A test of tolerance

Thanks Elfin for the info and thanks to everyone for some fascinating reading.

I thought I'd add an interesting point for discussion, if anyone would like to try it. I was reading a while back about 'Fluffy Bunnies' which is a Wiccan term for people who take their religion to extremes in a very shallow way. They flaunt their Wiccanness without actually knowing anything about the religion and are probably just doing it to be different, or to annoy their parents.

The passage which floated through memory after reading this was one about the popular Fluffy belief that they are being 'persecuted' and in sometimes going out of their way to attract attention so that they can claim this. The author of the piece gave an example of someone wearing huge silver pentacles and overbearing Wiccan jewelry to go take an interview at a job that really didn't need someone overtly flaunting any religion.

Can't help feeling that this is slightly analagous to the (extremely few) niqab wearers who do it to overassert their Muslimness.

The Earl

I can't say I have seen any niqabs here in Bonny Scotland. Some hijabs, but very few.
There is a thriving muslim community here, but they do socialise, they do not (on the whole) isolate themselves. (There are no absolutes , is that not so, ami?)

I know this thread is going off the boil, but this article from today's Australian seemed to show why the subject of wearing - or not wearing - the veil is at the heart of Muslim women's rights.

Article The Australian

Whilst Muslim men abdicate responsibility for sex attacks and blame women and their clothes as being totally reponsible for all rape, adultery and sexual assault there is a need to keep questioning what are the effects on Western Muslim women of being forced to wear all-concealing garments.

thanks for the ref.

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.

"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."

-----

well, elfin, as the bearer of igraa surely you see the need for modesty.

and don't tell me there is no Satan.

Strewth, Cobbers

That Sheik had better protect his goolies with some heavy duty armour.

Once a few Aussie Sheilas get their hands on him they'll teach him that modesty is not in the eye of the watcher but in the strength of a woman's foot applied to the testicles - if they leave him with any.

They might add fried Sheik's testicles to the barbecue.

Og

Pure said:

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.

"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."

-----

well, elfin, as the bearer of igraa surely you see the need for modesty.

and don't tell me there is no Satan.

Click to expand...

Pure, are you sure you don't mean iqraa , the reciting of the news?

Even as a piece of what the Sheikh chamingly calls 'meat', the few times I been in the Middle East. I have left the spaghetti strap tops and short skirts at home and been willing to wear a Hermes scarf on my head. When in Rome and all that. The point is that the courtesy isn't reciprocated.

Until Muslim girls in America and the West are able to participate as equals in all activities we must keep insisting that we will not put up with the prejudices. Are we never to have Muslim women athletes, tennis players, swimmers - even cheerleaders just because all Muslim men will immediately attack them?

France, as a secular country, has banned all 'ostentatious displays' of religion in public places. As well as proscribing the hibab and veil, this also affects turbans, kippahs and large crucifixes. This apparently is in line with European Human Rights legislation.

In America,where we all so concerned with keeping religion in its place that a judge can't have the Ten Commandments on his desk and we supress all mention of Christmas, can't we also - for secular reasons- not allow the veil in publc.

Could a Muslim lawyer in niqab and jilbab appear in an official capacity in a federal court?

Pure said:

hi mab,

first, i'll be happy to join the cult of Mabeusian Divinity with the understanding the claim is based on your divine writing. there, your membership has just doubled

mab Had she demanded of Ann Arbor that she be allowed the bathe as they do in Iran however, where as I understand it women are only allowed to use sexually segregated facilities and must wear the full chador (of course they can't really swim, they can only wade)... In other words, had she demanded that they exclude all males from the pool for her, say, one day a week, and allow here to swim in a garment we would deem unsafe, then she clearly goes too far. It's unreasonable to expect society to meet those demands.

P: You and ms Geyer have raised this point repeatedly, that the muslims want to IMPOSE their ways on NONmuslims in the West. [my bolds -dr.M]

Neither of you has given any examples; clearly the Azmi case in Britain and the Saadeh girl's case of Ann Arbor are NOT examples of attempted imposition, but of asking for tolerance. (conservative muslims, of course, may be "imposing" their ways WITHIN some [muslim]communities, but this is no different from the Hasidim, Amish, etc.; it's not, legally, imposition--coercion, confinement-- in the bulk of the cases, since the adult females consent to it.)

Click to expand...

I differ with Ms Geyer on this. I don't think the problem is that Muslim women are trying to impose their ways on anyone, at least at this point*. At this point, my objection is only that some of the demands they make upon society for us to accommodate their customs are unreasonable and damaging to our way of life.

Had the Muslim girl who wanted to go swimming with her friends in Michigan demanded that her friends cover themselves as she did, that would have been imposing her values, but she didn't. Had she demanded that the city close the pool to all male swimmers while she used it, that would have been clearly unreasonable, but she didn't do that either. Instead both sides reached what seems to me to be the kind of reasonable compromise I'd like to see a lot more of.

(*At least at this point. This is really my ultimate concern about this whole issue, because I have no doubt that when and if doctrinaire Muslims gain enough political clout to start passing laws (and I really think it's only a matter of time before this happens, given that their numbers in the Europe are still outpacing the native population and they're showing no signs of assimilating or wanting to adopt Western values), then I fully expect that yes, they WILL impose their ways by law, by good old fashioned, majority-decided law, and Western women WILL be required to cover their faces in public, and music and dancing and touching between the sexes WILL be banned, as will alcohol and frivolous books, and religion WILL become law.

In any case, as others have said, I see absolutely no reason to believe they'll be as tolerant of us as we've been of them. None whatsoever.



(And by the way, Thanx for joining my cult! I haven't worked out the details yet, but it's going to involve wide-eyed gullible girls in short skirts and high heels, probably carrying around platters of fruit and us lying around on chaise lounges and being profound. I'm toying with the idea of the girls wearing anti-veils all over their bodies.

You made a smart move getting in on the ground floor, before the religious wars start... )

hey, at least we have enough members for an orthodox and a neo-orthodox wing!

as to

mab I fully expect that yes, they WILL impose their ways by law, by good old fashioned, majority-decided law, and Western women WILL be required to cover their faces in public, and music and dancing and touching between the sexes WILL be banned, as will alcohol and frivolous books, and religion WILL become law.

P: Most of this is already in force at Bob Jones U, and Brigham Young U. By the time Dobson and Falwell have had their way with US laws, there won't be much left for muslims to impose!

By the way, I remember reading a tract from Massachusetts colony about 'profane and promiscuous dancing.' It held that there was no problem with dancing per se, as expression of joy, so long as it was same sex: men with men, and women with women. opposite sex dancing is the problem, since the Bible teaches that it's evil. incidentally, i believe our Hasidic friends agree on this point (it's to do with 'fences').

----
In any case, as others have said, I see absolutely no reason to believe they'll be as tolerant of us as we've been of them. None whatsoever.

i hope they're not as tolerant as we were: we did a pretty damn good job burning out the damn Mormons.

"...What's the opinion of the board?

The Earl...'

~~~~

the ending of the original post...

There is something rather large being left unsaid here, I think Mabeuse's long expose' of his feelings and thought clarified it for me although whether or not I can bring it forth is another matter.

As a pertinent aside, again brought into focus by this thread...I watch the Weather Channel occasionally, especially during Hurricane season. Now the ladies on the weather channel are usually quite sedate in their dress, as I recall over the years, no super short skirts, no plunging necklines with ample cleavage displayed, and I guess I noticed that, for they are promoting a new boy/girl team about to premier and sighs, she's showin' her knockers and posing in a provocative manner, with intent of course.

A hop, skip & a jump to the ladies of Lit, who never, oops, an absolute, replace never with seldom, display their charms in public or with images of any kind. They never pluck their eyebrows, never use make-up of any kind, especially that to enhance the size and shape of the eyes, never use blush, to pretend arousal in the cheeks, or coloring on their lips to suggest delicious fruits to be tasted and savored.

They never display that lovely area of the upper neck with the fuzzy fur that stands on end at tongues touch and ripples in delight at just the thought of a masculine caress.

They never display that gently rising sensuous swell nor puff up the mammaries with foundation garments to attract the eye, never cinch in the waist to contrast the swell of hips, nor wear 'flat bellied' clothing that more or less emphasizes that adorable pubic rise, nor wear undergarments without panty lines to display those lovely covered cheeks...naw, few ladies on Lit or in the world in general would never display their bodies as a means of attracting the male or just showing off those charms.

Now, back to the new weather girl...she is not necessarily a 10 in the face, rather average but well tended, and perhaps it is just Amicus the old pervent whose eyes were drawn to the the cleavage and the crotch, but then again, maybe not, (don't want to be an 'absolutist' here, Allah forbid!)

I suspect as long as there have been young girls and women prancing about it didn't take long to figure out that the female body drew immediate attention from always attentive males.

Now far be it from me to suggest that the lovely ladies have always exploited such attractive methods for vanity, if nothing less and then in the good ole mate selection process and the lovely factor of competition rises yet again.

Now, this is a six to a half dozen comparison here, that either jealous and possessive females, having hooked their own sorry sap, looked askance when a sweet young thing wiggled her fanny in her mates face; or that fathers and husbands, knowing the flibbertigibbet nature of the female, young or old, decided to reign in the hormones and exert some mode of control over those prancing lovelies...

Ah, but the 20th century intervened and it became a 'put down' for a female to be considered just an old sex object by lustful males.

Dr. Mab's dilemma, and a torturous one it seems, for it has many horns, is that he senses the logic in covering up the female form, as almost all societies used to do, and the conflict and contradiction with the social liberal mantra that women should be treated equal in all aspects.

I personally have begun to dislike the blatant display on American Television and films of the sexually enhanced female form, be it an anchor person or an actress or even an entertainer. I suspect many feel somewhat the same as truly the 'scantily clad' female has moved out of the pages of Playboy right into the schools where she occasionally seduces young teen aged boys as an adventure.

America and the West have long been looked upon as 'decadent' and promiscuous, treating sex like chocolate and mint ice-cream, definitely tasty.

There was another blurt, on the dreaded Fox Channel I think, about 9 to 12 year old girls in halloween costumes that were sexually provocative and skimpy and I wondered how some of you Lit folks might respond should you have young girl children and question how they present themselves in public.

I have purposely avoided making a definitive point here because most of you wouldn't see it any way and secondly because the thread seems mostly concerned with the pragmatic, the practical, a system of weights and balances rather that a quest for a general principle by which one might comprehend rather that subjectively opinionate on.

amicus...

I don't think that Europe is in any danger of falling for the Muslim dress edicts.

Part of what makes the fundamentalists spit out their edicts is the increasing display of the female body in public places.

Any town centre in the UK, Friday and Saturday nights, is likely to see more flesh on display than on many a porn channel.

Weather girls? Our local weather girl is renowned for the size of her tits and the tight clothing she wears even during daytime broadcasts. She is now breaking out into other TV reporting that seems to depend on more tittilation with the local travel publicity.

As for our satellite TV? There are a couple of Muslim channels. There are also several dozen sex channels with pictures Lit couldn't publish.

Og

oggbashan said:

I don't think that Europe is in any danger of falling for the Muslim dress edicts.Og

Click to expand...

Pardon me but, from a glance at your AV, parts of Kent have adopted the habib for men already.

ami, I see what you are getting at but it seems to me it is from a totally male perspective. In fact, without meaning any offence, a more thoughtful version of the Sheikh's 'meat'. Women dress primarily for themselves, secondly for other women and only occasionally (save for supporting husbands and partners) for men.

Just as condoms, STDs and the rest rarely feature on Lit, the beautification/construction process is also relegated to the sidelines.

Despite the seriousness of the subject, isn't it a bit of a clue that the 'debate' here is mainly being conducted by 'bearded ones' - men. Roxanne - though I don't agree with her, has long ago folded her tents and stolen away. Should we ask all females to avert their eyes.

The remark by Dr. M about naked dancing girls, whilst obviously a joke and taken as such, is a bit too close to the 72 virgins for comfort. Similarly, the condescension about Muslim girls 'wading' in swimming pools and not insisting that males were excluded is patronizing.

Arranged marriages, honor killings, adultery stonings and suppression of female education are not limited to the Islamic faith, but still remain a fact in Western civilization. We have female rabbis and episcopalian bishops. I will not take Islam or the Catholic church seriously until we have some, a few, female priests and imams. That is not feminism - just a view that excluding 50% of the population from being teachers is an untenable position.

The prophet, and I don't insult him because he himself said it, couldn't read. The problem I have with Islam, the Amish and some parts of the Hasidic religion is that they regard the education of women as being threatening. What is threatening about studying science, literature or the humanities.

It is so much easier to succeed in the Ivy League if you are not draped out in a set of black funeral curtains.

Don't take this the wrong way - it is not meant as a rant. The males here have generally gone along with a faux-liberal view that allowing backward Islamic clerics - and extremists - to browbeat women is acceptable - 'they can do as they choose'. If we don't use our experience to mitigate the position, I do fear for the future.

elfinoWhat is threatening about studying science,

p: you tell me; most US college women avoid 'hard sciences', with the possible exception of biology.

----
elfinoThe males here have generally gone along with a faux-liberal view that allowing backward Islamic clerics - and extremists - to browbeat women is acceptable - 'they can do as they choose'. If we don't use our experience to mitigate the position, I do fear for the future.

P: that would not be my position, which i describe as 'tolerance' for what's legal.

if i may use an example: a man 'browbeats' his wife into being a housework 'slave', though he never assaults her, denies necessities, or stops her from leaving, etc. In fact, i call that 'unacceptable' (meaning, 'I disapprove') but a) it may be useless for the police, or even a social worker, to intervene *uncalled.* b) it may be counterproductive for me to become involved unbidden, e.g., tell the guy not to do it. here, as in the original case, i counsel 'tolerance.'

the same holds of the general practices regarding wives in some ethnic communities in the US; also in foreign countries, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan.

in a word, the household 'slave' and the oppressed women have to liberate themselves; they may best be aided by progressive elements in their communities or countries. (e.g., there are safe houses in Jordan for those subject to honor killing.)

the outside person, male or female can but feel sympathy and offer material support if asked.

in the case of the household 'slave', i see no way, *lacking her request,* to use the law to improve the situation, and the same applies to the woman 'browbeaten' (enculturated) to using the niqab. only if she protests, and is subject to illegal acts in her community and is willing to reside outside of it, can she be directly helped through the law.

one can, of course, free the real slave, the illegal bound to work 80 hrs a week or be deported. that is because a law is being broken.

third world women have often remarked at the arrogance of first world women who have their agenda to thrust upon their 'oppressed' sisters, whatever the latter say. i am not applying this to anyone here personally, just making a point.

those following the approach of "it's unacceptable" (intending to back it up, somehow) risk being labeled busy bodies, and in any case, are likely ineffectual unless 'help' (advice, counseling, etc.) is asked for. further, attempts at social pressure, expressions of 'it's unacceptable', in the form of "with your niqab, we cannot hire you, even as a stock clerk." risk worsening the woman's situation, forcing her to stay home.

it's a principle of feminism, after all, that woman A, generally, does not say to woman B, "I know what's best for you, despite what you say."

I feel a bit of a fake here because I am not a 'feminist' in the accepted term. If I wear a short skirt to work, I like the looks but not the physical contact - yes, it still exists.

We - males and females - have to educate people what is and isn't acceptable in relationships. If my SO beats me up, you're on my side - if he says I have to cover myself from top to toe, that is my 'freedom of expression'.

Get real.

Elfin Odalisque: "...ami, I see what you are getting at but it seems to me it is from a totally male perspective. In fact, without meaning any offence, a more thoughtful version of the Sheikh's 'meat'. Women dress primarily for themselves, secondly for other women and only occasionally (save for supporting husbands and partners) for men..."[/I]

~~~~

Elfin...et al, is there any position on any issue that you will accept as 'objective'? By that I mean, not male, no female, not ethnic, not biased or prejudiced?

I intended my remarks to indicate a rational observation of the gentle sex and the basic nature of the creature and I did so in a loving and I thought, somewhat humorous manner.


And I wonder just how many agree, although I think it is not a majority wins all proposition, that women dress primarily for themselves.

Old women, past child bearing age and not presenting a social image in a profession, it seems to my observation, drape any old thing over themselves, however even that is suspect as they usually have blue tinted hair along with their yappy poodles.


amicus the incorrigible...

eo If my SO beats me up, you're on my side - if he says I have to cover myself from top to toe, that is my 'freedom of expression'.
Get real.


P: no, 'If he says she must cover herself and she agrees, says it's to be done, then i have to leave it alone.'

what would you do that so 'real.'? tell her she's oppressed? make a move to free her?

my position is that stated by ms ridley in posting #116, 10-22.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=468378&page=5&pp=25

On a related note:

One of Australia's most senior Muslim clerics is being accused of saying that some women, by the way they dress and their actions, are attracting sexual assault.

Sheikh Taj El Din Al Hilali made the comments in a sermon to worshippers in Sydney last month.

He's quoted as saying that women who don't wear the hijab or headdress are like uncovered meat and are inviting rape.


Hmm.

some of the text is at #154 above

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=19763942#post19763942

kendo1 said:

On a related note:

One of Australia's most senior Muslim clerics is being accused of saying that some women, by the way they dress and their actions, are attracting sexual assault.

Sheikh Taj El Din Al Hilali made the comments in a sermon to worshippers in Sydney last month.

He's quoted as saying that women who don't wear the hijab or headdress are like uncovered meat and are inviting rape.


Hmm.

Click to expand...

That was mentioned earlier in this thread.

Why aren't there any quotes from hell and damnation preachers from the US?

The Reverend Ian Paisley has a good line in biblical rhetoric. Surely there are preachers in the US who can do better?

"You are all miserable sinners, bound to hellfire and eternal damnation unless you turn away from the sins of the flesh and desist from gazing carnally upon thy neighbour's wife when she shows her sinful pantyhose... and unless you give one tenth of your earnings to OUR church..."

I am sure there must be hundreds of Christian quotes every week that are more inflammatory than the quote from an Australian Muslim who is repeating what some interpretations of Muslim teaching have been saying for years.

If we quote some of the nastier bits of the Old Testament, will we become news around the world?

Og

Missed that.

A woman in florida, wanted to wear the hijab for her Driver’s license picture.... can you imagine if that would have passed?

TheEarl said:

Now, here's the question.

The big bit of news and discussion in England of late has been about the hijab, the full veil which some Muslim women wear. It began with a cabinet minister making an observation about how he'd generally ask women wearing hijabs in his office if they wouldn't mind removing them so he could look at their face when they were talking to them. It has now spread to a nationwide debate on whether the hijab should be allowed in certain situations.

On the one hand, it is a part of these women's culture and at first glance it would seem tremendously intolerant to ask them to remove it. On the other, a hijab is an all-concealing garment and makes it very difficult for people to communicate. There is an ongoing case where a Muslim teacher has been suspended for refusing to teach without her hijab. It can also hide just about anything, as the Sun (a newspaper which is the very watchword of tolerance) demonstrated by sneaking various things thorugh airport security in a hijab.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there are situations where it is inappropriate. Teachers and nurses especially require their faces to be seen as part of their jobs, to communicate with children/patients. Just as you wouldn't hire someone who dressed in extremely overt Goth clothing and piercings to be a receptionist for a big company, I don't think someone who insists on a hijab in the classroom should be hired as a teacher. There is also the occasions when a person needs to be identified, such as in an airport. A passport photo is useless if you cannot see a person's face.

What's the opinion of the board?

The Earl

Click to expand...

Sheikh spanked

Sheikh Taj El Din Al Hilali, senior cleric of Muslims in Australia was suspended for three months by the mosque directors.

anyone gotta link?

ps good points og; u.s. Xtian clerics have more than their share of idiotic statements (which do get reported, where the minister is prominent).

Pure said:

...ps good points og; u.s. Xtian clerics have more than their share of idiotic statements (which do get reported, where the minister is prominent).

Click to expand...

But they are not front page news across the world.

For all we know from news reports this side of the Atlantic all US Christian ministers are paragons of tolerance and never criticise any sinful behaviour. Some of us know different.

Og

Sounds like an argument that one used to read in many rape cases in the U.S, often written by the judges in front of whom the cases were being tried....

kendo1 said:

On a related note:

One of Australia's most senior Muslim clerics is being accused of saying that some women, by the way they dress and their actions, are attracting sexual assault.

Sheikh Taj El Din Al Hilali made the comments in a sermon to worshippers in Sydney last month.

He's quoted as saying that women who don't wear the hijab or headdress are like uncovered meat and are inviting rape.


Hmm.

Click to expand...

And along those lines, Og, to respond to your question...

oggbashan said:

Why aren't there any quotes from hell and damnation preachers from the US?

Click to expand...

Jerry Falwell took to the airwaves to proclaim that God had allowed the United States to be attacked because "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians" had tried to transform America into a secular society.

And, shortly after, at an appearance at Jerry Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church, Franklin Graham delivered a message in which he thundered, "There's been satanic worship. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."

I can go on, and on, and on....

Neon