Don't brand all Muslim women as traditionally submissive – there is a difference between cultures

At the heart of the debate is the fact that Muslim women have a right as well as a responsibility to move in the world normally. What "normal" means is something that has to be negotiated by women — not dictated by men — from country to country and society to society, taking traditional culture, religious practice and the aspirations of women moving towards modernity at their own pace into account. "Normal" does not mean the complete erasure of women from public view.

Notes

Islamic law (Sharia) requires women to cover themselves. The practical application in modern Muslim countries varies with a combination of individual and social taste. The Taliban require full burqas (covering everything, including a mesh for the eyes), while the more secular governments of Turkey and Tunisia once banned headscarves in public buildings (the bans have since been lifted following the Islamist ascension).

The head covering is interpreted as a symbol of male domination by most critics and by many Muslim women who fight for the right to dress as they please. In December of 2007, a father in Canada beat his 16-year-old daughter to death for refusing to wear the hijab (headscarf).

Some apologists insist that the veil is not mandated by the religion, although they do not have anything within the sacred texts to counter the passages in which Muhammad instructed its use. In fact, verse 24:60 says that the veil is optional only for unmarried women too old to have children.

CAIR's Jamal Badawi, often held up as a moderate scholar, insists that the hijab is "a command of Allah to Muslim women" and it should be "the duty of the state" to enforce it.

Some women do wear the hijab by choice, but it is impossible to say what percentage, since the pressure to cover one's head can either be subtle or pronounced. In 2011, an imam at a supposedly moderate mosque in Sammamish, Washington claimed that Muslim wives wear the hijab because they want to, but then stated that they may be "punished" if they refuse. In Pakistan, uncovered women are routinely attacked with acid. In Iran, Basij fundamentalists have raped and killed dress code violators.

Clerics, such as Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, have said that unveiled victims of public rape invited their attackers: "If I came across a rape crime – kidnap and violation of honour – I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.' Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it... If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem."

In responding to a 2014 anti-hijab demonstration by women, an Iranian activist bluntly said that "it is a man's right to benefit from what he loves. When a man forces himself onto a woman because she is "showing off her beauty", this [should not] be considered rape."

In keeping with this theme, Muslim rapists in the West have been known to credit their motivation to the victim's choice of dress (one such example being from Australia in 2011). It is somewhat obvious that many women rely on the veil for protection against unwanted male attention. Even non-Muslim residents and Western visitors to the Islamic world often find it necessary to cover themselves so as to avoid the harassment of Muslim men on the street.

In 2014, a cleric suggested that babies be put into burqas to protect them against molestation. (Condemning the child molesters did eventually occur to him as an afterthought).

Veils and burqas are becoming more common in Muslim countries with the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism. In the West, they are gradually becoming a chic statement of political protest or a symbol of religious distinction.
 http://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/veils.aspx 

aspca4ever wrote:As with 'ANY MALE DRIVEN' method for controlling the 'WOMEN' within that faith; the insurgence of radical Islamic behavior, {terrorist know how to demonize and control} has returned to many regions within the middle east. And in order to survive the humans do as they are told; does this mean that those living there have a 'CHOICE' --- no, not at all. 
But the same can be said and applied to our own pockets of LDS communities right here in America; the church of the later day saints is rife with: child abuse, sexual deviations, mandatory dress for children and females, limited education up to grades 8, polygamy, male youths being driven out of their families and communities around the age of 15!

And now places that had shown modernization for women's attire have become over run with Terrorist and their need to CONTROL:

The American women stuck within those LDS faith based communities are kept by fear/mind control and lack of modern education --- it's what 'MEN' do; doesn't make it right but it can't be blamed on an entire group of one form of religion either! 
Not all LDS/Mormons treat their women in that archaic way and have turned away from polygamy and the exile of their young men.

aspca4ever wrote:As with 'ANY MALE DRIVEN' method for controlling the 'WOMEN' within that faith; the insurgence of radical Islamic behavior, {terrorist know how to demonize and control} has returned to many regions within the middle east. And in order to survive the humans do as they are told; does this mean that those living there have a 'CHOICE' --- no, not at all. 
But the same can be said and applied to our own pockets of LDS communities right here in America; the church of the later day saints is rife with: child abuse, sexual deviations, mandatory dress for children and females, limited education up to grades 8, polygamy, male youths being driven out of their families and communities around the age of 15!

And now places that had shown modernization for women's attire have become over run with Terrorist and their need to CONTROL:

Notes

Islamic law (Sharia) requires women to cover themselves. The practical application in modern Muslim countries varies with a combination of individual and social taste. The Taliban require full burqas (covering everything, including a mesh for the eyes), while the more secular governments of Turkey and Tunisia once banned headscarves in public buildings (the bans have since been lifted following the Islamist ascension).

The head covering is interpreted as a symbol of male domination by most critics and by many Muslim women who fight for the right to dress as they please. In December of 2007, a father in Canada beat his 16-year-old daughter to death for refusing to wear the hijab (headscarf).

Some apologists insist that the veil is not mandated by the religion, although they do not have anything within the sacred texts to counter the passages in which Muhammad instructed its use. In fact, verse 24:60 says that the veil is optional only for unmarried women too old to have children.

CAIR's Jamal Badawi, often held up as a moderate scholar, insists that the hijab is "a command of Allah to Muslim women" and it should be "the duty of the state" to enforce it.

Some women do wear the hijab by choice, but it is impossible to say what percentage, since the pressure to cover one's head can either be subtle or pronounced. In 2011, an imam at a supposedly moderate mosque in Sammamish, Washington claimed that Muslim wives wear the hijab because they want to, but then stated that they may be "punished" if they refuse. In Pakistan, uncovered women are routinely attacked with acid. In Iran, Basij fundamentalists have raped and killed dress code violators.

Clerics, such as Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, have said that unveiled victims of public rape invited their attackers: "If I came across a rape crime – kidnap and violation of honour – I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.' Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it... If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem."

In responding to a 2014 anti-hijab demonstration by women, an Iranian activist bluntly said that "it is a man's right to benefit from what he loves. When a man forces himself onto a woman because she is "showing off her beauty", this [should not] be considered rape."

In keeping with this theme, Muslim rapists in the West have been known to credit their motivation to the victim's choice of dress (one such example being from Australia in 2011). It is somewhat obvious that many women rely on the veil for protection against unwanted male attention. Even non-Muslim residents and Western visitors to the Islamic world often find it necessary to cover themselves so as to avoid the harassment of Muslim men on the street.

In 2014, a cleric suggested that babies be put into burqas to protect them against molestation. (Condemning the child molesters did eventually occur to him as an afterthought).

Veils and burqas are becoming more common in Muslim countries with the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism. In the West, they are gradually becoming a chic statement of political protest or a symbol of religious distinction.
 http://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/veils.aspx 

The American women stuck within those LDS faith based communities are kept by fear/mind control and lack of modern education --- it's what 'MEN' do; doesn't make it right but it can't be blamed on an entire group of one form of religion either! 
Not all LDS/Mormons treat their women in that archaic way and have turned away from polygamy and the exile of their young men.