Moody:
You say: "The reason why Hijab is prescribed for women is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following verses of Sura Al-Ahzab":
"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
[Al-Qur’an 33:59]

The above is the Quranic rationalization for the institution of Hijab.

Below is the historical reason for the adoption of the "veil" in Islam:
In the book Sahih Bukhari, the most reliable of the Ahadith Books, and in the chapter of "Ablution" and the topic of "Defecating Women", it states that the wives of the Prophet(11) used to go out at night to defecate in a clearing just outside the neighborhood. Omar ibn Khattab, one of the Prophet’s fathers- in- law and friend, advised the Prophet to veil his wives so they would not be recognized , but the Prophet resisted. Until one dark night Omar recognized Sauda bint Zum‘a, one of the Prophet’s wives who happened to be very tall. He called out her name while she was defecating and she answered. It was only then that the Prophet agreed to veil his wives, and as usual the Archangel Gabriel was quick to validate the decision with a new "revelation". All those lofty reasons that Muslim apologists give today for the use of the veil are mere rationalizations to a specific solution to specific situation in a specific location at a specific time in Arabia.

and i dont get at all what your neighbors infirmity has to do with being poor anyway-

if your parents can afford a servant, and she is their neighbor- she's obviously not in dire straits or she wouldn't be in that neighborhood-

and why dont the daughters help her?
there was jsut my brother and i- but we went to my grandmothers 2x a week to help her-

so, since you sidestepped thepoints made-
ill go with my initial assumption that for you to claim to be supportive of a government beneiftting its people- that includes the right of women to educate themselves and their religious expression to be protected also-

and even if i were a comfortable middle class citizen- and had never been hungry in my life-

your post still wouldn't bear any weight on the topic, or your inability to repsond to it from a logical perspective.

the bottom line is- women have the right to wear hijab- and get an education or engage in the political process.

arif- your response borders on extreme ridiulousness-

"You absolutely have no idea what it is like being poor/Muslim/famale in a Muslim country do you? BTW most people in Muslim countries are poor. Some day you may want to go to a third world muslim country to actually witness the hardships they face. I know because my neighbour has two daughters and the husband died. She cannot do simple day to day chores, I pay my parents servant extra money to do some of her chores for her. In the US a female enjoys not only respect but power, but you wouldnt know that."

first- you sre a man who obviously comes form at least a middle class family-
my mother never had a servant- (nor would i dream of referring to anyone as a servant- having been a housekeeper, cook nanny and persoanl aide to many people myself)

so your point is - that because you have witnessed second hand- another woman who is impoverished-
it gives you some special insight?

i was raised in impoverished circumstances in a rich country as a woman-

and you are going to tell me about the suffering of the poor?

you have no idea what you are talking about- and furhtermore- you are preaching to the wrong choir here-

if you like- i can spend a great deal of time tellling you about poverty-

its not noble, and it is unusual to find anyone who stays behind to help the impoverished when they have managed to pull themselves out somehow-

but i did- and you realy really really have no right or clue to lecture me about being an impoverished woman

i dont ususally make such personal observations arif-
but this was a hypocritical response in the extreme

im willing to bet youve never been hungry a day in your life-
and youre telling ME about powerlessness and being a poor woman!

you really stuck your foot in your mouth with that one

Hello Victoria,
You say;"in EVERY society- the weak and vulnerable are the first to be attacked-"

You absolutely have no idea what it is like being poor/Muslim/famale in a Muslim country do you? BTW most people in Muslim countries are poor. Some day you may want to go to a third world muslim country to actually witness the hardships they face. I know because my neighbour has two daughters and the husband died. She cannot do simple day to day chores, I pay my parents servant extra money to do some of her chores for her. In the US a female enjoys not only respect but power, but you wouldnt know that.

You also say;
"im sorry you were raised in bizarro world-
but i have traveled all over america and canada-
seen literally tousands of muslims congregated-
and have NEVER EVER seen a 6 year old covered from head to toe!"

Bizarro world you say? Victoria part of your problem is that you do not want to see the evils of Islam, just like every Muslim you too close your eyes to the numerous shortcomings with this cult. This weekend I had a brief stop over in Minneapolis airport where I picked up a left over newspaper while waiting for my next flight to DC; Guess what I saw...
http://www.startribune.com/local/15686767.html
You must have missed this one while you were travelling "all over" the Canadas and America. Please tell me the age of that girl there? tell me she is not at least 6 or younger, I have a six year old daughter too.

Then you say;
"how is YOUR oppression any superior to the over-dramatic mischaracterizations you portray here?"

Simply based upon this myopic sight of yours pray tell me why should I even read what you post?

Why do you waste your life on this cult?

Arif

hi arif- i see you've gotten off point onto an anti-islam rant again.

back on topic-

you said-
"Mullahs and Islamists first go after their women; women are the first to be attacked in Islam. "

what you are desribing is good old fashioned misogyny-

in EVERY society- the weak and vulnerable are the first to be attacked-

maybe you can enlighten us as to the existence of that magical society- outside of islam, of course, that is NOT patriarchal?

your statement-
"Any government but most importantly a good government must make rules that benefit the society it governs as a whole."

would seem to support the contention that women should be freely encouraged to contribute and benefit society.

it also seems to indicate that there is no real place for suppressing educational and political opportunities because of a freely chosen self determined decision to expess her faith in public.

im sorry you were raised in bizarro world-
but i have traveled all over america and canada-
seen literally tousands of muslims congregated-
and have NEVER EVER seen a 6 year old covered from head to toe!

and what does that have to do with you deciding for me, or future students and parliamentarians in turkey what we should wear on our heads!

how is YOUR oppression any superior to the over-dramatic mischaracterizations you portray here?

as for ataturk- even turkish nationalists (ataturk proponents) haven't forgotten the coups by the nationalist generals who dictated turkey for 2 decades-

where do you get your ideas about ataturk?
even his staunchest supporters admit that his movement ossified into a regime of coercion- and not the vaunted domocratic freedoms purported-

which they are enjoying more freely under the observant muslim president and prime minister currently-

who have decided, with the AK party that religious freedom is a part of freedom overall.

Moody; Islam can take a perfectly normal man and turn him into a sex maniac. This is because Islam is only about sex. Mohammed (your prophet) lived for sex, normal humans can only have one wife or significant other this nut job (your "last" prophet) had multiple wives/concubines. When a man marries the couple raises children, the children and family demand time and commitment which is impossible with multiple women with one man. Mohammed was only and only interested in sex, if you look at your religion closely it circles around the woman. A muslim household with only daughters is considered a curse by many even though your prophet had only daughters. As to your point #1. "1. In the past women were degraded and used as objects of lust" only applies to Muslims and your prophet. Notice, he raided towns and cities unannounced and killed off the men then sold and enslaved the women creating an unequal balance of man/woman. Muslims defend multiple wives saying that many men were killed in "battle" so Muslim men had to take the women. It is this reason alone, mohammed (your "seal" prophet) and his thugs killed those men and lived in harems. Also, you have this absurd reasoning that in Mohammeds days people used to burry their daughters alive. What a stupid thing you Muslims have been fed over the years, this is precisely the problem why Muslims are still in slums and they immigrate to the West; they can't think.
How can a society live if they burry their daughters? There is no evidence of Arabs in the so-called "jahallaya" period doing this mass killing of their female babies. Also, why would they burry the poor girl alive? They could kill her first, why burry alive? You have the brains of a five year old. You should be ashamed of yourself and "scholars" who preach this nonsense.

Don't worry about what the Babylonian civilizations did; they were not brainless killers like your "last" prophet.

This genius then writes..."2. Islam uplifted women and gave them equality and expects them to maintain their status."
Yes, by relagating them to 4-walls and covering them in a demeaning tent, then took away from them their inheritance, then told them that their brains were 1/2 that of males.

Then this; "Hijaab for men"
"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do."
[Al-Qur’an 24:30]
What a stupid verse, "believing men" are these the Muslims who have just killed all the Kafir men and then enslaved the women, and put them in black tents? Allah is well acquainted my arse.

Another very stupid verse from your "holy" book.
" And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons..."
[Al-Qur’an 24:31]
You have created this mess where a woman walks and you get a hard on. The rest of the world does not do that you know. Do you think we see a woman jogging in spandex and we imagine having sex with her? Even if we do so what? Surely Allah is an idiot.
The six criteria you laid out, its all about sex isn't it. Allah, mohammed cannot rest they are the most horney creatures I know.
"5. Hijaab prevents molestation"
Why does so much rape take place in Pakistan. Again the reasoning of a man who has room temperature IQ.
The twin sister’s stupid example only a Muslim can think of and only a Muslim can buy. I hope you know that.

The wise Moody says;
7. Capital punishment for the rapists
In an islamic society the woman is the one who gets whipped, lashed stoned to death. The rapist gets away, read a little. The woman is busy finding 4-witnesses! Who rapes a woman with his 4 friends? I wish you think before you cut an past nonsense.

8. Western society falsely claims to have uplifted women

You and your family should leave the west. Go to a country where you have those uplifted woman.

"10. Implementation of Islamic Shariah will reduce the rate of rapes"
Islamic Sharia cannot be implemented for apes let alone for humans. Please relocate to Saudi Arabia.

Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims

HIJAAB FOR WOMEN

Question:

Why does Islam degrade women by keeping them behind the veil?

Answer:

The status of women in Islam is often the target of attacks in the secular media. The ‘hijaab’ or the Islamic dress is cited by many as an example of the ‘subjugation’ of women under Islamic law. Before we analyze the reasoning behind the religiously mandated ‘hijaab’, let us first study the status of women in societies before the advent of Islam

1. In the past women were degraded and used as objects of lust

The following examples from history amply illustrate the fact that the status of women in earlier civilizations was very low to the extent that they were denied basic human dignity:

Babylonian Civilization:
The women were degraded and were denied all rights under the Babylonian law. If a man murdered a woman, instead of him being punished, his wife was put to death.

Greek Civilization:
Greek Civilization is considered the most glorious of all ancient civilizations. Under this very ‘glorious’ system, women were deprived of all rights and were looked down upon. In Greek mythology, an ‘imaginary woman’ called ‘Pandora’ is the root cause of misfortune of human beings. The Greeks considered women to be subhuman and inferior to men. Though chastity of women was precious, and women were held in high esteem, the Greeks were later overwhelmed by ego and sexual perversions. Prostitution became a regular practice amongst all classes of Greek society.

Roman Civilization:
When Roman Civilization was at the zenith of its ‘glory’, a man even had the right to take the life of his wife. Prostitution and nudity were common amongst the Romans.

Egyptian Civilization:
The Egyptian considered women evil and as a sign of a devil.

Pre-Islamic Arabia:
Before Islam spread in Arabia, the Arabs looked down upon women and very often when a female child was born, she was buried alive.

2. Islam uplifted women and gave them equality and expects them to maintain their status.

Islam uplifted the status of women and granted them their just rights 1400 years ago. Islam expects women to maintain their status.

Hijaab for men

People usually only discuss ‘hijaab’ in the context of women. However, in the Glorious Qur’an, Allah (swt) first mentions ‘hijaab’ for men before ‘hijaab’ for the women. The Qur’an mentions in Surah Noor:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do."
[Al-Qur’an 24:30]

The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.

Hijaab for women.

The next verse of Surah Noor, says:

" And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons..."
[Al-Qur’an 24:31]

3. Six criteria for Hijaab.

According to Qur’an and Sunnah there are basically six criteria for observing hijaab:

Extent:

The first criterion is the extent of the body that should be covered. This is different for men and women. The extent of covering obligatory on the male is to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees. For women, the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and the hands upto the wrist. If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body. Some scholars of Islam insist that the face and the hands are part of the obligatory extent of ‘hijaab’.

All the remaining five criteria are the same for men and women.

The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.

The clothes worn should not be transparent such that one can see through them.

The clothes worn should not be so glamorous as to attract the opposite sex.

The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.

The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers’ religions.

4. Hijaab includes conduct and behaviour among other things

Complete ‘hijaab’, besides the six criteria of clothing, also includes the moral conduct, behaviour, attitude and intention of the individual. A person only fulfilling the criteria of ‘hijaab’ of the clothes is observing ‘hijaab’ in a limited sense. ‘Hijaab’ of the clothes should be accompanied by ‘hijaab’ of the eyes, ‘hijaab’ of the heart, ‘hijaab’ of thought and ‘hijaab’ of intention. It also includes the way a person walks, the way a person talks, the way he behaves, etc.

5. Hijaab prevents molestation

The reason why Hijaab is prescribed for women is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following verses of Surah Al-Ahzab:

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
[Al-Qur’an 33:59]

The Qur’an says that Hijaab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested.

6. Example of twin sisters

Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street. One of them is attired in the Islamic hijaab i.e. the complete body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists. The other sister is wearing western clothes, a mini skirt or shorts. Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijaab or the girl wearing the skirt or the mini? Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the skirt or the mini. Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation. The Qur’an rightly says that hijaab prevents women from being molested.

7. Capital punishment for the rapists

Under the Islamic shariah, a man convicted of having raped a woman, is given capital punishment. Many are astonished at this ‘harsh’ sentence. Some even say that Islam is a ruthless, barbaric religion! I have asked a simple question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose, God forbid, someone rapes your wife, your mother or your sister. You are made the judge and the rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All of them said they would put him to death. Some went to the extent of saying they would torture him to death. To them I ask, if someone rapes your wife or your mother you want to put him to death. But if the same crime is committed on somebody else’s wife or daughter you say capital punishment is barbaric. Why should there be double standards?

8. Western society falsely claims to have uplifted women

Western talk of women’s liberalization is nothing but a disguised form of exploitation of her body, degradation of her soul, and deprivation of her honour. Western society claims to have ‘uplifted’ women. On the contrary it has actually degraded them to the status of concubines, mistresses and society butterflies who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers, hidden behind the colourful screen of ‘art’ and ‘culture’.

9. USA has one of the highest rates of rape

United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. It also has one of the highest rates of rape in any country in the world. According to a FBI report, in the year 1990, every day on an average 1756 cases of rape were committed in U.S.A alone. Later another report said that on an average everyday 1900 cases of rapes are committed in USA. The year was not mentioned. May be it was 1992 or 1993. May be the Americans got ‘bolder’ in the following years.

Consider a scenario where the Islamic hijaab is followed in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic hijaab, that is the complete body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrist. After this if any man commits rape he is given capital punishment. I ask you, in such a scenario, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same, or will it decrease?

10. Implementation of Islamic Shariah will reduce the rate of rapes

Naturally as soon as Islamic Shariah is implemented positive results will be inevitable. If Islamic Shariah is implemented in any part of the world, whether it is America or Europe, society will breathe easier. Hijaab does not degrade a woman but uplifts a woman and protects her modesty and chastity.

Victoria writes:
"but still arif, how is it anyones business how a woman dresses?

ESPECIALLY the government?"

Any government but most importantly a good government must make rules that benefit the society it governs as a whole. Ataturk wanted change; he isolated Turkey’s problems to the way Islam was practiced and who the perpetrators were; Mullahs and what their influence was on society. He knew too well that Turkeys Mullahs were in the way of progress. Ataturk also had a disdain for Arabs and Islam... you may want to read that yourself.
Mullahs and Islamists first go after their women; women are the first to be attacked in Islam. For this a society must change, to make that happen Mullahs go for the leadership. Look at all Islamic countries, if the leadership/laws favor 4-walls for women then a man can do anything to his woman. Burka, purdah, Chadoor, Hijjab, and finally the one-woman Tent are all part and parcel of Islam. You defend the Hijjab, ask yourself why?
Victoria, you still have not given me one good reason as to why must a woman cover herself? Is it purely sexual? Is it control? Is it shame?

Victoria writes:
"but still arif, how is it anyones business how a woman dresses?"

When a child of six (6) is FORCED to wear a Hijjab AND cover herself from literally from Head TO TOE in public, it must become someones business. Please don't tell me its not so. I even see that here in the US of A. For Gods sake Victoria get a grip on what you are believing.

so by your reasoning arif- otrthodox jewish women should also be required to take off their scarves.

now, ive already had the conversation at length about hijab and its reasons- but im not here to apologize for my own choices-

i really do believe you just learned about the alphabet change this minute-

actually, the alphabet was a combination of persian influenced arabic, there are several different alphabets through history-used by the turkic peoples-

but it wasnt an attemp to eradicate arabic influence-
i dont think youll find many turks who will tell you that anatolia was very influenced by arabia- if you dig a bit, you'll find turkish resistance to arabic influence pretty solid-

but an eradication of the culture of islam- its poetry, and history in turkey.

however- there are many many schools now that teach the tooman language structure as people are attmepting to redisover their own history as they are pretty aware it is more than 90 years old.

but still arif, how is it anyones business how a woman dresses?

ESPECIALLY the government?

Kamal Ataturk was a visionary, he noticed quickly what was wrong with Turkey; The Mullah and the Burka. He quickly banned the beard and the ridiculous tent. There is a story where he once saw a bearded man in a railway station, he personally chased the mullah down and had his ugly beard shaved. He also wanted to shake off the Arab yolk so he changed the script. Arabs as long as they are Muslim will remain .
Folks for those of you who have not lived in a Muslim country you need to know the Mullah, this breed of human only know how to destroy. They do that very efficiently using Islam as their tool. Islam has in it a wide array of obvious and subliminal weapons that a Mullah can use to eliminate any perceived opposition to Islam. They interfere with people’s lives demanding total control of what people do, when they pray, what and when they eat all in accordance with the stupid rules of Islam. The Mullah is the first person who insists and enforces the Hijjab, Burka, Chador, Nikaab and the famous Tent for women. They would like 6 year old girls to be tent ridden (because Mohammed the “prophet” married a six year old), fortunately sane people can in some parts of the Muslim world resist some of the Mullahs desires.
Mullahs during the month of Ramadan in Pakistan will pelt your home with rocks at 3 in the Morning if your light is not on. They know you are not up preparing for that stupid thing they call a Fast. This breed of Muslim must be hounded and chased away, they do not listen to reason, their only education is the koran and hadith. Kamal Ataturk knew this problem and chased them away, unfortunately for Germany and perhaps France that most of the Mullahs fled there. The Muslim beard and the way it is to be worn makes a man very unattractive, it is allowed to grow untouched except for the mustache which is trimmed very small or shaved.
Mohammed (the “prophet”) wanted his followers, males to grow their facial hair wild but save the pubic hair, wanted the women to hide their heads and faces, but shave their pubic hair, he married a young child because she did not have pubic hair… what a sick, sick man he was.

Why must a woman cover herself? Can a Muslim male or female be honest with us and give us a good reason why? Is it only that males should not be aroused by a woman’s free flowing hair? I don’t buy the modesty thing or the freedom to choose thing.

EU is fortunate, keep Turkey out of the EU they don't belong there.

i have a friend from istanbul is is my houseguest for several weeks right now.

shes in her 50s, and has never worn a head scarf- and she fully supports the rights of women to wear them to and believes a woman should not be excluded from the political process (like merve karvaci was kicked out of the parliament) or obtaining a university education for wearing a freely chosen expression of her religious identity!

the word 'secularism' is a pleasing word to most american ears-
but the turks who wear that badge call themselves nationalists, not secularists.

ataturk was attempting to eradicate islam from the landscape of turkey-
he changed the letters of the alphabet so that turks could not even read their own history!

the latter years of the 20th century saw coup upon coup by the military nationalists- what we are calling secularists-

the turkish people decided themselves who they want to lead them- the prime minister and president are both observant muslims- as is most of the population of turkey.

a poster named diane falsely stated that bosnia and albania belong to the European Union-

there are 27 countries in the EU- and they are all- every one- christian countries.

turkey applied for admission over 40 years ago-
they have been excluded because the people are muslim-

no one else in the world seems to have a question about that-
read the extensive coverage of the subject in "the economist", a magazine of international politics.

one person claimed he asked his nationalist/secularist friends what the hijab(headscarf) means to turkish women-
and claimed it was a 'political statement'.

that is like asking the KKK what african americans think!

to force a woman to make a choice between her god and religion, and her education or involvement in the political system is not a democratic choice- it is a coercion.

does anyone imagine what the courts in this democracy would say if an orthodox jewish woman was kicked out of a university for wearing her head scarf??

the pendulum has swung fully in turkey-

pre-1924- it was the seat of the caliphate- and (mostly)islamically governed

then ataturk swung it the other extreme to nationalist anti-islamic rule (supported later by generals and military to keep it going)

now the turkish people themselves have openly and democratically voted and spoken in favor of their own freedom to choose or not choose to practice their religion.

for men, there are proscriptions upon dress-
for women, there are proscriptions upon dress, including the hijab-

why would anyone feel comfortable telling others how to practice or not practice their own convicted beliefs, whatever they are?

i have freely chosen to wear hijab-
it is my decision, taken upon me by by own reasoning and conscience-

there is no "man" forcing any action in my life (i'd like to see them try)

and the government should not have the right to coerce me into something i dont want to do (i.e. take off my hijab)

read a book!

The more Eboo writes the more he puts his foot in his mouth, then he tries to get it out only to put the other one in.

Burka, Purdah, Hijab, nikkaab, Chador, Tent whatever, you simply cannot compare it with a Christian Cross, never. The Christian cross may be worn by BOTH men/women. It does not signify dominance of one sex over the other.

Ban the head scarf like France recently did.

It is simply a form of slavery, Muslim men dominating the woman (please note I typed women, not just the Muslima).

The shroud empowers the male.

Mohammed’s four wall confinement for women; In Islam a woman must not leave the four walls. If she does for any reason then cover up, least Muslim males will see you and have sexual thoughts about you, then they soil their pants. With soiled pants they cannot pray because Allah does not like being talked to with some dried-dribble on your Muslim pants. How stupid can this religion get? But trust me there is much much more. Slowly but surely we will inslallah reveal all the stupidity of Islam.

If an under graduate female wants to wear a head scarf then it goes to show what this misogynistic religion does to an educated woman’s brains.

Several questions must be asked here;
Why must a woman cover up so that only her face shows?
1. At what age must a Muslim woman start covering up in public? I have seen six year old girls covered up; Is it because Mohammed "played" with his six year old bride?

2. Is it that Allah does not like his creation? Does he get Horney when he sees the woman he created bend over when doing sidgda? After all a woman must cover up even when praying in the confines of her own home!!!

3. Is it that Men get Horney when they see a woman with hair showing so they soil their pants?

4. Sex is a bad thing? Is the Muslim woman the only one that has to bear the brunt of the Muslim male urge?

5. Mohammed married a child; he was ashamed, so he made it mandatory for women to hide themselves least they get recognized in public, "Look, Mohammed’s child bride!!!"

Says the wise Eboo;
"That’s like saying that Catholic students going to Mass on Ash Wednesday will lead to the IRA planting bombs on campus."

Eboo this is such a stupid analogy that only you could think of it. I'm telling you, Islam takes away from the human all powers of reason and simple commonsense.

Personal Story;
I was riding my motorcycle and a person cut me off I took evasive action, I honked then displayed the bird, however upon further investigation it was a Woman (I think?) totally covered in a black burka driving the mini-van! I did not know Allah’s slaves were allowed to drive in the free country?

!
>))))2)0)0)8))))) "NO-SHARIA!"
!
!
!
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........______________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:

VOTE:
NO' Sharia!
NO Hallakha!
NO Caste System(s)!
NO Rule By BiBLE, GiTA, QURAN!
No Putting Down Woman Anywhere!

THANK YOU!

Turkey sits in a special spot, they have, for the last few years at least, controlled the wearing of headscarves and the charrai.This was done for a purpose and it has worked,if the females of the Muslim society are prohibited from wearing these covering by the law they are also protected from being forced to wear them by husbands, brothers, fathers, cousins, etc.I think that lives have been saved because of this law, and I do not say that lightly.I pray to my Lord Jesus Christ for these Ladies protection each night and you all should too.

I don't think that banning girls from wearing headscarves can be compared to banning students wearing crosses. If compared to bans in certain schools that prohibit students from wearing certain colors or bandannas which can be interpreted as gang signs, the policy appears much more reasonable. If wearing the cross to school somehow provoked knife fights and shootings, I would personally be opposed to that as well.

It is not a judgment of the student's personal beliefs or moral character. The wearer of the headscarf or the bandanna shouldn't be assumed to be an extremist terrorist or a gangster, but the appearance of the highly charged symbol itself leads to a tense and divisive atmosphere at school.

(This is not support or condemnation of the headscarf ban itself, just presentation of another way to view the issue. I'm not familiar enough with the cultural context in Turkey to determine whether wearing headscarves would incite division and violence the way gang signs do. The ban's merit completely depends on whether the threat of violence outweighs the restriction of freedom.)

The cases of the young women forced to remove their headscarves to transfer out of the university, or to complete a thesis, are tragic and ludicrous. However, if enforcement of the ban were consistent from the beginning, then female students would be made to understand upon enrollment that wearing scarves is prohibited, rather than somehow suddenly discovering this 300 pages into their theses.

Mr. Eboo.

If Women are asked to cover their head, why should it not include the Men as well.

Talk about equal rights

Is the wearing of a head scarf is a purely religion symbol akin to one wearing a crucifix then why are the men not required as well? Because it is not like wearing a crucifix. The crucifix is a statement of belief. The head scarf is a mark of shame. Only women are required to wear a head scarf or in some other Muslim cultures the all covering burka. Why? To remind them of the myth that they, by their very nature are a curse, at fault for the down fall of men and angels, and are to dangerous to be seen in public unless they are kept in the subdued state of wearing a head scarf. Like much of shariah “law” The basis and practices of the women’s head scarf are nothing more then tribal myth and superstition created by one group to control another that has been given the cloak of religious virtue.

The Turkish government should not ban headscarves.
Headscarves should not be banned because they are a political statement, or because some people intrepret their wearing as a symbol of male domination.
Headscarves should certainly not be banned because if they are allowed, extremists will then harass or even assault those women who do not wear them. That is as nonsensical as saying that laws against racial discrimination should not be passed, because then racist bigots would react violently to a law that, on its merits, is perfectly legitimate.
Reading many of these posts, you would believe that the government is considering forcing all women to wear headscarves, rather than repeal a law mandating that they not be worn.

Having said all that, let me add my brief assessment of what's going on in Turkey, which admittedly may only skim the surface of the issues.

After WWI ended the Ottoman Empire and took the Caliphate with it, Kamal Attaturk established Turkey as a secular nation. As a result of that basic decision, Turkey finally emerged in recent years as a full-blown democracy. No country is perfect, but overall, Turks enjoy the blessings of liberty and civil rights such as freedom of expression. They also enjoy the prosperity that goes along with democracy and free enterprise.

But Turkey's population is predominantly Muslim. And Islam in regard to democracy and personal freedoms is like a big black hole: it sucks up everything within its reach and imprisons it in the vortex, never to be seen or heard from again. Islam is never content to accept democracy and freedom. Islam sees such things as alien to its very soul. Islam sees itself as at war with democracy, and for Islam, it's a sum-zero game. There must be a winner and a loser. The black hole at the heart of Islam must suck up and imprison every aspect of modernity and democracy.

What we are witnessing in Turkey is the inevitable expansion of that black hole. Even after 90 years of secularism, modernity and democracy are too weak to escape its grasp.

The Turkish people are now doing something that we Westerners find inexplicable. They are voluntarily surrendering their freedoms and their democracy. They are, in increasing numbers, showing their willingness to sacrifice their rights on the altar of Islam. The Turks, with eyes wide open, are re-establishing a 7th century theocracy to rule over them. The religious mentality once more triumphs over secularism and rationality.

Outsiders, in the end, will be unable to do much to reverse this trend. The main lesson we Americans should draw from the Turkish experience, especially when it is combined with the experience of West European governments with their Muslim populations, is the danger of allowing a too great an expansion of the Muslim population in the United States. We are creating a big black hole, which will eventually begin devouring everything in its path.

As a reminder to the recent Mohammed "worshipers":

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" aka "pretty wingie thingies" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Anonymous:
Re: Mohammad and Women
I feel sorry for those who try to defend the indefensible.You try to make a virtue out of necessity when you describe your Prophet's living with only one woman, Khadija, throughout her life, as a sign of abstinance.
In reality he could not anger the older woman who was supporting him.The instant she died he began to collect women as some would collect stamps. Below is a more detailed account of how the prophet of Islam 'respected women"

www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/women2.html

It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher."
The several marriages that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) contracted have been much misunderstood and subjected to derogatory remarks beyond all limits of justice and decency. Notwithstanding the fact, that the institution of polygamy existed before the advent of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and a majority of Biblical prophets were polygamous, our critics single him out "heaping abuses, calumny and derogatory epithets, upon him." 1 The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) contracted a number of marriages after the age of fifty-three. The accusation of being licentious is nothing but a product of their own fertile imagination. Dr. Besant refutes this assertion: "But do you mean to tell me that the man who in the full flush of youthful vigour, a young man of four and twenty (24), married a woman much his senior, and remained faithful to her for six and twenty years (26), at fifty years of age when the passions are dying married for lust and sexual passion? Not thus are men's lives to be judged. And you look at the women whom he married, you will find that by every one of them an alliance was made for his people, or something was gained for his followers, or the woman was in sore need of protection." 2

The famous author of the book called "Mohammad and Mohammedanism", Bosworth Smith explains: "It should be remembered, however, that most of Mohammad's marriages may be explained at least, as much by his pity for the forlorn condition of the persons concerned as by other motives. They were almost all of them with widow who were not remarkable either for their beauty or their wealth, but quite the reverse." 3 The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) contracted marriages either for the protection of the females whose husbands had died for the cause of Islam or for cementing the bonds of love with those who could by their position and influence be of service to Islam or for the benefit of humanity at large. "In every single case it was a personal sacrifice on the part of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to have contracted the marriage, or circumstances obliged him to do so whilst there was as yet no law limiting the number of wives." 4 The ladies who married the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did so of their own volition. None of them was forced into marriage. The youthful days of the Prophet prior to the beginning of revelation, "were free from every blemish; neither his worst enemies during his life nor the mud-slinging critics of the later times have ever been able to find the slightest fault with this critical period of his life. His veracity, chastity, innocence and pureness of heart were proverbial for he never indulged in anything unbecoming of a true should youth like him." 5 From twenty-five years up to the age of fifty he remained with a wife older than him. During this period of his age he remained devoted to his wife and even after her death he remembered her with love and compassion." 6

It is narrated on the authority of Jabir ibn Abdullah that Abu Jahl and some of the chiefs of the Quraish approached the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and said: "If you are anxious for leadership, we are prepared to declare you our leader, if you need riches we would collect for you an enormous amount of wealth that will suffice not only for you but even for your descendants; if you are impelled by sexual urge, you may chose ten beautiful damsels out of the whole tribe of Quraish. The Holy Prophet kept silent and did not utter a word.When their talks concluded, the Holy Prophet recited the following verse of the Qur'an : "Beneficent God! A revelation from the Beneficent, the Merciful : A Book of which the verses are made plain, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know – good news and a warning. But most of them turn away, so they hearken not" (41 : 1.4).

The Holy Prophet concluded his reply on the verse : "Then if they turn away, then say: I warn you of a scourge like the scourge of 'Ad and Thamud, (41 : 13)." 7 This solitary event is enough to refute the charge of licentiousness. The worldly pleasures had no significance for him. "His was a life of perfect sublimity and single-minded devotion to Allah, absolutely free from the taints of base desires."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeZB2EsPqGE&feature=related

From a Cyber volunteer for HILLARY FOR PREZ, Thank You HUMATES!

Today is 212

{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:
< http://\\//\\//\VOTE\\http://\\//\\//\\ )
< ?: +) < ?: +) VOTE < ?: +) < ?: +)
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:
< http://\\//\\//\VOTE\\http://\\//\\//\\ )
< ?: +) < ?: +) VOTE < ?: +) < ?: +)
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:
< http://\\//\\//\VOTE\\http://\\//\\//\\ )
< ?: +) < ?: +) VOTE < ?: +) < ?: +)
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........______________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:

---
---

Note Sistar Frietes, et al; The Female DEViL Exposed !

DOWN with OPRAH WINFREY’s & Barrac OBAMA's "THE SECRET"-ARMY now!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_(2006_film)

Please see How & Why Oprah's Prez hopefull Barrak , and with NO-EXPERIENCE or extremely insignicant has "ATTRACTED" so many crazed Audiences as Voters for , Mr. wanabe Prez OBAMA, and Oprah V. Prez!???

Vote DOWN with OPRAH's & Dr. Phil's and their "The-Secret"-ARMY!

Call the Government on them for abusing FCC Regulated Networks now! Call The Police.

Please See this Scientology ANONYMOUS invasion for Comparison.

Note: From Info & belief, OPRAH's Show & THE SECRET will soon also have an ANONYMOUS invasion.

--

Vote DOWN with OPRAH's & Dr. Phil's and their "The-Secret"-ARMY!

Call the Government on them for abusing FCC Regulated Networks & For Abusing Voters Laws via Brainwashing Voter on the Pre-Apocalyptic concept of 'ATTRACTION'. Revoke her License & make Her pay a $100,000,000 Dollar Fine! Ya Ya!

Call The Police. or Call Hillary to the rescue!

--

DOWN With OPRAH's Hidden WiNFALL profit via her Bribable-Cows,a trick of many based on audience Greed, Lust, ATTRACTION of MONEY praying for such AS IF be a RELIGION! Mezmemorization through the Promotion of BOOK-Clubing & then hook'm MENTALY via Air waives Wow! Wow!

Shame Shame Shame on such "Abusive in Mezmemerization & unlawfull bribing of Audience via FCC regulated Air Waves"! This is an ECLATi-ON Violation! It is unethical Behaviour!

YES? or NO?

BEHOLD!

Under Gridarian Democracy & Transfinite Civilization that a "NO", under the Eclati-ON "Stable Definition Factors" that a 'NO' means Zero, never can a Public figure turn a Constitutional or regulated "NO" into some kind of Majical "YES"! Hence "NO" Religious Test is required ...... , So "No" is not Stable among certain Human Elements! Less Usurpation in Government! SOO,

OPRAH, DR. PHIL, and partner in Crime ($cientologist) ToP-Gun Mr. Tom CRUISE et al , use & abuse, via mezmerization) their controled group or Audience & Voters therein & therefrom "The-Secret"-Army"! And N.A.A.C.P.

Hark: The Vintriloquists and that The Famous DEVILiSH Lady in Disquise!

Wherefore:

"GO GET'M HILLARY!" Sickm Girl! ya Ya Yo!

Vote:(((( C* L* I* N* T* O* N---Hillary For 1st Woman PREZ 2009 & her Bill for 1st MAN Yea!))))))

EBOO PATEL- why are the Muslim groups so upset about 3 men speaking to Air Force cadets?

3 Ex-Terrorists Speaking at AFA; Muslim Group Objects:

"The Air Force Academy has invited three men who say they are former Islamic terrorists to speak at the 50th annual Academy Assembly, which opened Tuesday.

The invitation to the four-day event, "Dismantling Terrorism: Developing Actionable Solutions for Today's Plague of Violence," has angered a national Muslim group, which calls the men "anti-Muslim bigots."

"It's as if they had (ex-Klansman) David Duke come to speak about race relations," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "Their entire presentation is based on the false belief that the root cause of all terrorism in the world is Islam and that it's evil and of the devil."

The assembly, founded in 1959, is a student conference on topics of contemporary significance, according to the academy Web site. This year's event is not meant to discuss any religion but to train future leaders, said Maj. Brett Ashworth, Air Force communications director.

Today's opening presentation, Inside Terrorism, features Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem and Zak Anani. They are described by their publicists as "three former terrorists" who "practiced hatred against Christians, Jews and Americans" and were "part of sleeper cells in the USA."

CAIR's offer to send a speaker with an alternative view of Islam was rejected because the conference isn't supposed to be about religion, Ashworth said.

The Air Force made a counteroffer to consider a CAIR speaker on terrorism. But Hooper said he rejected that as unfair because Islamic terrorism was an intrinsic part of the conference message and "we need someone to go and defend Islam with a balancing perspective."

Ashworth said the Air Force expects the three speakers to confine their message to terrorism.

Walid Shoebat, one of the three speakers, said in an interview Tuesday that he was born to an Arab father and American mother in Bethlehem in 1960. He said he renounced terrorism in 1978 when he came to America and became a Christian.

Shoebat shrugged off CAIR's objections, saying they are nothing new."

SO EBOO- Why did Hooper turn down an offer to speak at the event as believing moderate Muslims AGAINST terrorism? And why is no Muslim group denouncing what happened at the event?

Muslim Student Threatens Former Terrorist's Life at Air Force Academy Event

"Former terrorists Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem and Zak Anani addressed cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, during their annual political forum. They shared their experiences as terrorists and helped cadets understand the Islamic fundamentalist mind set.

During the event a Jordanian college student, identified as Omar Khalifa of Metro International, approached Kamal Saleem and spoke to him in Arabic, "you are an enemy of Islam and you must die." The incident was reported to Military Police, who investigated Khalifa's threat.

"The men receive threats of this nature all of time and we take each one very seriously," said Keith Davies, Executive Director of the Shoebat Foundation. "That is why each of the men live in seclusion."

"We have all been told that Islam has been hijacked by extremists,” said Walid Shoebat. "Yet CAIR, who profess to be ‘Moderate Muslims’ are the Three Ex Terrorists biggest critics, and pull out all stops to try and keep our voices from being heard. I beg to ask the question; if CAIR is indeed moderate as they claim, then WHY are they not supporting our campaign against 'extremists? If they are sincerely against the Fundamentalist Muslim agenda why do they oppose us?"

Peace:
You say "Was Muhammad 'sall-Allahu ta'ala alaihi wa sallam' a false prophet? We cannot think so after studying his works and history. For false prophethood means hypocrisy. As falsehood does not have the power of trueness, likewise hypocrisy does not have convincing capacity.”

What follows if it is NOT hypocrisy what do you call it?

1.The Prophet had grudgingly allowed his male followers to marry up to four if they satisfy the condition of “treating their wives equally”, yet he married eleven (11) women, one, Aisha, was only six years old at the time of her betrothal. According to the Quran (33:50) marriage to more than four women is a privilege that Allah accorded only to the “Messenger of Allah”, meaning himself, and to no one else. When his son in law, Ali, expressed a wish to add just another one co-wife to Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter, the Prophet threatened Ali with bodily harm.
2. He tried to situate himself within the roaster of Jewish prophets by adopting many of Judaism’s dogmas, practices and rituals, such as strict monotheism, abstention from eating pork and praying while facing toward Jerusalem. When he realized, after one and a half years, that the Jews of Arabia would not fall for his claim to “prophethood” he changed the orientation of prostration from Jerusalem, which was then called Aelia Capitolina, to Mecca (Bukhari, vol. 6, book 65, no 4492).
3. He criticized poets and poetry. He did this with a poem and further had a private poet by the name of Hassan ibn Thabet, a sort of a poet laureate, whose job was to praise him and his deeds in peace and war.
4. The Prophet claimed that he was illiterate (Quran 7:157) yet Muslims claim he had exhorted the believers to “seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave”. If so why didn’t he learn to read and write? Is it not that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander? Or how did he memorize word for word those very long chapters that he claimed Gabriel had dictated him in one sitting? Or how could he have managed administering his first wife’s far-flung business in and outside Arabia without a rudimentary knowledge of records keeping? Is it not more likely that his claim was intended simply to head off the suspicion that he was the one who authored the Quran?
5.He had built his whole movement on the concept of one God, Allah, who was not born nor had children (Quran 119:1-4), then turned around and stated that sometimes “the three daughters of Allah; Allat, Uzza and Manat, could intercede to believers with Allah” (Hadith relayed by ibn Ishaq 165-166).
6. He preached sustenance (Quran 104:1-9) yet he accumulated a vast personal wealth that included vast stretches of date groves the Muslims had expropriated mostly from the Jews of Khaibar and Yathrib.
7.He prohibited his followers from destroying enemy trees then violated his own decree by torching the palm trees of the Banu Nadir Jewish tribe. After some members of that tribe pointed to him the incongruence between his decree and his actions he later claimed he had received a revelation in which Allah endorsed the action (Quran 59:5).
8. He praised Christians and Jews a few times (Quran 2:26, 5:69, 5:82, 22:17 and 29:46), then turned around and condemned them a number of times (Quran 3:110 5:14, 5:31, 5:51, 5:64, and 9:30-35).
9. He broke his covenant with his adversaries on many occasions. He, for example, broke a truce with the Quraish tribe that was to last for ten years the instant he felt strong enough to defeat them and capture Mecca (Hadith relayed by ibn Ishaq).
10. He agreed to have one of his young followers, Mohammed ibn Maslama, lie to the poet Ka’ab ibn Ashraf in order that the young man get close enough to murder the poet.
That is because the poet wrote few unflattering verses about some Muslim women that upset the Prophet (Hadith relayed by Tabari). This is not the only time the Prophet chooses expediency over absolute morality.
11.The Prophet publicly and with much fanfare adopted a Syrian slave boy, named Zayd. Later he forced Zayd to divorce his beautiful young wife, Zainab bint Jahsh, so that he could marry his daughter-in law, since Allah, according to him, sanctioned the union (Quran 33:37). Zainab, to her credit, balked at being a part of this scandal and relented only after hearing the “divine revelation”. To reconcile this horrendous act with previous admonitions that he loudly voiced against the marriage of men to their fathers’ or sons’ wives, he denied his relation to Zayd. He accomplished that, in his opinion, by changing his reference to the young man from “Zayd the son of Mohammed” to “Zayd the son of Haritha”. He later backed that up with a revelation (Quran 33: 5) which in effect ruled that adopted sons are, for all purposes, not considered as sons. This is why the institution of adoption never gained a foothold in Islamic countries.
12.He promised his favorite wife, Aisha, to abstain from sleeping with his Egyptian concubine, Maria. Shortly afterwards, Hafsa, another one of his eleven wives, caught him in bed with Maria during the night allotted to Hafsa. Incensed by what she considered was an insult added to injury she informed Aisha, despite his fervent pleadings. This resulted, as would be expected, in an ugly confrontation. The next morning Mohammed showed the betrayed and sulking Aisha* and Hafsa* a letter from Allah “exonerating the Prophet”, sanctioning him to sleep with “whoever he desires” and threatening his insubordinate wives to be replaced by “young black-eyed virgin nymphs” from Paradise. Allah dictated this message, he claimed, to Archangel Gabriel who delivered it to the Messenger of Allah overnight (Quran 66:1-5). Who is Aisha or Hafsa to argue against Allah’s will? In short he came out of this predicament “smelling like roses”. No doubt this story had since turned many a man green with envy.

Prof. (THOMAS) CARLYLE:
Thomas Carlyle of Scotland (1210 [C.E. 1795]-1298 [C.E. 1881]), one of the greatest men of knowledge known world over, entered the university when he was only fourteen years old, studied jurisprudence, literature and history, learned German and oriental languages, exchanged letters with, and even visited, the well-known German writer (Johann Wolf-gang von) Goethe (1749-1832), was awarded by the King of Prussia with the medal of honor called 'powr le merite', and was elected president by the University of Edinburgh. Among Carlyle's works are Sartur Resartus, The French Revolution, On Heroes, Hero Worship And the Heroic in History, Past and Present, Latter-Day Pamphlets, The Life of Friedrich Schiller, and Critical and Miscellaneous Essays.

The following passage was selected from one of his works:

"The Arabs, Muhammad 'alaihis-salam', and his age: Before the advent of Muhammad 'alaihis-salam', (the Arabs were in such a state that) if a big piece of fire spurted out at the place where the Arabs lived, it would have disappeared on the dry sand without leaving any traces behind itself. But after the advent of Muhammad 'alaihis-salam' that desert of dry sand turned into, as it were, a barrel of gunpowder. From Delhi to Granada, everywhere became rapidly rising flames. This great person was, so to speak, lightning, and all the people around him became explosives catching fire from him."

From his conference:

"As you read the Qur'an al-karim, you will presently realize that it is not an ordinary tome of literature. The Qur'an al-karim is a work of art that springs from a heart and instantly penetrates all the other hearts. All the other works of art are quite dull when compared with this tremendous masterpiece. The most striking characteristic of the Qur'an al-karim is that it is a truthful and excellent guide. To me, this is the greatest merit of Qur'an al-karim. And it is this merit that begets other merits."

From his memoirs of a trip:

"In Germany I told my friend Goethe about the facts I had gathered concerning Islam and added my personal reflections on the subject. After listening to me with attention, he said, 'If that is Islam, we are all Muslims.' "

Gandhi studied the Islamic religion and Qur'an al-karim with meticulous attention and finally found himself a sincere admirer of Islam. The following is his observation concerning this subject:

"Muslims have never indulged themselves in bigotry even in times of greatest grandeur and victory. Islam enjoins an admiration for the Creator of the World and His works. As the West was in a dreadful darkness, the dazzling star of Islam shining in the East brought light, peace and relief to the suffering world. The Islamic religion is not a mendacious religion. When the Hindus study this religion with due respect, they, too, will feel the same sympathy as I do for Islam. I have read the books telling about the life-style of the Prophet of Islam and of those who were close to him. These books generated profound interest in me, so much so that when I finished reading them I regretted there being no more of them. I have arrived at the conclusion that Islam's spreading rapidly was not by the sword. On the contrary, it was primarily owing to its simplicity, logicality, its Prophet's great modesty, his trueness to his promises and his unlimited faithfulness towards every Muslim that many people willingly accepted Islam.

"Islam has abrogated monastic life. In Islam there is no one to intervene between Allahu ta'ala and His born slave. Islam is a religion that commands social justice from the outset. There is not an institution between the Creator and the created. Anyone who reads Qur'an al-karim, [i.e. its explanations and books written by Islamic scholars], will learn the commandments of Allahu ta'ala and will obey Him. There is no obstruction between Allahu ta'ala and him in this respect. Whereas many ineluctable changes were made in Christianity on account of its shortcomings, Islam has not undergone any alterations, and it preserves its pristine purity. Christianity lacks democratic spirit. The need to equip that religion with a democratic aspect has necessitated an increase in the Christians' national zeal and the concomitant reforms."

Prof. ERNEST RENAN:
Now let us make mention of a French man of ideas: Ernest Renan was born in 1239 [C.E. 1923] in the Treguier city of France. His father was a captain. He was five years old when he lost his father. He was raised by his mother and by his elder sister. Because his mother wanted him to be a man of religion, he was sent to the church college in his hometown. Here he was given an efficient religious education. His strong interest in the oriental languages won him a full command of the Arabic, Hebrew and Syrian languages. Later he entered the university, where he studied philosophy. As he made progress in educational areas and carried on very minute comparative studies on the German philosophy and the oriental literature, he observed some flaws in Christianity. By the time he was graduated from the university in 1848, at the age of twenty-five, he was entirely defiant towards the Christian religion, and he compiled his thoughts in his book titled 'The Future of Knowledge'. Yet, because the book was of a rebellious nature, no printhouse dared to print it, and it was only forty years later, in 1890, that the book was printed.

Renan's primary objection was against the belief that Isa 'alaihis-salam' was the 'Son of God'. When he was appointed as a professor of philosophy in the university of Versailles, he began to gradually explain his thoughts on this subject. However, it was not till after he was appointed as a professor of the Hebrew language for the university of College de France that he voiced his most vigorous protest. By the time he finished his first class he had had the courage to say, "Isa 'alaihis-salam' was a respectable human being superior to the other human beings. Yet he was never the son of Allahu ta'ala." This statement had the effect of a bomb. All the Catholics, and especially the Pope, rose up. The Pope officially excommunicated Renan before the entire world. The French government had to dismiss him from office. Yet the world was already resounding with Renan's statements. Great numbers of people sided with him. He wrote books, such as 'Essays on the History of Religions', 'Studies on Criticism and Morals', 'Discourses on Philosophy' and 'Life of Jesus', and his books sold like hot cakes. Upon this the French Academy accepted him as a member (in 1878). Also, the French government invited him back to office and appointed him as the director of college de France.

Renan observed Isa 'alaihis-salam' as a human being in his work 'Life of Jesus'. According to Renan, "Isa 'alaihis-salam' is a human being like us. His mother Meryem (Mary) was betrothed to a carpenter named Yusuf (Joseph). Isa 'alaihis-salam' was a superior human being, so much so that, the statements that he made when he was only a small child were a source of astonishment for many a scholar. Allahu ta'ala deemed him as worthy of prophethood and gave him this duty. Isa 'alaihis-salam' never said that he was the 'Son of God'. This is a slander fabricated by priests."

The contention between Catholic priests and Renan continued for a long time. While the Catholics accused him of blasphemy, he in his turn indicted them for their mendacity and hypocrisy. Renan was saying, "The real Nazarani religion is based on the belief that Allahu ta'ala is one and that Isa 'alaihis-salam' is only a human being and a prophet." Before Renan had died, he had prepared a written will enjoining from a religious ceremony in the church and prohibiting priests from attending his funeral procession. So, when he died in 1892, a crowded congregation containing only friends who loved him and people who admired him attended his funeral procession.

LAMARTINE (Alphonso Marie Louis de):
One of France's universally known poets and statesmen, Lamartine (1204 [C.E. 1790]-1285 [C.E. 1869]) made official journeys through Europe and America, which gave him the opportunity to have been to Turkey, in the time of Sultan Abd-ul-majid Khan. He was admitted in an utterly friendly manner by the Padishah (Ottoman Emperor), and was also presented with a farm within the state of Aydin, (which is in the western part of Turkey). See what he says about Muhammad 'alaihis-salam' in his book Histoire de Turquie (History of Turkey):

"Was Muhammad 'sall-Allahu ta'ala alaihi wa sallam' a false prophet? We cannot think so after studying his works and history. For false prophethood means hypocrisy. As falsehood does not have the power of trueness, likewise hypocrisy does not have convincing capacity.

"In mechanics the range of something thrown depends on the power of the thrust. By the same token, the power of a certain source of spiritual inspiration is assessed with the work it accomplishes. A religion, (i.e. Islam), which has carried so heavy a burden, which has spread to such distances, and which has maintained its full power for such a long time, cannot be a lie. It has to be genuine and convincing. Muhammad's 'alaihis-salam' life; his efforts; his courage in attacking and destroying the superstitions and idols in his country; his bravery and valor in standing against the fury of a fire-worshiping nation; his thirteen year endurance to the various attacks, insults and persecutions inflicted on him in Mecca, among his own citizens; his migration to Medina; his incessant encouragements, preaches and admonitions; the holy wars he fought against overwhelmingly superior enemy forces; his spirit for victory; the superhuman confidence he felt at times of greatest afflictions; the patience and trust he displayed even in victory; the determination he showed in convincing others; his endless devotion in worships; his sacred communings with Allahu ta'ala; his death, and the continuation of his fame, honor and victories after his death; all these factual events (and many others untold) indicate that he was by no means a liar, but, on the contrary, an owner of great belief 'sall-Allahu ta'ala alaihi wa sallam'.

"It was this belief and this trust in his Creator that made him put forward a two-staged credo: The first stage consisted of the belief that 'there is one eternal being, who is Allah;' and the second stage inculcated that 'idols are not gods.' In the first stage he informed the Arabs about the existence of Allahu ta'ala, who is one and whom they had not known until that time; and in the second stage he shook from their hands the idols which they had looked on as gods until that time. In short, at a single stroke with the sword he broke the false gods and idols and replaced them with the belief in 'One Allah'.

"This is Muhammad 'alaihis-salam', the philosopher, the orator, the Prophet, the law-giver, the warrior, the enchanter of human thoughts, the maker of new principles of belief, the great man who established twenty gigantic world empires and one great Islamic empire and civilization 'sall-Allahu ta'ala alaihi wa sallam'.

"Let all the criteria used by humanity for the judgement and evaluation of greatness be applied. Will anyone be found superior to him? Impossible." 'sall-Allahu ta'ala alaihi wa sallam'.

I wish to free myself from fancies and whims;

My eccentric nafs will not leave me alone.

I wish to free what is good from the bad;

My eccentric nafs [1] will not leave me alone.

I wish to discipline my essence;

I wish to know what's good for me, 'n what's bad;

I wish to come to my senses;

My eccentric nafs will not leave me alone.

FOOTNOTES
1. Nafs is a malignant force in human nature. It is recalcitrant, stupid, and evil. It always urges man to behave against the commandments of Allah. It is the only creature whose all wishes are against itself.

for Mr. Patel and 1 billion Muslims all over the world. Danish authorities arrested several Muslims in a plot to kill cartoonists who "insulted" your compassionate and forgiving prophet.

Sorry you can not celebrate like you did after 9/11.

But perhaps you can celebrate the CNN report that 133 women were victims of honor killing in Iraq's second largest city last year. Many women killed in front of their small children for dressing "unIslamic"....

Sir,

With all the mass killings of innocents, honor killings, and all kinds of crime carried out by Muslims all over the world, you want to tell us that Muslims and Islam are a great religion.

Remember all the Muslim terror plots being uncovered by authorities before they happen (like plan to blow up 10 airliners over US cities), otherwise we would all be dead.

Btw, your own wife will be arrested in Saudi Arabi without a head scarf/veil. That is land of your compassionate and tolerant prophet who respected women. A female rape victim has been blamed for the rape and is jailed. What a great religion.

The colour red is banned in saudi?? The islamic police have run amuck in trying to enforce their religious dictates. Restriction will only fan the flames of love:

*Saudi Arabia's religious police have banned red roses ahead of Valentine's Day, forcing couples in the conservative Muslim nation to think of new ways to show their love.

The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice has ordered florists and gift shop owners in the capital Riyadh to remove any items coloured scarlet, which is widely seen as symbolising love, newspapers said.

"They visited us last night," the Saudi Gazette quoted an unidentified florist as saying.

It is not unusual for the Saudi vice squad to clamp down ahead of Valentine's Day, which it sees as encouraging relations between men and women outside of wedlock, the newspaper said.

Saudi Arabia imposes an austere form of Sunni Islam which prevents unrelated men and women from mixing, bans women from driving and demands that women wear a headscarf and a cloak.

Relations outside marriage are strictly banned and punishable by law.

Eboo, Eboo, Eboo,

Even you would agree that the more important issue is the historic reality of Islam i.e.

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" aka "pretty wingie thingies" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Ibrahim Mahfooz: Looks like you are no longer Mahfooz, You are the Cursed one!!!

It requires both men and women to lower their gaze and restrain their sexual passions. Thus the Qur’an says in verse 24:30, “Say to the believing men that they lower their gaze and restrain their sexual passions. That is purer for them.”

The imposition of the veil upon Muslim women is just one more tool their men are using to mark their stamp on them as their property. It is not a religious requirement. It is true that their prophet found it necessary to shroud his wives with Burqa, but that was for reasons that were special to his particular situation. First he had eleven wives living in the same household where all sort of men were continually coming in and out, supposedly to pay him homage. Also the wives used to go out at night to a clearing in their neighborhood to defecate, and men including Omar, one of the Prophet’s fathers in law, recognized some of them even in very dark nights.
Muslims who favor the veil rationalize that it is to “maintain a woman’s modesty”. A woman’s modesty if not protected from within can never be protected by a shroud or a scarf. On the contrary some prostitutes use the Burqa to facilitate the promotion of their business.
An emerging function of the veil is its use a political statement. How else could we explain the fact that Islamists, at least in Egypt, are paying large sums of money to public figures in TV and movies to wear the headscarf. Recently a well-known Muslim cleric sued an Egyptian actress for dropping the scarf. In the West wearing of a scarf is not a political message as it is statement of rejection of its way of life.

The controversy surrounding the posting of the Ten Commandments in public places and the recent split Supreme Court decisions have not produced an ideological harmony among different sections of the American society. There is a discontent on both sides.

At first thought, it came to my mind as to how anyone can oppose these Commandments. After all, who can oppose: "Though shall not kill" or "Though shall not steal," etc?

If followed, these Commandments will produce a peaceful, harmonious society. No one should be opposed to a peaceful society. The question is: Will the mere posting of these Commandments in public places produce better Christians.

Those who oppose the posting of these Commandments are apprehensive that the State is endorsing religion.

If the posting of the Commandments alone will not produce good Christians, what will? The answer: a recognition that all humans are bonded together by sharing the same basic needs (food, shelter, reproduction) and secondary needs such as the need for regulating social interaction, communication, kinship, recreation, etc. The way we try to solve the universal problems of existence constitutes our culture. And there are thousands of different cultures on our planet.

One set of answers emerged from Western religions - religions that emerged on the lands west of Jerusalem - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Although Western religions are not identical and differ markedly in many details, they share a common ethos - monotheism.

The adherents of the monotheistic faiths believe in human equality by virtue of birth, respect life and recognize not only human rights, but also the rights of animals, plants and the environment. We honor our parents, love our families and care for them, we recognize the rights and duties of our spouses, take care of the needy, poor, and the helpless, and we believe in not waging wars that decimate innocent people.

In the name of religion, people have gone to war or remained in peace, planted crops or fasted, drunk alcohol or abstained from it, invoked God to rain death upon enemies or brought peace to troubled minds.

It is obvious that there are two sides of this controversy. Anybody who has studied sociology and cultural anthropology knows that religion performs important social functions.

The problem with religion has been that people use religious identity as the most important thing in their lives and they forget about the spiritual connection that can do a lot of good in society, i.e., show compassion to the less fortunate in society, give a code of conduct to follow and adapt to the changing needs of society without sacrificing the basic tenets of their faith.

Ironic that Eboo would quote of all things from Rumi:

"Come, Come whoever you are, wanderer, worshiper,
lover of leaving. Our's is not a caravan of despair.
Come even if you have broken your vows a
thousand times, Come, come yet again."

Five times a day the Mullah yells out in the Adhan from the top of the minarets that dominate the Kafir neighborhoods:

"Come to Islam come to success"

Success is Allah making booty legal for the muslims, success is dominating the Kafirs, Allah allowing everything the Kafirs own and have as legal booty for the muslims.

And now it will be blared from the minaret in Oxford, england. It is blared in one city of USA in michigan, and it will be blaring from other cities soon enough.

Perhaps Eboo Patel remembers this:

"We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

"Allah mobilizes the Muslim nation of Turkey, and adds it to the European Union."

"That's another 50 million Muslims. There will be 100 million Muslims in Europe. Albania, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the E.U."

"Bosnia, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the E.U. Fifty percent of its citizens are Muslims."

"Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time, or else declare war on the Muslims."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuHV09giKMY

< http://VOTE//C**L**I**N**T**O**N!
< ?: +) < ?: +)< ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +)
< ?: +) < ?: +)< ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +)
< ?: +) < ?: +)< ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +)
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
< ?: +) < ?: +)< ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +)
< ?: +) < ?: +)< ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +)
< ?: +) < ?: +)< ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +)
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
< ?: +) < ?: +)< ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +)
< ?: +) < ?: +)< ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +)
.< http://VOTE//C**L**I**N**T**O**N!...._________________
PEACE,PAZ,SALAAM,SHOLOM,FREIDEN,МИР,평화, 和平:

Eponymous ECLAT:

"Where are you "B-MAN" .

Hello B-GONE, do you know where "B-MAN" is?

Come out Come out wherever you are "B-MAN".

You Can Run but you cannot Hide.... Where art thou...B."

Where are you "B-MAN" . Hello B-GONE where is "B-MAN"?

http://www.expatica.com/de/articles/news/Erdogan-cheered-by-16_000-Turks-in-Cologne-.html

The Turkish prime minister tells crowd to resist assimilation.

Cologne, Germany -- A crowd of 16,000 expatriate Turks cheered Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at a vast indoor auditorium in Germany on Sunday as he told them to resist assimilation into the West.
**********

What do you think Eboo? Should the muslims assimilate into the societies they call home or should they keep their loyalties to your ummah/

Islam is all lies now. The poison is in the tree and the tree must be cut down. There is a knife under every robe.

"Eboo - Tell us straight out."

That will be the day! Eboo is the Islamist propagandist and apologist. Every time he says Islam does no wrong, Islam is all for good, everybody be for Islam. He is the snake in the grass.

Dear Readers

The problem is truly this. The Muslim Brotherhood has invaded US Masjids and lied to American representatives saying that they promote Democracy and Pluralism. Now everyone knows that the Muslims in the forefront are deceivers and liars.

This makes ALL OF US look to be liars and deceivers and this is not reality.

The Brotherhood leaders are in every major Islamic organization and claim to speak for us but in truth there are millions of Muslims in the US and these deceitful people do not speak for us.

But the truly spiritually oriented Muslim is not a political animal. That is the world of dunya, not the world of purity that the pure-hearted Muslim claims as their goal.

Most Muslims, you must realize, want to be a part of the US society and are happy for the freedom and tolerance here. The great cry of Islamophobia was not raised by us, but by the Brotherhood trying to intimate people from criticizing Islamic law, or anything associated with Islam.

Outlaw the Brotherhood and give our Masjids back to the many good Muslims who care for others and do not promote hostility of any kind.

Don't forget that it was the current leader of Turkey's Islamist party who said, "Democracy is the bus that we will ride to power," meaning that they will use the system to get into office and then that will be the last free election Turkey will ever have. That's not my paranoia, that's their stated strategy.

Islamists fully believe that they can and should dominate every society in which Muslims live, including Europe. The free European democracies are merely "pre-Islamic" to them ... as soon as their numbers and political power permit, they will dominate. They are not interested in freedom, equality, multiculturalism and co-existence.

That's why the "slippery slope" argument DOES pertain here. The Catholic/IRA analogy is nonsense ... the IRA objective was to get the Brits out of Ireland, not to conquer the world for Catholicism. Islamists themselves are very frank about their objective, to their credit. And when they attain it, you won't be able to pretend you never knew what they really had in mind.

Louis- That is also what MAS, MSA, ISNA, ICNA, CAIR and the other traitors have in mind.

Eboo - Tell us straight out. Do you support the agenda of the above groups to destroy the US from inside?

Listen to Louis, everyone please! Here is a thinking individual with a solid grip on the reality of the situation:

Louis wrote:

Don't forget that it was the current leader of Turkey's Islamist party who said, "Democracy is the bus that we will ride to power," meaning that they will use the system to get into office and then that will be the last free election Turkey will ever have. That's not my paranoia, that's their stated strategy.

Islamists fully believe that they can and should dominate every society in which Muslims live, including Europe. The free European democracies are merely "pre-Islamic" to them ... as soon as their numbers and political power permit, they will dominate. They are not interested in freedom, equality, multiculturalism and co-existence.

That's why the "slippery slope" argument DOES pertain here. The Catholic/IRA analogy is nonsense ... the IRA objective was to get the Brits out of Ireland, not to conquer the world for Catholicism. Islamists themselves are very frank about their objective, to their credit. And when they attain it, you won't be able to pretend you never knew what they really had in mind.

The problem that the legislator was referring to with the quote that, out of context, seems over the top is the coercion to wear headscarves that developed in Afghanistan and exists in Pakistan. In Afghanistan, (male) members of extremist groups threw acid on the faces of Afghani female university students that did not cover their faces (this before they eventually insisted that women could not attend university).
Thus, Patel's analogy is incorrect. If members of campus religious groups in the United States attacked or harassed people on campus that did not attend the most "orthodox" religious services, a university might reasonably consider moving to ban its activities or outward symbols of membership.
Without putting it in this proper context, Patel has misleadingly equated Turkey's controversial law with Western Islamophobia when it is nothing of the kind.
Of course, we should have concerns about legislation that curbs freedoms, especially related to religion and speech. But a debate over Turkey's headscarf ban should be properly situated in Turkey's difficult political and religious climate.

ASA Eboo...you admire Rumi?

Your Brotherhood leaders would call you a kafir for that one...they did that to me at my Masjid
when the ISNA crowd invaded my open-minded Masjid with their lies and hate promoting talk.

You sure are a mix of contradictions.

You claim to promote tolerance but also promote the Muslim leaders who destroyed tolerance in our Masjids.

I hope insha'Allah you will figure out what you truly believe and realize which groups genuinely represent the open-mindedness you promote.

Asma

Turkish Islamist Website: Each Muslim Must Kill An Infidel For Allah's Grace

takva.com

oh yeah Eboo...turkey is the perfect model

You are so lucky to live in US and don't even appreciate it.

so sad!

Kelly

How large is the Muslim vagina? The Western vagina is nestled in the region of the crotch. When a Western woman covers her crotch, she is covering her vagina, and is decent. A Muslim woman's vagina is not considered to have any boundaries. A Muslim woman's vagina extends over her entire body. For a Muslim woman's flesh cannot be separated from her vagina. Therefore, a Muslim woman is a walking, talking vagina. That is why it is so offensive and obscene for a Muslim woman to be exposed at all. And the hair on her head is pubic hair. It must be covered.

The Turkish authorities who restrict the headscarf are forcing Muslim women to show everyone their vaginas. Vaginas everywhere! Muslim vaginas! What ever will we do?

hey uncle sam fan

you're wasting your breath promoting the clintons...muslims don't think...they just follow whatever the brotherhood groups like isna tell them to do.

they've already decided to vote for obama enmass because they have hopes he's a closet muslim.

since obama wanted to bomb pakistan off the map in search of bin laden, it isn't likely that obama will put muslims first.

btw...bin laden is already dead anyway per bhutto.

big wake-up call time for all the dummies who just follow their group thought honchos and are afraid to think for themselves.

muslims rarely think...a muslim friend told me that.

VOTE: Mrs. & Mrs. Clinton for PREZ, Yea! VOTE: EXPERiENCE:
--
Mr. Ex-Prez CLiNTON Thank You:
--

{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
http://USA/US/USA/USA/USA/USA
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
STOP THE WAR STOP THE WAR!!
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!!!
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
http://USA/US/USA/USA/USA/USA
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
STOP THE WAR STOP THE WAR!!
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!!!
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........______________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton//// МИР,평화, 和平:
--

--
Mrs New-Prez HILLARY Clinton. Thank You:
--

{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
http://USA/US/USA/USA/USA/USA
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
STOP THE WAR STOP THE WAR!!
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!!!
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........______________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:

--
VOTE: Doff Hat's Off For both President Hillary & Bill, YEA!

Hey Eboo Patel

You can't hide those lying eyes ;>/

Steve, I live in Turkey and I've heard the same rhetoric over and over again. Don't you think it's a little heavy on the hyperbole? Do you really think a country like Turkey, where millions of people protested over the Gul's presidency in the summer, would simply roll over and accept a law (spoken or unspoken) that dictates the wearing of the headscarf? Turkey is a nation that must raise taxes, borrow from abroad, and continue its candidacy as an EU member. They have no oil money to support a theocratic, dictatorial regime like the other countries you have mentioned, nor are they so marginalized from the world community that they would just be left to their own devices. Please, try not to be so paranoid. I really am sick of hearing the 'slippery slope' argument. It's not a convincing one, and it's the same one people used in the 90's when Erbakan was in office.

Steve, I live in Turkey and I've heard the same rhetoric over and over again. Don't you think it's a little heavy on the hyperbole? Do you really think a country like Turkey, where millions of people protested over the Gul's presidency in the summer, would simply roll over and accept a law (spoken or unspoken) that dictates the wearing of the headscarf? Turkey is a nation that must raise taxes, borrow from abroad, and continue its candidacy as an EU member. They have no oil money to support a theocratic, dictatorial regime like the other countries you have mentioned, nor are they so marginalized from the world community that they would just be left to their own devices. Please, try not to be so paranoid. I really am sick of hearing the 'slippery slope' argument. It's not a convincing one, and it's the same one people used in the 90's when Erbakan was in office.

Dear Haloczel

Eboo cannot answer your very insightful comments because he is one of the great pretenders.

A supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood is all about deceit and not real tolerance. They just pretend to promote tolerance while trying to undermind the US Constitution with their barbaric sharia laws.

Eboo - you are a fraud in my opinion.

Read about another fraud Hesham islam...here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56110

Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., who co-chairs the House Anti-Terrorism Caucus, has been fighting to keep Coughlin in the Pentagon, where she says his blunt analysis of the Islamic enemy is sorely needed.

Citing federal court documents introduced as evidence in a recent major terror case, she also warns that U.S. front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood are conspiring to destroy America from within.

"Our enemies have clearly stated their intention to infiltrate us, much like the Russians did during the Cold war," Myrick said. "We had no problem analyzing and acting on that information then."

"I know that some people will refuse to admit there is a subversive movement going on here, but let me remind you that we have underestimated the will and capability of our enemy for more than 30 years," she added. "They are patient and determined to achieve their radical agenda."

Some Islamic scholars have concluded that the Koran, when it tells women to dress modestly, really asks that they cover their hips, not their hair. These scholars say that the Arabic in use back in the days of Mohammed refers to hips, not hair, and that modern usage is incorrect. I wonder if Mr. Patel might address this. Hips certainly are more enticing than hair, though I suppose if one read the Village Voice personals, one might find some who believe the opposite.

I also wonder if Sufis are safer in Turkey than elsewhere in the Islamic world. I rather doubt Saudi Arabia is particularly welcoming.

Finally, I think Jim Talantis Chido raises an important point. While Turkey suppresses Islam to a degree, it suppresses Christianity to a far greater degree. Turkey will have to address this if and when it joins the EU, just as it will have to address Cyprus and the Armenian Holocaust.

Look the dialogue about American politicians being forced to sign off on imposing Christian symbols in the public square. The prohibition on headscarves by the original Turkish modernizers was not an accident. They knew that it was necessary if women were to have a place in the world. I knew a Eqyptian Dr. 25 years ago who talked about how horriable her year in Saudi was. When I went to Eqypt a couple of years ago, virtually every woman wore the head and shoulder scarf, leaving just the face visable. I'm sure that was not the case when my Dr. friend lived there. No one should object to people being free to dress how they want, if they are free, but just as women in Afganistan and Iran are not, just as women in Egypt really are not, or it would not be so universal, so it will soon be manditory for women to cover up in Turkey, then they will have to cover more and more, then women will increasing get removed from public life. This is not what the scarf wearers say they want, but it is what they will make happen. Women will be shamed then threatened into their place. Anyone who denies this truth is merely trying to deceive us, or is foolishly deceiving himself. I doubt anyone is that foolish

Look the dialogue about American politicians being forced to sign off on imposing Christian symbols in the public square. The prohibition on headscarves by the original Turkish modernizers was not an accident. They knew that it was necessary if women were to have a place in the world. I knew a Eqyptian Dr. 25 years ago who talked about how horriable her year in Saudi was. When I went to Eqypt a couple of years ago, virtually every woman wore the head and shoulder scarf, leaving just the face visable. I'm sure that was not the case when my Dr. friend lived there. No one should object to people being free to dress how they want, if they are free, but just as women in Afganistan and Iran are not, just as women in Egypt really are not, or it would not be so universal, so it will soon be manditory for women to cover up in Turkey, then they will have to cover more and more, then women will increasing get removed from public life. This is not what the scarf wearers say they want, but it is what they will make happen. Women will be shamed then threatened into their place. Anyone who denies this truth is merely trying to deceive us, or is foolishly deceiving himself. I doubt anyone is that foolish

I find nothing wrong with women wearing head scarfs due to their religion. I grew up wearing a hat as part of the uniform attending a Catholic school. We were required to wear hats or veils in church. I often wondered why that was done away with. What a shame that intellegent women are not able to do what they were educated for and now because of their religious beliefs cannot get an education. Men must feel threatened to enforce such a rule.

Bravo! This is *exactly* the proper response to the issue of head scarves, and crosses, and other outward expressions of religious belief.

In this case, it is even more critical because traditional Muslim women generally believe that they *must* cover their hair to be modestly dressed. Forbidding them the right to wear hijab is forbidding them to obey what they believe is a command from God. Whatever another person's views, forbidding someone to obey God as they believe they must is a terrible thing. It's justified to save another person's life, and might be to save their own life. It is NOT JUSTIFIED when the issue is a simple matter of prejudice on the part of other people. :(

I also firmly support the right of women not to wear a head scarf, and believe that both rights are two sides of the same issue. Coercing a person into doing something that they believe is unnecessary or (in some cases) positively wrong is itself a terribly wrong action. Again, I feel it is justified if another person's life is at stake, and might be to save that person's own life. It is NOT JUSTIFIED when the issue is a simple matter of believing that your religious views should trump another person's when it comes to their private behavior.

At least in the United States and other countries with civil, secular governments, this should be a non-issue. It frightens me that so many allegedly civil, secular societies feel that it is right to control private religious behavior.

You made a lot of sense. Of course, you agreed with me, so I would think so! ;)

Dear Mr. Patel,
Hopefully, this new era of religious toleration will be extended to the Christian minority in Turkey as well. The Eastern Orthodox Church's Halki Theological School was closed in 1971 during a crackdown on private higher education institutions, in violation of earlier international statutes and the Turkish Constitution. Church properties were also seized. In addition, the Turkish government and courts refuse to recognize Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew as Ecumenical Patriarch and spiritual leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church, recognizing him only as the spiritual leader of the tiny Greek minority in Turkey. Ironically, the Patriarchate predates the Turkish Muslim conquest by about 1,000 years.

The new Turkish government has indicated it may reexamine some of the issues noted above. Hopefully (again), this will come to pass.

I need to apologize about my previous post. A friend just corrected me: I mistook "headscarf" for "burka".

My comment was born out of ignorance - sorry about that. I have no opinion about the central issue, I'll just keep reading your posts to be better informed.

yeah, sure, right. and the turks will not oppose or hinder the greek orthodoxy community! and soon all christians will be allowed to wear their crosses in public in all muslim coountries.

get a grip

Am I being blocked?

The two examples you mention as proof of "violation" of religious rights, they actually have a logical reason behind them.

You can't compare the removal of a scarf with the removal of a cross (or any other religious symbol) just in religious terms. That only proves your close-mindedness.

A rector asking their students to show their faces is based on the fact that he needs to make sure of their identity, he needs to know that the person asking him to sign a document is actually the person that she/he claims to be. If I wanted to commit an identity fraud, I would wear a scarf too.

A cross never prevented anybody from being identified.

By quoting that guy in Parliament that said “will ultimately bring us Hezbollah terror, Al Qaeda terror and fundamentalism”, you're just using the resource of showing an extreme position to reinforce your point.

Is there a distinction made between headscarves for fashion and headscarves for religious purposes?

Mr. Patel,

Did you ever wonder that the Interfaith Group that you run in Chicago would be an exercise in futility (a joke) in almost all Islamic nations, including Turkey, which you describe as a modern Muslim nation.

Reason: There are no non-Muslims to speak of who live in Islamic nations. Ever wonder why is that? Are they killed and/or driven away or they are not interested in not living in a 99 percent Muslim populated land?

True religious freedom is exactly that - freedom to believe or not to believe and to accept that that freedom pertains to all.

What is the point of your blog?
All evidence based on current events shows that "Muslim Leaders" consider everyone who is not a Muslim to be either someone to be converted or killed.
You are all barbarians and I cannot understand why any Muslim is allowed into the United States,why don't you grab a camel and leave?

I've lived in Turkey and have numerous Turkish friends, all of whom are secularist. They all say the same thing: the women who want to wear their head scarves in universities are making political statements, NOT religious ones. To them, the head scarf does not signify a pious Muslim, but a Muslim who wants to ultimately impose their beliefs on those who don't share theirs.

As a result, they rightly claim that western nations prohibit most political speech on government property. Much in the same way as is it illegal to post my Obama '08 poster on my office door, so it should also be illegal (they claim) to wear a head scarf in state-owned, state-run universities. It should also be noted that the same rule does not apply to privately run schools or universities.

While there are differences, it is not, to my mind an open-and-shut case for allowing the headscarf.
Turkey is on the cusp of wrestling with an issue most of the Muslim world has not touched: how Islam fits with in the overall goal of being an open, pluralist society.

You talk of ethnic diversity, but isn't Turkey almost 100 percent Muslim populated. Last I read, the Christians lived in "constant fear". Even the Kurds, ethnic Muslims, are known for honor killings.

Why you as an American are worried about Turkey? Are you also worried about intolerant 50 other Islamic nations, including the land of your prophet Saudi Arabia, where a Bible is not allowed?

True diversity would be where you have at least 8 to 10 percent of different religion who enjoy equal rights. Tell me 4 out of 50 Islamic nation where at least 10 percent of the population is non-Muslim? Thanks

Dear Eboo Patel,

The Tolerance can not be provided by empty words.
The Tolerance is Human Rights,not Subjugation.
The Tolerance is the Civilization,not Stone Age Mentality.
The Tolerance is the Contemporary Values,not Desert Rules.
The Tolerance is Rationality,not the Cult.

Sufi poet,Mongolian Jalaladdin Rumi(1207-1273) had lived in Konya.Yes,he said *Come,come whoever you are come...*
During his lifetime,there were much more churches then mosques in Konya.How many churches are there,at that moment in Konya ? None.
Forget church,is there any ruin of church in Konya ? No.Where is the tolerance ?
Konya is the center of fanatical islamists in Turkey.Konya is the small Iran in Turkey. Is it tolerance ?

Dear Eboo Patel,

Do you know History of Ottoman Empire ?
Was there Democracy in Ottomam ?
Was there Human Rights in Ottoman ?
Was there Women Rights in Ottoman ?
Do you know *Well Digger Murad Pasha* ?
Do you know *seven-eight Hasan Pasha* ?
Do you know Literacy rate among muslim women ? Less then one percent.What is the present situation ? 95 percent.

If the Headscarf is the mark of Freedom and Democracy(not veiled democracy),the most democratical countries would be islamofascist Iran,Saudi Fear Kingdom and Taleban's Afghanistan,wouldnt they ?

Considering today's issues with Islam against the world (and I say this not because Islam is slowly conquering Europe but Asia as well), Turkey is right to do what they are to given their proximity to the Middle East. They have the right idea, and I believe want to be like the united states, but they have many internal enemies and percieved enemies. I can't say what the outcome will be in 20 years, but I'd bet on it going the way of Iran and Iraq and other countries in the middle east that are subjective to the whims of a drug laden minority of extremists. They are relentless, unforgiving, and lost the meaning of jeehad and the role of women in society. I think the modern Islamic extremist are not muslims, but troglodytes.

Considering today's issues with Islam against the world (and I say this not because Islam is slowly conquering Europe but Asia as well), Turkey is right to do what they are to given their proximity to the Middle East. They have the right idea, and I believe want to be like the united states, but they have many internal enemies and percieved enemies. I can't say what the outcome will be in 20 years, but I'd bet on it going the way of Iran and Iraq and other countries in the middle east that are subjective to the whims of a drug laden minority of extremists. They are relentless, unforgiving, and lost the meaning of jeehad and the role of women in society. I think the modern Islamic extremist are not muslims, but troglodytes.

Learn history, lest you repeat it.

Modern day freedoms did not fall from the sky. To understand this there is no need to go back to the days of the Crusades and Jihad. Just look at WW1/2, the Holocaust, Cold War, Taliban, 9/11, etc. in living memory.

In other words, what is Islam's track record? Since we are focused on Turkey, let's look at Turkey's pre-secular track record.

In a gist: Women=property, Men=dominance.

So, now, in the environment that the secularists created (imperfect, but democratic nonetheless), we see people heaping all sorts of criticism on the secular state based on "violations" against the practicing members of society, as if history of Islamic societies and governments is not chalk-full of far-wrose violations in far-greater proportions.

Well, good. Then here are some unpopular secular counter-points:
1. Definition: Who decided that a certain head-covering was THE way to do it? What if burqa is the "true" way Muslim women should dress? Why is that not allowed?
2. Universalness of freedom: Will bikini-wearers be allowed in the same public spaces (classrooms, banks, courts, etc.) next to burka wearing citizens? If not, then why not?
3. Contradictions in Islamic priorities: Freedom to practice Islam is the key basis for demanding headscarves. So, will the same adhere to Sheria in matters that may involve beheading, stoning, STRIPPING of women of their secural status/rights (as half of men), etc.? If not, the why not? Are the Muslims saying headscarves come before Islamic justice/law and many canonical requirements? On what basis? What is the basis for treating elementary school girls as women and covering them up before they even reach puberty? Where in the Qu'ran are girls/boys treated as adults? If the Qu'ran is not the basis, then what is? Are honor killings and genetal mutilations sanctioned in the Qu'ran? If not, then who is setting the rules for Islamic practice?

What if Turkey had been a continuation (and not a split) from the Ottoman times? Would women be given a real option to UNcover their heads? To go to school? To marry whomever they wish? To receive equal pay and inheretence? Etc.

(Take a wild guess: NO.)

Even its final years, the Ottomans were holding courts/conferences discussing how far the sleeves of womens' attire should reach, if the visibility of any amount of flesh is "ok". No women were consulted, curiously.

I guess it is time to repeat history.

I have visited Turkey and have the greatest respect for the country, the people and Attaturk's legacy. Turkey today is a shining light in the region for both economic well-being and personal freedom. That success was built on, at times painful, forced secularization of the country by Attaturk.

In light of the global Islamist insurgencies that want to take the entire world backwards, the Turkish leadership and people must ask themselves whether the project of modernization, education and secularization in Turkey is complete. My personal view is not yet. So, keep the headscarfs outside of the universities.

Don't forget that it was the current leader of Turkey's Islamist party who said, "Democracy is the bus that we will ride to power," meaning that they will use the system to get into office and then that will be the last free election Turkey will ever have. That's not my paranoia, that's their stated strategy.

Islamists fully believe that they can and should dominate every society in which Muslims live, including Europe. The free European democracies are merely "pre-Islamic" to them ... as soon as their numbers and political power permit, they will dominate. They are not interested in freedom, equality, multiculturalism and co-existence.

That's why the "slippery slope" argument DOES pertain here. The Catholic/IRA analogy is nonsense ... the IRA objective was to get the Brits out of Ireland, not to conquer the world for Catholicism. Islamists themselves are very frank about their objective, to their credit. And when they attain it, you won't be able to pretend you never knew what they really had in mind.

thank you for understanding the situation while turkish secularists don't and may be don't want to. women with headscarfs say its for our faith and its a rule of our religion. but turkish people believing the religion of secularism don't take notice of this. they only want to empose unfaithfulness

A headscarf is a symbol, no an apology for a woman in a misogynist society. There seems to be a division between Islamists and Westerners according to two similar articles this morning on the subject. Is a woman walking several steps behind a man in Japan seen as an expression of dominance by the male or acquiescence by the female? Did woman w/o survivorship rights get interpreted as mere disinterest in land? Scarves are not worn because they are sexy. They are worn not because they are religious but rather because they consume a woman's identity. They are no less a ritual to demean than the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany who were forced to wear the Judea yellow symbol on their clothes. To suggest otherwise is to declare gang rape of a woman for a public appearance next to a non-relative in an Islamic society as justified. There is no justification for subordination and there is no place in America for a non-secular Islamism including sharia.

Crosses worn by celebrities are obnoxious. The Chrisitiam symbol of faith in an after life, belief in forgiveness, and initial sin has taken on the value of bling. It's coarse and vulgar. One doesn't need to wear ones belief as if one is proudly a member of a band and also a Christian. Some people need to temper themselves rather than advertise themselves.

I absolutely have no problems with head scarves.

The bigger issue is with a veil or burqua. People who hide their faces are interpreted as people with something to hide.

If one goes out in public, your face should be visible for any number of lawful, secular reasons.

The problem with your comparison is that Christians in the U.S. don't castigate those who DON'T wear crosses or WWJD bracelets. Last time I checked, there wasn't too great a danger of secularists partaking in: honor killings, abuse of women not wearing headscarves, allowing girls to die in a burning building because they weren't wearing abayas....Given the great tradition Islam has in protecting women's rights to practice Islam in the way they deem fit, I don't think it's wrong to err on the side of secularism here.

I wonder with all your praise for Turkey if you would feel as wonderful if you were an Armenian trying to attend mass there, or publish a poem in you native language?

I wonder with all your praise for Turkey if you would feel as wonderful if you were an Armenian trying to attend mass there, or publish a poem in you native language?

Istanbul and Turkey as a whole is an amazing place that I would recommend to any American wanting to travel abroad. There is a tremendous balance between Islamic and secular Turkish culture, and don't get me started on how great the cuisine and people are but the one problem that needs to be discussed regarding Turkey is the fact that the Turkish Government treats anyone who is not an ethnic Turk horribly. The minority Kurdish population is constantly persecuted by the government as can be seen with the many cases in the European Court of Human Rights, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch is constantly watched by Turkish authorities as if he is a common criminal, the orthodox christian and jewish populations have been basically forced out of the country over the last 50+ years, and it is basically a crime to even mention the possibility of an Armenian holocaust.

The spirit of diversity that appears to be vying for a place under the sun in Turkey is what has made this country, the usa, so welcoming and so great.
Turkey could only succeed if it enacted checks and balances to keep democracy vibrant. I could only hope Turkey would succeed.