DCUM Forum

Anonymous

01/09/2015 14:44 Subject: terrorist attack in Paris

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are two issues here. First, Muslima is speaking on behalf of all muslim women who ever donned a niqab, and saying that they all do it only for spiritual reasons. She even punctuates her claim by calling PP "ridiculous" for thinking that non-spiritual reasons might be involved. As PP points out, history and tradition make Muslima's claim about other Muslim women's motives not a little suspect. At the very least, since we shouldn't be saying that "all Muslims are terrorists," then Muslima shouldn't be speaking for all niqab-wearing women.

The second issue is that one could go further, and argue that Muslima is out of sync with Islam itself. Yes, it's true there's no central Islamic hierarchy. But there is a holy book that purports to be the literal words of God. It's a very rare Muslim who thinks the Quran isn't the literal word of God, as transmitted to the prophet by the angel. Therefore, I'd argue that the Quran itself can legitimately be taken as representing "all Islam." (Note I would never argue that you can do the same with sharia or the hadith, which do vary widely across the Muslim world, although Muslima has often claimed that a given hadith speaks for "Islam" when it suits her own purposes.) Here's what the Koran says about veiling: "Oh Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should case their outer garmets over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested." (Yusufali) In other words, it's to announce that you're a modest Muslim woman and to avoid sexual harassment - the latter I think we can agree involves arousal. So Muslima is out of sync with the Quran itself.

Anway. That's what bugs me about Muslima. That's also why I don't buy the distinctions Jeff draws about why you can criticize the Catholic Church but not Muslims/Islam.

I agree with you that Muslima cannot speak on behalf of all Muslims. Any statement that discusses "Islam", "Muslims", etc. must be heavily qualified to specify which type of Islam or group of Muslims you are discussing unless you are making an extremely general statement.

I disagree that the Quran represents "all Islam" in the sense that you are portraying it. The reality is that the Quran, like the Bible and even the US Constitution, is subject to interpretation and groups and individuals emphasize some parts over others (may not even know about some parts). Even the verse that you quote -- which is not in its original language -- can be interpreted a number of ways.

Again, the distinction I make between the Catholic Church and Islam is that you can point to a specific ruling or doctrine of the Catholic Church -- the official institution of Catholicism -- and criticize or disagree with that. Islam doesn't have a similar institution. Similarly, I would object to criticism of "Catholics", which like Muslims, come in many varieties (for instance, apparently in the US, the Catholic Church's birth control rules are almost universally ignored).

We'll have to disagree. Yes, the verse I quoted can be interpreted different ways, to mean that a woman should cover her chest, neck, hair, or all of the above. Similarly, you can interpret jihad as a struggle of the soul, and I wish the attackers had done so. But there are many parts of the Quran that have never been subject to wide-ranging interpretation. As just one tiny example, in the quote above, several translators agree that women should veil to avoid what they call "molestation" or "trouble."

And so I maintain that large parts of the Quran DO represent a non-negotiable dogma or orthodoxy (if you will). And that on this question Muslima is out of step with Islam.

That's a lie

Really? If it's a lie, you must be saying that the translation above, which contradicts your "spiritual journey" rationale for wearing a full body veil (also not in the Quran) doesn't exist in the Quran? Are you saying that YusufAli's translation of the word "molest" is a lie? Pickthall is similar. What word would you use instead?

You can't possibly be saying the entire Quran is totally ambiguous and every word is subject to interpretation and reinterpretation. That would be very un-Muslim of you.

Oh boy, I really don't have time for this. Arabic is one of the richest and most complex languages in the world. Every word in Arabic has different meanings, multiple meanings, and this is why every translation of the Quran will be somewhat different. Plus the Quran was written in a unique literary style and in Parables, so every person will interpret any verse the way they understand and this is why Some Muslims believe the Quran can only truly be understood only in Arabic. And this is probably why all Muslims techie their prayers in Arabic to capture the true sense behind the words.

The Quran itself states that: Allah says in Chapter 3 Surah Al Imran verse 7:

"It is Allah, Who sent down this Quran to you. (There are two kinds of verses in the Book.) In it are verses Basic or Fundamental (of established meanings which can be easily understood), and they are the essence or foundation of the Book. And the other verses are Allegorical or Ambiguous. Those in whose hearts is perversity will always go for the Allegorical or Ambiguous verses, seeking discord and trying to search for their hidden meanings. None, except Allah, knows their real meanings(Ta’aweel)! In contrast to them, those who are firmly grounded in knowledge, say: “We believe in them all, because all of them are from our Lord."

The verse you quoted with the interpretation of Yusuf Ali, his interpretation of the word was "molested". Every other translation I've seen used the word 'annoyed', 'abused", "not hurt" ect or some other variant . But that is besides the point. All scholars who support hijab are unanimous and I mean ALL that the main reason for a muslim woman to wear a hijab is because it is prescribed by God. Not because of your husband, your father, your mother, fear of being molested. If you wear the hijab, you should wear it because Allah said so, period. Just like we pray 5 times a day because Allah said so, no if and but about it.

Just curious. Are all these scholars men?

So I suppose the girls who take off the veil away from their parents have a long long way to go on their spiritual journey?

Muslima

01/09/2015 14:44 Subject: terrorist attack in Paris

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women are not supposed to wear a hijab or niqab so they won't arouse men. That's ridiculous . Those who wear their hijab or niqab do it as part of their spiritual journey. Whether you believe that or not, whether you think it' s demeaning to them is irrelevant. Also your point about asking if that woman had a job and what type of job she has is a bit condescending. Many American women do not have a job, many are stay at home moms, by choice. Are they less than you because they don't have a job? Your judgemental notions and ideas are what's wrong with society today. We need more of the PP and less of you in the world!

you are purposely putting words in my mouth I never said,. there are plenty of SAHM in the US (as SAHD) and they are not less then me or you. I simply pointed out that while with a hijab you can have a normal life and do whatever you want, which can be stay at home with the kids or be a neurosurgeon or a metrobus driver, with a niqab you cannot. you conveniently chose to twist my words so you did not have to address what I was actually saying.

as for beign ridiculous that the nature of the iqab, the history of the garment, where and who have been using it for centuries, clearly supports what I am saying ( interestingly men in the Arabic peninsula never felt the need to do their spiritual journey while clad in an iqab). when the talibans captured Kabul and imposed the burka under penalty of death, do you think they were concerned by the spiritual journey of the local women? I know there are plenty of women in KSA and elsewhere who choose to wear it, it is part of their tradition, like women in India wear a sari. but the origin of the garment is to make a woman's body invisible to the outside world and it is not by chance that the iqab originated in a place where women traditionally do not leave the house without a man.

thanks for pointing out that the world would be a better place with less people like me. you are wrong. I have never ever imposed my opinions with violence on anybody, I am a foreigner in the US and I live here and I accept and respect the laws of this place where I am a guest. I strongly desagree with a lot of things here, some of them I find them wrong or offensive or funny, but I still show respect for what clearly is important for others. if there were more people like me, frankly I doubt the world would be worse off

I am not putting words in your mouth. You have repeated the same thing again, stating that American women who stay home choose to do so, well have you ever considered that some niqabi women also choose to stay home? And that some of them have a job? Thank God not everyone is narrow minded and I know of niqabis in the US who have an actual job, outside of their home, heck one even works at a public school in California. Is it more difficult for them to get a job? You bet, but it's their choice. And May I remind you, that many niqabis do not live in the West, they live in Muslim countries where their niqabs do NOT prevent them to get a job, as niqabs are part of the cultural norm. And yes, the world needs less of you send more of the PPs, I still stand by that!

This is gets to the heart of my problem with the hairs Jeff is trying to split, between on the one hand Muslims and Islam, which he argues are amorphous and therefore can't be criticized as a group, and the Catholic church, which he argues has a hierarchy and can therefore be criticized.

There are two issues here. First, Muslima is speaking on behalf of all muslim women who ever donned a niqab, and saying that they all do it only for spiritual reasons. She even punctuates her claim by calling PP "ridiculous" for thinking that non-spiritual reasons might be involved. As PP points out, history and tradition make Muslima's claim about other Muslim women's motives not a little suspect. At the very least, since we shouldn't be saying that "all Muslims are terrorists," then Muslima shouldn't be speaking for all niqab-wearing women.

The second issue is that one could go further, and argue that Muslima is out of sync with Islam itself. Yes, it's true there's no central Islamic hierarchy. But there is a holy book that purports to be the literal words of God. It's a very rare Muslim who thinks the Quran isn't the literal word of God, as transmitted to the prophet by the angel. Therefore, I'd argue that the Quran itself can legitimately be taken as representing "all Islam." (Note I would never argue that you can do the same with sharia or the hadith, which do vary widely across the Muslim world, although Muslima has often claimed that a given hadith speaks for "Islam" when it suits her own purposes.) Here's what the Koran says about veiling: "Oh Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should case their outer garmets over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested." (Yusufali) In other words, it's to announce that you're a modest Muslim woman and to avoid sexual harassment - the latter I think we can agree involves arousal. So Muslima is out of sync with the Quran itself.

Anway. That's what bugs me about Muslima. That's also why I don't buy the distinctions Jeff draws about why you can criticize the Catholic Church but not Muslims/Islam.

Stop lying. Where did I say that all Niqabis wear them freely? And where did I say that I spoke for every Muslim woman? If anything you are the one with the brush, always talking about the poor oppressed Muslim women And my point has always been and will continue to be that regardless of what you say, the are Many and More Muslim women who Choose to wear the hijab/niqab than are forced to! I haven't met in my life a single one that was forced to wear it, and I know many many Muslim women. Does it mean that they don't exist? Of course not, but that's NOT the norm! !!

It's a moot point, actually. They are told by their environment and their families that that's what they should do. They see their mothers doing it. After a while, they come to terms with it, because the cognitive dissonance would be too overwhelming otherwise. But my mother who rebelled and refused to wear it but wasn't penalized by her family for it has plenty of stories of classmates who would wear it on the way to and from school and then take it off once they were inside the building. So your sample size doesn't indicate you have any clue as to what people's true feelings about it are.

Really? They told you that? The millions of Muslim women who wear the hijab do it because of their environments and societies? You are full of it! Let me go thank my non-hijab wearing mother, sisters, friends for their lectures and encouragements when I decided one early morning to put a scarf on my head! Oh the things you read......

Anonymous

01/09/2015 14:42 Subject: Re:terrorist attack in Paris

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the person he's responding to and I wasn't actually pissed. But I don't find his "pretend sexism" funny either. He should keep his day job.

Making bad jokes is my day job.

Maybe. But I wonder why you're so comfortable making "pretend sexist" jokes (i.e., saying something really sexist and then saying "just kidding")? Would you feel comfortable making a really racist comment and then saying "just kidding"? I think I know the answer.

Lighten up. Muslima made a joke too and said just kidding but I'm sure Jeff really is.

If "lightening up" means "ignore it when people think it's cool to be sexist", then no, I don't think I will.

Anonymous

01/09/2015 14:41 Subject: terrorist attack in Paris

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So ultimately what's the lesson learned here?

That Christians, Jews, and Muslims are the unholy trinity and nothing will ever be resolved as long as 'my way or the highway' is the prevailing thought followed up with violence.

I want to commisison a cartoon where moses, jesus, and mohammed are engaged in a threesome.

I'm 100% certain that's already been done.

Anonymous

01/09/2015 14:38 Subject: Re:terrorist attack in Paris

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the person he's responding to and I wasn't actually pissed. But I don't find his "pretend sexism" funny either. He should keep his day job.

Making bad jokes is my day job.

Maybe. But I wonder why you're so comfortable making "pretend sexist" jokes (i.e., saying something really sexist and then saying "just kidding")? Would you feel comfortable making a really racist comment and then saying "just kidding"? I think I know the answer.

Lighten up. Muslima made a joke too and said just kidding but I'm sure Jeff really is.

Muslima

01/09/2015 14:38 Subject: terrorist attack in Paris

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are two issues here. First, Muslima is speaking on behalf of all muslim women who ever donned a niqab, and saying that they all do it only for spiritual reasons. She even punctuates her claim by calling PP "ridiculous" for thinking that non-spiritual reasons might be involved. As PP points out, history and tradition make Muslima's claim about other Muslim women's motives not a little suspect. At the very least, since we shouldn't be saying that "all Muslims are terrorists," then Muslima shouldn't be speaking for all niqab-wearing women.

The second issue is that one could go further, and argue that Muslima is out of sync with Islam itself. Yes, it's true there's no central Islamic hierarchy. But there is a holy book that purports to be the literal words of God. It's a very rare Muslim who thinks the Quran isn't the literal word of God, as transmitted to the prophet by the angel. Therefore, I'd argue that the Quran itself can legitimately be taken as representing "all Islam." (Note I would never argue that you can do the same with sharia or the hadith, which do vary widely across the Muslim world, although Muslima has often claimed that a given hadith speaks for "Islam" when it suits her own purposes.) Here's what the Koran says about veiling: "Oh Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should case their outer garmets over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested." (Yusufali) In other words, it's to announce that you're a modest Muslim woman and to avoid sexual harassment - the latter I think we can agree involves arousal. So Muslima is out of sync with the Quran itself.

Anway. That's what bugs me about Muslima. That's also why I don't buy the distinctions Jeff draws about why you can criticize the Catholic Church but not Muslims/Islam.

I agree with you that Muslima cannot speak on behalf of all Muslims. Any statement that discusses "Islam", "Muslims", etc. must be heavily qualified to specify which type of Islam or group of Muslims you are discussing unless you are making an extremely general statement.

I disagree that the Quran represents "all Islam" in the sense that you are portraying it. The reality is that the Quran, like the Bible and even the US Constitution, is subject to interpretation and groups and individuals emphasize some parts over others (may not even know about some parts). Even the verse that you quote -- which is not in its original language -- can be interpreted a number of ways.

Again, the distinction I make between the Catholic Church and Islam is that you can point to a specific ruling or doctrine of the Catholic Church -- the official institution of Catholicism -- and criticize or disagree with that. Islam doesn't have a similar institution. Similarly, I would object to criticism of "Catholics", which like Muslims, come in many varieties (for instance, apparently in the US, the Catholic Church's birth control rules are almost universally ignored).

We'll have to disagree. Yes, the verse I quoted can be interpreted different ways, to mean that a woman should cover her chest, neck, hair, or all of the above. Similarly, you can interpret jihad as a struggle of the soul, and I wish the attackers had done so. But there are many parts of the Quran that have never been subject to wide-ranging interpretation. As just one tiny example, in the quote above, several translators agree that women should veil to avoid what they call "molestation" or "trouble."

And so I maintain that large parts of the Quran DO represent a non-negotiable dogma or orthodoxy (if you will). And that on this question Muslima is out of step with Islam.

That's a lie

Really? If it's a lie, you must be saying that the translation above, which contradicts your "spiritual journey" rationale for wearing a full body veil (also not in the Quran) doesn't exist in the Quran? Are you saying that YusufAli's translation of the word "molest" is a lie? Pickthall is similar. What word would you use instead?

You can't possibly be saying the entire Quran is totally ambiguous and every word is subject to interpretation and reinterpretation. That would be very un-Muslim of you.

Oh boy, I really don't have time for this. Arabic is one of the richest and most complex languages in the world. Every word in Arabic has different meanings, multiple meanings, and this is why every translation of the Quran will be somewhat different. Plus the Quran was written in a unique literary style and in Parables, so every person will interpret any verse the way they understand and this is why Some Muslims believe the Quran can only truly be understood only in Arabic. And this is probably why all Muslims techie their prayers in Arabic to capture the true sense behind the words.

The Quran itself states that: Allah says in Chapter 3 Surah Al Imran verse 7:

"It is Allah, Who sent down this Quran to you. (There are two kinds of verses in the Book.) In it are verses Basic or Fundamental (of established meanings which can be easily understood), and they are the essence or foundation of the Book. And the other verses are Allegorical or Ambiguous. Those in whose hearts is perversity will always go for the Allegorical or Ambiguous verses, seeking discord and trying to search for their hidden meanings. None, except Allah, knows their real meanings(Ta’aweel)! In contrast to them, those who are firmly grounded in knowledge, say: “We believe in them all, because all of them are from our Lord."

The verse you quoted with the interpretation of Yusuf Ali, his interpretation of the word was "molested". Every other translation I've seen used the word 'annoyed', 'abused", "not hurt" ect or some other variant . But that is besides the point. All scholars who support hijab are unanimous and I mean ALL that the main reason for a muslim woman to wear a hijab is because it is prescribed by God. Not because of your husband, your father, your mother, fear of being molested. If you wear the hijab, you should wear it because Allah said so, period. Just like we pray 5 times a day because Allah said so, no if and but about it.

Anonymous

01/09/2015 14:36 Subject: Re:terrorist attack in Paris

jsteele wrote:There are frequent queries about why Muslims leaders don't condemn violence conducted in the name of Islam. Where here is an important and unexpected example of that happening:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_LEBANON_HEZBOLLAH_PARIS_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

"The leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah group says Islamic extremists have insulted Islam and the Prophet Muhammad more than those who published satirical cartoons mocking the religion."

"Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah did not directly mention the Paris attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo that left 12 people dead, but he said Islamic extremists who behead and slaughter people - a reference to the IS group's rampages in Iraq and Syria - have done more harm to Islam than anyone else in history."

No, really????
Did it occur to you that it's because Hezbollah is a Shi'a paramilitary group and that ISIS's number one goal as a Saudi backed movement is to rid the world of Shi'a's once and for all? So the Shi'a's are running s*** scared. Sounds like a desperation move to me.

Reminds me of Tom Lehrer's National Brotherhood Week:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgASBVMyVFI

Anonymous

01/09/2015 14:36 Subject: terrorist attack in Paris

Reports now saying at least 4 hostages from the grocery store were killed in the raid. The female terrorist got away and is on the run.

Anonymous

01/09/2015 14:15 Subject: terrorist attack in Paris

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So ultimately what's the lesson learned here?

That Christians, Jews, and Muslims are the unholy trinity and nothing will ever be resolved as long as 'my way or the highway' is the prevailing thought followed up with violence.

I want to commisison a cartoon where moses, jesus, and mohammed are engaged in a threesome.

Anonymous

01/09/2015 14:14 Subject: terrorist attack in Paris

Anonymous wrote:So ultimately what's the lesson learned here?

That really devout Muslims in Europe are doomed and that we should give them all oppressed religious refugee status. We love religion and diversity. We love the poor huddled masses who are downtrodden and ghetto-ized by oppressive regimes like the one in France (somebody quote Emma Lazarus please). And they make up less than 1% of the population here, unlike the ten or so percent in many European countries. So we can easily take in another 30 million of them.

The only issue is whether they will come since the welfare state isn't as generous here as it is in Europe.

Anonymous

01/09/2015 14:09 Subject: Re:terrorist attack in Paris

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They said they never intended to hurt innocents and with the exception of the body guard, they succeeded.

Innocents?

Everyone they killed were “innocents.” These people are the scum of the earth and deserve nothing more but to rot in hell.

The cartoonists did not deserve to die, but they were not innocent.

What were they “guilty” of?

Insulting Islam and depicting the Prophet.

So in the warped minds of the Islamic extremists, they deserved death for doing so. The terrorists decide to act as judge, jury, and executioners as a result.
Sorry, I don’t believe the 12 people killed on Wednesday are guilty of anything other than exercising their God-given freedom of speech.
But, freedom of speech is a huge threat to these monsters because one will then speak up against their propaganda and their disgusting ways and beliefs will be exposed.

I'm not sure this is true. They are very proud to be beheading people and such. These new ones were intent on martyrism, and they succeeded. Others will follow, unfortunately.

Anonymous

01/09/2015 14:05 Subject: Re:terrorist attack in Paris

"You can't shake the Devil's hand, and say you're only kidding. This is where the party ends. I can't stand here and listen to you and your racist friend."

-They Might Be Giants

Anonymous

01/09/2015 14:05 Subject: Re:terrorist attack in Paris

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They said they never intended to hurt innocents and with the exception of the body guard, they succeeded.

Innocents?

Everyone they killed were “innocents.” These people are the scum of the earth and deserve nothing more but to rot in hell.

The cartoonists did not deserve to die, but they were not innocent.

What were they “guilty” of?

Insulting Islam and depicting the Prophet.

So in the warped minds of the Islamic extremists, they deserved death for doing so. The terrorists decide to act as judge, jury, and executioners as a result.
Sorry, I don’t believe the 12 people killed on Wednesday are guilty of anything other than exercising their God-given freedom of speech.
But, freedom of speech is a huge threat to these monsters because one will then speak up against their propaganda and their disgusting ways and beliefs will be exposed.

Anonymous

01/09/2015 14:01 Subject: terrorist attack in Paris

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women are not supposed to wear a hijab or niqab so they won't arouse men. That's ridiculous . Those who wear their hijab or niqab do it as part of their spiritual journey. Whether you believe that or not, whether you think it' s demeaning to them is irrelevant. Also your point about asking if that woman had a job and what type of job she has is a bit condescending. Many American women do not have a job, many are stay at home moms, by choice. Are they less than you because they don't have a job? Your judgemental notions and ideas are what's wrong with society today. We need more of the PP and less of you in the world!

you are purposely putting words in my mouth I never said,. there are plenty of SAHM in the US (as SAHD) and they are not less then me or you. I simply pointed out that while with a hijab you can have a normal life and do whatever you want, which can be stay at home with the kids or be a neurosurgeon or a metrobus driver, with a niqab you cannot. you conveniently chose to twist my words so you did not have to address what I was actually saying.

as for beign ridiculous that the nature of the iqab, the history of the garment, where and who have been using it for centuries, clearly supports what I am saying ( interestingly men in the Arabic peninsula never felt the need to do their spiritual journey while clad in an iqab). when the talibans captured Kabul and imposed the burka under penalty of death, do you think they were concerned by the spiritual journey of the local women? I know there are plenty of women in KSA and elsewhere who choose to wear it, it is part of their tradition, like women in India wear a sari. but the origin of the garment is to make a woman's body invisible to the outside world and it is not by chance that the iqab originated in a place where women traditionally do not leave the house without a man.

thanks for pointing out that the world would be a better place with less people like me. you are wrong. I have never ever imposed my opinions with violence on anybody, I am a foreigner in the US and I live here and I accept and respect the laws of this place where I am a guest. I strongly desagree with a lot of things here, some of them I find them wrong or offensive or funny, but I still show respect for what clearly is important for others. if there were more people like me, frankly I doubt the world would be worse off

I am not putting words in your mouth. You have repeated the same thing again, stating that American women who stay home choose to do so, well have you ever considered that some niqabi women also choose to stay home? And that some of them have a job? Thank God not everyone is narrow minded and I know of niqabis in the US who have an actual job, outside of their home, heck one even works at a public school in California. Is it more difficult for them to get a job? You bet, but it's their choice. And May I remind you, that many niqabis do not live in the West, they live in Muslim countries where their niqabs do NOT prevent them to get a job, as niqabs are part of the cultural norm. And yes, the world needs less of you send more of the PPs, I still stand by that!

This is gets to the heart of my problem with the hairs Jeff is trying to split, between on the one hand Muslims and Islam, which he argues are amorphous and therefore can't be criticized as a group, and the Catholic church, which he argues has a hierarchy and can therefore be criticized.

There are two issues here. First, Muslima is speaking on behalf of all muslim women who ever donned a niqab, and saying that they all do it only for spiritual reasons. She even punctuates her claim by calling PP "ridiculous" for thinking that non-spiritual reasons might be involved. As PP points out, history and tradition make Muslima's claim about other Muslim women's motives not a little suspect. At the very least, since we shouldn't be saying that "all Muslims are terrorists," then Muslima shouldn't be speaking for all niqab-wearing women.

The second issue is that one could go further, and argue that Muslima is out of sync with Islam itself. Yes, it's true there's no central Islamic hierarchy. But there is a holy book that purports to be the literal words of God. It's a very rare Muslim who thinks the Quran isn't the literal word of God, as transmitted to the prophet by the angel. Therefore, I'd argue that the Quran itself can legitimately be taken as representing "all Islam." (Note I would never argue that you can do the same with sharia or the hadith, which do vary widely across the Muslim world, although Muslima has often claimed that a given hadith speaks for "Islam" when it suits her own purposes.) Here's what the Koran says about veiling: "Oh Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should case their outer garmets over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested." (Yusufali) In other words, it's to announce that you're a modest Muslim woman and to avoid sexual harassment - the latter I think we can agree involves arousal. So Muslima is out of sync with the Quran itself.

Anway. That's what bugs me about Muslima. That's also why I don't buy the distinctions Jeff draws about why you can criticize the Catholic Church but not Muslims/Islam.

Stop lying. Where did I say that all Niqabis wear them freely? And where did I say that I spoke for every Muslim woman? If anything you are the one with the brush, always talking about the poor oppressed Muslim women And my point has always been and will continue to be that regardless of what you say, the are Many and More Muslim women who Choose to wear the hijab/niqab than are forced to! I haven't met in my life a single one that was forced to wear it, and I know many many Muslim women. Does it mean that they don't exist? Of course not, but that's NOT the norm! !!