Muslims that is so common in our countries, even though 99.995% of them live peacefully among us and are hard working and decent citizens.
I won't respond any further to this question or it's various strings.
I am very sorry that I have been unable to reach you with my understanding. By this I don't mean sorry that I didn't convert you to my point of view. I feel uncertain as to whether you have read most of my posts. At least two of your responses indicate that you completely misunderstood what I said. I mean I am sorry that the information and evidence I have offered seems to have been either not read, not remembered or misunderstood despite my best attempts at clarity.
Because of the amount of hatred and intolerance that abounds in this world, I feel very sad that I have failed.
more good points HF 
HF It's like banging your head on a wall
If only they'd talk to some articulate Muslim women and find out for themselves
Good of you to try and explain 
Yep, that's exactly what it feels like.
I confess that when the original question is openly worded - not indicating a particular type of answer required - then I tend to think that the questioner's mind is open on that particular issue - that they really wish to be informed. Sometimes it turns out to be not the case.
I appreciate your efforts to present accurate information and cross sections of moderate views. I think they are excellent examples. I've also been watching quite a few of the Sufi teachers you recommended.
Horses only drink when thirsty.
HF It is very frustrating. I know. I experience it all the time here. You spend a lot of time explaining very clearly and in different ways and yet it's as if you haven't said anything. The same prejudices and stereotypes are repeated.
"I feel very sad that I have failed." I understand the sad feeling, but no, you have NOT failed. You have expressed your point of view. You have engaged in this very difficult jihad. I am very impressed. Keep it up.
it very much and 
