Misunderstanding About Muslims' Veils
Goodman
When I wrote about "France Banning Muslims' Veil", many people
misunderstand about which kind of veil that I meant. They think that a
veil is a mask that covers the whole face.
Perhaps I did not translate the word "Jilbab" (veil) very well. Jilbab
(veil) only cover hair, ears, and neck, but other parts of face such as
forehead, nose, eyes, mouth, cheek, and chin, are still can be seen. So,
I believe the teachers will not have problem with that. In fact, in many
Islamic nations, students are allowed to wear veil, and the school
activities running well.
The purpose of this veil is to reduce sexual attraction, so they are
free from playboys, especially the rapists (like Mark Dutroux) who often
attracted by looking beautiful faces and sexy bodies, and an obligation
from God (at least from the Muslim girls' - who wear veil - point of
view). Veil maybe is not important for you, but for these girls, it's an
obligation from God. Not wearing it, will bring punishment from God in
the day after.
I am not talking about forcing Muslims' girl to wear their veils, but
about the freedom - that the Muslim girls should have - to wear or not to
wear the veil. It's funny that in some countries such as Pakistan,
Malaysia, Indonesia, etc., the Muslims' girls have more freedom - to wear
or not to wear the veil - than ones in France, a nation who claims itself
as the land of freedom! This freedom is also enjoyed by other religions,
such as Christian minority who free to use their cross neck laces. Isn't
that paradox?
Goodman
JPC
In article <33B81D...@hotmail.com>, sula...@hotmail.com says...
> I am not talking about forcing Muslims' girl to wear their veils, but
>about the freedom - that the Muslim girls should have - to wear or not to
>wear the veil. It's funny that in some countries such as Pakistan,
>Malaysia, Indonesia, etc., the Muslims' girls have more freedom - to wear
>or not to wear the veil - than ones in France, a nation who claims itself
>as the land of freedom!
I was talking about SECONDARY PUBLIC AND SECULAR SCHOOLS. It's not the same in
Universities where the students are generally of age and can wear the veil.
In my university the part of students whose parents are muslims is very
important (french citizens or immigrants) around 30%, the majority being
composed with girls. They can wear veils as well they want but only 10% of them
are wearing veils. THEY DONT WANT !
In opposite to some correspondents in this group i dont confuse muslims with
the terrorist minorities. I respect their religion even if i am myself a total
atheist. But in exchange i want anybody respect my atheism.
Nada
Goodman wrote:
=============
/ I am not talking about forcing Muslims' girl to wear their veils, but
/about the freedom - that the Muslim girls should have - to wear or not
to
/wear the veil. It's funny that in some countries such as Pakistan,
/Malaysia, Indonesia, etc., the Muslims' girls have more freedom - to
wear
/or not to wear the veil - than ones in France, a nation who claims
itself
/as the land of freedom! This freedom is also enjoyed by other
religions,
/such as Christian minority who free to use their cross neck laces.
Isn't
/that paradox?
You'll be suprised if I tell you that secular monks in
a country with Muslims majority such as Egypt creating troubles
for people who wants veil. The Egyptian minster of eduaction
tried to bann veil from girls school using sneaky way saying
"Unity of girls dress in girls school", and indeed the suggested
dress didn't include veil, moreover the unity of the dress excludes
boys schools ..!!?
Also, any female broadcaster (Egyptian TV) wearing veil will be
fired .. In Turkey veil is banned from goverment offices and lately
the army forced Islamic schools where girls can enjoy wearing veil
to be closed ..
-Nada-
Jacques GARRIGUE
In article <33B81D...@hotmail.com> Goodman <sula...@hotmail.com> writes:
[ see above reference for the whole message ]
> I am not talking about forcing Muslims' girl to wear their veils, but
> about the freedom - that the Muslim girls should have - to wear or not to
> wear the veil. It's funny that in some countries such as Pakistan,
> Malaysia, Indonesia, etc., the Muslims' girls have more freedom - to wear
> or not to wear the veil - than ones in France, a nation who claims itself
> as the land of freedom! This freedom is also enjoyed by other religions,
> such as Christian minority who free to use their cross neck laces. Isn't
> that paradox?
Dear "Goodman", I think that there are a few points you should
realize:
* This "veil" affair happened several years ago. At this time, there
was a big debate in France on whether to allow it or not. If you want
to talk about it, you should probably get more information about what
were the contents of this debate.
* As a conclusion, if I remember correctly, the decision was delegated
to the head of each school. So there is no uniform rule about
that. But sure, prohibiting it is not prohibited. By the way, some
schools do not allow some hairstyles, etc...
* During this debate, the question of allowing or not wearing a cross
arised also. According to the law, I believe a head of school can also
decide to prohibit it.
* You where talking about the veil not being a problem for attending
school, but it appeared to be really a problem in sport classes.
* This question of freedom is not so simple. In France, a part of the
traditional role of school is to free children from prejudices,
particularly religious. Allowing a religious pressure in school may
well be against freedom. When you are a muslim girl (because your
parents are), and other muslim girls in your class wear the veil,
difficult not to wear it.
I won't get myself further into this debate since I have no definite
opinion. Just that this is a complex problem and you should avoid
being too passionate on it.
By the way, schools in France are quite respectful of religions at
one time: lunch. All schools would provide an alternative to porc when
it is on the menu.
Jacques
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacques Garrigue Kyoto University garr...@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp
<A HREF=http://wwwfun.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~garrigue/>JG</A>
Uday Reddy
Jacques GARRIGUE wrote:
>
> * As a conclusion, if I remember correctly, the decision was delegated
> to the head of each school. So there is no uniform rule about
> that. But sure, prohibiting it is not prohibited. By the way, some
> schools do not allow some hairstyles, etc...
Perhaps there is no national law against wearing veil. But, we would
expect that the land that pioneered "liberte" would have a clause or two
about religious freedom in its constitution. Does it? If so, how can a
school or any other authority prohibit an attire that is integral to the
practice of someone's religion?
> * During this debate, the question of allowing or not wearing a cross
> arised also. According to the law, I believe a head of school can also
> decide to prohibit it.
Equally bad.
> * You where talking about the veil not being a problem for attending
> school, but it appeared to be really a problem in sport classes.
If so, perhaps the girls would voluntarily remove their veils in sports
classes. Why can't it be left to them?
> * This question of freedom is not so simple. In France, a part of the
> traditional role of school is to free children from prejudices,
> particularly religious. Allowing a religious pressure in school may
> well be against freedom. When you are a muslim girl (because your
> parents are), and other muslim girls in your class wear the veil,
> difficult not to wear it.
I am afraid prohibiting veil in schools has exactly the opposite effect
of promoting prejudices. The schools should be able to teach students
to follow their own religious beliefs without pressure from their peers.
That is the right way to combat religious pressure, not by fiat.
> I won't get myself further into this debate since I have no definite
> opinion. Just that this is a complex problem and you should avoid
> being too passionate on it.
I am sorry, but from my point of view, religious freedom is a
self-evident maxim. There is nothing complex about it.
Uday Reddy
Laurent ANIORT
Uday Reddy wrote:
> I am sorry, but from my point of view, religious freedom is a
> self-evident maxim. There is nothing complex about it.
>
Okay, I agree with you . I believe in freedom of religion.
Just this week in France, a "guru" was arrested because he promoted a
religion where incestious relationship was the key and sexual abuse
of children was encouraged.
Now, where does this freedom of religion have to stop ? Do you want
this man to go on promoting rape ? Think, man ! and answer.
Uday Reddy
Laurent ANIORT wrote:
>
> Okay, I agree with you . I believe in freedom of religion.
>
> Just this week in France, a "guru" was arrested because he promoted a
> religion where incestious relationship was the key and sexual abuse
> of children was encouraged.
I don't see any complexity here. I am sure there are laws against
incest and child abuse (independent of any religious issues) which can
take care of such practices. If somebody says "hey, that is my
religion," you say "tough luck!" Religion is supposed to be a private
matter. If it causes harm to the society, it is not a "religious
matter" any more.
This issue is in no way comparable to the wearing of veil because
wearing veil is a private matter just as religious matters should be.
It doesn't cause harm to anybody.
Uday Reddy
Mr.MojoMan
Shabati...Äbuishneineh <sne...@idReshet.Neged.Tzaion> wrote in article
<33C395...@idReshet.Neged.Tzaion>...
[......cut for brevity.....]
Mr. shabati
There may be some validity to your claims, and I do agree with it to
a certain extent. But the argument here is about the right of a small
group of children having been taken away, and in turn that
may have an effect on the rights of a grater portion of individuals in the
society. And I do not mean Moslems only.
I would, however, be glad to start a new thread with you on that other
issue.
Regards;
--
--MrMojoMan--
--
Mr.MojoMan
Uday Reddy <re...@cs.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<33C3FB...@cs.uiuc.edu>...
>
> I don't see any complexity here. I am sure there are laws against
> incest and child abuse (independent of any religious issues) which can
> take care of such practices. If somebody says "hey, that is my
> religion," you say "tough luck!" Religion is supposed to be a private
> matter. If it causes harm to the society, it is not a "religious
> matter" any more.
>
> This issue is in no way comparable to the wearing of veil because
> wearing veil is a private matter just as religious matters should be.
> It doesn't cause harm to anybody.
>
>
> Uday Reddy
>
I do share your view on this. It IS a bad example.
--
--MrMojoMan--
--
Alan Pollock
Mr.MojoMan (dre...@night.com) wrote:
: Uday Reddy <re...@cs.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
--
Wearing a veil hides the face. A face is necessary to the teacher in a
classroom for feedback. Ergo: wearing a veil is disallowed. Nex
__________________________________________________________________________
"Ah, if in this world there were no such thing as cherry blossoms, perhaps
then in springtime our hearts would be at peace." Ariwara no Narihira
__________________________________________________________________________
Uday Reddy
Alan Pollock wrote:
>
> Wearing a veil hides the face. A face is necessary to the teacher in a
> classroom for feedback. Ergo: wearing a veil is disallowed. Nex
Is the "veil" worn as headwear prohibited by the schools in question?
It has been pointed out that this "veil" does not cover the face.
Uday Reddy
Alan Pollock
Uday Reddy
Alan Pollock wrote:
Agreed. For reasons unknown to me, and irrelevant to this debate, the
French Muslims have been translating "hijab" into "veil." Call it what
you will. The schools have prohibited them, haven't they?
Uday Reddy
Alan Pollock
Uday Reddy (re...@cs.uiuc.edu) wrote:
--
But defining the article in question is essential to the discussion. If it
doesn't cover the face in any way, ever, then scarves are being banned, and
religion has nought to do with it. If, on the other hand, the use of veils
covering at least a portion of the face (or the right to do so) are being
banned, we're speaking of something entirely different. Nex
Uday Reddy
Alan Pollock wrote:
>
> But defining the article in question is essential to the discussion. If it
> doesn't cover the face in any way, ever, then scarves are being banned, and
> religion has nought to do with it. If, on the other hand, the use of veils
> covering at least a portion of the face (or the right to do so) are being
> banned, we're speaking of something entirely different. Nex
I don't know what you mean. Mr. Goodman, who started this thread, was
careful enough to define what he is talking about. Here it is again for
your benefit:
Subject: Misunderstanding About Muslims' Veils
From: Goodman <sula...@hotmail.com>
Date: 1997/06/30
Message-Id: <33B81D...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.arabic,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.german,soc.culture.french,soc.culture.egyptian,soc.culture.bangladesh
[More Headers]
When I wrote about "France Banning Muslims' Veil", many people
misunderstand about which kind of veil that I meant. They think that a
veil is a mask that covers the whole face.
Perhaps I did not translate the word "Jilbab" (veil) very well.
Jilbab
(veil) only cover hair, ears, and neck, but other parts of face such as
forehead, nose, eyes, mouth, cheek, and chin, are still can be seen. So,
I believe the teachers will not have problem with that. In fact, in many
Islamic nations, students are allowed to wear veil, and the school
activities running well.
The purpose of this veil is to reduce sexual attraction, so they are
free from playboys, especially the rapists (like Mark Dutroux) who often
attracted by looking beautiful faces and sexy bodies, and an obligation
from God (at least from the Muslim girls' - who wear veil - point of
view). Veil maybe is not important for you, but for these girls, it's an
obligation from God. Not wearing it, will bring punishment from God in
the day after.
Uday Reddy
Jean-Marc Lofficier writes:
>
> While I think most of the points you made were reasonable, what you don't
> seem to realize is that freedom of religion means in fact freedom FROM
> religion.
Wrong. Freedom of religion means what it says. Free to practice
whatever religion you want without persecution, prejudice or
discrimination.
> If religion plays an important part in your life, then by all means, you
> should send your children to a religious school, i.e.: a private school.
I don't see the basis of the argument. State schools are there to
cater to the needs of the citizens. People of all religions should be
able to use them and practice their religion at the same time. If
practising one's religion is a disqualification for going to State
school, then the majority of the population will get excluded.
If the said people asked for *religious education* in a State school,
then your argument is relevant. But, they didn't.
> However, public school, or "laic" schools as we call them, should be just
> that: free from religion, any religion, all religions.
They should be "free from religion" in the sense that they should not
impose any religion, should not teach any religion, and should not
discriminate for or against any religion. "Free from religion" doesn't
mean that people that practise a religion shouldn't go to them.
> As a non-religious agnostic person myself, I do *not* want my children
> exposed to some other kids (or teachers') religious beliefs, or (the
> reverse) prejudices.
Tough luck! Then send them to a private school. You have no right to
ask other kids to stop practising their religion. They didn't ask
your kids to practise their religion, did they?
> YOUR freedom of religion is like smoking in a public space. It interferes
> with MY freedom to be WITHOUT religion.
No, it doesn't. Nobody forced you to practise any religion.
You know what? Your arguments are as ridiculous and meaningless as
the fundamentalist arguments we are used to hearing on these
newsgroups. You call yourself "agnostic," but you are really very
"religious."
Uday Reddy
> I respect your rights and would fight against anyone who'd try to somehow
> prevent the exercice of religious rights -- within the confines of private
> institutions, be they churches, schools, libraries, clubs, etc. I'm even
> in favor of some form of State support of so-called "established"
> religions.
>
> But I do not want religion (yours or anyone else's) in my face.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jean-Marc Lofficier
> rjm...@idt.net
>
>
Alan Pollock
Distribution:
Uday Reddy (re...@cs.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Alan Pollock wrote:
: >
: > But defining the article in question is essential to the discussion. If it
: > doesn't cover the face in any way, ever, then scarves are being banned, and
: > religion has nought to do with it. If, on the other hand, the use of veils
: > covering at least a portion of the face (or the right to do so) are being
: > banned, we're speaking of something entirely different. Nex
:
: I don't know what you mean. Mr. Goodman, who started this thread, was
: careful enough to define what he is talking about. Here it is again for
: your benefit:
:
: Subject: Misunderstanding About Muslims' Veils
: From: Goodman <sula...@hotmail.com>
: Date: 1997/06/30
: Message-Id: <33B81D...@hotmail.com>
: Newsgroups:
: [More Headers]
:
: When I wrote about "France Banning Muslims' Veil", many people
: misunderstand about which kind of veil that I meant. They think that a
: veil is a mask that covers the whole face.
: Perhaps I did not translate the word "Jilbab" (veil) very well.
: Jilbab
: (veil) only cover hair, ears, and neck, but other parts of face such as
: forehead, nose, eyes, mouth, cheek, and chin, are still can be seen. So,
: I believe the teachers will not have problem with that. In fact, in many
: Islamic nations, students are allowed to wear veil, and the school
: activities running well.
Etc snipped
__
I never saw the original post - the vaguaries of News and Servers.
All right. So it means, essentially, a hat with a scarf attached.. This
*could* it more of a transgression of freedom, I agree.
I wonder how the Yamulka is treated? Is it allowed or not? I'd say that if
it is not, then all religions are in parity under that ruling. It would be a
banning of all hats essentially.
If it is not banned, then yes, I'd have to agree that the rule specifically
targets the Ismalic religion, and not others which also have similar
coverings, and that does not seem fair at all.
Of course I think one needs to be absolutely sure that part and parcel of
veil-wearing is not the freedom *to* cover parts of the face with it, if one
chooses to. Nex
Uday Reddy
Alan Pollock wrote:
>
> I never saw the original post - the vaguaries of News and Servers.
>
> All right. So it means, essentially, a hat with a scarf attached.. This
> *could* it more of a transgression of freedom, I agree.
Thank you.
> I wonder how the Yamulka is treated? Is it allowed or not? I'd say that if
> it is not, then all religions are in parity under that ruling. It would be a
> banning of all hats essentially.
>
> If it is not banned, then yes, I'd have to agree that the rule specifically
> targets the Ismalic religion, and not others which also have similar
> coverings, and that does not seem fair at all.
That is a good point. I don't know the answer. Perhaps some French
readers can tell us whether the Jewish headwear is treated differently.
But, my point is basically that there is transgression of religious
freedom. Whether there is discrimination is not the issue. Western
countries are slowly beginning to learn the religious diversity that is
out there and adjusting to various people's religious needs. For
instance, five years ago, Canadian Army started allowing turbaned Sikhs
and the Canadian Parliament now allows Kripan (sword)-wearing Sikhs to
enter the building. So, even when there are rational reasons for
certain restrictions, there are good arguments for relaxing them when
they impinge on people's religious practices. Mainly because these
restrictions were placed before religous diversity was understood and
the said reasons would not appear particularly "rational" for people
whose religious practices are being prohibited.
Cheers,
Uday Reddy
Jacques GARRIGUE
> Jean-Marc Lofficier writes:
> >
> > While I think most of the points you made were reasonable, what you don't
> > seem to realize is that freedom of religion means in fact freedom FROM
> > religion.
>
> Wrong. Freedom of religion means what it says. Free to practice
> whatever religion you want without persecution, prejudice or
> discrimination.
[ follows a discussion about whether the ones who want to show their
religion should go to private schools, or the one who don't want any
religion around. ]
I'm sorry, I told that I would not participate anymore in this
discussion, and I do...
Again, I think that before discussing about what happened in France a
few years ago, the least should be to know a little of French culture
and history.
One major point is that school, in France, was created against
religion. In particular, since 1905 (20 years after the creation of
public schools), it is prohibited to have religion classes inside
public schools. And this was a democratic decision.
How such a thing could happen in a country which was, by that time,
almost 100% christian, and 95% catholic.
Just that people felt that they had to be freed from religion. By the
way, religion classes were not compulsory before, but just the
presence of religion at school was felt as a pressure. The Church was
also viewed as opposed to democracy. As a result, the freedom not to
have a religion was more important than the freedom to have one.
So the situation in France is now clear: if you want to make public
your religion, you have to go to private schools. For catholics at
least there are plenty, and they are not expensive. And public schools
are religion-free. You can of course go there even if you have a
religion, but you should not demonstrate it.
Considering that now less than half of the French population has a
religion anyway (practice it), it could be argued that religion (and
particularly the catholic one) is not a threat anymore, and more
freedom might be given for religion at school. Agreed. Just see the
events in the light of history.
Sohel Q. Khan
Great Uday!
Excellent post.
>
##
#
##### #
#
##### #
#
##
Paul Wellen
The veil issue is not simply one of religious freedom.
It is mostly about the political oppression of women.
I challenge anyone to make the case, based on the teachings
of the Koran, that the wearing of the veil by women
is anything by peripheral to Islam's central teachings.
Islam's central teaching is that there is one God worthy of
our worship who is merciful and compassionate.
Many women have been indoctrinated to believe that wearing
a veil or other head covering is essential to prove that
they are religious. Like genital mutilation, wearing a veil
is simply a sign of the submission of women to the power of
men. It has nothing to do with ESSENTIAL religious teachings.
The state, whether we are talking about the French state or
the Turkish state, must, in the interest of liberty and
equality for its citizens, take measures to prevent oppression
especially in the public arena.
If one holds that women should be allowed to wear certain
attire in accordance with their religious convictions, fine.
Let them wear such attire at home or in the house of public
worship. Not in the school or the workplace.
Goodman
In article <33d10...@news.comet.net>, Paul says...
Why? If the women choose to wear veil, why should we forbid them? Especially if
wearing veil is a mandatory religious obligation (at least for them). This
obligation applies in any public environment (when outsider men can see them).
Please give the women freedom, OK?
barbara
>
>Why? If the women choose to wear veil, why should we forbid them? Especially if
>wearing veil is a mandatory religious obligation (at least for them). This
>obligation applies in any public environment (when outsider men can see them).
>
>Please give the women freedom, OK?
will you fight for that same freedom for women who don't want to veil? i just
heard today that saudi arabia outlawed the production and import of veils that
don't cover the eyes. are you willing to stand up for the freedom of those
women too? (i don't mean to badger you, i'm honestly curious.)
--barbara
pl...@main.ionia-mi.net
Every hardship is followed by ease. Every hardship is followed by ease.
JPC
In article <5r6e40$2...@drn.zippo.com>, sula...@hotmail.com says...
>
>Why? If the women choose to wear veil, why should we forbid them? Especially
if
>wearing veil is a mandatory religious obligation (at least for them). This
>obligation applies in any public environment (when outsider men can see them).
>
>Please give the women freedom, OK?
The problem is : They dont choose!
And concerning mandatory religious obligation: ON S'EN FOUT! J'emmerde Allah,
Dieu, Jeovah et les autres!
Vivent les beurettes mignonnes!(Mais ça tu ne peux pas comprendre)
Ghoniem
Hello,
Tu t'es vu quand t'as bu?
JPC wrote:
>
> In article <5r6e40$2...@drn.zippo.com>, sula...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >Why? If the women choose to wear veil, why should we forbid them? Especially
> if
> >wearing veil is a mandatory religious obligation (at least for them). This
> >obligation applies in any public environment (when outsider men can see them).
> >
> >Please give the women freedom, OK?
>
> The problem is : They dont choose!
Really? They don't? As far as I am concerned, I know many women who
would never agree to take off their veil and would consider it as a part
of their personal freedom of choice.
> And concerning mandatory religious obligation: ON S'EN FOUT! J'emmerde Allah,
> Dieu, Jeovah et les autres!
At least, cela a le merite d'etre clair. Mais, j'aurai prefere que vous
exprimiez a la premiere personne car je ne suis pas sur de ce que
represente le "on" exactement. Par ailleurs, je ne peux que saluer votre
civilite et votre sens de la tolerance. Apres tout, c'est toujours
interessant d'etre tolerant avec ceux qui pense comme soi, n'est ce
point?
> Vivent les beurettes mignonnes!(Mais ça tu ne peux pas comprendre)
Oh si, je comprends tres bien mais je vois les autres sous un angle
plus large que le votre, au moins il me semble.... Mais le fait que l'on
concoive la femme sans trop penser a ce qu'il y sous sa jupe, ca tu ne
peux pas le comprendre.
Allez, bonne nuit!
--
"Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of
darkness He will lead them forth into light." (Quran 2:257)
"Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth." (Quran 24:35)
Mohammed Ghoniem. email: gho...@emn.fr
John T. Hayden
> In article <33d10...@news.comet.net>, Paul says...
> >
> >
> >
> >The veil issue is not simply one of religious freedom.
> >It is mostly about the political oppression of women.
> >
> >I challenge anyone to make the case, based on the teachings
> >of the Koran, that the wearing of the veil by women
> >is anything by peripheral to Islam's central teachings.
> >
> >Islam's central teaching is that there is one God worthy of
> >our worship who is merciful and compassionate.
> >
> >Many women have been indoctrinated to believe that wearing
> >a veil or other head covering is essential to prove that
> >they are religious. Like genital mutilation, wearing a veil
> >is simply a sign of the submission of women to the power of
> >men. It has nothing to do with ESSENTIAL religious teachings.
> >
> >The state, whether we are talking about the French state or
> >the Turkish state, must, in the interest of liberty and
> >equality for its citizens, take measures to prevent oppression
> >especially in the public arena.
> >
> >If one holds that women should be allowed to wear certain
> >attire in accordance with their religious convictions, fine.
> >Let them wear such attire at home or in the house of public
> >worship. Not in the school or the workplace.
So lets see if I have this straight. A jew is then no longer allowed to
wear a yamaka (soory if the spelling is incorrect). I'm no longer allowed
to wear a crucifix. An Indian woman is no longer allowed to have the red
dot (sorry my ignorance again, I don't know the actual name for it, you
can email me if you do) on there forehead. Turbins are of course out.
I should also not be allowed to say grace before I eat in public. NOw to
tell the truth I'm not really that religious but I think the idea should
be that we don't reequire people to do these things but that instead we
allow them to if they want.
Are several countries oppresive to women? Hell yes! Does that mean we
should oppress these people in return? Hell no!
Sorry, my own little ranting and raving. Don't mean to go off on all of
you.
John T. Hayden
"I have heard the mermaids singing each to each,
I do not think they will sing for me."
'The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock'
T.S. Eliot
seyf ferjani
If you want to wear something that is part of your religion, their is no
problem within islam, I bet many rabbi's in the time of the prophet wore
their religous items, and their are no laws in sharia saying otherwise,
so what is the point?
In article <Pine.HPP.3.93.970731113713.12384E-
100...@merle.acns.nwu.edu>, "John T. Hayden" <jth...@merle.acns.nwu.edu>
writes
--
seyf ferjani
barbara wieland
In article <Forum.875953178.14184.Shahbaz@rukhsana>, Shahbaz Akbar <Sha...@softprog.net> wrote:
>GO FUCK YOUR SELF CUNT
>
>First learn about ISLAM the greatest religion ever then come
>back and talk
>
>Maybe you haveny had sex for a long time
>well go and have a good fuck or if you can't
>find woman have a wank then when your frustration has finished
>you will be able to think properly
excuse me? when did i address you with such rudeness? i'll accept your
apology now, thank you.
despite your example, i retain deep respect for muslims and islam.
--barbara
pl...@main.ionia-mi.net
Shahbaz Akbar
GO FUCK YOUR SELF CUNT
First learn about ISLAM the greatest religion ever then come
back and talk
Maybe you haveny had sex for a long time
well go and have a good fuck or if you can't
find woman have a wank then when your frustration has finished
you will be able to think properly
------------------------
From: barbara <pl...@main.ionia-mi.net>
Subject: Re: Misunderstanding About Muslims' Veils
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 05:37:53 GMT
Location: news://news-reader.bt.net/soc.culture.pakistan/5r6p44$d...@news.dx.net
To: "soc.culture.arabic" <@news:soc.cultu...@news-reader.bt.net>, "soc.culture.iranian" <@news:soc.cultu...@news-reader.bt.net>, "soc.culture.egyptian" <@news:soc.cultur...@news-reader.bt.net>, "soc.culture.pakistan" <@news:soc.cultur...@news-reader.bt.net>
In article <5r6e40$2...@drn.zippo.com>, Goodman <sula...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Why? If the women choose to wear veil, why should we forbid them? Especially if
>wearing veil is a mandatory religious obligation (at least for them). This
>obligation applies in any public environment (when outsider men can see them).
>
>Please give the women freedom, OK?
will you fight for that same freedom for women who don't want to veil? i just
heard today that saudi arabia outlawed the production and import of veils that
don't cover the eyes. are you willing to stand up for the freedom of those
women too? (i don't mean to badger you, i'm honestly curious.)
--barbara
pl...@main.ionia-mi.net
Every hardship is followed by ease. Every hardship is followed by ease.
---------------End of Original Message-----------------
*******************************************************
* *
* SoftProg (R) *
* SoftProg Computer Services Ltd *
* *
*******************************************************
* Name : Shahbaz Akbar *
* URL : http://www.softprog.net *
* E-mail: sha...@softprog.net *
* Date : 10/04/97 *
* Time : 09:18:00 *
*******************************************************
Dear Sir / Madam,
Your Sincerely
Shahbaz Akbar
SOFTPROG COMPUTER SERVICES LTD.
PGP key ID: SOFTPROG
PGP Fprint: 50 CE 07 3F 08 A7 64 87 9E A3 48 9A BF 42 CB 75