The veil/head cover in monotheistic religions

[orangepulp]

Mary is confused as hell and messed up. A Christian wearing a hijab, that's nonsense in the pure form.

I made a similar thread on ABF and decided to make one here as well because I have noticed that many people are unaware that the veil is not only implemented in Islam but also applied in Judaism and Christianity.

All monothiestic religions support the head cover:

Chapter 11 verses 3-10.

But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not covered, let her be shaven. But if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. A man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man. For man was not created for woman, but woman for man. This is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority over her head, because of the angels.

And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel
For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself [Genesis 24:64-65 KJV]

Irenaeus (120-202 a.d)

a. Irenaeus translates 1 Corinthians 11:10 as follows: "A woman ought to
have a veil [kalumma] upon her head, because of the angels."5
b. This is significant in that Irenaeus apparently understood the "power" on
a woman's head in 1 Corinthians 11:10 to be a veil of some kind and not a
woman's hair.



http://www.muhajabah.com/images/mary.jpg
Woman from Crete
http://www.explorecrete.com/mycrete/customs/crete-old-lady.jpg
Catholic women
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jCLJb9lPZaQ/R2129_sNw3I/AAAAAAAAAkg/1eFURYdNDdo/s200/veil-woman.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_jCLJb9lPZaQ/RnGL1pMJJGI/AAAAAAAAAUA/f6SV53qMAQo/s400/mantillas.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jCLJb9lPZaQ/STiDyDwZbeI/AAAAAAAABnY/YM-MBmCOMlM/s400/Jordan_Christians.jpg
http://fatherstephen.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/mikhail_nesterov-taking_the_veil_1898.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jCLJb9lPZaQ/R3cdEvsNw8I/AAAAAAAAAlI/CyXRctuyVcE/s320/news-clip.jpg

Jewish woman:

http://clouddragon.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/jewish-veiled-woman.jpg?w=173&h=312



It was customary for most women in the ancient Near East, Mesopotamia, and the Greco-Roman world to cover their hair when they went outside the home. In biblical times, women covered their heads with veils or scarves. The unveiling of a woman's hair was considered a humiliation and punishment (Isa. 3:17; cf. Num. 5:18 on the loosening of the hair of a woman suspected of adultery; III Macc. 4:6; and Sus. 32).

In talmudic times, too, married women were enjoined to cover their hair in communal spaces (e.g., Ned. 30b; Num. R. 9:16). In a society so highly conscious of sexuality and its dangers, veiling was considered an absolute necessity to maintain modesty and chastity. If a woman walked bareheaded in the street, her husband could divorce her without repaying her dowry (Ket. 7:6). Some rabbis compared the exposure of a married woman's hair to the exposure of her private parts (Ber. 24a), and forbade the recitation of any blessing in the presence of a bareheaded woman (ibid.). The rabbis praised pious women such as Kimhit, the mother of several high priests, who took care not to uncover their hair even in the house (Yoma 47a; Lev. R. 20:11). Nevertheless, covering the head was a personal imposition and restriction from which men were glad to be exempt. According to Sotah 3:8, men differ from women in that they may appear in public "with hair unbound and in torn garments." In Eruvin 100b, one of the disadvantages or "curses" that is cited as an inevitable part of being female includes being "wrapped up like a mourner." Some aggadic sources interpret this custom as a sign of woman's shame and feeling of guilt for Eve's sin (Gen. R. 17:8; ARN2 9; Er. 100b and Rashi ad loc.; cf., also, the opinion of Paul in I Cor. 11:1–16). Girls did not have to cover their hair until the wedding ceremony (Ket. 2:1). It gradually became the accepted traditional custom for all Jewish women to cover their hair (see Sh. Ar., EH 21:2).

In the early modern period the practice of a woman's shaving off all her hair upon marriage and covering her head with a kerchief (tichal) became widespread in Hungarian, Galician, and Ukrainian Jewish communities. Justifications for this stringency were to ensure that a married woman's hair would never be exposed and to eliminate the possibility of a woman's hair rising to the surface during her ritual immersion in the mikveh, rendering it invalid. Opponents argued that shaving the head would make a woman unattractive to her husband. Toward the end of the 18th century some circles of women began to wear a wig (shaytl). This "innovation" was opposed by certain Orthodox authorities such as Moses *Sofer (see A.J. Schlesinger, Lev ha-Ivri, 2 (19283), 109, 189) but continued to be widely practiced. In the early 21st century, a diverse range of customs connected with hair covering are followed by Orthodox Jewish women. Among some modern Orthodox women, there has been renewed interest in various modes of covering the hair after marriage. Many women who are not Orthodox continue the custom of covering their hair in synagogue.

[Judith R. Baskin (2nd ed.)]

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0008_0_08618.html[/QUOTE]

[Mary]

I made a similar thread on ABF and decided to make one here as well because I have noticed that many people are unaware that the veil is not only implemented in Islam but also applied in Judaism and Christianity.

The woman that you quoted and other women like her actually want to wear the veil and are jealous of women who do. It's an Orientalism fantasy for these women.

I don't want to lessen the importance of the theological discussion, but I think it's an important point to make. Here are some examples of the theme:


A young American woman is kidnapped by an Arabian sheik and held captive in his harem. At first she frantically tries to escape, but as they slowly get to know and appreciate each other the difference between captor and captive dissolves.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089256/


To cure a prince's murderous madness, Scheherezade tells him a series of wonderous stories.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181199/


As the Ottoman Empire comes to an end, an old servant spins a tale to keep the women in the Sultan's harem distracted. The story is about Safiye, who first becomes the Sultan's favorite concubine, and later the official wife. As she gains power and influence, she engages in a tryst with Nadir, the black eunuch. When the Empire falls, the Sultan escapes to Europe, leaving all the concubines behind. Safiye fights for their rights under the new order...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0179841/

Here is a film on the theme:

ECbQnTZJTvA

[orangepulp]

I don't know if they want to wear it but how can they be a real Christian and criticize the practice when it is a part of Christian teachings. Many Christians are not aware of their own religions teachings.

[Mosov]

I don't know if they want to wear it but how can they be a real Christian and criticize the practice when it is a part of Christian teachings.

People use the practice of wearing a veil to bash Islam. Though often such people are hypocrites...

[Hurrem sultana]

mary you wear the niqab as an orthodx?

[Hurrem sultana]

People use the practice of wearing a veil to bash Islam. Though often such people are hypocrites...

orthodox women in old times used to wear the veil too in Bosnia,catholics too

[Corvus]

But in Catholic countries the veil is just part of the folklore, traditional clothing in rural aereas, while in Islamic countries it is worn in a religous context and even in some nations mandatory.

[orangepulp]

People use the practice of wearing a veil to bash Islam. Though often such people are hypocrites...

Or ignorant, if those Christians knew they would never mention it to bash Islam.

[Mosov]

orthodox women in old times used to wear the veil too in Bosnia,catholics too

Yes, during Medieval Europe it was common practice, in Orthodox tradition when you enter a church its required to wear head covering,

Here is photo of Molokan people, a deeply religious, Christian people from Russia living in places like South Caucasus...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Russian_settlers%2C_possibly_Molokans%2C_in_the_Mu gan_steppe_of_Azerbaijan._Sergei_Mikhailovich_Prok udin-Gorskii.jpg/800px-Russian_settlers%2C_possibly_Molokans%2C_in_the_Mu gan_steppe_of_Azerbaijan._Sergei_Mikhailovich_Prok udin-Gorskii.jpg

http://memory.loc.gov/afc/afccc/p100/p157r.jpg

[GeistFaust]

I find the wearing of the veil to be appropriate as a symbol for women, but I think it also represents a symbol of false piety in a sense. The true and authentic form of piety is straightforward, honest, and direct with the self in relation to an abstract being.


I think the whole notion of covering or obscuring oneself as a lowly and resentful being before the presence of an abstract being is a resentful and lowly ideal supported by the Semitic inspired religions.


A true piety uncovers all that is beautiful, good, and noble and sets it free as if it were a free, rational, and proportioned. I don't understand why these Semitic religions can not realize that a true religion arises from a grounds which promotes the highest, most sublime, and most beautiful components of humanity.

[orangepulp]

But in Catholic countries the veil is just part of the folklore, traditional clothing in rural aereas, while in Islamic countries it is worn in a religous context and even in some nations mandatory.

It is also a religious implementation in Christianity, read the Biblical verse I posted. Many Christians don't follow what the Bible preaches, only a few such as the Amish in Pennsylvania. If you go to their community the women are dressed very modestly with a bonnet or some covering on their head:

http://magdalenaperks.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/old-postcard-amish-women-in-bonnets.jpg
http://galenf.com/amish/P9010134.jpg

[Mary]

I don't know if they want to wear it but how can they be a real Christian and criticize the practice when it is a part of Christian teachings. Many Christians are not aware of their own religions teachings.

Yes, they are hypocritical, but in Christianity wearing the veil is a symbol of submission to the man and has nothing to do with modesty. They hate because they don't have a man to be submissive to.

They project their insecurities onto Muslim women. Because in their mind, all Muslim women who wear the veil have a man that they are submissive to. This is why they always bitch about that "a man made the Muslim woman wear the veil". And they're jealous that they can't have this themselves.

[Mosov]

Honestly, I think women look more elegant in head covering. Much better than dressing in a vulgar manner.

[Mary]

mary you wear the niqab as an orthodx?

Yes, I do.

[Hurrem sultana]

Honestly, I think women look more elegant in head covering. Much better than dressing in a vulgar manner.

i agreee.when i see pics of my grandma as young...she looks so elegant and beautiful in it

[Mortimer]

Technically it was also not proper for women to shorten their hair or wear jeans/trousers

[Odoacer]

Up until the 1960s it was common if not universal practice for women to wear some kind of headcovering at least in church - whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant. That practice has mostly changed. But in any case it was quite different from Islamic hijab.

[Benacer]

Thank you for the background, orangepulp! :) I guess most Christians barely know anything about the book whose guidelines they claim to follow. I believe religion is a very personal thing, and one everyone should respect, as long as it does not cause the alienation of certain liberties from other individuals. I personally have no problem with those who choose to wear the veil. If they feel that by doing so they are being true to what they believe in, then they really should do it. It is just something that should not be condoned or promoted, it is merely a personal choice. And I think that people who are honest with themselves about their beliefs are most noble.

[Mortimer]

Up until the 1960s it was common if not universal practice for women to wear some kind of headcovering at least in church - whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant. That practice has mostly changed. But in any case it was quite different from Islamic hijab.

yes i think it was different too. also it was never common to wear the burqa.

[GeistFaust]

It is also a religious implementation in Christianity, read the Biblical verse I posted. Many Christians don't follow what the Bible preaches, only a few such as the Amish in Pennsylvania. If you go to their community the women are dressed very modestly with a bonnet or some covering on their head:

http://magdalenaperks.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/old-postcard-amish-women-in-bonnets.jpg
http://galenf.com/amish/P9010134.jpg



You sound quite orthodox and conservative in your approach to religious manners, which I will respect, although I find it a bit backwards. The problem with the orthodox and conservative types today is that they find they are special, because they are so traditional, which leads to all kinds of pretensiousness and self-righteousness.


I think that its fine to think one way is better than the other, but the way things have been interpreted in the modern era is that a more liberal and subjective approach to religion is good. This has been done because there was a need to update and get out of old types of useless and outdated mentalities.


I think conservative minded people come with a mentality that is too fixiated to the meaning behind religious symbols. They should realize the dynamic forces of nature that operate behind the veil of reality, and not depend on a stinking dogmatic code for their customs and practices.


I find dogma to be hypocritical and vain in so many different ways, and its good religion has been secularized and liberalized in some ways. That is because in the mind its rather subjective for people how they practice it, which is even seen to some degree in the more conservative and orthodox forms of religion.

[Mary]

Up until the 1960s it was common if not universal practice for women to wear some kind of headcovering at least in church - whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant. That practice has mostly changed. But in any case it was quite different from Islamic hijab.

How was the headscarf different from the hijab do you mean?

[Mary]

You sound quite orthodox and conservative in your approach to religious manners, which I will respect, although I find it a bit backwards. The problem with the orthodox and conservative types today is that they find they are special, because they are so traditional, which leads to all kinds of pretensiousness and self-righteousness.

Self-righteousness is a Protestant issue. "OMG you think you're better than me!". Not everyone is that way.

[Aivap]

You're a troll.

1-the women in the photos are not obliged to wear the veil, on the contrary in most of muslim countries i'ts an imposition.
2-in Europe there are traditional dresses with the veil and they were used to protect the heads of the women by the sun or the rain, not for crazy religious duties.
3-In catholic churches is not a habit wearing veil, it happens only among the Orthodoxes, who are generally backward and more conservative than Chatolics and Protestants.

[Mortimer]

How was the headscarf different from the hijab do you mean?

@Mary interesting what you wear in your avatar but i think i see a little cross on it attached? Is it a nun wear?

[Odoacer]

yes i think it was different too. also it was never common to wear the burqa.

In fact I have never seen any historical representation showing Christian women wearing full face coverings. Most of the time the head covering would cover the top, sides, & back of the head - sometimes all of the hair & the full neck at a maximum (as in a nun's habit). The burqa or niqab was never in use amongst Christians, except maybe in Islamic areas.

[Corvus]

You're a troll.

1-the women in the photos are not obliged to wear the veil, on the contrary in most of muslim countries i'ts an imposition.
2-in Europe there are traditional dresses with the veil and they were used to protect the heads of the women by the sun or the rain, not for crazy religious duties.
3-In catholic churches is not a habit wearing veil, it happens only among the Orthodoxes, who are generally backward and more conservative than Chatolics and Protestants.
4-

I remember my great grandmother always wear a veil during summer.
She always told me it`s a protection against the sun and insects.

[Mary]

@Mary interesting what you wear in your avatar but i think i see a little cross on it attached? Is it a nun wear?

I do have a small cross on it, it's just to underline that I'm Christian. It's not nun attire.

[Mortimer]

I do have a small cross on it, it's just to underline that I'm Christian. It's not nun attire.

I see, i would have been surprised if it were a kind of it. I never saw a nun who looks like this.

[Mary]

In fact I have never seen any historical representation showing Christian women wearing full face coverings. Most of the time the head covering would cover the top, sides, & back of the head - sometimes all of the hair & the full neck at a maximum (as in a nun's habit). The burqa or niqab was never in use amongst Christians, except maybe in Islamic areas.

European women wore the burqa and the niqab long before Islam existed.

[Mary]

I see, i would have been surprised if it were a kind of it. I never saw a nun who looks like this.

Nuns and regular women are totally different. You can't compare the two.

[Hevneren]

Yes, headscarves and bonnets were also used among women in Europe, maybe as recently as 50 to 100 years ago, as well as the use of hats. Men would have to take off their hats in church, but women could keep them on.

I should add that there were two main reasons for women to wear something on their heads: religious and practical. There were also some cultural reasons, but I'll add those in with the "practical".

In Norwegian traditional dress called the bunad, women traditionally wear something on their heads, but so do the men. The bunad was originally rural dress from the 1600's up until the late 1800's, and in rural areas both men and women did farm work, and more often than not long hair could get in the way, so basically women wore scarves to tie up their hair, as well as wearing special bonnets.

What you wore on your head could also tell other people if you were married or single, or from which village you came.

My objection to religious headscarves and similar practices would not be because I think it's strictly Islamic, but because Semitic religions and their practices are essentially foreign to us.

[orangepulp]

You're a troll.

1-the women in the photos are not obliged to wear the veil, on the contrary in most of muslim countries i'ts an imposition.


Only in 2 countries the veil is enforced, in Iran and Saudi Arabia, otherwise in all Muslim countries it is optional and even though it is not forced most Muslim women prefer to cover their hair.

2-in Europe there are traditional dresses with the veil and they were used to protect the heads of the women by the sun or the rain, not for crazy religious duties.
3-In catholic churches is not a habit wearing veil, it happens only among the Orthodoxes, who are generally backward and more conservative than Chatolics and Protestants.
You didnt read the verses did you.
Why then mother Mary is mostly depicted with a head cover in portraits and statues, why do nuns cover their hair?
http://images.mylot.com/userImages/images/postphotos/2082830.jpg
http://images2.layoutsparks.com/1/170025/mother-mary-graceful-holy.jpghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NGs5iwu2Rzk/T0zTUgdS-1I/AAAAAAAABas/4B-W0u1x550/s1600/Virgin+Mary+Picture+20.jpg

[Aivap]

I remember my great grandmother always wear a veil during summer.
She always told me it`s a protection against the sun and insects.

My grandmother too.

[Smaland]

Up until the 1960s it was common if not universal practice for women to wear some kind of headcovering at least in church - whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant. That practice has mostly changed. But in any case it was quite different from Islamic hijab.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRs1aVn6EucNyNt3K_-fTCCosha0E99oZeyBDHbn7MD-bU9QyWO5rlcg-JG

Scarves are gone now, but when I was a boy, on occasion you would see a woman wearing a scarf to cover her head.

[Aivap]

Only in 2 countries the veil is enforced, in Iran and Saudi Arabia, otherwise in all Muslim countries it is optional and even though it is not forced most Muslim women prefer to cover their hair.

You didnt read the verses did you.
Why then mother Mary is mostly depicted with a head cover in portraits and statues, why do nuns cover their hair?
http://images.mylot.com/userImages/images/postphotos/2082830.jpg
http://images2.layoutsparks.com/1/170025/mother-mary-graceful-holy.jpghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NGs5iwu2Rzk/T0zTUgdS-1I/AAAAAAAABas/4B-W0u1x550/s1600/Virgin+Mary+Picture+20.jpg

That's totally false. You forget Pakistan and Afghanistan, and anyway in most muslim countries muslim women have to wear it. An example is UAE veil is an imposition only for Muslims, while non muslim immigrants and turists can wear as they prefer.


ps: I don't care a fuck of Holy Mary, I live in a democratic country, my constitution is not the bible.



And about nuns, exist also orders that not use veil, in any case they decide to become nuns, they are not obliged by their families or their governments.

[Loki]

In traditional South African Christian Pentecostal churches it was considered disrespectful for women to pray without a head covering. This has only changed during the last 20 years or so - and not without resistance.

My mother always wore a hat to church. I still know a Christian woman in America (originally from South Africa) who absolutely insists on wearing a head covering when praying. People thought she was weird but she really didn't care as she respected herself and her own convictions.

[Hevneren]

Honestly, I think women look more elegant in head covering. Much better than dressing in a vulgar manner.

Perhaps, but a woman can dress modestly without covering her hair/head, just as a woman covering her hair/head can dress immodestly, in my opinion.

Frankly though, some men need a lesson in modesty too, because I've seen 40-something men in the summertime, shirtless with their huge ugly beer guts out. Where's their modesty? :eek:

[GeistFaust]

Self-righteousness is a Protestant issue. "OMG you think you're better than me!". Not everyone is that way.



Self-Righteousness is no less of a symptom in the ressenter religions than it is in the Protestant religions.

The only different is that the self-righteousness of the more conservative and traditional religions is based on a depraved and de-personalizing consciousness, which seeks to defame itself.

The Protestant religions base their self-righteousness on a far more rationalistic and pragmatic basis, even though its inspired by the same Romanticized forces in Islam/Judaism/Catholicism.

[Mary]

ps: I don't care a fuck of Holy Mary, I live in a democratic country, my constitution is not the bible.

Then you shouldn't use Christianity as an excuse to hate on the Muslims.

[orangepulp]

That's totally false. You forget Pakistan and Afghanistan, and anyway in most muslim countries muslim women have to wear it. An example is UAE veil is an imposition only for Muslims, while non muslim immigrants and turists can wear as they prefer.
I live in the UAE sweetheart, hijab is optional, not enforced. There are many Muslim women who don't cover in the UAE.

Emirati singer, ooo where is her hijab????:

http://www.6rb.com/uploads/photos/alyazia-mohamed-1637-20215-8802672.jpg

Anyway, as I mentioned it is only legally enforced in Iran and Saudi, not Pakistan, I am not sure about Afghanistan.


ps: I don't care a fuck of Holy Mary, I live in a democratic country, my constitution is not the bible.


If you don't care about what the Bible says then why are you posting here?? The topic was about the veil in monotheism :eusa_doh:

[Hevneren]

European women wore the burqa and the niqab long before Islam existed.

:confused:

Sources please? Burqas and niqabs aren't scarves.

P. S. Yes, I know she's a troll.

[Loki]

My personal view (as a humanitarian and non-religionist) - I don't think head covering has anything to do with modesty. Showing your hair does not mean you're a whore. This is outdated in my opinion. Males and females should have equal rights in everything. If a woman should cover her hair, why not a man also? I personally find it to be ridiculous, sorry.

[Aivap]

Then you shouldn't use Christianity as an excuse to hate on the Muslims.

When and where have I used christianity as an excuse :confused:

[Loki]

Emirati singer, ooo where is her hijab????:

http://www.6rb.com/uploads/photos/alyazia-mohamed-1637-20215-8802672.jpg


She looks much better without the hijab :love: :o

[Odoacer]

How was the headscarf different from the hijab do you mean?

I rather meant niqab than hijab. My mistake.


European women wore the burqa and the niqab long before Islam existed.

It simply was never a common practice in European Christianity for women to fully cover their faces in all public situations. There were styles similar to niqab in the Near East & parts of Greece (the latter due to Oriental influence); the burqa is another matter entirely, being quite simply Asian in origin. Something like the standard hijab was much more common, but in practice head covering in European Christianity allowed for a wide array of different headgear, including scarves, bonnets, & hats. When face veils were worn by women, it was usually on their wedding day or while in mourning, & then it was usually sheer cloth which covered but did not hide the face. It is culturally & historically ridiculous to say that European women ever wore the burqa & niqab.

[Mary]

Self-Righteousness is no less of a symptom in the ressenter religions than it is in the Protestant religions.

The only different is that the self-righteousness of the more conservative and traditional religions is based on a depraved and de-personalizing consciousness, which seeks to defame itself.

The Protestant religions base their self-righteousness on a far more rationalistic and pragmatic basis, even though its inspired by the same Romanticized forces in Islam/Judaism/Catholicism.

In my opinion, no offense intended, Protestants have an issue with false modesty. In Orthodoxy, some people are inherently holier than others, that's in the nature of things. But with that comes also responsibility as those people are held to higher standards than regular people.

In Protestantism everyone has to be "equally holy". That means an individual that is "better" has to hide this. And a person that is "worse" is scorned because they don't live up to the norm. So that's why you have issues with repression, for instance.

As an Orthodox person I am not going to hate on someone that is "worse" than me. Because I realize that we are different and are held to different standards. The Protestants however tend to feel really judged and singled out as "worse".

Maybe if you dropped the religious egalitarianism you wouldn't have these issues.

[Sturmgewehr]

You sound quite orthodox and conservative in your approach to religious manners, which I will respect, although I find it a bit backwards. The problem with the orthodox and conservative types today is that they find they are special, because they are so traditional, which leads to all kinds of pretensiousness and self-righteousness.


I think that its fine to think one way is better than the other, but the way things have been interpreted in the modern era is that a more liberal and subjective approach to religion is good. This has been done because there was a need to update and get out of old types of useless and outdated mentalities.


I think conservative minded people come with a mentality that is too fixiated to the meaning behind religious symbols. They should realize the dynamic forces of nature that operate behind the veil of reality, and not depend on a stinking dogmatic code for their customs and practices.


I find dogma to be hypocritical and vain in so many different ways, and its good religion has been secularized and liberalized in some ways. That is because in the mind its rather subjective for people how they practice it, which is even seen to some degree in the more conservative and orthodox forms of religion.

pretty much sums up everything that should be said in this thread.

[Mary]

:confused:

Sources please? Burqas and niqabs aren't scarves.

P. S. Yes, I know she's a troll.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2ebz5dw.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/vse4i1.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/29xuad.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/51exrk.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/25tj02a.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/o6i1zp.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/2rpg1ok.jpg

Source: http://www.amazon.com/Aphrodites-Tortoise-Veiled-Ancient-Greece/dp/0954384539

[Aivap]

These are catholics hearing mass

http://www.lanostrafamiglia.it/news/messa_sanpaolo_fm2.jpg

http://www.lanostrafamiglia.it/news/messa_sanpaolo_fm1.jpg


I don't see a single women who covers hear head, so it's false what have been said in this thread.



Catholic nuns. many don't use a veil!
http://tottusinpari.blog.tiscali.it/files/2012/02/CONGO.jpg

http://www.alcantarine.org/public/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/comunita-doba.jpg

[Mary]

When and where have I used christianity as an excuse :confused:

It's implied in the argument that Islam is foreign to Europe. If you don't care about Christianity, then you shouldn't care about Islam or Hinduism either.

[orangepulp]

My personal view (as a humanitarian and non-religionist) - I don't think head covering has anything to do with modesty. Showing your hair does not mean you're a whore. This is outdated in my opinion. Males and females should have equal rights in everything. If a woman should cover her hair, why not a man also? I personally find it to be ridiculous, sorry.

I agree, covering the hair is not the only sign of modesty, there are many women that cover but act immodestly, likewise I don't think that a woman who doesn't cover her hair is immodest.

There is a reason why we cover, to attract less attention as possible from non related men. Men don't have to cover as strictly as women do but they also have their limits in showing their body, they are also ordered to lower their gaze. Men can't be compared to women in beauty. Women are more beautiful and attractive than me are. A guy sees a girl and can easily have perverted thoughts about her but such wouldn't happen if a woman sees a man. This is in some form a protection for us.

Men and women have different duties, different rulings in some cases because our nature is different but we are all equal in the sight of God.

[orangepulp]

She looks much better without the hijab :love: :o

Of course she does, we all do :)
That's the point of covering anyway to appear less attractive in front of non related men.

[Mary]

I rather meant niqab than hijab. My mistake.



It simply was never a common practice in European Christianity for women to fully cover their faces in all public situations. There were styles similar to niqab in the Near East & parts of Greece (the latter due to Oriental influence); the burqa is another matter entirely, being quite simply Asian in origin. Something like the standard hijab was much more common, but in practice head covering in European Christianity allowed for a wide array of different headgear, including scarves, bonnets, & hats. When face veils were worn by women, it was usually on their wedding day or while in mourning, & then it was usually sheer cloth which covered but did not hide the face. It is culturally & historically ridiculous to say that European women ever wore the burqa & niqab.

The burqa and the niqab originated in ancient Greece long before Christianity. Later on the full veil (that is the burqa and niqab) was mandated by the Church Fathers.


As, then, in the fashioning of our clothes, we must keep clear of all strangeness, so in the use of them we must beware of extravagance. For neither is it seemly for the clothes to be above the knee, as they say was the case with the Lacedæmonian virgins; nor is it becoming for any part of a woman to be exposed. Though you may with great propriety use the language addressed to him who said, "Your arm is beautiful; yes, but it is not for the public gaze. Your thighs are beautiful; but, was the reply, for my husband alone. And your face is comely. Yes; but only for him who has married me." But I do not wish chaste women to afford cause for such praises to those who, by praises, hunt after grounds of censure; and not only because it is prohibited to expose the ankle, but because it has also been enjoined that the head should be veiled and the face covered; for it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men. Nor is it seemly for a woman to wish to make herself conspicuous, by using a purple veil.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm


Titus Flavius Clemens (c.150 – c. 215), known as Clement of Alexandria, was a Christian theologian who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. A convert to Christianity, he was an educated man who was familiar with classical Greek philosophy and literature. As his three major works demonstrate, Clement was influenced by Hellenistic philosophy to a greater extent than any other Christian thinker of his time, and in particular by Plato and the Stoics.[1] His secret works, which exist only in fragments, attest that he was also familiar with pre-Christian Jewish esotericism and Gnosticism. Among his pupils were Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem.

Clement is regarded as a Church Father, and he is venerated as a saint in Orthodox Christianity, Eastern Catholicism and Anglicanism. He was previously revered in the Roman Catholic Church, but his cult was suppressed in 1586 by Pope Sixtus V due to concerns about his orthodoxy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria

[Hevneren]

It's implied in the argument that Islam is foreign to Europe.

Because it is.

[Mary]

Because it is.

If you don't care about religion, it shouldn't matter. Is it different if a Muslim woman wears a head scarf than if a Christian woman does it? From a non-religious standpoint it should be the same.

[Aivap]

It's implied in the argument that Islam is foreign to Europe. If you don't care about Christianity, then you shouldn't care about Islam or Hinduism either.

Islam is foreign to Europe. Except for few countries, every town and city of Europe has a cathedral and bell towers, not mosques and minarets.

[Mary]

Islam is foreign to Europe. Except for few countries, every town and city of Europe has a cathedral and bell towers, not mosques and minarets.

But I thought you didn't care about religion? If you would be consistent you should feel the same way about the cathedrals.

[Odoacer]

The burqa and the niqab originated in ancient Greece long before Christianity.

They originated in Asia. Similar styles became fashionable in Ancient Greece prior to Roman domination.


Later on the full veil (that is the burqa and niqab) was mandated by the Church Fathers.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria

These are burqas:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Burqa_Afghanistan_01.jpg/400px-Burqa_Afghanistan_01.jpg

No such garment was ever worn historically in Europe.

[Mary]

They originated in Asia. Similar styles became fashionable in Ancient Greece prior to Roman domination.



These are burqas:



No such garment was ever worn historically in Europe.

They originated and were worn in Europe: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=791798&postcount=48

[Hevneren]

If you don't care about religion, it shouldn't matter. Is it different if a Muslim woman wears a head scarf than if a Christian woman does it? From a non-religious standpoint it should be the same.

Christianity is foreign too. I'm only stating a fact. These Semitic religions all come from the Middle East.

[Mary]

Christianity is foreign too. I'm only stating a fact. These Semitic religions all come from the Middle East.

Fair enough. But then shouldn't you be more worried about all the Christians and Christian things that exist here, rather than the Muslims?

[Aivap]

But I thought you didn't care about religion? If you would be consistent you should feel the same way about the cathedrals.

You have asked if Islam is foreign to Europe, and I' ve simply answered.
I don't care about religion, but nobody can doubt that European society have been influenced more by Christianity than by any other existing religion.

[Odoacer]

They originated and were worn in Europe: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=791798&postcount=48

Yes, I saw that. Please note that none of the garments depicted there are burqas, though several are similar to niqab. Also note that the shaal style is the only one said to be without an analogous depiction in Near Eastern art. Nothing here proves that the face veil originated in Greece, much less burqa.

[Mary]

You have asked if Islam is foreign to Europe, and I' ve simply answered.
I don't care about religion, but nobody can doubt that European society have been influenced more by Christianity than by any other existing religion.

I take it that Christianity is okay but is Islam is not. Is that correct?

If so then what is the difference between a Christian wearing a veil and a Muslim doing it?

[Hevneren]

Fair enough. But then shouldn't you be more worried about all the Christians and Christian things that exist here, rather than the Muslims?

Christianity is becoming increasingly watered down and irrelevant. The same isn't true for Islam, which has changed a lot less since its beginnings than Christianity has.

Optimally, I'd like to see a Europe free from Judeaism, Christianity and Islam, but I also recognise people's right to personal beliefs. I think religion should be kept personal rather than public.

[Aivap]

I take it that Christianity is okay but is Islam is not. Is that correct?

If so then what is the difference between a Christian wearing a veil and a Muslim doing it?

The reasons can be 2.
Or you don't understand, or you're making fun of me.
The second option is the more probable, I' m sure you're the most islamofobic person in this forum :)

[Mary]

Yes, I saw that. Please note that none of the garments depicted there are burqas, though several are similar to niqab. Also note that the shaal style is the only one said to be without an analogous depiction in Near Eastern art. Nothing here proves that the face veil originated in Greece, much less burqa.

1) They are burqas. The Afghan burqa is just a variation of the basic style.

2) The Near Eastern art depicting face veils came after this period. So the Greek burqa preceded the Muslim burqa.

3) These face veils appear historically before the face veil appears in art in the Middle East. Here is an example:

http://ids.lib.harvard.edu/ids/view/5226589?buttons=y&viewheight=480&viewwidth=640



Boeotia, Europe
400-300 BC
Veiled dancer on platform. Clad in long, lose himation with “tegidion” veil partially covering face. Chiton visible beneath hem of himation, both feet visible beneath chiton. Dancing, with left foot crossed over right, right hand touching right shoulder, left hand raised to shoulder-height. Folds of drapery rather schematic, radiating from shoulders. Rounded platform or stage, tilted forward, with plain front. Very similar to 1919.519, but not identical; smaller, head slightly more tilted, lines sharper, differently-shaped base. Constructed in single mold, with back section pressed on, slashed away to form rough firing hole. Much surviving white slip. Red ochre pigment on base, Egyptian Blue on base and chiton.

http://ids.lib.harvard.edu/ids/view/5226589?buttons=y&viewheight=480&viewwidth=640

What you need to note, is that she has an under veil that covers the mouth, and that her face veil is folded up over her head in this sculpture.

That is depicted on the cover of this book:

http://i41.tinypic.com/rbk07d.jpg

[Aivap]

3) These face veils appear historically before the face veil appears in art in the Middle East. Here is an example:

http://ids.lib.harvard.edu/ids/view/5226589?buttons=y&viewheight=480&viewwidth=640



these ones appeared even before.
http://historylink101.net/images/egyptian-mummy.jpg

[Mosov]

i agreee.when i see pics of my grandma as young...she looks so elegant and beautiful in it

Yes, simplicity is often underestimated :)


Perhaps, but a woman can dress modestly without covering her hair/head, just as a woman covering her hair/head can dress immodestly, in my opinion.

Frankly though, some men need a lesson in modesty too, because I've seen 40-something men in the summertime, shirtless with their huge ugly beer guts out. Where's their modesty? :eek:

Haha well, modesty in women is a bit different from modest in men. Men and women are not the same and hence the connotations in what they wear doesn't equate either. I agree a woman can still dress modestly without headscarf, but all I was saying is that in general dressing modestly (in a headscarve or not) is a positive thing that should be valued.

I don't see the same outcry against women who dress very vulgar while women are demonised for wearing head scarves. It just doesn't make sense.

[Mary]

Christianity is becoming increasingly watered down and irrelevant. The same isn't true for Islam, which has changed a lot less since its beginnings than Christianity has.

Optimally, I'd like to see a Europe free from Judeaism, Christianity and Islam, but I also recognise people's right to personal beliefs. I think religion should be kept personal rather than public.

Have you checked if it really is this way?

You still have lots of Protestant sects in Scandinavia. They're supposed to be especially common in Norway. At the same time, the vast majority of Muslims in Scandinavia are very secular.

[Mary]

The reasons can be 2.
Or you don't understand, or you're making fun of me.
The second option is the more probable, I' m sure you're the most islamofobic person in this forum :)

I don't understand what you mean. Could you clarify?

[Odoacer]

1) They are burqas. The Afghan burqa is just a variation of the basic style.

Okay, it seems you are correct; burqa means jilbab (dress) + hijab (headscarf) + niqab (face veil). In this case the Greek fashions may be termed "burqas."


2) The Near Eastern art depicting face veils came after this period. So the Greek burqa preceded the Muslim burqa.

The Greek "burqa" preceded the Muslim burqa, but it did not precede Near Eastern veils.


3) These face veils appear historically before the face veil appears in art in the Middle East. Here is an example:

http://ids.lib.harvard.edu/ids/view/5226589?buttons=y&viewheight=480&viewwidth=640



http://ids.lib.harvard.edu/ids/view/5226589?buttons=y&viewheight=480&viewwidth=640

What you need to note, is that she has an under veil that covers the mouth, and that her face veil is folded up over her head in this sculpture.

That is depicted on the cover of this book:

http://i41.tinypic.com/rbk07d.jpg

http://paula-i-nielson.suite101.com/a-history-of-the-veil-in-mesopotamia-and-persia-a183203


By the 13th century B.C in Mesopotamia, when a free woman married a non-slave husband, her husband placed a veil over her and declared that she was his wife. Only elite, free, married women were allowed to wear a veil; prostitutes, slaves, poor and single women were forbidden to cover their identities. Under the Code of Hammurabi, a husband’s concubine(s) was allowed to wear a veil when she accompanied the legal wife. Men usually had one wife except in the case of childlessness, but harems of women began to appear in the late Mesopotamian period.


Persia also had a history of female goddesses and demi-gods and early on the female was held in high esteem. According to Bijan Gheiby, from the 5th century B.C., the Greeks recorded that royal women in the Persian Achaemenid Empire were veiled, riding in curtained carriages and also wearing veils on their faces inside the carriages.

Persian women veiled their faces a century before your burqa-clad Greek statue. It was an imported fashion in Greece.

[Mary]

these ones appeared even before.
http://historylink101.net/images/egyptian-mummy.jpg

Those are not veils. If you want more proof for that the face veil originated in Greece I suggest you look at these excerpts:

http://i43.tinypic.com/2s6on0l.jpg

While it is generally assumed that face-veiling originated with Islam, in fact the earliest evidence for the phenomenon occurs in the classical Greek world.

http://i42.tinypic.com/vnjhn6.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/29za3yv.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/abq9ut.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/34hfec8.jpg

[orangepulp]

The Greek "burqa" preceded the Muslim burqa, but it did not precede Near Eastern veils.

Yes, I believe the veil even predates Judaism which came with Isaac (Israel), even before Abraham women would wear veils.

Basically the veil initiated with religion and religion initiated from the Near East.

[Odoacer]

Yes, I believe the veil even predates Judaism which came with Isaac (Israel), even before Abraham women would wear veils.

Basically the veil initiated with religion and religion initiated from the Near East.

It may have been in religious use in the Near East prior to its fashionable usage in Greece, however, historically it seems to have begun as a class distinction in Assyria distinguishing free, married women from others.

[Mary]

Okay, it seems you are correct; burqa means jilbab (dress) + hijab (headscarf) + niqab (face veil). In this case the Greek fashions may be termed "burqas."

They're all variants of the same concept.


The Greek "burqa" preceded the Muslim burqa, but it did not precede Near Eastern veils.

http://paula-i-nielson.suite101.com/a-history-of-the-veil-in-mesopotamia-and-persia-a183203


By the 13th century B.C in Mesopotamia, when a free woman married a non-slave husband, her husband placed a veil over her and declared that she was his wife. Only elite, free, married women were allowed to wear a veil; prostitutes, slaves, poor and single women were forbidden to cover their identities. Under the Code of Hammurabi, a husband’s concubine(s) was allowed to wear a veil when she accompanied the legal wife. Men usually had one wife except in the case of childlessness, but harems of women began to appear in the late Mesopotamian period.


Persia also had a history of female goddesses and demi-gods and early on the female was held in high esteem. According to Bijan Gheiby, from the 5th century B.C., the Greeks recorded that royal women in the Persian Achaemenid Empire were veiled, riding in curtained carriages and also wearing veils on their faces inside the carriages.

1) They are different things. The Assyrians had "veils". The Greeks had "burqas". This is the main difference between the Near East and Europe.

Even if you look today, the Saudis enforce the niqab. While the White-looking Pashtuns enforce the burqa. This is because Middle Easterners allowed their women to take part in society. From your source:


Early on in Sumer and Mesopotamia women are recorded as having authoritative roles, buying, selling, and dealing on their own. Examples of this are from clay cuneiform tablets from Ur. As is seen throughout the Middle East, when their men were off on business, war and trading activities, women capably kept things going at home.

While in Greece women were not allowed to take part in society and were required to stay inside the home.

2) No, it's about the same time period. The first documented Greek face veils are from about 550 bc. But then we're talking about face veils and not burqas. The Greek burqa was worn as early as 7-800 bc.


Persian women veiled their faces a century before your burqa-clad Greek statue. It was an imported fashion in Greece.


Before that, Greek women were not allowed out of the house at all. Are you suggesting that the Persians inspired the Greeks to let their women out in society?

[Onur]

So orangepulp, do you accept that the black burqa cloth in islam is inspired from christian nuns and the headscarf style which is popular among some women today, the one with strap on the forehead is also comes from the Mary icons?

Basically, you covered muslims are imitating christians. If you read Koran once, there is no such a description for burqa, headscarf as some kind of military uniform, one style for all women.

This tradition is coming from early christians.

[Mary]

It may have been in religious use in the Near East prior to its fashionable usage in Greece, however, historically it seems to have begun as a class distinction in Assyria distinguishing free, married women from others.

In the Near East, the veil was a class distinction. There were different veils for different classes.

In Greece the burqa was not a class distinction. It was expected to be worn by everyone. Because in Greek society the genders were totally segregated. So in Greek society it had to do with gender segregation and not with class.

It was not "fashionable" because before that women were not allowed outside the house. So the face veil was adopted when women were given more freedom to be in society.


L.-J.’s study, a revised PhD thesis for the University of Wales, Cardiff, explores the
practices, language, and representation of veiling in the ancient Mediterranean from
900 .. to 200 .. The book’s main thesis is clearly stated: ‘women in various
ancient Greek societies were veiled daily and routinely, at least in public or in front of
non-related men, as a consequence of a male ideology that required women to appear
subservient in all walks of life’ (p. 14). According to L.-J., veiling was so widespread
and so routine that it was little remarked upon in antiquity. The author also suggests
(pp. 3–7) that the practice has been little noticed, commented on, or studied by
modern scholars, despite at least thirty years of intense interest in women in
antiquity, primarily because of the powerful association of the veil with female
suppression and Islamic fundamentalism.

Wearing the veil extended the
protection (and containment) that the domestic space afforded women to the
unprotected space of the public sphere, allowing them to be present in public while at
the same time neutralizing and effacing that presence. Here L.-J. makes the interesting
and original observation that in the early Hellenistic period, just as women become
more visible publicly, the full face-veil or tegidion, an item of apparel specifically
designed to mask most of the female face, first appears.


http://fds.duke.edu/db?attachment-12--607-view-277

[Mary]

So orangepulp, do you accept that the black burqa cloth in islam is inspired from christian nuns and the headscarf style which is popular among some women today, the one with strap on the forehead is also comes from the Mary icons?

Basically, you covered muslims are imitating christians. If you read Koran once, there is no such a description for burqa, headscarf as some kind of military uniform, one style for all women.

This tradition is coming from early christians.

They symbolize different things. Therefore you can't compare them.

In the Middle East women are considered people ("humans"). The Muslim veil symbolizes the dignity of the woman. And in ancient times her social class.

In Europe women are not considered people (not human). The European veil symbolizes that the woman is an animal.

You cannot compare people (Muslimas) to animals (European women). That would be completely absurd.

[orangepulp]

So orangepulp, do you accept that the black burqa cloth in islam is inspired from christian nuns and the headscarf style which is popular among some women today, the one with strap on the forehead is also comes from the Mary icons?

Basically, you covered muslims are imitating christians. If you read Koran once, there is no such a description for burqa, headscarf as some kind of military uniform, one style for all women.

This tradition is coming from early christians.

Yes, I accept the head cover originated from Judaism and Islam because Islam is the continuation of both religions.

There are verses in the Quran that order us to dress modestly and even if it is not clearly stated how, we have hadiths to tell us how to.

Surah an-Nur ayah 31 says:


And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful

Surah al-Ahzab ayah 59 says:


O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their outergarments (jilbabs) close around themselves; that is better that they will be recognized and not annoyed. And God is ever Forgiving, Gentle.


Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: Asma, daughter of AbuBakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands.
(Abu Dawood)

[Onur]

Yes, I accept the head cover originated from Judaism and Islam because Islam is the continuation of both religions.

There are verses in the Quran that order us to dress modestly and even if it is not clearly stated how, we have hadiths to tell us how to.
Yes yes, all hadits are true and authentic, right??!!! :confused:

There are some hadiths calling Turks as Gog and Magog (Yecuc, Mecuc). Do you accept those hadiths as authentic too?

Probably the Turks=Gog Magog hadits written in late Umayyad/Emevi era because they were constantly beaten by Khazar empire Turks and they couldn't enter Anatolia at that time. They were wondering how their chosen and holy Arab soldiers, supposedly under protection of God, cannot defeat Turks. So, they thought that Turks might be Gog and Magog and then wrote fake hadiths about that, supposedly told by Mohammed.

Your burqa hadiths are probably written by Emevis too because they were strictly anti-women, considering them as subhumans and they eradicated every woman rights given to them by Mohammed himself. But you today, keep covering yourself according to Umayyad/Emevi written fake hidaths, totally unrelated with Koran basics but a mimic of early christian traditions.

I pity for you and for all the other brainwashed muslim women who accepts wearing a degenerating subhuman dress from early medieval era.

[Mosov]

I pity for you and for all the other brainwashed muslim women who accepts wearing a degenerating subhuman dress from early medieval era.

What makes you think that they are brainwashed? And please don't call a headscarf a degenerating subhuman dress lol maybe what stripper dancers wear maybe can be described as degenerating...

[PetiteParisienne]

Here is photo of Molokan people, a deeply religious, Christian people from Russia living in places like South Caucasus...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Russian_settlers%2C_possibly_Molokans%2C_in_the_Mu gan_steppe_of_Azerbaijan._Sergei_Mikhailovich_Prok udin-Gorskii.jpg/800px-Russian_settlers%2C_possibly_Molokans%2C_in_the_Mu gan_steppe_of_Azerbaijan._Sergei_Mikhailovich_Prok udin-Gorskii.jpg

http://memory.loc.gov/afc/afccc/p100/p157r.jpg

Ha! I just read a post on Tumblr about the photographer who took the first photograph!

http://jdpeoplearestrange.tumblr.com/post/19788015169/prokudin-gorskii-took-these-photos-amongst-others

[Onur]

What makes you think that they are brainwashed? And please don't call a headscarf a degenerating subhuman dress lol maybe what stripper dancers wear maybe can be described as degenerating...
Both naked women and veiled women are equally degenerated. The women turns into a sex object in one form, loses her self-identity and women in burqa, veil, headscarf loses her self-identity again because all of them looks same without any distinct identity. The soldiers wears same uniform too, why? To let them lose their distinctness and become one. The covered women is same too, loses their unique identities, becomes one; just a women, servant of men, a womb to produce kids, a subhuman entity.

[Mosov]

Both naked women and veiled women are equally degenerated. The women turns into a sex object in one form, loses her self-identity and women in burqa, veil, headscarf loses her self-identity again because all of them looks same without any distinct identity. The soldiers wears same uniform too, why? To let them lose their distinctness and become one. The covered women is same too, loses their unique identities, becomes one; just a women, servant of men, a womb to produce kids, a subhuman entity.

I think your taking this to an extreme. While the stripper takes her close off so that she is seen as a sex object, the woman wearing the headscarf does so not to to become an object or subhuman entity, but it's a sign of humility and modesty, which shouldn't be equated with being a sex object. I also disagree that the woman in doing that loses her self-identity. It's a part of her identity, part of her religion, and custom.

[Sturmgewehr]

Both naked women and veiled women are equally degenerated. The women turns into a sex object in one form, loses her self-identity and women in burqa, veil, headscarf loses her self-identity again because all of them looks same without any distinct identity. The soldiers wears same uniform too, why? To let them lose their distinctness and become one. The covered women is same too, loses their unique identities, becomes one; just a women, servant of men, a womb to produce kids, a subhuman entity.

Exactly, baby factories more precisely.

Best post till now.

[Incal]

They say that due to berber influence, it became fashionable for rich girls to cover their hair/faces in colonial Lima:

http://www.libroviejoymas.com/upload/productos/394.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cltMdu_RZ6M/S6Qnx9s0nAI/AAAAAAAAAFc/Cs61K37Nf4o/s400/5+La+Tapada+%283%29+entorno+oscuro+baja.jpg

http://api.ning.com/files/Hjx2ETFqNbKpr-ndlsJwMJYGDr4YNVHMYUB6fr91DkPsSERuv4ds-qGVKi4MrOwt3Q3wGki7llpnvzUv8scknX2KQdv8f2kR/tapada.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S0gd_VaoRK4/TWP9csfVnAI/AAAAAAAAAJA/xWEjYlqTAt8/s1600/TAPADAS.jpg

[Sturmgewehr]

I think your taking this to an extreme. While the stripper takes her close off so that she is seen as a sex object, the woman wearing the headscarf does so not to to become an object or subhuman entity, but it's a sign of humility and modesty, which shouldn't be equated with being a sex object. I also disagree that the woman in doing that loses her self-identity. It's a part of her identity, part of her religion, and custom.

that is a bunch of nonsense if u sit and think about it.

No matter if a woman wears or doesn't wear a scarf man and woman are biological beings and sex drive and need is out there so regardless of what you wear you will still be seen as a sex object. I think you are taking it to an extreme, I don't think people think that strippers are 100% sex objects, we are all sex objects it is just that strippers are more than us in the end who gives a shit, sex object or not sex object.

Burqa is definitely not a sign of modesty, neither is wearing miniskirts that make ur underwear visible.

[Odoacer]

1) They are different things. The Assyrians had "veils". The Greeks had "burqas". This is the main difference between the Near East and Europe.

Greece is the ONLY place in Europe where these "burqas" ever existed, while they have been in use all throughout the Middle East for centuries - notably in Persia & Arabia. According to Tertullian, the pagan Arab women covered their faces - in contrast to the Christian women of his day, whom he complained barely bothered to cover their heads. It is in fact the other way around: the "burqa" (head & face covering) is Asian while the "veil" (head covering) is European.


Even if you look today, the Saudis enforce the niqab. While the White-looking Pashtuns enforce the burqa. This is because Middle Easterners allowed their women to take part in society.

:lol: I'm not sure how this is supposed to support your point? Saudi & Pashtun women have notoriously few social privileges. Moreover, Pashtuns are not "white-looking":

http://www.topnews.in/files/South-Waziristan.jpg


From your source:



While in Greece women were not allowed to take part in society and were required to stay inside the home.

What you conveniently missed is that veil laws were enforced in the Near East as women's roles were increasingly confined to the home:


By the late Assyrian period, many women were slaves, and only the nobles and families of elite males carried special privileges. They had lost some of the status held by Sumerian women. Women were treated harshly under the Code of Hammurabi in Babylon ca. 1790 B.C. and were often charged with corporal and capital punishment for breaking the law, usually being thrown into the river or burning, often from their husbands’ accusations. Gerda Lerner cites the Code of Hammurabi as the institutionalizing of patriarchal control in the family. The state now controlled who must wear the veil and who must not wear the veil. The veil was a sign of the delineation between elite and common women.

...

Changes in women’s position paralleled men’s increasing authority and patriarchal dominance of the family. It is theorized that as men began to need to know the true paternity of their children for the disposition of their property through time, the seclusion of their spouses and sexual control over them grew more severe and was codified by the state.


2) No, it's about the same time period. The first documented Greek face veils are from about 550 bc. But then we're talking about face veils and not burqas. The Greek burqa was worn as early as 7-800 bc.

The Orientalizing Period in Greek history began in the 700s BC, so what you've said is not evidence that "burqas" originated in Greece. Most of ancient Greek art clearly shows women with uncovered faces, even if their heads are covered. Veiling became more elaborate & faces were covered only after Oriental influence.


Before that, Greek women were not allowed out of the house at all. Are you suggesting that the Persians inspired the Greeks to let their women out in society?

If you want to argue that women only went out & about in public as a result of Oriental influence, that's up to you. What I'm suggesting is that Middle Eastern clothing-styles exerted influence on Greek fashion.


In the Near East, the veil was a class distinction. There were different veils for different classes.

In Greece the burqa was not a class distinction. It was expected to be worn by everyone. Because in Greek society the genders were totally segregated. So in Greek society it had to do with gender segregation and not with class.

It was not "fashionable" because before that women were not allowed outside the house. So the face veil was adopted when women were given more freedom to be in society.

http://fds.duke.edu/db?attachment-12--607-view-277

Quite simply none of this is proof that face-veiling originated with the Greeks, only that they practiced it to some extent.

[Olaska]

I think its very bad and it should stop!!

[Hevneren]

Have you checked if it really is this way?

You still have lots of Protestant sects in Scandinavia. They're supposed to be especially common in Norway. At the same time, the vast majority of Muslims in Scandinavia are very secular.

These sects are a small minority. The Norwegian Lutheran Church has a special position since it gets a portion of the tax money via the government and most Norwegians are registered in the Church. These sects don't get tax money and need to fight over the minority who aren't registered in the NLC.

[Onur]

There is a reason why we cover, to attract less attention as possible from non related men.

This is in some form a protection for us.

That's the point of covering anyway to appear less attractive in front of non related men.
You talk like that because this is what they indoctrinated to you. You have no idea how men`s think about sex and how a guy`s mind works.

You know what, a veiled women might even be more attractive for men and a man might yearn for seeing what`s under that veil. If you`d be a men, you`d know what i mean. So in fact, wearing hijab might make you more attractive to a man rather than a women with regular dress. Maybe thats why rape and incest cases triples in Iran and Arabic states comparing to Turkey.


Islam is foreign to Europe. Except for few countries, every town and city of Europe has a cathedral and bell towers, not mosques and minarets.
Christianity and Judaism is equally foreign to Europe, incl. Turkey. All these are same semitic dogmas, belongs to the people of middle-east. If you are looking for native beliefs of Europe incl. Turkish people, those are Shamanism, naturalism, druidism.

Also, i just laugh at the so-called christians of Europe, thinking like islam is radically different from christianity or judaism. If you would read Koran once and read the basics of islam, you would see that all semitic religions are more or less same. Islam is not much different than other two except few areas. Well, these "few areas" should exist because then no one would call it as a different religion and manipulate masses with it.


I also disagree that the woman in doing that loses her self-identity. It's a part of her identity, part of her religion, and custom.
Can you tell me whats the difference between all these women which can helps us to differentiate them? To me, they all looks same. They are just women without any distinct identities;
http://cdn.criticalppp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/veiled-women-of-afghanistan_7333.jpg
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/6722/rahibe.jpg
2.bp.blogspot.com/_HYmckVkkJz0/ScA_CUkiNpI/AAAAAAAAB08/41wt8hYbVtQ/s400/Nuns+from+the+Order+of+St.+Anne+-+1945.jpeg


I do have a small cross on it, it's just to underline that I'm Christian. It's not nun attire.
So you confirm what i said. You wanted to put that cross on you, because in that dress, you had zero difference between islamic women. Thats what i am talking about. These dresses makes you one and same; A women only, without any identity.

[Mary]

Greece is the ONLY place in Europe where these "burqas" ever existed, while they have been in use all throughout the Middle East for centuries - notably in Persia & Arabia. According to Tertullian, the pagan Arab women covered their faces - in contrast to the Christian women of his day, whom he complained barely bothered to cover their heads. It is in fact the other way around: the "burqa" (head & face covering) is Asian while the "veil" (head covering) is European.

1) Greece is the cradle of Western civilization. That makes the burqa fundamentally European.

2) Tertullian was from North Africa. Read Church Fathers from Anatolia or the Greek mainland and you will see that they all mandate the burqa.

3) The burqa cannot be Asian when it has been practiced in Greece for 500 years before Tertullian.


:lol: I'm not sure how this is supposed to support your point? Saudi & Pashtun women have notoriously few social privileges. Moreover, Pashtuns are not "white-looking":

It supports it in two ways:

1) Pashtuns are Whiter than Saudis. Racial argument.

2) The geography of Afghanistan is more similar to Greece. While the Geography of Saudi is more similar to Irak (ancient Mesopotamia). Cultural argument.


What you conveniently missed is that veil laws were enforced in the Near East as women's roles were increasingly confined to the home:


By the late Assyrian period, many women were slaves, and only the nobles and families of elite males carried special privileges. They had lost some of the status held by Sumerian women. Women were treated harshly under the Code of Hammurabi in Babylon ca. 1790 B.C. and were often charged with corporal and capital punishment for breaking the law, usually being thrown into the river or burning, often from their husbands’ accusations. Gerda Lerner cites the Code of Hammurabi as the institutionalizing of patriarchal control in the family. The state now controlled who must wear the veil and who must not wear the veil. The veil was a sign of the delineation between elite and common women.

...

Changes in women’s position paralleled men’s increasing authority and patriarchal dominance of the family. It is theorized that as men began to need to know the true paternity of their children for the disposition of their property through time, the seclusion of their spouses and sexual control over them grew more severe and was codified by the state.

Read the code of Hammurabi. They are totally different societies. A lot of things in today's Muslim societies have been inherited from that culture. Such as bride price, the right to divorce, etc.


The Orientalizing Period in Greek history began in the 700s BC, so what you've said is not evidence that "burqas" originated in Greece. Most of ancient Greek art clearly shows women with uncovered faces, even if their heads are covered. Veiling became more elaborate & faces were covered only after Oriental influence.

1) Greece is the only society where women are consistently both depicted and described as veiling their faces for hundreds of years. You will not find this in Near Eastern cultures.

This is proof of that the burqa originated in Greece.

2) This is the anakalypsis. Read the excerpts I posted. It's a very extensive topic.


If you want to argue that women only went out & about in public as a result of Oriental influence, that's up to you. What I'm suggesting is that Middle Eastern clothing-styles exerted influence on Greek fashion.

This is not a matter of argument. This is how Greek society worked and had nothing to do with oriental influence. You can just google it.

This is the reason why the veil was not a fashion. That's a laughable claim. No woman in ancient Greece was going out to "show off her fashion".


Quite simply none of this is proof that face-veiling originated with the Greeks, only that they practiced it to some extent.

In Ancient Greece you find the earliest examples of the face veil and a continuation of it for centuries. This does not exist for Assyrians or Persians.

This constitutes solid proof.

Read this again:


The book’s main thesis is clearly stated: ‘women in various
ancient Greek societies were veiled daily and routinely, at least in public or in front of
non-related men, as a consequence of a male ideology that required women to appear
subservient in all walks of life’ (p. 14). According to L.-J., veiling was so widespread
and so routine that it was little remarked upon in antiquity.

This is not only to some extent. This is very widespread.

[Mary]

These sects are a small minority. The Norwegian Lutheran Church has a special position since it gets a portion of the tax money via the government and most Norwegians are registered in the Church. These sects don't get tax money and need to fight over the minority who aren't registered in the NLC.

No matter how you turn it Christianity is a far bigger influence on Norwegian society than Islam. Why not just admit that you have an issue with Islam?

[Mary]

So you confirm what i said. You wanted to put that cross on you, because in that dress, you had zero difference between islamic women. Thats what i am talking about. These dresses makes you one and same; A women only, without any identity.

It's just to make it very clear to my fellow Christians as an "in your face" kind of thing.

[Aivap]

Can you tell me whats the difference between all these women which can helps us to differentiate them? To me, they all looks same. They are just women without any distinct identities;
http://cdn.criticalppp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/veiled-women-of-afghanistan_7333.jpg
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/6722/rahibe.jpg
2.bp.blogspot.com/_HYmckVkkJz0/ScA_CUkiNpI/AAAAAAAAB08/41wt8hYbVtQ/s400/Nuns+from+the+Order+of+St.+Anne+-+1945.jpeg





Only a crazy person could compare a woman forced by men to wear a burqa, and a nun, who have freely decided to wear an uniform.
And as I' ve proved in the previous pages of this thread you can read that nuns can show their head, they are not punished and tortured if they show a wisp of hair, and exist even several religious orders that don't use veil!

[Hurrem sultana]

They're supposed to be especially common in Norway. .

the most religious are in Denmark,then Finland...swedes are least religious,,according to an article i read.Only in Sweden you can hear 80 year old grandmas say "they are agnostic" :D

[RagnarLodbrok666]

Our women use to just wear their hair in scarfs. I say keep things in europe that way forever. :cool:

[Chronos]

Europe desperately needs another pagan Roman Empire.

[Flintlocke]

Some veils are sexy

http://mishaalbellydance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/belly-dance-art-1-1.jpg
http://www.thebellydancer.mobi/images/maiiah/belly_dancer_maiiah04.jpg

[orangepulp]

Yes yes, all hadits are true and authentic, right??!!! :confused:

There are some hadiths calling Turks as Gog and Magog (Yecuc, Mecuc). Do you accept those hadiths as authentic too?

Probably the Turks=Gog Magog hadits written in late Umayyad/Emevi era because they were constantly beaten by Khazar empire Turks and they couldn't enter Anatolia at that time. They were wondering how their chosen and holy Arab soldiers, supposedly under protection of God, cannot defeat Turks. So, they thought that Turks might be Gog and Magog and then wrote fake hadiths about that, supposedly told by Mohammed.

Your burqa hadiths are probably written by Emevis too because they were strictly anti-women, considering them as subhumans and they eradicated every woman rights given to them by Mohammed himself. But you today, keep covering yourself according to Umayyad/Emevi written fake hidaths, totally unrelated with Koran basics but a mimic of early christian traditions.



Hadith may be authentic or not but Gog and magog for sure had to be from a race, even American Christians believe the'll be from the Asian race. If they are really Turks what am I gonna do about it?? Its Gods choice but if they are not, parise be to God. This is not my choice and I am not bothered if Gog and Magog are from the Turks.

This is not about race anyway, in the Quran and hadiths Arabs too are being blamed for their actions.

I pity for you and for all the other brainwashed muslim women who accepts wearing a degenerating subhuman dress from early medieval era.
Oh is modern dress code so forward?? Indeed today's clothing is the most backwards since prehistoric people hardly had any clothing on.

[Hevneren]

the most religious are in Denmark,then Finland...swedes are least religious,,according to an article i read.Only in Sweden you can hear 80 year old grandmas say "they are agnostic" :D

Indeed. Nordic secularism is a great source of pride. Both my parents and my maternal grandmother were/are non-religious. My grandmother turned 90 this February. :D

[Hevneren]

Europe desperately needs another pagan Roman Empire.

Why is that? I think we just need to be left alone. Our secular world and their Islamic world should exist separately. We shouldn't interfere in Islamic affairs and they shouldn't interfere in our affairs. Never shall our two world meet. :thumb001:

[orangepulp]

Some veils are sexy

http://mishaalbellydance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/belly-dance-art-1-1.jpg
http://www.thebellydancer.mobi/images/maiiah/belly_dancer_maiiah04.jpg

That's not a veil.

[Hurrem sultana]

Why is that? I think we just need to be left alone. Our secular world and their Islamic world should exist separately. We shouldn't interfere in Islamic affairs and they shouldn't interfere in our affairs. Never shall our two world meet. :thumb001:

tell that to the americans,englishmen,germans etc

now tell me is it okay to "try and bring peace" in islamic countries,and then complain when refugees show up?!?

[Sturmgewehr]

Hadith may be authentic or not but Gog and magog for sure had to be from a race, even American Christians believe the'll be from the Asian race. If they are really Turks what am I gonna do about it?? Its Gods choice but if they are not, parise be to God. This is not my choice and I am not bothered if Gog and Magog are from the Turks.

This is not about race anyway, in the Quran and hadiths Arabs too are being blamed for their actions.

Oh is modern dress code so forward?? Indeed today's clothing is the most backwards since prehistoric people hardly had any clothing on.

:D :D :D :D

Typical Brainwashed theist.

[Odoacer]

1) Greece is the cradle of Western civilization. That makes the burqa fundamentally European.

Greece abandoned the "burqa" early in the Christian era. It didn't spread anywhere else in Europe apart from Greece. It is not "fundamentally European," much less is it "Western."


2) Tertullian was from North Africa. Read Church Fathers from Anatolia or the Greek mainland and you will see that they all mandate the burqa.

Tertullian is nevertheless an important witness for Christian practice, & it is clear with the Christians amongst whom he lived, covering the face was not done. While some of the Greek Fathers may have required covering the face, this wasn't even a common practice in Christian Greece - or else where are the burqa-clad women of the Byzantine Empire?


3) The burqa cannot be Asian when it has been practiced in Greece for 600 years before Tertullian.

By the same form of argument, it cannot be European when it hasn't been practiced anywhere in Europe for 1700 years since Tertullian.


It supports it in two ways:

1) Pashtuns are Whiter than Saudis. Racial argument.

:lol: Neither group is white, but Saudis look about as "white" as Pashtuns do.

http://iliyanamohamed.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/2434191640_2ed3b312be.jpg


2) The geography of Afghanistan is more similar to Greece. While the Geography of Saudi is more similar to Irak (ancient Mesopotamia). Cultural argument.

The geography & climate of Greece is nothing like Afghanistan. Afghanistan, however, exhibits a typically Middle Eastern climate:

http://www.theodora.com/maps/new9/world_climate_map-large.jpg

Besides, culturally, the Afghans have been more influenced by Islamic culture from Arabia than by ancient Greece.


1) Greece is the only society where women are consistently both depicted and described as veiling their faces for hundreds of years. You will not find this in Near Eastern cultures.

This is proof of that the burqa originated in Greece.

Proof of nothing, & it was not consistent anyway. But the author of the book you are using said something else:


New evidence reveals women in Ancient Greece wore the veil
http://www.ex.ac.uk/news/newsveil.shtml [Original source, now a dead link]

Ancient Greece may have been the birthplace of democracy - but its women were second class citizens who for 1,100 years routinely wore a veil over their faces whenever they went out in public.

This is the conclusion of a new book by Dr Lloyd Llewellyn Jones, of the University of Exeter, who has traced the use of the veil in ancient Greece between 900BC and 200AD.

Said Dr Llewellyn Jones: 'We associate the veil with what are now Islamic countries. It seems that the veil certainly originated in these areas around 3,000BC, but by 900BC the veil was also to be found in ancient Greece.'

Dr Llewellyn Jones has discovered evidence of the veil on pottery and in Greek texts. Even though Greek artists usually showed women with faces uncovered - because it looked better that way - there are still plenty of images showing women veiled. Evidence can even be found in well known texts such as The Odyssey, where Penelope is referred to five times as wearing a veil. Yet the veil wasn't just a way of keeping women in their place.'
'Women used it to show status,' said Dr Llewellyn Jones. 'They would veil for men they respected and not for others. It was also an instrument of sexuality.'


This is not a matter of argument. This is how Greek society worked and had nothing to do with oriental influence. You can just google it.

This is the reason why the veil was not a fashion. That's a laughable claim. No woman in ancient Greece was going out to "show off her fashion".

Results from Google:


The influences of Semitic cultures during the Orientalizing period are most easily seen in the addition of a new style of veil. These veils are longer than those in evidence during the Geometric period, during which time veils did not reach below the shoulders. Evidence for this change in style can be found in the dress of korai from the East of Greece and, according to the author, this practice owes a debt to the Anatolian women of the Neo-Hittite period. [Source (http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Histsex&month=0511&week=c&msg=%2BM2j29iNjOV%2BbQsDrJVD/w&user=&pw=)]

:rolleyes:

[Aivap]

That's not a veil.

In fact these are muslim veils:


NIQAB
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Niqab.jpg/250px-Niqab.jpg

BURQA
http://www.ilnord.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Burqa.jpg


HIJAB
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/31/article-0-0DA416B900000578-366_468x318.jpg

whatching the last picture I probably understand why your men use to hid your faces wish burqas :)

[Hurrem sultana]

sturm knows a lot about islam,so tell us? :D


anyway,as child i went to islamic sunday school sometimes(when mom forced me :D),,and i remember the efendi there told us gog and magog are the turks :D

[Hevneren]

tell that to the americans,englishmen,germans etc

now tell me is it okay to "try and bring peace" in islamic countries,and then complain when refugees show up?!?

I was unaware that I a) had advocated any war and b) that countries like Norway and Sweden were responsible for the wars in Islamic countries, such as Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq. Sweden isn't even a NATO member. It doesn't stop Muslims from immigrating there and here and making negative comments about our culture and people. :coffee:

Besides, if things are so bad here, then why are they coming here? I never understood this. :shrug:

[Sturmgewehr]

sturm knows a lot about islam,so tell us? :D


What is this supposed to mean????

Of course I know a lot about Islam, I have read the Quran, I have been to the mosque, I have fasted and so on and on everything that a muslim could do or have done.

[Mosov]

Can you tell me whats the difference between all these women which can helps us to differentiate them? To me, they all looks same. They are just women without any distinct identities;

So you confirm what i said. You wanted to put that cross on you, because in that dress, you had zero difference between islamic women. Thats what i am talking about. These dresses makes you one and same; A women only, without any identity.

I don't understand. So you have to dress very openly in order to prove that you have self-identity? Self-identity comes from what you present yourself internally. I don't believe they make you the same either. Get to know the person first-hand and you will see they are not the same. Especially if just headscarves, it's very easy to dress in a differentiating manner.


that is a bunch of nonsense if u sit and think about it.

No matter if a woman wears or doesn't wear a scarf man and woman are biological beings and sex drive and need is out there so regardless of what you wear you will still be seen as a sex object. I think you are taking it to an extreme, I don't think people think that strippers are 100% sex objects, we are all sex objects it is just that strippers are more than us in the end who gives a shit, sex object or not sex object.

Burqa is definitely not a sign of modesty, neither is wearing miniskirts that make ur underwear visible.

You are seen more of a sex object when you reveal yourself. That's why you have strippers wearing nothing dancing not fully dressed women. Modest dressing entails dressing in non-revealing manner that doesn't give particular sensual attention to the body. Nothing wrong with that and I don't know why modesty is something that people have to be chastised for.

[Hurrem sultana]

What is this supposed to mean????

Of course I know a lot about Islam, I have read the Quran, I have been to the mosque, I have fasted and so on and on everything that a muslim could do or have done.

nothing i told you what my impression was,so tell us about Gog and Magog

[orangepulp]

HIJAB
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/31/article-0-0DA416B900000578-366_468x318.jpg

whatching the last picture I probably understad why your men use to hid your faces wish burqas :)

Cherry picked women, I can show you thousands of ugly women ass naked.
http://ididafunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ugly-fat-girl-bikini-old-woman-pictures.jpg
There are many women who cover and are beautiful, how would you know, did you see them??

Btw, Mary wears a niqab and I saw her pics she is gorgeous.

This girl looks very pretty and decent:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gJt0G0heo-0/TogzCkB_BvI/AAAAAAAABDA/0QMhxdEdPT4/s1600/Muslim+Girl+in+Hijab+Picture+%25282%2529.jpg

[Mosov]

Cherry picked women, I can show you thousands of ugly women ass naked.
http://ididafunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ugly-fat-girl-bikini-old-woman-pictures.jpg


oh God :eek:

let me guess she's American :D

[Odoacer]

What is this supposed to mean????

Of course I know a lot about Islam, I have read the Quran, I have been to the mosque, I have fasted and so on and on everything that a muslim could do or have done.

You're a hajji? :D

[Hurrem sultana]

when a woman is beautiful ,she is beautiful...even her eyes reveal her beauty:

http://www.politikaplus.com/img/s/648x380/upload/images/muslimanka.jpg

[Sturmgewehr]

You are seen more of a sex object when you reveal yourself. That's why you have strippers wearing nothing dancing not fully dressed women. Modest dressing entails dressing in non-revealing manner that doesn't give particular sensual attention to the body. Nothing wrong with that and I don't know why modesty is something that people have to be chastised for.

You are also labeled as sex object when the rules of society tell you to cover cuz someone might rape you a.k.a you are sex material and if you don't watch out u might end up getting raped or shit like that.

Veil bears no significant value, not at all, it is just another way of ostracizing woman from their personality and being who they are, some woman wanna wear it as a result of the brainwashing they got some don't.

Wearing a veil means nothing, men will still be lusting for woman no matter if u wear a veil or not, if I am horny and hadn't had sex in a year I don't care if there is veil or not I will still have thoughts about banging what is under the veil, what is the purpose of the veil???? not attracting attention ? if it is so then obviously the veil fails in that aspect, to label you that you got parts of your body which are considered provocative=sex object by the man ???

It seems that the veils purpose it to cover the SEX OBJECT = woman in order so there is no sex or the way theists say immorality.

get real yo :)

[Sturmgewehr]

nothing i told you what my impression was,so tell us about Gog and Magog

Look at me now, look at the trick I am about to perform on you, on the count of 5.

1

2

3

4

5

Look it up on the Internet:thumb001:

Revenge is a bitch ain't it????

Remember how u refused to supply me with the Hadiths I asked u for and u told me to fuck off and look it up for myself???



You're a hajji? :D


I have never been in Hajj, plus it is not obligatory if u can't afford it, I could never afford it so I never went and now I am not even thinking about it,.

[Hurrem sultana]

Look at me now, look at the trick I am about to perform on you, on the count of 5.

1

2

3

4

5

Look it up on the Internet:thumb001:

Revenge is a bitch ain't it????

Remember how u refused to supply me with the Hadiths I asked u for and u told me to fuck off and look it up for myself???



Oh Geeez:D

[Mosov]

You are also labeled as sex object when the rules of society tell you to cover cuz someone might rape you a.k.a you are sex material and if you don't watch out u might end up getting raped or shit like that.

Veil bears no significant value, not at all, it is just another way of ostracizing woman from their personality and being who they are, some woman wanna wear it as a result of the brainwashing they got some don't.

Wearing a veil means nothing, men will still be lusting for woman no matter if u wear a veil or not, if I am horny and hadn't had sex in a year I don't care if there is veil or not I will still have thoughts about banging what is under the veil, what is the purpose of the veil???? not attracting attention ? if it is so then obviously the veil fails in that aspect, to label you that you got parts of your body which are considered provocative=sex object by the man ???

It seems that the veils purpose it to cover the SEX OBJECT = woman in order so there is no sex or the way theists say immorality.

get real yo :)

Yes but if that women was dressed with a miniskirt and revealing clothes man's lust will be much more stronger towards that girl. I mean it's pretty straightforward I would think. I'm not saying a veil eliminates all feelings of desire or lust, I'm just saying dressing in that manner presents a more non-revealing, simple and modest way of dressing. The woman doesn't want to dress provocatively or too revealing, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't understand what the big deal is. A woman's modesty should be respected and valued, that's all.

[Mary]

Greece abandoned the "burqa" by the 1st Century. It didn't spread anywhere else in Europe apart from Greece. It is not "fundamentally European," much less is it "Western."

1) No, they didn't. It was still mandated by the 4th century.

2) The Hellenic world was a lot bigger than Greece is today.


Tertullian is nevertheless an important witness for Christian practice, & it is clear with the Christians amongst whom he lived, covering the face was not done. Why some of the Greek Fathers may have required covering the face, this wasn't even a common practice in Christian Greece.

1) Tertullian was a convert. This indicates that Christianity was not firmly established in North Africa at that time.

2) The Church Fathers mandated the face veil. Of course not everyone followed it, but that's not the point, it was the official church stance.


It cannot be European when it hasn't been practiced anywhere in Europe for 1700 years since Tertullian.

It's an established part of European civilization. You can't talk it away.


:lol: Neither group is white, but Saudis look about as "white" as Pashtuns do.

Pashtuns are at least semi-white. Saudis are not. Look at their respective facial features.


The geography & climate of Greece is nothing like Afghanistan. Afghanistan, however, exhibits a typically Middle Eastern climate:

http://www.theodora.com/maps/new9/world_climate_map-large.jpg

Beside, culturally, the Afghans have been more influenced by Islamic culture from Arabia than by ancient Greece.

1) Afghanistan and Greece are both mountainous.

2) Saudi and Iraq are deserts.

3) Look at how Pashtuns are the only ones who still have the full burqa. This is very similar to the old Greek burqa. While the arabs have the veil. This is probably more similar to the old Mesopotamian veil that is referenced in Hammurabi.


Proof of nothing, & it was not consistent anyway. But the author of the book you are using said something else:
New evidence reveals women in Ancient Greece wore the veil
http://www.ex.ac.uk/news/newsveil.shtml [Original source, now a dead link]

Ancient Greece may have been the birthplace of democracy - but its women were second class citizens who for 1,100 years routinely wore a veil over their faces whenever they went out in public.

This is the conclusion of a new book by Dr Lloyd Llewellyn Jones, of the University of Exeter, who has traced the use of the veil in ancient Greece between 900BC and 200AD.

Said Dr Llewellyn Jones: 'We associate the veil with what are now Islamic countries. It seems that the veil certainly originated in these areas around 3,000BC, but by 900BC the veil was also to be found in ancient Greece.'

Dr Llewellyn Jones has discovered evidence of the veil on pottery and in Greek texts. Even though Greek artists usually showed women with faces uncovered - because it looked better that way - there are still plenty of images showing women veiled. Evidence can even be found in well known texts such as The Odyssey, where Penelope is referred to five times as wearing a veil. Yet the veil wasn't just a way of keeping women in their place.'
'Women used it to show status,' said Dr Llewellyn Jones. 'They would veil for men they respected and not for others. It was also an instrument of sexuality.'

1) There are the depictions, the figurines and the written sources. How is this not proof?

2) The sources continue until something like the 4th century. How is this not consistent? We are talking about a period of around 1000 years.

3) That's the veil. Nobody knows what the Mesopotamian veil looked like because there are no depictions of it. The Greek burqa is very well documented.


Results from Google:


The influences of Semitic cultures during the Orientalizing period are most easily seen in the addition of a new style of veil. These veils are
longer than those in evidence during the Geometric period, during which time veils did not reach below the shoulders. Evidence for this change in style can be found in the dress of korai from the East of Greece and, according to the author, this practice owes a debt to the Anatolian women of the Neo-Hittite period. [Source]

:rolleyes:


Lol. The Korai is just a regional difference. There are lots of regional variations. It's like saying that jeans changed because people in a certain part of the US started wearing a different cut.

I put that up before:

http://i42.tinypic.com/29za3yv.jpg

[Aivap]

Cherry picked women, I can show you thousands of ugly women ass naked.
http://ididafunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ugly-fat-girl-bikini-old-woman-pictures.jpg
There are many women who cover and are beautiful, how would you know, did you see them??

Btw, Mary wears a niqab and I saw her pics she is gorgeous.

This girl looks very pretty and decent:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gJt0G0heo-0/TogzCkB_BvI/AAAAAAAABDA/0QMhxdEdPT4/s1600/Muslim+Girl+in+Hijab+Picture+%25282%2529.jpg


the country with the highest rate of obesity is Saudi Arabia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/World_map_of_Female_Obesity%2C_2008.svg/800px-World_map_of_Female_Obesity%2C_2008.svg.png


and you have also the highest rate od diabetes, probably it's because you don't eat pork! The dangerous pork which causes deseases. LOL

http://www.globalsherpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/world-diabetes-map-2025.jpg


So, now what do you say?

[Hevneren]

I like how Bosnian tried to guilt-trip me, but she doesn't respond to my reply.

The Norwegian people were wholeheartedly against going into Iraq, and so we didn't. The United States pressured us into Afghanistan, and as a NATO member we joined, with a reluctant public knowing we had to fulfill our obligations.

We as Norwegians were reluctant to send people to fight Muslims in another part of the world, but a little more than a decade ago Christians and Muslims were screaming for each other's blood in Bosnian's own backyard, because their imported Semitic religions had lead to a conflict.

We have been minding our business here for centuries as pagans, but nowadays the faithful of their respective Semitic religions are coming here and sometimes they take their age old religious conflicts with them.

Yet, we godless infidels are to blame. We are all guilty. They are not. Those who stood in the killing fields. Those who pulled the trigger on their neighbours. No, it's all the evil Westerners. Let's not care about what country they're from and let's pass judgment on all of them... :rolleyes2:

[Sturmgewehr]

Oh Geeez:D

What is there to know about Gog and Magog??

I have read it in the Koran about it but then I read the Tasfirs and interpretations, I don't think there is much to talk about them, different tasfirs tell different stories, normally as a result of the Quran being vague and not succinct in what it wants to say.

I read the Quran in Albanian, don't misunderstand me, I am no Mullah neither an expert in medieval Arabic, what is says in the tasfir I read is that Gog and Magog will be causing a lot of troubles and destabilize human society and some king names Dhulkarnejn or whatever his name was, he went to the EDGE of the world :D, and found these Gogs and Magogs and then with the help of God he made a Barrier so they can't cross it till the day of Judgement or before the day of judgement where they would make a lot of trouble on earth.

Some Tasfirs say that they were referring to TURKS, some say they were referring to MONGOLS because in some kind of Hadith Muhamed had said that these people had round faces, and eyes which he described like the ones mongols have and he said they would be having fur on their legs which referred to the boots the mongols were wearing made of Animal skin with furr.

It has been more than 6 Years that I have read the Quran so don't take my word for it.

[Hurrem sultana]

I like how Bosnian tried to guilt-trip me, but she doesn't respond to my reply.

The Norwegian people were wholeheartedly against going into Iraq, and so we didn't. The United States pressured us into Afghanistan, and as a NATO member we joined, with a reluctant public knowing we had to fulfill our obligations.

We as Norwegians were reluctant to send people to fight Muslims in another part of the world, but a little more than a decade ago Christians and Muslims were screaming for each other's blood in Bosnian's own backyard, because their imported Semitic religions had lead to a conflict.

We have been minding our business here for centuries as pagans, but nowadays the faithful of their respective Semitic religions are coming here and sometimes they take their age old religious conflicts with them.

Yet, we godless infidels are to blame. We are all guilty. They are not. Those who stood in the killing fields. Those who pulled the trigger on their neighbours. No, it's all the evil Westerners. Let's not care about what country they're from and let's pass judgment on all of them... :rolleyes2:

Where did i mention Norway,or Scandinavia? re-read my post please

[Hevneren]

Yes but if that women was dressed with a miniskirt and revealing clothes man's lust will be much more stronger towards that girl. I mean it's pretty straightforward I would think. I'm not saying a veil eliminates all feelings of desire or lust, I'm just saying dressing in that manner presents a more non-revealing, simple and modest way of dressing. The woman doesn't want to dress provocatively or too revealing, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't understand what the big deal is. A woman's modesty should be respected and valued, that's all.

The problem here isn't a woman's choice to dress modestly, it's the mentality (and the excuse) some men have that if a woman dresses a certain way it's OK to harass her. I don't think that's right.

Muslim and non-Muslim women here in Norway who dress modern and in a more Western way (dress, blouse etc.) and don't cover their hair, sometimes get harassed by Muslim men. Maybe it's Muslim women more than non-Muslim women, but the fact is that there's an unhealthy, misogynistic attitude that if a woman dresses a certain way then it's her fault if the man can't control himself. :mad:

[Hess]

The veil is part of monotheistic religions, yes, but unveiled women are not raped and beaten like in Islamic countries.

Plus, the full dress is nonexistent in Christian European society.

[orangepulp]

the country with the highest rate of obesity is Saudi Arabia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/World_map_of_Female_Obesity%2C_2008.svg/800px-World_map_of_Female_Obesity%2C_2008.svg.png


and you have also the highest rate od diabetes, probably it's because you don't eat pork! The dangerous pork which causes deseases. LOL

http://www.globalsherpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/world-diabetes-map-2025.jpg


So, now what do you say?


Now Saudi Arabi represents all the Muslims!!
Arabs altogether are only 30% of the worlds Muslim population.

[Hevneren]

Where did i mention Norway,or Scandinavia? re-read my post please

You didn't, but you brought up wars in Islamic countries and refugees, and Norway has a small force in Afghanistan and we get Islamic refugees. Sweden does too, even if they're not a NATO member. Are we to blame for what the United States does? Are we to blame for the Balkan wars? You didn't answer me.

[Mosov]

The problem here isn't a woman's choice to dress modestly, it'd the mentality (and the excuse) some men have that if a woman dresses a certain way it's OK to harass her. I don't think that's right.

Muslim and non-Muslim women here in Norway who dress modern and in a more Western way (dress, blouse etc.) and don't cover their hair, sometimes get harassed by Muslim men. Maybe it's Muslim women more than non-Muslim women, but the fact is that there's an unhealthy, misogynistic attitude that if a woman dresses a certain way then it's her fault if the man can't control himself. :mad:

I mean if a woman is dressing very provocatively, she's asking for it, I'm sorry. It's like a sign on a window, "open" or "closed"...maybe a bad analogy but in short your manner of dressing tells one about your desire of your public perception. Some want a more sensual perception, others want a more modest and simple one. Harassing in general of course it's bad, but if a woman who dresses openly complains about men whistling at her or trying to hit on her, she asked for it.

[Tony]

Yes, they are hypocritical, but in Christianity wearing the veil is a symbol of submission to the man and has nothing to do with modesty. They hate because they don't have a man to be submissive to.
:D


They project their insecurities onto Muslim women. Because in their mind, all Muslim women who wear the veil have a man that they are submissive to. This is why they always bitch about that "a man made the Muslim woman wear the veil". And they're jealous that they can't have this themselves.
Give me a facepalm please.

I rather believe that's a form of self consulation...
it's you that want to think women like to be submitted to men in order to justify yourself.
Women first want to be loved and protected.

The submission thing is a degeneration brought here by Semites

Honestly, I think women look more elegant in head covering. Much better than dressing in a vulgar manner.
Also men with hats are more elegant.
Even in Japan older women cover their hairs, it's simply a matter of higyene.




I remember my great grandmother always wear a veil during summer.
She always told me it`s a protection against the sun and insects.
Mine too.

European women wore the burqa and the niqab long before Islam existed.
again with these bs?

[Hevneren]

I mean if a woman is dressing very provocatively, she's asking for it, I'm sorry. It's like a sign on a window, "open" or "closed"...maybe a bad analogy but in short your manner of dressing tells one about your desire of your public perception. Some want a more sensual perception, others want a more modest and simple one. Harassing in general of course it's bad, but if a woman who dresses openly complains about men whistling at her or trying to hit on her, she asked for it.

Sorry, but no woman "asks" to be harassed, raped or beaten because of how she dresses. If a man can't take responsibility for his own actions and control himself, he's no real man and he doesn't belong in a civilised society.

[orangepulp]

Sorry, but no woman "asks" to be harassed, raped or beaten because of how she dresses. If a man can't take responsibility for his own actions and control himself, he's no real man and he doesn't belong in a civilised society.

Which is not uncommon, therefore it is safe if we take precautions and dress accordingly.

[Sturmgewehr]

Yes but if that women was dressed with a miniskirt and revealing clothes man's lust will be much more stronger towards that girl.

Not really, if an Ugly chick is wearing a miniskirt I wouldn't be so excited about it, if Bosnian did that I might have been provoked if I hadn't had sex for a month or more before that.

What u say hardly makes sense, I think it is the contrary, I think you will be more turned on if woman walked around with Veils and u never saw a pair of tits or thighs in ur life, you would be DYYYYYIIIING to see something like that and get horny and maybe rape a woman or force her to strip in front of u because u r too horny, not that you or I would do that but some would.

I think the veil makes guys more horny cuz they never get to satisfy their need to see a woman and to get used to it and accept it as normal, the vail makes men think there is a mystery behind it and makes u want it even more.


I mean it's pretty straightforward I would think.

No it isn't.


I'm not saying a veil eliminates all feelings of desire or lust, I'm just saying dressing in that manner presents a more non-revealing, simple and modest way of dressing.

No it doesn't, it just gives u the impression that the woman behind it is the sex object that if she uncovers herself we will all go ape shit and rape everyone around, that is the point of the veil.

This is Decent and modest:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eL8ki2etW5I/ScMYdpscPwI/AAAAAAAAAXc/LeqQd0szavI/s400/scarf%20square.jpg
http://www.catholichomeandgarden.com/Modest%20Clothing/Wool_Jersey_Dress-30887.jpg
http://mastina.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/wt6127b.jpg?w=222
http://sweeps4bloggers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/impel-clothing-219x300.jpg
http://impelclothing.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/l/o/lookbook_4_7.jpg


The woman doesn't want to dress provocatively or too revealing, there's nothing wrong with that.

That is pretty subjective.


I don't understand what the big deal is.

there is no big deal, you are making a big deal out of it.


A woman's modesty should be respected and valued, that's all.

True, and modesty is subjective.

[Aivap]

Now Saudi Arabi represents all the Muslims!!
Arabs altogether are only 30% of the worlds Muslim population.

Saudi Arabia is the most conservative muslim country, the one which follow better the quran precepts.
And regardless, it's populated by unhealthy and obese persons.

[Hevneren]

Which is not uncommon, therefore it is safe if we take precautions and dress accordingly.

You must have a lot of weak and uncivilised men. I'm sorry for you. I can at least say (even as an infidel dog) that I can control myself and respect a woman, rather than harass and molest her.

Oh well... cultural differences I guess... :rolleyes:

[Hurrem sultana]

You didn't, but you brought up wars in Islamic countries and refugees, and Norway has a small force in Afghanistan and we get Islamic refugees. Sweden does too, even if they're not a NATO member. Are we to blame for what the United States does? Are we to blame for the Balkan wars? You didn't answer me.

No but your politicians choose to cooperate ,that is why you get refugees.

[Mary]

Give me a facepalm please.

I rather believe that's a form of self consulation...
it's you that want to think women like to be submitted to men in order to justify yourself.
Women first want to be loved and protected.

The submission thing is a degeneration brought here by Semites

I am a woman. I know how women think. If they don't care about it, why are they so upset?

[riverman]

Even the title of the thread is misleading...A headcovering or scarf is not a burqa, which is either a cultural dress or a religious garb. The European headcovering is cultural and is not meant to "hide" the femininity of the woman.

[Onur]

Wearing a veil means nothing, men will still be lusting for woman no matter if u wear a veil or not, if I am horny and hadn't had sex in a year I don't care if there is veil or not I will still have thoughts about banging what is under the veil, what is the purpose of the veil???? not attracting attention ? if it is so then obviously the veil fails in that aspect, to label you that you got parts of your body which are considered provocative=sex object by the man ???

It seems that the veils purpose it to cover the SEX OBJECT = woman in order so there is no sex or the way theists say immorality.
You are right. Btw, in Iran and Arabic states, prostitution and drug abuses are much higher than Turkey, Albania, Bosnia.

Did you know that in Iran, people supposedly get married for only a day just to have sex with a prostitute? Ofc the marriage is just fake. Iran is also world`s most heroin consumer after Afghanistan.

It`s quite same in Arabic countries. Did you know that no one can enter any private home in Arabic/Wahhabi states? Not even police for any reason. Thats why they do all the nasty things at home with their 4 wives but never in public.

Even in wikileaks documents, it`s been said that in Qatar, the young princes of the royal family organizes halloween parties, brings 100 prostitutes from Ukraine, kilograms of cocaine and all other drugs but everything happens underground. Alcohol consumption in some Arabic states is even more than Turkey`s. Also synthetic drug usage in wahhabi states triples Turkey again.

So, according to islamic norms, any moderate and secular muslim in Turkey or Balkans is much better muslim than these Arabs and Iranians. Everything in there is an illusion but the picture inside their privacy is so different. By using this illusion, they just continue to manipulate masses but in reality, it`s not about islam at all, it`s about politics and maintaining their abusive reign in there.

If these Arabs would be real muslims, they would help the starving muslims in Africa rather than ordering custom made limousines from Ferrari factory in Italy.

[Hevneren]

No but your politicians choose to cooperate ,that is why you get refugees.

Let's pretend this is fair. What then about Sweden? They never sent armed forces to Afghanistan. Yet, the refugees come. :confused:

[Queen B]

Veil in Greece (by Orthodoxs I mean) is worn
1) by older villager women (sun protection)
2) Widowers, together with black clothes

[Mary]

This is Decent and modest:


Pair bonding was first reported by secular zoologist Desmond Morris in Intimate Behavior. However, it was a lecture by Dr. Donald Joy on pair bonding that opened my eyes to its importance in dating. Pair-bonding encompasses the physical, but also includes emotional, spiritual, and intellectual components.

Four stages, twelve steps

The 12 steps listed here were found to be consistently present in 80 percent of the 500 cultures Morris studied.

Stage 1: No touch.

Step 1: Eye to body. First glance is not sexual look but the look of discovery. First glance takes in size, shape, coloring, age, and personality. Immediately an unconscious grading process begins, rating the person on a scale of low to high desirability. First glance determines whether or not the relationship progresses.

Step 2: Eye to eye. This will frequently occur in a library or office setting. When the eyes meet, there will be a quickening of the heartbeat along with the flush of embarrassment, causing a breaking of the gaze and glancing away. Direct eye contact is reserved for those we know and trust. So two people who see each other for the first time will usually look each other over sequentially rather than simultaneously. Unless the eyes convey a message of interest, the relationship will probably not proceed.

Step 3: Voice to voice. At first, the couple’s conversation involve small talk such as each other’s names, where they live, what they do for a living, the weather. Such small talk, however, permits further observation and analysis. If the couple continue to talk, they can really get to know each other, including opinions, pastimes, hobbies, ideas, likes and dislikes, hopes and dreams for the future. Compatibility can be determined here. A couple should spend many hours at step 3. I recommend as many as 1,000 hours talking on the phone while acquiring skills that will be critical to their relationship and possible marriage later on. Each is exploring his or her inner self and becoming vulnerable—a major task when intimacy is developing. This step cannot and should not be ignored. The relationship needs to be slowed down now, before romantic touch begins. After romantic affection starts, the couple will interact differently.

Stage 2: First touch.

During the second stage of bonding, the couple spend much time talking, but eye contact remains limited. Touch begins, but none of it is directly sexual. Prolonged hugging or open-mouth kissing would rush the bonding process and awaken sexual responses ahead of schedule.

Step 4: Hand to hand. First touch may be innocent—a handshake, or touching while assisting a woman through a doorway. If she pulls away from his touch, it signals him she is not ready for more. But if his touch is received warmly, the relationship may move to hand holding. Holding hands is evidence of a growing attachment between them. First touch is also a social statement that says, “I have someone who enjoys being with me.”

Step 5: Arm to shoulder. Soon the thrill of holding hands subsides, and a new plateau is needed to show continued interest. During hand holding, the bodies have not been that close, but arm-to-shoulder pulls the trunks of the bodies into close contact, and the thrill returns. The shoulder embrace says more than holding hands does. It’s a gesture of ownership that states, “This relationship is going someplace.” There is still limited eye contact and conversation, but closer body contact.

Step 6: Arm to waist. The excitement of holding hands and arm-to-shoulder eventually wears thin. So to bring back the thrill, the couple move to arm to waist, which displays more ownership of the body. The arm around the waist clearly signals romantic interest. Notice also that the hands are moving down the body closer to the genitals. You might observe a couple walking down the street, each wearing jeans, in the Step 6 position. Sometimes each will slip a thumb inside the back pocket with the hand resting directly on the buttocks. He knows exactly where his hand is and may be entertaining some interesting thoughts: If I can touch her here outside the clothing, I wonder if I might touch her inside the clothes.

Couples can frequently be observed at this stage of bonding on a school campus, or at a park. Their bodies are close, but they appear to be looking down, talking to their feet. Deep levels of communication develop at this step. Personal disclosures are made. The basic issues of life are discussed and evaluated. Many personal secrets are shared, and the couple really get to know each other at a deeply personal level.

Values, goals, and beliefs must be scrutinized closely because it is now that decisions about the future of the relationship must be made—whether it should progress or end. Enough personal disclosures have been shared so that compatibility can be evaluated. If serious doubts or questions exist, now is the time to say good-bye. Proceeding to Step 7 or beyond and then separating can leave deep and painful scars because by then the bond is so well formed.

Stage 3: Intimate contact.

At this stage the couple face one another. Although no direct sexual contact occurs, the change in body positions puts sex on a hidden agenda that both become acutely aware of. Any genital contact would bring on intercourse and could scar the formation of a healthy bond, introduce an undercurrent of mistrust, and haunt the pair later should they marry. Communication is different. Until now the couple have been developing their communication skills. Now the verbal exchanges are suspended and eye contact and nonverbal expressions take over.

Step 7: Face to face. As the couple move face to face, they cross an important boundary. Each of them must consider carefully whether to stop at this point or proceed. Three types of contact take place at this step: hugging, deep kissing, and prolonged eye contact. Close body contact in this frontal position, combined with open-mouth kissing, bring on strong sexual arousal, particularly when repeated or prolonged. If the couple has taken time to talk through important issues, deep communication can take place with few words. Eye contact becomes long and pronounced. Verbal communication tends to shut down while the couple read each other’s faces. An unmarried couple must guard their display of physical affection carefully from now on, as all sexual motors are racing.

Step 8: Hand to head. Here one’s hand is used to caress the head of the other while kissing or talking. This intimate gesture is reserved for those who have developed a high level of trust. Few people engage in head-touching unless they are in love or are family members. This act, then, denotes emotional closeness, a deep bond of friendship, love, and caring. A couple who wants to protect the sanctity of the bond that has been formed should consider the consequences of proceeding to Step 9. After all other factors in their compatibility have been examined, they should consider marriage or ceasing the bonding process. In other words, the couple should stop seeing one another unless they are definitely planning marriage within the imminent future.

Step 9: Hand to body. Now the hands explore the partner’s body. Breast fondling becomes important for the male. In the early stages of Step 9 the hands remain outside the clothing. Later the hands will move underneath the clothing but stay above the waist. Step 9 is dangerously progressive and includes back rubs and other caressing. Each time the unmarried couple go to Step 9 they have more trouble stopping at that point. It is usually now that the female recognizes she must call a halt, or it will be too late. This is the point of last return before the protection of marriage is needed.

Stage 4: One flesh.

Ultimate intimacy is achieved as appropriate within a marriage relationship.

Step 10: Mouth to breast. Step 10 requires the baring of the female breast and demands utmost privacy. The couple are not only concerned with pleasure and arousal but intend to complete the sex act.

Step 11: Hand to genital. The hands drop below the waist. Sexual arousal and foreplay are well underway in this last and most intimate stage of genital fondling. The dictionary defines virgin as “a person of either sex remaining in a state of chastity.” This definition shows that purity has already been lost when unmarried couples reach this point: Touching the genitals of a partner would hardly be considered chaste, pure, or virtuous in any culture. Technically it is only a breath or two away from intercourse.

Step 12: Genital to genital. The pair-bonding process escalates to its highest level of sexual desire and is complete with penetration and intercourse. A pair bond is thus formed by progressing through these 12 steps. But the goal should be more than sexual pleasure. The goal of bonding is to develop a strong unbreakable bond of commitment and trust between husband and wife.

The results of rushing or skipping steps

When the 12-step bonding process is rushed, several harmful things can happen.
When steps are skipped or rushed, the bond is weakened and tends to break or become deformed. This happens because the couple did not take time to talk through the important issues—values, goals, and beliefs—prior to becoming physically involved. Once the sexual motors get turned on, people forget other aspects of relationship building. It is easier and faster to get to know each other physically than emotionally, socially, and spiritually. This is probably the greatest contributor to rising divorce statistics.
After a couple break up, the tendency is to accelerate the steps with the next partner. Each level of sexual excitement is so immediately rewarding it becomes nearly impossible to be satisfied with lower levels. The long-term consequence of uninhibited sexual freedom is difficulty settling down to one partner after multiple matings.
A sexually experienced person will tend to rush a new partner to intercourse. A person who is used to proceeding through all 12 steps of sexual arousal without stopping will find it difficult to slow the process or stop at Steps 7, 8, or 9.

http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/13_2_pelt_e.htm

With the full veil a woman can prevent the first step of mating, which is to look at her body and face. Without this you can't go to the next step.

But if she allows men to see her body and face, then they can come and talk to her.

[orangepulp]

Saudi Arabia is the most conservative muslim country, the one which follow better the quran precepts.
And regardless, it's populated by unhealthy and obese persons.

Who are you to decide that?? What do you know about the Quran that you can judge Saudis are following Islam the right way??


You must have a lot of weak and uncivilised men. I'm sorry for you. I can at least say (even as an infidel dog) that I can control myself and respect a woman, rather than harass and molest her.

Oh well... cultural differences I guess...
I wouldn't know that, God knows how many woman you have been with. I wonder what you would do if you never have??? Lets see if you would control yourself then?

In monotheism premarital relationships are forbidden, women are to dress modest and men to lower their gaze. In this case men value women more because they are not used to seeing women or being with women, where as in your society men are used to and even fed up with women that they become gay and search for different adventures.

[Tony]

I am a woman. I know how women think. If they don't care about it, why are they so upset?

They're upset because it happened that feminism instead of freein them had made them work twice, at home and at the workplace outside home.

Even I would be upset if I had to work twice as I used to.:rolleyes:

And regard the male-female relationships they're split almost equal between those who work as a couple and those who don't.

But don't think that submitted women or European women of the past were all happy in being put in the second place after the husband.

[Mary]

They're upset because it happened that feminism instead of freein them had made them work twice, at home and at the workplace outside home.

Even I would be upset if I had to work twice as I used to.:rolleyes:

And regard the male-female relationships they're split almost equal between those who work as a couple and those don't.

I mean why they're upset over that Muslim women wear veils.

[Aivap]

Who are you to decide that?? What do you know about the Quran that you can judge Saudis are following Islam the right way??


Simple, in Saudi Arabia women are really treated as inferior human beings, as imposed by quran, they even can't vote and drive a car, the parliament is composed only by men, classical sharia is still the only legal systems accepted...
Pratically it's a perfect islamic heaven.

[Mary]

Simple, in Saudi Arabia women are really treated as inferior human beings, as imposed by quran, they even can't vote and drive a car, the parliament is composed only by men, classical sharia is still the only legal systems accepted...
Pratically it's a perfect islamic heaven.

CrlG-lQhIVw

UdBgiLTj3mQ

:rolleyes:

[Mosov]

Sorry, but no woman "asks" to be harassed, raped or beaten because of how she dresses. If a man can't take responsibility for his own actions and control himself, he's no real man and he doesn't belong in a civilised society.

I'm not talking about rape or being beaten. I'm talking about men giving interest in a girl dressed openly.



What u say hardly makes sense, I think it is the contrary, I think you will be more turned on if woman walked around with Veils and u never saw a pair of tits or thighs in ur life, you would be DYYYYYIIIING to see something like that and get horny and maybe rape a woman or force her to strip in front of u because u r too horny, not that you or I would do that but some would.

hmm, maybe in some rural village in Afghanistan with no access to outside world lol. But again you are going to the extreme. We're talking about a woman wearing a simple headscarf.


I think the veil makes guys more horny cuz they never get to satisfy their need to see a woman and to get used to it and accept it as normal, the vail makes men think there is a mystery behind it and makes u want it even more.

Maybe to you, psychology differs from person to person.


No it isn't.


Woman dresses in miniskirt, more lust. women dresses in simple dress not showing body, less lust.


No it doesn't, it just gives u the impression that the woman behind it is the sex object that if she uncovers herself we will all go ape shit and rape everyone around, that is the point of the veil.

This is Decent and modest:


I don't understand where your getting those assumptions for. 'she uncovers herself we will all go ape shit and rape everyone around,' those are some really wild assumptions there lol.


there is no big deal, you are making a big deal out of it.

Well the people who attack woman for dressing in such a manner or talk bad about such a dressing style are making a big deal out of it and its frankly none of their business.


True, and modesty is subjective.

and woman who see modesty in wearing a veil have every right to, without being harassed or talked down too for thinking that.

[orangepulp]

If these Arabs would be real muslims, they would help the starving muslims in Africa rather than ordering custom made limousines from Ferrari factory in Italy.

That's the point, Arabs have diverted from Islam and are very materialistic. Arabs don't represent Islam and are only 30% of the Muslim population.

There are many hadiths which states ''woe to the Arabs''.
God even says in the Quran:

''The Arabs of the desert are the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger'' Quran 9-97

[Wanderlust]

Veil in Greece (by Orthodoxs I mean) is worn
1) by older villager women (sun protection)
2) Widowers, together with black clothes

Yes, nowadays it is (mainly) associated with mourning and extended period of grief, but it is still worn.

[Hevneren]

I wouldn't know that, God knows how many woman you have been with. I wonder what you would do if you never have??? Lets see if you would control yourself then?

In monotheism premarital relationships are forbidden, women are to dress modest and men to lower their gaze. In this case men value women more because they are not used to seeing women or being with women, where as in your society men are used to and even fed up with women that they become gay and search for different adventures.

A little early for vague ad hominems, isn't it? Not that it's any of your business what I do or don't do, but I'm not someone who goes from "flower to flower". :rolleyes:

You know nothing of my society. We are fed up with women and turn gay? Are you some kind of comedian? Goodness... We have a completely normal and healthy relationship to women (well, generally speaking).

Our women don't have to cover themselves up in bee keeper suits in fear of getting assaulted and raped (or haven't had to before Muslim immigration). Women and the female form are celebrated and seen as something beautiful and natural. Women are to be treasured and not hidden away. They are to think, feel and dress how they want and pursue the careers they want, rather than popping out 8 children in a dark room.

The body isn't something to be ashamed of. If you believe we were created in the image of Allah, then you must believe our bodies were as well? I don't want to feel ashamed of how I was born. I was born naked into this world, and my body is as natural as the trees and the animals.

I don't want women to be ashamed of themselves and their bodies, and I sure as hell don't want a society where women have to fear molestation and rape for wearing the "wrong" clothes. I don't want to - as a man - be viewed as a wild, uncivilised and uncontrollable sex predator who can't take responsibility for his own actions, because that's not what I am.

I've lived here in Norway all my life and I've never attacked, molested or raped a woman yet, so I guess I must be doing something right despite being a dirty kaffir dog? ;)

[Odoacer]

1) No, they didn't. It was still mandated by the 4th century.

By which ecumenical council?


2) The Hellenic world was a lot bigger than Greece is today.

Okay?


1) Tertullian was a convert. This indicates that Christianity was not firmly established in North Africa at that time.

Clement also was a convert.


2) The Church Fathers mandated the face veil. Of course not everyone followed it, but that's not the point, it was the official church stance.

Again, which ecumenical council mandated the covering of the face? Of those individuals you've cited on this subject elsewhere, Nicodemus the Hagiorite isn't a Church Father & died in the 19th Century AD. Clement of Alexandria died in the 3rd century. Then Chrysostom's quote doesn't actually indicate that the entire face was to be covered, but rather the sides of the head. He speaks also of the veil across the forehead, & a pharos was worn above that! This is exactly how Mary is depicted in the Hagia Sophia:

http://www.colourbox.com/preview/3388075-638049-virgin-mary-and-jesus-christ-mosaic-in-hagia-sophia-mosque-istanbul-turkey.jpg

Can you show me a single historical image of a Christian woman from this period wearing a veil over her face?


It's an established part of European civilization. You can't talk it away.

It was a custom of Greek culture which originated in the Near East & did not spread eslewhere in Europe. Covering the face is not "an established part of European civilization."


Pashtuns are at least semi-white. Saudis are not. Look at their respective facial features.

I did. Pashtuns are no more "white" than are Saudis.


1) Afghanistan and Greece are both mountainous.

Plenty of mountains in Arabia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Arabian_Peninsula_dust_SeaWiFS-2.jpg/526px-Arabian_Peninsula_dust_SeaWiFS-2.jpg


2) Saudi and Iraq are deserts.

And plenty of desert in Afghanistan:

http://liportal.inwent.org/fileadmin/user_upload/oeffentlich/afghanistan/00_startseite/vegetationmap.jpg


3) Look at how Pashtuns are the only ones who still have the full burqa. This is very similar to the old Greek burqa. While the arabs have the veil. This is probably more similar to the old Mesopotamian veil that is referenced in Hammurabi.

A woman in Saudi Arabia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Young_Saudi_Arabian_woman_in_Abha.jpg/220px-Young_Saudi_Arabian_woman_in_Abha.jpg

You're going to tell me that this is an incomplete burqa? In fact, it is a jilbab + hijab + niqab = burqa. It's just not the particular Afghan style of burqa.


1) There are the depictions, the figurines and the written sources. How is this not proof?

It's not proof that the "burqa" originated in Greece.


2) The sources continue until something like the 4th century. How is this not consistent? We are talking about a period of around 1000 years.

It's not consistent because women are not consistently depicted wearing "burqas." (This is also an argument against Llewellyn-Jones' thesis, but I don't have his book so I can only guess at some of his arguments.)


3) That's the veil. Nobody knows what the Mesopotamian veil looked like because there are no depictions of it. The Greek burqa is very well documented.

The Greek "burqa" is a form of veil. Do you dispute this? So, the author of your favorite book says that the wearing of veils for women began in the Near East.


Lol. The Korai is just a regional difference. There are lots of regional variations. It's like saying that jeans changed because people in a certain part of the US started wearing a different cut.

You said it had nothing to do with Oriental influence. This shows that, in fact, there was known Oriental influence on Greek clothing styles. You can deny it all you want, but it is obvious evidence against your argument that this was a Greek innovation.


I put that up before:

http://i42.tinypic.com/29za3yv.jpg

And you can see from this passage that it was ornamentation & fashion.

[Tony]

I mean why they're upset over that Muslim women wear veils.

I simply think they fear that, due to the growin muslim presence here, sooner or later they also will be force to behave like the muslim women...

[orangepulp]

A little early for vague ad hominems, isn't it? Not that it's any of your business what I do or don't do, but I'm not someone who goes from "flower to flower". :rolleyes:

You know nothing of my society. We are fed up with women and turn gay? Are you some kind of comedian? Goodness... We have a completely normal and healthy relationship to women (well, generally speaking).

Our women don't have to cover themselves up in bee keeper suits in fear of getting assaulted and raped (or haven't had to before Muslim immigration). Women and the female form are celebrated and seen as something beautiful and natural. Women are to be treasured and not hidden away. They are to think, feel and dress how they want and pursue the careers they want, rather than popping out 8 children in a dark room.

The body isn't something to be ashamed of. If you believe we were created in the image of Allah, then you must believe our bodies were as well? I don't want to feel ashamed of how I was born. I was born naked into this world, and my body is as natural as the trees and the animals.

I don't want women to be ashamed of themselves and their bodies, and I sure as hell don't want a society where women have to fear molestation and rape for wearing the "wrong" clothes. I don't want to - as a man - be viewed as a wild, uncivilised and uncontrollable sex predator who can't take responsibility for his own actions, because that's not what I am.

I've lived here in Norway all my life and I've never attacked, molested or raped a woman yet, so I guess I must be doing something right despite being a dirty kaffir dog? ;)

Im talking about the west in general. I have been there and seen it all happen.

Being covered does not mean I am ashamed of my body, it means I respect myself. You hide what you think is valuable, only a fool would display his treasure.Why the hell would I show numerous amount of men my body? The only person that can see a woman's body is her husband, what is more dignifying than that? Sorry but just because you think you have self control it doesn't mean others do, also why should I take your word for it? Who are you that I should trust?

Lets be realistic, if a woman posts a pic of herself semi nude you actually think men wouldn't fanatsize about her? If he doesn't there is for sure something wrong with that man. Woman who dress modestly don't want to be toyed by men, women who dress provocatively want attention, that's pretty obvious or why would they dress that way?

[Sturmgewehr]

hmm, maybe in some rural village in Afghanistan with no access to outside world lol. But again you are going to the extreme. We're talking about a woman wearing a simple headscarf.

I am not going to the extreme, that is how shit is, if all woman walked on Burqas and Niqabs we would be horny as hell, we would be lusting a lot more than ever.

Why is it that Middle easterns when they come to European countries they act like animals, they would look at every woman and are horny as fuck???

Why aren't Germans or Average Americans like that, you are also going to the extreme u think that if a woman is wearing clothes that show some considerable amount of flesh we would all be looking at her and lusting, that is not true at all, that is a fallacious argument.

What is the point of that stupid headscarf anyways ???


Maybe to you, psychology differs from person to person.

Just look at the behavior of Middle eastern people when they go to countries such as USA or Germany how horny they get and look at the behavior of people who are used to live amongst woman who wear short skirts.

And yes psychology differs from man to man but if it is so that means that the veil fails in that aspect cuz men will be lusting no matter what.




Woman dresses in miniskirt, more lust. women dresses in simple dress not showing body, less lust.

Simple dress is different, the ones I posted would be simple and modest dresses and styles.

Wearing scarf is lame, you are covering your hair and face, hiding who you are , just like ONUR said it is a form of eradicating women's personality and make them look all one like sex objects of course because it is their fault that some man can't control their sex drive.


I don't understand where your getting those assumptions for. 'she uncovers herself we will all go ape shit and rape everyone around,' those are some really wild assumptions there lol.

I am not getting any impressions or assumptions, I am speaking my mind out, you are assuming that woman with head scarfs are modest by neglecting their taste and choice if they want to wear it or not and we were talking about Veil as the moral thing to do to reduce lust which is not the case at all.


Well the people who attack woman for dressing in such a manner or talk bad about such a dressing style are making a big deal out of it and its frankly none of their business.

And it is also none of your business how women wear, you are not the one to tell woman if they should cover their heads or not, if they want to then fine who gives a shit if not then it is up to them, every person has his own taste, individuality and brain, let them decide for themselves.

I have heard from MANY muslim and EX MUSLIM woman that wearing head scarf was a pain in the ass and how it made them lose hair how it irritated them, I have heard many many muslim woman who said they hate the scarf and veil.


and woman who see modesty in wearing a veil have every right to, without being harassed or talked down too for thinking that.

Of course, I agree, no one cares if u decide to wear it, that was not even my point.

[Hevneren]

Im talking about the west in general. I have been there and seen it all happen.

Being covered does not mean I am ashamed of my body, it means I respect myself. You hide what you think is valuable, only a fool would display his treasure.Why the hell would I show numerous amount of men my body? The only person that can see a woman's body is her husband, what is more dignifying than that?

By covering up you're saying two things: "Men are uncontrollable and I'm to blame for it". Personally, I have a different view on things. Then again, I'm an infidel, so I know my point of view will never carry any weight with you. I'm just expressing my personal views.


Sorry but just because you think you have self control it doesn't mean others do, also why should I take your word for it? Who are you that I should trust?

True, but I can ask the same thing of you. Why should I trust you? Why should anybody on the planet trust anybody else? Just because I'm a man, it doesn't automatically make me less trustworthy than you, as a woman.


Lets be realistic, if a woman posts a pic of herself semi nude you actually think men wouldn't fanatsize about her? If he doesn't there is for sure something wrong with that man. Woman who dress modestly don't want to be toyed by men, women who dress provocatively want attention, that's pretty obvious or why would they dress that way?

This is too simplistic. Not all men find the same women attractive, and not all women who post nude pictures of themselves would be attractive to most men. You don't understand men and our sexuality, and therefore you have some odd ideas about how men are or should be.

Yes, men are highly visual but just any nude woman isn't necessarily going to affect us. Just like women have different tastes, so do men.

[PetiteParisienne]

I think the catalyst is whether or not one sees the human body as 'dirty' and 'shameful'. Westerners tend not to, so why should a woman feel the need to hide herself? We are neither sexually repressed nor sexually out of control. There are some women who dress in skimpy clothing. And though it may be tacky, it's her right to do so without fear of being assaulted. Rape, by definition, cannot be asked for.

If I want to wear a sleeveless sundress on a warm day, I'll wear one because it's comfortable and pretty. The thought of being attacked doesn't even cross my mind. But would I wear a sundress in a Muslim country? No, because I have female friends who have been sexually assaulted by men in places like India, Egypt, and Pakistan for doing as little as showing their hair. Western women are NOT 'easy'. We simply respect our bodies and know that our men do the same.

[Mosov]

I am not going to the extreme, that is how shit is, if all woman walked on Burqas and Niqabs we would be horny as hell, we would be lusting a lot more than ever.

Why is it that Middle easterns when they come to European countries they act like animals, they would look at every woman and are horny as fuck???



Why aren't Germans or Average Americans like that, you are also going to the extreme u think that if a woman is wearing clothes that show some considerable amount of flesh we would all be looking at her and lusting, that is not true at all, that is a fallacious argument.

What is the point of that stupid headscarf anyways ???

This isn't about all women in the world wearing Niqabs or Burqas, it's not even about all women in the world wear headscarves. Sexual feelings exist either way. The way a sexual feeling goes away is not seeing more open dressed women. and how exactly do you know that Middle Easterns specifically are horny? :rolleyes:

Every man looks at a woman differently. Now why can't woman be certain of fact that certain men on street won't be looking at her legs or breasts and fantasising of her?





And yes psychology differs from man to man but if it is so that means that the veil fails in that aspect cuz men will be lusting no matter what.


Veils doesn't get rid of sexual feelings, it just provides a modest outward look for the woman, sense of comfort for a woman who doesn't want men staring at her visible body features.



Simple dress is different, the ones I posted would be simple and modest dresses and styles.

Wearing scarf is lame, you are covering your hair and face, hiding who you are , just like ONUR said it is a form of eradicating women's personality and make them look all one like sex objects of course because it is their fault that some man can't control their sex drive.

Not saying those dresses are not modest. But I don't know why it's okay to dress in such dresses, but once you cover your hair you become this backwards person...seems bit hypocritical.


I am not getting any impressions or assumptions, I am speaking my mind out, you are assuming that woman with head scarfs are modest by neglecting their taste and choice if they want to wear it or not and we were talking about Veil as the moral thing to do to reduce lust which is not the case at all.

They are modest in how they want to present themselves. Simply don't want to show off their body features. They have the right to do that.


And it is also none of your business how women wear, you are not the one to tell woman if they should cover their heads or not, if they want to then fine who gives a shit if not then it is up to them, every person has his own taste, individuality and brain, let them decide for themselves.

I have heard from MANY muslim and EX MUSLIM woman that wearing head scarf was a pain in the ass and how it made them lose hair how it irritated them, I have heard many many muslim woman who said they hate the scarf and veil.

I'm not saying all woman should wear a headscarf. Of course I appreciate and value modest dressing but I'm not going to force anyone to dress in a certain way. What I'm against is demonising and putting down people who choose to dress in such a way. It's wrong to that, let them be.

[orangepulp]

By covering up you're saying two things: "Men are uncontrollable and I'm to blame for it". Personally, I have a different view on things. Then again,
I don't trust strangers, whats not to understand there?

I'm an infidel, so I know my point of view will never carry any weight with you. I'm just expressing my personal views.
Stop whining, my opinions don't matter to you either.


True, but I can ask the same thing of you. Why should I trust you? Why should anybody on the planet trust anybody else? Just because I'm a man, it doesn't automatically make me less trustworthy than you, as a woman.

Yea like a womans gonna sexually harass you :lol00002:
I thought men were the stronger gender.

Of course you shouldn't trust me but women are harmless in these cases.



This is too simplistic. Not all men find the same women attractive, and not all women who post nude pictures of themselves would be attractive to most men. You don't understand men and our sexuality, and therefore you have some odd ideas about how men are or should be.

Yes, men are highly visual but just any nude woman isn't necessarily going to affect us. Just like women have different tastes, so do men.

Everyone has different taste, now I can't read everyones mind can I ?

[Sturmgewehr]

The way a sexual feeling goes away is not seeing more open dressed women.

That is fallacious, countries where woman wear more openly are used to that kind of style and they don't even realize it.

We were talking about Head veil, Burqa and Niqab not about woman wearing miniskirts, I think now you are going to the extreme.


and how exactly do you know that Middle Easterns specifically are horny?

Personal Experience.


Now why can't woman be certain of fact that certain men on street won't be looking at her legs or breasts and fantasising of her?

Why should they care if you will be looking at her or not ??? How does looking at a woman is something bad, how is appreciating beauty bad ???

Horny man will be looking at woman no matter how they wear and they will be fantasizing no matter what, that is where veil fails.


Veils doesn't get rid of sexual feelings, it just provides a modest outward look for the woman, sense of comfort for a woman who doesn't want men staring at her visible body features.

I already addressed this issue, modesty is subjective.


Not saying those dresses are not modest. But I don't know why it's okay to dress in such dresses, but once you cover your hair you become this backwards person...seems bit hypocritical.

Now you are assuming, I never said you are backward if you wear a head veil, burqa or Niqab by your own will and choice, I was talking about it when it is imposed on women in a society or when society pressures you to wear the veil and when a society considers the veil as something positive and indirectly you are pressured to wear it or be the black sheep in the society, that is where things get fucked up.

What I said was, that if society directly or indirectly forces all woman to wear veils it will deprive them of their personality and individuality, if a woman WANTS and PREFERS to wear the head veil then it is fine because that is who she is and she is showing her individuality, it would be wrong if we forced her to take it off.


They are modest in how they want to present themselves. Simply don't want to show off their body features. They have the right to do that.

As I said this is subjective, you are not the one to tell us what is the norm of modesty.


I'm not saying all woman should wear a headscarf. Of course I appreciate and value modest dressing but I'm not going to force anyone to dress in a certain way. What I'm against is demonising and putting down people who choose to dress in such a way. It's wrong to that, let them be.

This is what I have been talking all the way.

I couldn't agree more.

[PetiteParisienne]

These are two articles about my acquaintance Kaya who was assaulted in India.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214215/I-humiliated-Indian-court-sexually-assaulted-says-British-student.html

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/molested-at-home-humiliated-in-court-she-fights-on/101542-3.html

[Onur]

That's the point, Arabs have diverted from Islam and are very materialistic. Arabs don't represent Islam and are only 30% of the Muslim population.
Well, at least you don't praise Arabs and consider them as supposedly the chosen people just as some brainwashed muslims does, thats a good thing.

Btw the user called Stars Down To Earth reminded an interesting stat to me. Arabic people also searches for "child porn" more than anyone in the world as proven by google search states.

So, they cannot hide their perversity neither by their hijabs, veils nor with their so-called islamic propaganda.

[Hevneren]

I don't trust strangers, whats not to understand there?

That's your choice, but it just seemed to me like you feel pressured to act a certain way.


Stop whining, my opinions don't matter to you either.

I didn't whine. :)


Yea like a womans gonna sexually harass you :lol00002:
I thought men were the stronger gender.

1. Where did I write anything about a woman sexually harassing me?

2. Why is it impossible for a man to get unwanted attention from a woman?

3. Did it occur to you that there could be many reasons why a man would distrust a female stranger? You'd be equally as much a stranger to me as I am to you.


Of course you shouldn't trust me but women are harmless in these cases.

Not quite. There have been cases of women drugging men and tying a rope around their genitalia to keep the blood there, while they raped them.


Everyone has different taste, now I can't read everyones mind can I ?

Of course, but you wrote that (any) man who views (any) nude woman and doesn't feel anything, has problems.

[Aivap]

Sexy Muslim women at the beach wearing BURKINI.

http://m24digital.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/burkini2.jpg

http://ris.fashion.telegraph.co.uk/RichImageService.svc/imagecontent/1/TMG8459306/m/lawson-2_1875925a.jpg

http://mg.co.za/uploads/2009/12/31/burkini.jpg

http://elephantrage.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a6a7c721970c012875607a27970c-pi

[Thunor]

It's very understandable that the niqab developed in a Middle-Eastern culture, to prevent the women from being raped by Semites who can't control their impulses. Since us Europeans do not have these frequent rape-impulses, the niqab never existed in our cultures.


Btw the user called Stars Down To Earth reminded an interesting stat to me. Arabic people also searches for "child porn" more than anyone in the world as proven by google search states.
Actually, the Pakistanis were number one in searches for animal porn and child rape videos. The UAE, India, and Saudi Arabia right after.

Google trends on "child sex" show that Arabs, Dravidians and Negroes are world champions in sexual perversion: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=child%20sex%2C%2C&cmpt=q

[Mary]

By which ecumenical council?

By this guy:


John Chrysostom (c. 347–407, Greek: Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος), Archbishop of Constantinople, was an important Early Church Father. He is known for his eloquence in preaching and public speaking, his denunciation of abuse of authority by both ecclesiastical and political leaders, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and his ascetic sensibilities. After his death in 407 (or, according to some sources, during his life) he was given the Greek epithet chrysostomos, meaning "golden mouthed", in English and Anglicized to Chrysostom.[2][5]

The Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches honor him as a saint and count him among the Three Holy Hierarchs, together with Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzus. He is recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church as a saint and as a Doctor of the Church. Churches of the Western tradition, including the Roman Catholic Church, some Anglican provinces, and parts of the Lutheran Church, commemorate him on 13 September. Some Lutheran and many Anglican provinces commemorate him on the traditional Eastern feast day of 27 January. The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria also recognizes John Chrysostom as a saint (with feast days on 16 Thout and 17 Hathor).[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom


"Thus, in the beginning he simply requires that the head be not bare: but as he proceeds he intimates both the continuance of the rule, saying, "for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven," and the keeping of it with all care and diligence. For he said not merely covered, but "covered over," meaning that she be carefully wrapped up on every side."

http://orthodoxchurchfathers.com/fathers/npnf112/npnf1140.htm


Okay?

That means the cultural impact was bigger than today's Greece.


Clement also was a convert.

But Clement is a Church Father:


Clement is regarded as a Church Father, and he is venerated as a saint in Orthodox Christianity, Eastern Catholicism and Anglicanism. He was previously revered in the Roman Catholic Church, but his cult was suppressed in 1586 by Pope Sixtus V due to concerns about his orthodoxy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria


Again, which ecumenical council mandated the covering of the face? Of those individuals you've cited on this subject elsewhere, Nicodemus the Hagiorite isn't a Church Father & died in the 19th Century AD. Clement of Alexandria died in the 3rd century. Then Chrysostom's quote doesn't actually indicate that the entire face was to be covered, but rather the sides of the head. He speaks also of the veil across the forehead, & a pharos was worn above that! This is exactly how Mary is depicted in the Hagia Sophia:

http://www.colourbox.com/preview/3388075-638049-virgin-mary-and-jesus-christ-mosaic-in-hagia-sophia-mosque-istanbul-turkey.jpg

Can you show me a single historical image of a Christian woman from this period wearing a veil over her face?

1) It doesn't have to be mandated by a council. It says in the Bible and it is prescribed by the highest theological authorities.

2) Yes, he does say that the face must be covered. You just have to look up the Greek translation.

This is the passage:


Ver. 6. “But if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.”

Thus, in the beginning he simply requires that the head be not bare: but as he proceeds he intimates both the continuance of the rule, saying, “for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven,” and the keeping of it with all care and diligence. For he said not merely covered, but “covered over137,” meaning that she be carefully wrapped up on every side.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xxvii.html#fna_iv.xxvii-p35.1

Note that he says:


“covered over137,” meaning that she be carefully wrapped up on every side

Is the face a side? Yes, it is. This means the woman should be carefully wrapped up over the face.

The key word is "katakalupto"


A5. Cover, Covering [Verb] katakalupto "to cover up" (kata, intensive), in the Middle Voice, "to cover oneself," is used in 1 Cor 11:6,7 (RV, "veiled").

Note: In 1 Cor 11:4, "having his head covered" is, lit., "having (something) down the head."


See also : katakalupto

http://gospelhall.org/bible/bible.php?search=katakalupto&dict=vine&lang=greek

Here is another source:


An examination of verses four through sixteen. What was the covering? There are two coverings under discussion, the natural (the hair, vs. 15) and the artificial (vs. 6). The artificial covering was obviously the veil (see American Standard Version also the addendum, No. 1). Katakalupto ("covered," vs. 6) means, "to cover up (kata, intensive)" (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). The katakalupto, the kalumma understood, of the text covered the head and face (2 Cor. 3: 13, Ex. 34: 33, 35; Gen. 38: 14-19, the graphic at the top may not entirely duplicate the Bible veil). The men under consideration were doing what the women should have been doing, and the women were doing what the men were supposed to be doing, regarding the covering (vss. 4, 5). Man seems to possess a talent for reversing God's applied order!

http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTARO59.htm

3) I think we can agree on that Chrysostom is an authority, right? Then it doesn't matter what other people do or don't do, because this is what goes.


It was a custom of Greek culture which originated in the Near East & did not spread eslewhere in Europe. Covering the face is not "an established part of European civilization."

1) It did not originate in the Near East. As you have seen from the sources I provided (should I post them again?) the Greek face veil is indigenous.

2) It spread across the Greek world which at that time was much bigger than today.

3) Ancient Greek civilization is the foundation of Western civilization. That makes the face veil an integral part of Western civilization as well.


I did. Pashtuns are no more "white" than are Saudis.

Saudis:

http://islamzpeace.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/2434191640_2ed3b312be.jpg

These guys could pass in Southern Europe:

http://www.topnews.in/files/South-Waziristan.jpg


Plenty of mountains in Arabia:





And plenty of desert in Afghanistan:



This is Saudi:

http://www.worldofmaps.net/uploads/pics/satelliten-karte-saudi-arabien.jpg

This is Afghanistan:

http://rml3.com/hist_novels/images/afghanistan_ng_satellite.jpg


A woman in Saudi Arabia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Young_Saudi_Arabian_woman_in_Abha.jpg/220px-Young_Saudi_Arabian_woman_in_Abha.jpg

You're going to tell me that this is an incomplete burqa? In fact, it is a jilbab + hijab + niqab = burqa. It's just not the particular Afghan style of burqa.

They originate from different styles. The Afghan burqa originates from the sheet-like clothing (there are several) that the women in Greece would wrap themselves in:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pI5CngXSGR0/S7_QKJ8HXmI/AAAAAAAAAr4/su4dIgbesjI/s1600/BURQA+BLOG.jpg

The Saudi niqab, which is a distinct style, originates from a "veil".

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2407/2214348141_4296a54bca.jpg


It's not proof that the "burqa" originated in Greece.

Yes, it is solid proof. There are plenty of sources that show the burqa in Greece at that time and for a period of centuries afterwards. There are virtually no sources for the same thing in Near Eastern cultures.


It's not consistent because women are not consistently depicted wearing "burqas." (This is also an argument against Llewellyn-Jones' thesis, but I don't have his book so I can only guess at some of his arguments.)

Yes, they are indeed depicted that way. And I have the book so I don't have to guess. Google for "veiling gesture".


The Greek "burqa" is a form of veil. Do you dispute this? So, the author of your favorite book says that the wearing of veils for women began in the Near East.

You are taking it out of context. The author refers to regular veiling. The face veil is distinctly Greek as you have been able to read from the material I posted.


You said it had nothing to do with Oriental influence. This shows that, in fact, there was known Oriental influence on Greek clothing styles. You can deny it all you want, but it is obvious evidence against your argument that this was a Greek innovation.

The Greek veil is based on Ancient Greek society. This stipulated separation between the sexes. There were many different veils that were used to achieve this. Like there are many types of pants today. If you wear "oriental style pants" that doesn't mean that pants originate from the orient.

You will see that the korai is just a regional style.


And you can see from this passage that it was ornamentation & fashion.

As you can see there are several styles that existed simultaneously. This is just variation of the basic concept.

[Queen B]

If Europeans want to uncover themselves and non-European want to cover themselves, what's the problem.?

[PetiteParisienne]

There are verses in the Bible that command women to cover themselves, as in the Quran. There are also verses that condone slavery and killing a person for working on Sundays. However, much of Judaism and Christianity has been able to progress with the times. Most of Islam has not. That's the difference.

[Hevneren]

If Europeans want to uncover themselves and non-European want to cover themselves, what's the problem.?

When will you learn? It's never that simple! :lol:

[Mary]

I simply think they fear that, due to the growin muslim presence here, sooner or later they also will be force to behave like the muslim women...

Muslims don't force non-Muslims to follow their rules. But Westerners try to force non-Westerners to behave like Westerners.

[Queen B]

When will you learn? It's never that simple! :lol:
Damn me. !

[PetiteParisienne]

Muslims don't force non-Muslims to follow their rules. But Westerners try to force non-Westerners to behave like Westerners.

I strongly disagree. Go walk around a public place in Saudi Arabia in short skirt and vest. I dare you.

[Queen B]

I strongly disagree. Go walk around a public place in Saudi Arabia in short skirt and vest. I dare you.

You can't go in S.Arabia, with no men that is either husband or father/brother
You can't wear colorful burqa

Foreigners in S.Arabia call women as BMO (Black moving objects)

[Hevneren]

There are verses in the Bible that command women to cover themselves, as in the Quran. There are also verses that condone slavery and killing a person for working on Sundays. However, much of Judaism and Christianity has been able to progress with the times. Most of Islam has not. That's the difference.

Pretty much. Christianity was dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, as was Judaism. Islam was on the right track in Persia until the 12th century, when an Islamic cleric declared all science haram (forbidden) according to Islam. The Turks are one of the few groups to have managed to balance Islam, Western values and science moderately well in the Islamic world. You can even see Turkish bikini models there. Balkan Muslims are perhaps more open because they adopted Islam from the Turks, rather than from Arabs.

[Mary]

I strongly disagree. Go walk around a public place in Saudi Arabia in short skirt and vest. I dare you.

But it's their country. The Saudis aren't coming to the West to tell you what to do. But Westerners go to their countries to try to make them Western.

[PetiteParisienne]

You can't go in S.Arabia, with no men that is either husband or father/brother
You can't wear colorful burqa

Foreigners in S.Arabia call women as BMO (Black moving objects)

Exactly. Yet Muslim women in the West are allowed to cover themselves. It's a double-standard.

[PetiteParisienne]

But it's their country. The Saudis aren't coming to the West to tell you what to do. But Westerners go to their countries to try to make them Western.

Muslims are demanding Sharia law in Europe.

[Mary]

Exactly. Yet Muslim women in the West are allowed to cover themselves. It's a double-standard.

Western society is based on free choice. The Saudis never made that claim.

[Mary]

Muslims are demanding Sharia law in Europe.

Yes, but only for Muslims. If they want to be judged according to Sharia, that's their business. They're not asking you to be judged by Sharia.

[Queen B]

Yes, but only for Muslims. If they want to be judged according to Sharia, that's their business. They're not asking you to be judged by Sharia.

Wrong. Its not they country to make the rules.

[Hevneren]

Muslims are demanding Sharia law in Europe.

Demanding, and sometimes receiving... :rolleyes:

[Mary]

Wrong. Its not they country to make the rules.

It's their community. You live by the rules of your community. And they live by the rules of their community. I think it's fair.

[Queen B]

It's their community. You live by the rules of your community. And they live by the rules of their community. I think it's fair.

Not at all.
If they want this to happen, they should go to their country.

The country they live in, has their OWN rules, if they want to live there, they have to follow them.

[Mary]

Not at all.
If they want this to happen, they should go to their country.

The country they live in, has their OWN rules, if they want to live there, they have to follow them.

Your ideology dictates free movement and globalization. Thereby you have committed to accepting them.

Your ideology dictates free choice. If they choose to live by different rules, that's their business.

[PetiteParisienne]

It's their community. You live by the rules of your community. And they live by the rules of their community. I think it's fair.

The sovereignty of a nation rules over every community therein.

[PetiteParisienne]

If they choose to live by different rules, that's their business.

Not of it's illegal.

[Queen B]

Your ideology dictates free movement and globalization. Thereby you have committed to accepting them.

Your ideology dictates free choice. If they choose to live by different rules, that's their business.

Free choice as long as you follow the laws of the country.
And if any law is against covering your face, then they should follow it


A society that is not fully harmonized, will create a chaos is something like this happens.

What if , lets say me, wear a burqa and go steal a shop ? Who will find me and who can tell that is ME that did that ?

[Mary]

The sovereignty of a nation rules over every community therein.

National sovereignty is based on national self-determination. By extension this means that every tribe is free to govern itself.

[Mary]

Not of it's illegal.

If it doesn't affect your community it's none of your business.

[Mary]

Free choice as long as you follow the laws of the country.
And if any law is against covering your face, then they should follow it


A society that is not fully harmonized, will create a chaos is something like this happens.

What if , lets say me, wear a burqa and go steal a shop ? Who will find me and who can tell that is ME that did that ?

You committed to free choice and freedom of religion. You can't backpedal and say that it only applies to certain groups. That breaks the implicit agreement. If you forbid me from covering my face, I am no longer bound to follow your laws.

You can wear anything to disguise yourself. It has nothing to do with the religious clothing.

[PetiteParisienne]

If it doesn't affect your community it's one of your business.

If Sharia law is applied, then extreme punishments such as honour killings, stoning, and amputation would certainly affect all communities. Why? Because such measures are seen as cruel and deplorable in the West. People here would not and WILL NOT stand for it.

[PetiteParisienne]

You committed to free choice and freedom of religion. You can't backpedal and say that it only applies to certain groups. That breaks the implicit agreement. If you forbid me from covering my face, I am no longer bound to follow your laws.

You can wear anything to disguise yourself. It has nothing to do with the religious clothing.

Freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion.

[Hevneren]

Your ideology dictates free movement and globalization. Thereby you have committed to accepting them.

Your ideology dictates free choice. If they choose to live by different rules, that's their business.

We dictate the rules in our own nations. We are the native populations. Our people pay the taxes that make it possible for these "new countrymen" to get unearned benefits and settle here. Our word is law.

[PetiteParisienne]

National sovereignty is based on national self-determination. By extension this means that every tribe is free to govern itself.

One tiny tribe is not representative of the nation. And if that tiny tribe does not respect the rest of the nation, then they should leave. Muslims are not native to the West, and it's no wonder that their culture is incompatible. It's no one's fault; it's just the way it is.

[Mary]

If Sharia law is applied, then extreme punishments such as honour killings, stoning, and amputation would certainly affect all communities. Why? Because such measures are seen as cruel and deplorable in the West. People here would not and WILL NOT stand for it.

This is how it has to be. I deal with my community and you deal with your community. If you start interfering with me, I start interfering with you.

[Mary]

Freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion.

No one is forcing you to be religious.

[Queen B]

You committed to free choice and freedom of religion. You can't backpedal and say that it only applies to certain groups. That breaks the implicit agreement. If you forbid me from covering my face, I am no longer bound to follow your laws.
No, if you are not following the country's laws, you are not welcomed here anymore.
Because your religion is not only about wearing a burqa or not, but about other laws for punishment, and stuff like that.

It goes, ''my game, my rules'', if you don't like it, get out. Simply as that.




You can wear anything to disguise yourself. It has nothing to do with the religious clothing.
But you have to remove it once a police officer asks you to do it, will you? :coffee:

If Sharia law is applied, then extreme punishments such as honour killings, stoning, and amputation would certainly affect all communities. Why? Because such measures are seen as cruel and deplorable in the West. People here would not and WILL NOT stand for it.

Exactly !

[PetiteParisienne]

This is how it has to be. I deal with my community and you deal with your community. If you start interfering with me, I start interfering with you.

The law in Europe functions on a national level. If you're here, then you abide by those laws. What you're proposing would reduce Europe to a wasteland of tribal feuds akin to what's happening in Afghanistan.

[Mary]

We dictate the rules in our own nations. We are the native populations. Our people pay the taxes that make it possible for these "new countrymen" to get unearned benefits and settle here. Our word is law.

You dictate the rules for your community. But you can't dictate the rules for other people's community. That's their business.

You committed to free movement of goods, services, people and capital. Deal with it.

[PetiteParisienne]

No one is forcing you to be religious.

Forcing non-Muslims to accept Sharia law in their countries is just as bad.

[Tony]

Muslims don't force non-Muslims to follow their rules.

Yes instead, both when you are in their countries and when you happen to walk throu a district of them in your city, most of them have an arrogant mindset.


But Westerners try to force non-Westerners to behave like Westerners.
you're kidding here eh?
at most we (Americans) do propaganda via movies and stuff and sometimes the most extreme leftist try to push feminism and gay agenda even in Africa and muslim countries but it's very rare overall and it regards a very small percentage of westerners, most just mind their business.
Americans are now 10 years in Afghanistan and they haven't forbidden bourqa yet...

what kind of forcin you're talkin about?

[Hevneren]

You committed to free choice and freedom of religion. You can't backpedal and say that it only applies to certain groups. That breaks the implicit agreement. If you forbid me from covering my face, I am no longer bound to follow your laws.

You can wear anything to disguise yourself. It has nothing to do with the religious clothing.

The people who came here commit to follow our laws. We don't commit to anything when it comes to people without papers, without citizenship and without an income to pay for their own benefits.

If you don't like our secular, democratic, Western society, you are of course free to leave and return home from whence you came. Nobody's forcing you to stay in a society where women can choose not to wear bee keeper suits, or where women won't get stoned to death for talking to a man she's not married to.

I hope I've made myself clear? :)

[Mary]

One tiny tribe is not representative of the nation. And if that tiny tribe does not respect the rest of the nation, then they should leave. Muslims are not native to the West, and it's no wonder that their culture is incompatible. It's no one's fault; it's just the way it is.

Every tribe has their rules. Muslims don't ask you to live by their rules, right? Then you shouldn't ask them to live by yours. Because it's not going to happen.

[PetiteParisienne]

Every tribe has their rules. Muslims don't ask you to live by their rules, right? Then you shouldn't ask them to live by yours. Because it's not going to happen.

No. It doesn't work that way. You can't go into someone's house and break their rules because you don't agree with them.

[Queen B]

The people who came here commit to follow our laws. We don't commit to anything when it comes to people without papers, without citizenship and without an income to pay for their own benefits.

If you don't like our secular, democratic, Western society, you are of course free to leave and return home from whence you came. Nobody's forcing you to stay in a society where women can choose not to wear bee keeper suits or get stoned to death for talking to a man she's not married to.

I hope I've made myself clear? :)

Τhey know the rules before they set their @sses on Europe.

If they don't like, just don't come back.
Noone asked them to come, neither noone forced them.

Once they come here, they have to follow what rules apply here.

They don't like? They know the way to go back.

[Mary]

No, if you are not following the country's laws, you are not welcomed here anymore.
Because your religion is not only about wearing a burqa or not, but about other laws for punishment, and stuff like that.

It goes, ''my game, my rules'', if you don't like it, get out. Simply as that.

Your laws do not apply to the internal affairs of my community. Just like my laws don't apply to your community. This is how the world works.


But you have to remove it once a police officer asks you to do it, will you? :coffee:

It depends. In front of a female, yes. In front of a male, no.

[Mary]

The law in Europe functions on a national level. If you're here, then you abide by those laws. What you're proposing would reduce Europe to a wasteland of tribal feuds akin to what's happening in Afghanistan.

I'm not proposing this. I'm pointing out how it works.

[Mary]

Forcing non-Muslims to accept Sharia law in their countries is just as bad.

No, it's not. Because the Sharia only applies to Muslims.

[Mary]

Yes instead, both when you are in their countries and when you happen to walk throu a district of them in your city, most of them have an arrogant mindset.

You want them to give you a cookie or something?


you're kidding here eh?
at most we (Americans) do propaganda via movies and stuff and sometimes the most extreme leftist try to push feminism and gay agenda even in Africa and muslim countries but it's very rare overall and it regards a very small percentage of westerners, most just mind their business.
Americans are now 10 years in Afghanistan and they haven't forbidden bourqa yet...

what kind of forcin you're talkin about?

Americans try to force Afghans to let their women vote, put them in school, things like that.

[PetiteParisienne]

I'm not proposing this. I'm pointing out how it works.

It doesn't work in the way that you're arguing. Anti-Western people cannot come to the West and expect to have their cake and eat it too.

[Hevneren]

You dictate the rules for your community. But you can't dictate the rules for other people's community. That's their business.

You committed to free movement of goods, services, people and capital. Deal with it.

That's not how it works. Every millimetre of Norwegian soil is governed by Norwegian law. Our laws and rules reign supreme on our own soil. You don't get to create enclaves on our land and make special exceptions to our laws.

Murder is equally as illegal in your little "tribe" as it is in the rest of the nation, for example. If you don't like that, then tough luck.

[Queen B]

Your laws do not apply to the internal affairs of my community. Just like my laws don't apply to your community. This is how the world works.
I am not living in your country in order to follow your rules.

The rules to MY country, apply to all people that live in my country. Simple as that.

If you want to live in MY country, you are NO different to have different treatment and abide the law that exists.

[PetiteParisienne]

No, it's not. Because the Sharia only applies to Muslims.

Westerners aren't so amoral as to stand by and watch horrible things happening to other people, even if those other people are foreign.

[Mary]

The people who came here commit to follow our laws. We don't commit to anything when it comes to people without papers, without citizenship and without an income to pay for their own benefits.

If you don't like our secular, democratic, Western society, you are of course free to leave and return home from whence you came. Nobody's forcing you to stay in a society where women can choose not to wear bee keeper suits, or where women won't get stoned to death for talking to a man she's not married to.

I hope I've made myself clear? :)

You committed to free movement and globalization. That means people are free to come and go as they please as long as they meet the formal criteria.

People committed to follow your laws in regard to you. They did not commit to follow your laws in regard to their own community.

[Hevneren]

Americans try to force Afghans to let their women vote, put them in school, things like that.

The horror! :eek:

How exactly is that anti-Islam? In fact, many Afghan women want to vote and send their daughters to school.

[Mary]

No. It doesn't work that way. You can't go into someone's house and break their rules because you don't agree with them.

Their community is their house. Your community is your house. This is how the world works.

[PetiteParisienne]

You committed to free movement and globalization. That means people are free to come and go as they please as long as they meet the formal criteria.

People committed to follow your laws in regard to you. They did not commit to follow your laws in regard to their own community.

Nope.

[Mary]

It doesn't work in the way that you're arguing. Anti-Western people cannot come to the West and expect to have their cake and eat it too.

Western people live by Western rules. Non-Western people live by non-Western rules. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[Viljuska]

I'm not proposing this. I'm pointing out how it works.
I agree with Mary.
Telling the muslims how they must live is cultural imperialism.
They should not even be here.

[Hevneren]

You committed to free movement and globalization. That means people are free to come and go as they please as long as they meet the formal criteria.

People committed to follow your laws in regard to you. They did not commit to follow your laws in regard to their own community.

You seem a bit "slow", because this has been explained to you many times. Your community doesn't get special exceptions. It doesn't matter if you live by yourself in the middle of nowhere, because as long as you live on Norwegian soil you abide by Norwegian laws. No exceptions. None.

[Mary]

That's not how it works. Every millimetre of Norwegian soil is governed by Norwegian law. Our laws and rules reign supreme on our own soil. You don't get to create enclaves on our land and make special exceptions to our laws.

Murder is equally as illegal in your little "tribe" as it is in the rest of the nation, for example. If you don't like that, then tough luck.

You need to be realistic. Look around yourself. Are foreigners in Norway following your rules? Probably not. So you think they will change their mind if you persuade them? Probably not. So what's the point of this pursuit?

[PetiteParisienne]

Western people live by Western rules. Non-Western people live by non-Western rules. Why is this so hard for you to understand?


I understand you, I just don't agree.

People living in a Western country follow Western rules. It doesn't matter what 'community' you belong to. The laws apply to everyone. If you don't like it, then leave.

[Queen B]

You committed to free movement and globalization. That means people are free to come and go as they please as long as they meet the formal criteria.
Meaning, follows the country's laws as well.

I don't see why talking about it all this time.

You don't want to follow a country's laws that you are hosted? Leave, and go back to your own country, when you laws and rights are the ones you prefer.

There is nothing more simple than that.

Follow , or gtfo

[Mary]

I am not living in your country in order to follow your rules.

The rules to MY country, apply to all people that live in my country. Simple as that.

If you want to live in MY country, you are NO different to have different treatment and abide the law that exists.

People who are not part of your tribe, are not going to follow your rules. Go ask some foreigners in Greece if they feel like doing it.

[Mary]

Westerners aren't so amoral as to stand by and watch horrible things happening to other people, even if those other people are foreign.

Those things are going to keep happening. There's not a lot you can do about it.

[PetiteParisienne]

I agree with Mary.
Telling the muslims how they must live is cultural imperialism.
They should not even be here.

They shouldn't be here. But as long as they're here, they need to follow our laws. No one is forcing them to be here. They are here of their own free will.

[Mary]

The horror! :eek:

How exactly is that anti-Islam? In fact, many Afghan women want to vote and send their daughters to school.

Do Afghans interfere in your community? Then why should you interfere in theirs?

[PetiteParisienne]

Those things are going to keep happening. There's not a lot you can do about it.

Do you know what happens to people who get caught applying Sharia law? They get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and rightly so.

[Treffie]

If Sharia law is applied, then extreme punishments such as honour killings, stoning, and amputation would certainly affect all communities. Why? Because such measures are seen as cruel and deplorable in the West. People here would not and WILL NOT stand for it.

Sharia Law in the UK does not have power over English Law. Honour killings are more of a cultural phenomenon, even though the vast majority of them occur amongst Muslims.

[PetiteParisienne]

Sharia Law in the UK does not have power over English Law.

That's what we have been trying to explain to Mary.

[Mary]

You seem a bit "slow", because this has been explained to you many times. Your community doesn't get special exceptions. It doesn't matter if you live by yourself in the middle of nowhere, because as long as you live on Norwegian soil you abide by Norwegian laws. No exceptions. None.

No one who isn't Norwegian is going to follow your rules. What are you going to do about it?

[Queen B]

People who are not part of your tribe, are not going to follow your rules.

We don't live by tribes here.

We are all under Greek soil and follow Greek rules.

If you come to my house that I build, I pay, and I have to live in for the rest of my list, you have to accept my rules.
You can't crap in the carpet cause is your tribes custom, you can't slap your friend coz is your custom,too.

If you don't like it just get the f@ck out of my house. I am kind enough already to accept you here.


Go ask some foreigners in Greece if they feel like doing it.

If they don't do it (following Greek rules), then Greek law takes the turn. Be sure ;)

[Hevneren]

You need to be realistic. Look around yourself. Are foreigners in Norway following your rules? Probably not. So you think they will change their mind if you persuade them? Probably not. So what's the point of this pursuit?

OK, I understand. You're saying "Do it if it feels good, if there's even a slight chance you might get away with it!"

Why bother upholding the law when people are breaking the law? Is this your religious morality speaking?

If someone commits murder, we should stop considering murder as a crime and say to ourselves "Why bother?" and look the other way if someone gets killed?

No, I believe in acting moral and upholding law and order. I'm loopy enough to even care if my society is a safe one to live in for people and especially the coming generations.

There's no exceptions when it comes to right and wrong. Either follow our laws or get out.

[Mary]

I understand you, I just don't agree.

People living in a Western country follow Western rules. It doesn't matter what 'community' you belong to. The laws apply to everyone. If you don't like it, then leave.

How about I do it anyway? It comes down to that you can't force me to do it your way. You need to accept that and learn to live with it.

[Tony]

You want them to give you a cookie or something?
This show I'm right.


Americans try to force Afghans to let their women vote, put them in school, things like that.
Lol what a satanic imposition :rolleyes2:
Let 'em study and vote if they want, what are you afraid of?
women already vote and study even in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia so you cannot even use the islamic alibi here to mask your degenerate semitic uberconservatism.

[Mary]

Meaning, follows the country's laws as well.

I don't see why talking about it all this time.

You don't want to follow a country's laws that you are hosted? Leave, and go back to your own country, when you laws and rights are the ones you prefer.

There is nothing more simple than that.

Follow , or gtfo

As I just said, I'm going to stay and do it my way anyway. You can't make me leave. And you can't make me change. So you will have to accept it.

[Treffie]

That's what we have been trying to explain to Mary.

She's obviously trolling. No one is really that obnoxious.

[Mary]

Do you know what happens to people who get caught applying Sharia law? They get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and rightly so.

They will have to make sure to not get caught then.

[Hevneren]

Do Afghans interfere in your community?

Yes, by coming here, demanding benefits, demonstrating and causing nuisance. They're a drain on taxpayer money and many refuse to leave even if they're here illegally. Yes, it affects me.


Then why should you interfere in theirs?

I'd advocate leaving Afghanistan. I was never in favour of any war there. However, many Afghans themselves want to vote and send their daughters to school.

[PetiteParisienne]

How about I do it anyway? It comes down to that you can't force me to do it your way. You need to accept that and learn to live with it.

No I don't. That's why a judicial system exists.

[Queen B]

Is she allowed to be in internet anyways? :lol:

[PetiteParisienne]

How about I do it anyway? It comes down to that you can't force me to do it your way. You need to accept that and learn to live with it.

How about everyone knows you're a troll?

[Hevneren]

No one who isn't Norwegian is going to follow your rules. What are you going to do about it?

You're wrong. Some decent immigrants try to live as law-abiding citizens and generally succeed. It just proves that these criminal immigrants could get their act together too and live law-abiding lives if they made an effort.

[Mary]

We don't live by tribes here.

We are all under Greek soil and follow Greek rules.

If you come to my house that I build, I pay, and I have to live in for the rest of my list, you have to accept my rules.
You can't crap in the carpet cause is your tribes custom, you can't slap your friend coz is your custom,too.

If you don't like it just get the f@ck out of my house. I am kind enough already to accept you here.

Your community is your house. My community is my house. You stay out of my community and I will stay out of yours.


If they don't do it (following Greek rules), then Greek law takes the turn. Be sure ;)

Your choice.

xDESJDtlGdM

[Queen B]

Your community is your house. My community is my house. You stay out of my community and I will stay out of yours.

My house = my country

Stay out of MY country then ;)

End of story

[Mary]

OK, I understand. You're saying "Do it if it feels good, if there's even a slight chance you might get away with it!"

Why bother upholding the law when people are breaking the law? Is this your religious morality speaking?

If someone commits murder, we should stop considering murder as a crime and say to ourselves "Why bother?" and look the other way if someone gets killed?

No, I believe in acting moral and upholding law and order. I'm loopy enough to even care if my society is a safe one to live in for people and especially the coming generations.

There's no exceptions when it comes to right and wrong. Either follow our laws or get out.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that people are different and their differences should be respected:

* If someone wanted to make you live like a Muslim would you do it? Probably not.
* Then why should you make a Muslim live like a Christian, what's the point?

Here are some examples:

* Kavkazians practice blood vengeance. If one Kavkazian kills another then his clan will take revenge by killing one of the other clan's members. As long as they kill each other, why should Russians care?

It's not like anyone in Russia cares if one Chechen kills another. The Kavkazians know this and they try to keep it within their own tribe. Do you think Russians should spend millions trying to get Kavkazians to stop killing each other? That doesn't make any sense.

* In Rumania Gypsies have child marriages. Should the Rumanian state spend money to get Gypsies to stop doing that? First of all, they're not going to stop, because that is their custom. Second, what would the Rumanian tribe gain by that?

* In Sweden some Kurds commit honor killings. Should Swedes spend money policing Kurds?

[Mary]

She's obviously trolling. No one is really that obnoxious.

If someone came around and tried to make you live like a Muslim, how would you take that?

[Mary]

Yes, by coming here, demanding benefits, demonstrating and causing nuisance. They're a drain on taxpayer money and many refuse to leave even if they're here illegally. Yes, it affects me.

Then you should stop giving them money. No one is making you give money to Afghans. Do you think anyone in Russia gives money to immigrants?


I'd advocate leaving Afghanistan. I was never in favour of any war there. However, many Afghans themselves want to vote and send their daughters to school.

If you want to spend money or make war in Afghanistan that's your business. I wouldn't do it.