Note to Credit Union: A Hijab is Not a Hat

Oh please spare me - the my body is a sex object -

Having experimented with various religious ideas when I was younger - I found that when you change your dress - to a more covered up one - another type of man looks at you - you are still attractive - (the reality is that most Muslims do not choose their partner - and in the UK - up to 75% marry within their own families - you are likely going to engage in an arranged marriage to one of your cousins - therefore no one need look!!) -

I suppose that is where the veil comes in for Islam - or the burqa - not seen and rarely heard in most Islamic societies - except in - the proper place - like the home !!

--

75 YEAR OLD WOMAN LASHED IN SAUDI ARABIA

Talk about rationality under religion - just this week a 75 year old woman who was married to a Saudi man - was arrested for receiving a few loaves of bread (was likely hungry, had been asking neighbors for food) from her late husband's nephew and the son of her husband's business partner -

Her crime was that of 'mingling' with men she was not married to - and she was sentenced to 4 months in prison and 40 lashes - after which she will be deported back to Syria - her country of origin.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1160871/Saudi-Arabia-sentences-widow-75-40-lashes-allows-men-home-bring-bread.html#
--

In the UK there have been a few burqa robberies - where people have entered jewellery stores in Islamic dress and committed robberies and got away because their faces were concealed -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7309548.stm

Don't forget in the UK there is a large Seikh population - with men who don't cut their hair - hence the turbans - who - would also have to be served - separately - if they entered these banks -

For me the line is drawn with a burqa or dress with face veil - in a bank - likely it is a woman - but if it is not or if their intentions aren't completely honest!!

Sorry but if you don't like the rule then find a different bank. Aren't interest payments a blasphemy in Islam anyhow?

I guarantee that someone will rob a branch of this bank with a religious head-covering on if the rule is over turned. They might not be Muslim, but this is a liability that is being put front and center.

I'm with you ROXN. If a person wants to cover her head, die her hair purple, wear green robes, shave her eyebrows, WHATEVER, for personal reasons (religious or otherwise) it is none of my business. But that line about covering up women's bodies so they can be "respected" really sickens me. That is the same rational that was used for years to blame women when they were raped. It assumes that a female body is a distraction, or that there is something inherently shameful about us. We have moved beyond that, haven't we? If you want to wear a scarf on your head for religious reasons, or because you drive a convertible, or because you got a bad hair cut, go for it. But don't for a microsecond try to convince me or anyone else that it is anything other than a personal choice.

Good Muslim women should not be at banks, particularly if unaccompanied by a male relative.

DC firefighters can now wear bears for religious reasons? Those guys are tougher than I thought!

Why is a hijab not a hat?

How can a hat be defined in a way that would excluse a piece of fabric worn to cover all of the head except the face?

The fact that accommodations are made elsewhere is irrelevant. The reason for wearing it can't change the object's nature or effects. Is a mask not a mask if worn for religious reasons or a weapon not a weapon if carried for religious reasons?

The bank has a sound business reason for disallowing hats, and a hat by any other name is a hat.

Oh come on, you are all being ridiculous. A Muslim woman shouldn't be allowed to wear a head covering because you don't like the reasons she gives for wearing it?

If it was a Hasidic Jew or very pious Christian woman we were talking about, this wouldn't be an issue. Everyone would be unanimously for personal freedom of religion. But its because she's a Muslim

I have had people confront me and verbally attack me because I choose to wear a scarf on my head (for more practical and less "women's bodies are sinful objects to be ashamed of" reasons, but I wear it nevertheless). Is it so much to ask that I can feel like a member of a society I was born and raised in without feeling like a leper?

Why someone would move to the US to enjoy our freedoms only to continue to submit to the repressive tenets of their homeland is completely beyond me. As far as this being a security issue, sure it is, and no foolish religous claims should take precidence over our own security.

Also, just to be fair, I'm very surprised it happened at this credit union (my mother is in the Navy and a member there-in Maryland). It is also possible the woman was misinformed, as I've seen many people wear scarves like a hijab to protect their heads from the cold in the wintertime. I wear it for religious reasons, but my friends wear scarves to keep their heads warm and hair looking good when it is really windy out.

It amazes me - that this woman could talk about the 'freedom' to wear a hijab/headscarf - because in the Islamic world - women and girls are being killed and having acid thrown in their faces - for not wearing them -

It is kind of like a jekyll and hyde - in the west it is - we wear the head coverings for - God - in the Islamic world - if you don't wear them there are real repercussions.

In the Kuwaiti parliament - when two elected women refused to put on head scarves - the male cabinet members walked out in protest.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/01/africa/ME-GEN-Kuwait-Women-Parliament.phphttp://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/01/africa/ME-GEN-Kuwait-Women-Parliament.php

--

The truth is that the headscoverings in Islam as well as the burqa comes directly out of life in the desert - even today you can see nomadic men - wearing the face covering - because the desert sand is extremely fine and it gets into your mouth - and nose - but as you can see - that once you come out of the desert - and live in developed areas - it is only the women who are required to continue wearing the desert dress -

You will likely see no men in veils - unless they are at a protest - shouting things they would rather not be photographed saying !!

--

In Saudi Arabia women are given 100 lashes for being raped and in Pakistan women are imprisoned for being raped -- in her mind she has to protect herself - because in Islamic society - the blame would be place on her.

But in western society - there is a doubling back of this - as unknowing - uncovered western women are being raped by Muslim men - because in his mind - she has not covered her head therefore she is asking to be raped - in some parts of France - up to 85% of the rapes are perpetrated by North African/Muslim men. Rapes by Muslim men is a big issue in Europe.

In Germany it has come to light - and in many parts of the Islamic world - when a Muslim woman doesn't wear a headscarf - it is said that she is a who're - how you are perceived in Islam is more important than what you do -

The hijab is not repressive. It is a cultural item that should be able to choose to wear (like a cross or a yarmulke). Security has nothing to do with it, and one of the most ludicrous reasons to force someone to NOT wear a hijab (you can still see the face!). It is unfortunate that in some countries, the coverings are imposed. But just because someone wears a hijab doesn't mean they are being repressed or even being forced to wear it (for one, I don't have to care about having a bad hair day, and that's a nice load off of my mind)

"A federal judge said District of Columbia firefighters can continue to wear bears for religious reasons."

I have always wanted to wear a bear.
A red panda or a grizzled hare.
An Oso Bayo or Amarillo.

It has nothing to do with church or sect.
It's just that I do object
To a sharp razor in the morning.

tk
[bearded since 1968]

Interesting double-standard. Come to America, demand your own set of rules. But when a Westerner visits abroad, they must submit to all Islamic Rules...or else...and the "or else" is not pretty.

When in Rome, do as he Romans do.

Okay, let's start off with a basic question:

Q: What is a HiJab?
A: What you say to Jab when you see him in the morning.

No seriously though folks, the idea that a HiJab is not a hat is like saying a baseball isn't a hat, it's a cap! If jewish person came in wearing a beanie, of course he's be asked to do business in the back room. Same idea.

Bottom Line: Follow the rules, or find a new place to do business. It isn't a right to be able to do business with the credit union.

Exercise some of that freedom and use it to find a new bank to do business in!

In the comments section over at Washington Post article a commentator posted that they had been at the Credit Union at the time of the incident. According to this commentator the woman had a hat on as well as her hajib. The hat was the issue not the scarf. The commentator also stated the employees were respectful and the women was rude.

Now I have no idea whether this is true but I wonder David did you just write a commentary or did you confirm the facts of the incident?

I would like to see my brother in law go in wearing his native american headdress,and really upsett you religous red knecks who say its your country and moslems must follow your law.He would just laugh at your ignorrance.

A hijab, or a scarf, when worn on the head, is a type of hat. If the policy is no hats, then it should apply to hijabs as well as other types of hat.

Of course, a policy of no hats is in and of itself pretty senseless. It should be done away with.

Religion is a matter of what one chooses to believe. Believe whatever you want. It's the actions that are at issue, not the beliefs.

Would those who oppose hijabs oppose wigs as well? They cover no less than a hijab. I'd argue they actually make one less recognizable than a hijab, but I wouldn't require a chemotherapy patient to take theirs off.

Wait until a few credit unions and banks are robbed by crooks wearing hijabs and this rule will soon be changed.

azcm2511 wrote:
I was at the NFCU branch in question when this "incident" took place and the way it is being described is not the way I saw it. I was standing within 10 feet of the lady and I don't recall the NFCU staff member asking her to remove her head scarf at all. In fact, what she was asked to remove repeatedly was a fashionable hat and sunglasses. The lady who is the supposed victim was rude and beligerent the entire time and refused to follow the policy. The NFCU staff member was polite at all times and finally escorted the lady to the back of the building. She came back out a short time later and left the bank. I am no expert on the Muslim religion but if the head scarf that she is referring to is some sort of religious garb then there are a whole bunch of Muslims running around! Take a walk down any street and you will see many people of all colors wearing a "do" rag....thats is what this lady was wearing under her very fashionable hat. To try and turn this into a racial or religious issue is disgusting. Quit trying to get by with everything and follow the rules like everyone else.

____________________________________________

Found the comment from the article.

Whether this post is factual or not it would be nice if a news organization did actual investigating before jumping on their soap box.

Hadia Mubarak's essay is neither beautiful nor brilliant. The kindest word I can find for it is 'sad.'

If she is distressed as a women by what men might become motivated to do were they allowed to gaze at her hair or the contours of her body, I as a man am distressed by her (and Islam's) apparent belief that we might find ourselves compelled to do this. The wearing of hijabs and burqas is as offensive to men as it is to women. It casts women as would be victims who must hide, and it casts my entire sex as would be predators.

Turning to the broader issues, The fact that people engage in weird practices in the name of their God provides no license to continue those practices when, were it not for the tie to their God, the practices would be rightfully deemed offensive to public order and safety.

Would the Credit Union ask a nun to remove the veil and wimple of her habit to do business?
I doubt it!
Lets stop using security as an excuse for our bigotry!

Every nation on Earth has it's own norms and customs.

If we want to take dress to the extreme, why can't anyone for their own religious reason wear anything they like anywhere they want.

Maybe someone is a nudist and believes it their right for their johnson to be allowed to see the Sun Diety, or other religious icon.

Why under the constitution can't their personal religion have the same rights as someone wearing a mask or a costume covering their entire body.

If no one follows the norms of conduct, you get chaos. Which is exactly what some of these zealots want, where THEIR RELIGION TRUMPS ALL.

"Would the Credit Union ask a nun to remove the veil and wimple of her habit to do business?
I doubt it!"

When nuns atart suicide bombing, I bet they would in a heartbeat.

I would stop doing business with the credit union today.

It is disturbing to read so many posts who want to deny others their Constitutional religious freedom. You don't have to agree with them, but you are discriminating against Orthodox Christians, Catholic nuns, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and any other religion who require heads/hair to be covered.

And heaven forbid anyone would wish to dress modestly on their own. Anyone who does not bear it all in public must be oppressed and abused. Given the opinions here, every nun is forced, abused, and oppressed because they dress modestly and most wear head coverings. My Jewish friends must be oppressed because they are forced to wear head scarves or wigs, must not show any skin other than face and hands.

If you would open our mind, you would see that the US is a wonderful place because the theory is that we can practice our religion (or not) as we see fit. We can dress the way we feel is correct and how we are comfortable. And you don't not have any right to tell us how we are supposed to feel about our bodies.

Yes it is a hat. It covers the head it is a hat. Everyone wants to be the exception and everyone is a victum. Here we go again.

yes, i agree with the brit. as long as the tellers, and especially the cameras can see the face, it's ok. hair can be dyed, so who cares whether you see it or not. also, no sunglasses.

it's a different world, a not as brave new world, but there you have it.

azcm2511 wrote:
I was at the NFCU branch in question when this "incident" took place and the way it is being described is not the way I saw it. I was standing within 10 feet of the lady and I don't recall the NFCU staff member asking her to remove her head scarf at all. In fact, what she was asked to remove repeatedly was a fashionable hat and sunglasses. The lady who is the supposed victim was rude and beligerent the entire time and refused to follow the policy. The NFCU staff member was polite at all times and finally escorted the lady to the back of the building. She came back out a short time later and left the bank. I am no expert on the Muslim religion but if the head scarf that she is referring to is some sort of religious garb then there are a whole bunch of Muslims running around! Take a walk down any street and you will see many people of all colors wearing a "do" rag....thats is what this lady was wearing under her very fashionable hat. To try and turn this into a racial or religious issue is disgusting. Quit trying to get by with everything and follow the rules like everyone else.

____________________________________________

Found the comment from the article.

Whether this post is factual or not it would be nice if a news organization did actual investigating before jumping on their soap box.

Dude,
You're either lying or have your dates mixed up. I was there, I was the second man behind this lady, and I was the man in a Navy Khaki uniform. I saw the whole thing, and I head the bank employee ask this lady to step out of the line to be serviced, then when she asked why, she was told of some new policy banning hats, hoods, and glasses. The lady argued (rightly I might add) that this is not a hat, but a religious scarf. Then the employee flately said that she won't be served unless she removes her scarf, or step into the backroom. This lady then said no, and left immediately with her checks still in her hand.

Get your facts straights, or at least check your calendar. This happened Saturday morning between 1130 and 1200.

I'm Catholic and I hate it when someone tries using a dumb excuse to persecute someone else.

A Hijab is not a hat. It's a symbol of female repression. The day I see males Muslims parading around in medieval garb is the day when I will change my mind on the Hijab.

Hijabs are stupid- plain and simple. Any God fearing American woman that thinks otherwise is a hypocrite. It's all about rules made by men,rules made for men and against women. The Koran is clear on this- women and men are not equal. Hence the Hijab for women and no a male counterpart. Men can wear what they please. That stinks.

"Ombudsman1:

Okay, let's start off with a basic question:

Q: What is a HiJab?
A: What you say to Jab when you see him in the morning.

No seriously though folks, the idea that a HiJab is not a hat is like saying a baseball isn't a hat, it's a cap!"

__________________________________________________

First of all, great joke. Really clever.

I'm gonna go head and disagree with you about the baseball. I would say that a "baseball" is not a hat, or a cap, or even an object that you can wear on your head.

Look forward to this debate.

Does God require the hat or is the requirement for the hat just made up by a bunch of people who want power of you? Would God be angry if you kindly took of your hat when asked politely to do so? Or would God get upset and angry? Does God care that much about a hat? What if there was a religion where everyone carried a hand gun in their hand at all times. Should we be yelling and screaming for their religious freedom to carry a gun into a bank? the hat and the gun are both perceived risks for the bank, but one is and acceptable risk and the other is not? Where do you draw that line? Please! Take off the hat, bank somewhere else, or find a more reasonable religion.

IMO what Mubarak said is just another example of being a slave to an illusion. It sounds pathological and if anyone would replace the word god for anything else he/she would be immediately locked until further notice. She sounds like another fanatic.
She can’t really believe the hijab forces people to look beyond her physical realm; why does she say this? Does it show so clearly in muslim men?
She does not mention she is forced to cover her head otherwise their co-religionists would simply reject her to say the least. Not to mention what they would do to a muslim woman who does not cover herself in a muslim country.

Further, why can’t muslims adapt to the country they are in and leave their religion at home? I mean, what would happen to a western blond woman who decides to go for a walk in a nice western dress in a muslim country? Yes, it would be a mess. What would happen if she then complains and starts to want to change the way these issues are viewed in that muslim country?
In this last paragraph the word muslim can be replaced for any other word or religion that fits the context.

GOD SAID COVER YOU R HEAD AND CHEST AND TO LEG AND ARM , FOR WOMEN ,AND FOR MEN GOD SAID THEIR SOUL SO CLOSE THE EVIL THINGS,PROTECT YOUR SELF FROM THE MEN.IF THEY THING SEXTUAL COUSE OF YOU ITS BIG SIN FOR YOU AND FOR THE MEN. DONT LOOK WITHOUT THE MARIGE DONT TOUCH IF YOUR NOT HUBAND AND WIFE.ISLAM IS SO CLEAR BE GOOD .

Just sad.

One day, maybe, just because it isn't the custom you grew up with or the custom that you yourself understand you will stop trying to tell others what they should be doing. Why does it bother some of you so much when someone chooses to practice a different religion. They're not trying to force you into it but you're offended because they don't conform to what you think.

just sad

The scarf can be just as easily pulled down over the face as a cap or a hoodie. It's for safety reasons - the employees' safety and the customers' safety.

If the bank was robbed while she was in it and she was injured, she'd be the first one to camplain about how the bank neglected to keep her safe.

I agree with Navy Federal Credit Union as long as they apply the policy equally. If a Sikh comes into the bank, then he should be asked to do his banking in a back room too. Only if she is singled out does it become harassment. We live in a different America today, thanks to men who lived and died for Islam. I agree with the poster above who commented about the freedoms Western women do not have when visiting Islamic nations...adapt to your surroundings...especially if you are going to live in a secular nation.

Have any of you commenters actually met a Muslim woman who wears hijab? It seems like you must not have, because otherwise you would realize that not only are Mubarak's comments true, they are views shared by the vast majority of Muslim women in the United States, whether they wear hijab or not (yes, there are plent of Muslims who don't wear hijab, are they are not "shunned" or otherwise persecuted for it here). If you can look at a woman in hijab and all you can think is "terrorist", thats exactly the same as looking at a black person and thinking "n*gger". Why is this blatant racism being allowed in the US when we have taken such a monumental step recently in electing an african-american president?
And, just for the record, I am Jewish (and therefore, some might argue, should have even more reason to dislike Muslims), and regardless of religion or race, I think that everyone should be given equal consideration and not discriminated against for practicing their constitutionally protected freedom of religion.

If you make the exception for one religion, you have to make the exception for all religions. BTW, I would like to tell you all that I had a divine revelation last week while praying. God spoke to me and told me that he is pleased when we wear baseball hats, especially indoors. I am forming the First Church of Baseball Hats. All are welcome to join!

This seems to me a tempest in a tea pot. The credit union created a policy regarding headgear for what they considered to be a good reason- security. This customer was aware of the policy, as she had been approached concerning it on a prior occasion. No one demanded that she remove her headgear to receive service, they merely asked that she transact her business in a separate area from the main lobby. There is no indication that she was discriminated against. The credit union made an effort to allow her to keep her customs while maintaining their policy. If other customers wearing hats or hoodies or whatever were not asked to comply with the policy and she was singled out, then she has a legitimate basis for complaint, but there is no indication that is what happened. She had already been through this process once and complied with the credit union policy on that occasion. What was so different this time?

Since we do not accommodate a child with an invisible friend, there is no reason to accommodate an adult with and invisible god-friend. People in America are free to practice any religion -- in their home or place of worship or recreational locales. They are not permitted to practice their religion in government, financial or educational institutions if there are rules prohibiting such activity. Religions and gods are made-up fantasies that are no different than fairy tales or Greek/Roman mythology. It is time to stop giving credence to people's ignorant beliefs and silly religions. Believe anything you want but don't expect others to respect you or your belief. If only we had enough psychiatric facilities for "people of faith."

Hadia Mubarak said: "I relish in the freedom the hijab gives me, the freedom from having my body exposed as a sex object or from being judged on a scale of 1-10 by strange men who have no right to know what my body or hair look like."

A head scarf does not cover the body and so implicit in the statement is the accepted norm that hijab is part of jijab which is fard ( i.e. required ). And then follows the need for niqab,and then only one eye should be visible. Look at the reasons why jijab is fard under traditional islam:
http://www.muhajabah.com/hjbscared.htm

There are numerous instances where the jijab has been used by jihadis to attempt escape or attempt mayhem. In iraq, women suicide bombers have been very effective because of the full body covering all women wear which hides the explosives very well, and the insistence that only women police can search the covered up women. Do we really want to proceed down that path here?

"No one demanded that she remove her headgear to receive service, they merely asked that she transact her business in a separate area from the main lobby. There is no indication that she was discriminated against."

No one demanded that black students receive an inferior education in American public schools, either. Local governments merely asked African Americans to go learn in a separate area from white schools. There is no indication they were discriminated against.

I seem to remember a Supreme Court ruling that said, "Separate but equal can never be equal." This seems to apply in this case as well.

@JollyOlympian: "Separate but equal can never be equal." This seems to apply in this case as well.

Nonsense. When some one is pulled aside for a handbag check in the security line at the airport the criteria is "safety" and has nothing to do with equality. The bank CCTV cameras do not capture identification of a person in line well when some one is wearing a hat or a hijab. I hope the security is trained to pull out of the line anyone with an obvious wig, or an obvious false beard as well. The issue is security and nothing else.

No it is not a hat, it's a hood. If you can't create an exemption to your religious behavior in civil society, that is your problem, not the society you live in.

You may like Islam, but it's one giant pain in the ass for the rest of the world.

The Credit Union and for that matter any bank or savings and loan establishments need all the security available. Cameras help provide that. Any head piece to include the head coverings of nuns and Muslims reduce the security these cameras provide.

The hijab is also a painful reminder of 9/11 as it is a symbol of the religion behind this horrific tragedy. Its requirement should be deleted from the "worst book ever written" aka the koran along with all the passages that subjugate women, demand death for all infidels and apostates and that dictate that Islam should dominate the world.

Who in the world thinks someone who wants to rob a Credit union is going to listen to anything the employee has to say other then yes sir. When the robber asks for the money, is the employee going to ask the robber, OK but can you first take off your hat and glasses. How ridiculous is that. Who in the world thought that one up. Credit unions have cameras to begin with. They have on site security. Why harass the members with can you take off your hat or sun glasses. Someone who wants to rob isn't going to stand in line waiting to be told to remove the hat or sun glasses. They want to get in and out as fast as they can. The last thing on their minds are if their violating some Credit union no hat or sun glasses policy. Stop harassing the members and do away with that stupid policy. It doesn't work if someone wants to rob the Credit union.

Simple, non-modifiable rules appeal to simple minds because they are simple to administer. You want more complex rules, hire more complex managers.

Sorry, there is a legitimate security reason to keep heads uncovered. Otherwise we get into nuances involving brims pulled low to defeat security cameras, etc. As there is a rational reason for the rule let the Islamic folks adjust to it -- bank online or by mail or use an ATM, or uncover for a few minutes and join the 21st century for a few wild and crazy moments in the bank. Or, let their male masters do the banking. Absolutely NO way should a burka be allowed in there as that would be all that robbers would ever wear, male or female. I see no reason to accomodate ANY religion on such nonsense. If my religion requires me to carry a firearm and wear a mask, must banks let me do that?

There is a point in what the author said that if a wig can be allowed then why not a hijab. Right. If you go to the other extreme and a muslim woman says that she wants to wear a burkha which is must for pious and religious muslim women then what to do. Then will it not be better if such religious people adopt a 'zanana' system and not come out of their houses at all. Leave all the outside works to the male members. The problem is when the old pratices are adopted for the modern times.
And one more thing. If somebody do not want to have their photos taken for DL it will be better that they don't drive at all. If photo is a must for Driving License there is no alternative. Have it or take a bus or cab.

The point of the rule is NOT to prevent a robbery, as some here would have us believe -- it's to be able to sustain a conviction with good photos of the robber in action.

Good for the Navy Credit Union and we as a nation should go a lot further and do an outright ban of this offensive attire which is worn by murders, terrorists, and butchers. Arrest them all!

as a Muslim woman living in the middle east i dont find the hijab but an adding restriction and chaine for women , and guess what it is not protecting women,we are harassed vield and unvield women 24/7 in all the streets ,and why should i cover myself i am not ashamed from my body ,and again why shoud i cover myself ? and who said that hijab is an order from God , read what scholar Fatima mernissi wrote about the descent of hijab and you will learn that this was not at all a God order but a man misunderstanding or misuse for what God said .

The fact is that we are a diverse society. you cannot paint an entire group and their radical elements with the same brush.

There are extremist sects in every culture - we have our own American brands, like the militia-types who bombed the Oklahoma City Murragh Federal Building. They are alive and well and listening to Chuck Norris and Glenn Beck's War Room on Fox. There's also the KKK, the John Birch Society, Anarchists, the Silver Shirts, Joe McCarthy and his followers, etc.

Would you like it if you were dressed in black a la Rush Limbaugh and someone pointed you out as an American dressed in black and therefore a member of the Anarchists?

I appreciated Hadia Mubarak's comments and her perspective very much, especially her clear dedication to and profound understanding of her religion. If she is more comfortable wearing the hijab she is entitled to wear it and it is no body's business. That is what America is all about.

Banks and stores have a right to address security concerns. The customer has a right to observe her religion and its tenets. This bank was apparently trying to do its best. The customer did not have to remove the hijab and got waited on, and the bank observed its security regulations. Hopefully they will figure out a better way to accommodate each others needs.

"I relish in the freedom the hijab gives me, the freedom from having my body exposed as a sex object or from being judged on a scale of 1-10 by strange men who have no right to know what my body or hair look like". I thought hijab covers only the head and NOT the face or body- so I am not sure why this women mentions hijab and body - unless I am mixing it up with full veil- which does cover women up from head to toe.

In any case, I did not knew that some men get turned on by women's head. Never did anything for me.

Religious reason? Is it in Koran and only meant for women? I don't see Muslim women being even allowed to pray alongside their men in Mosques, so why would they respect this Koran?

Can an American women go hijabless or sleeveless to a Bank in most Islamic nations?

How about the sentencing of a 75 year old women to 40 lashes by Saudi Arabia yesterday? Her crime seems to be some males came to "deliver bread" to her. I think Americans treat Muslim women much more respectfully than they are treated in most Islamic- 57 intolerant ones- nations.

It upset me to read so many offensive comments that seem to show lots of hatred against minorities like Muslims. I lived for years in both Muslim countries and USA and I found women to be treated in general with more respect in Muslim countries despite less freedom there. Statistically, the rape and sexual harassment of women is much higher in the western countries. In a free society, I would assume people should have the right to wear what they want as long as they don't offend others by their customs. And I cannot understand why people feel offended when they see a lady covering her hair!

This Hijab business has to be stopped. Muslim fundamentalist organizations are trying hard to insinuate their own agenda, in to nonmuslim or democratic secular nations of their normal socila functioning. I am again insisting, that "Hijab" issue is a pure "poitical tool" [nothing to do with Religion whatsoever], now used to promte and augment their [Islamic Fundamentalist] sefish cause of Islamization.
It is true- that in all islamic countries, nonmuslims are not allowed to weas clothings of their own choice, and nonmuslim women are forced to vail their faces, and have to use long robe to cover thier whole body.
So rationale here, you must follow the rules and social practices of the country, where you are living now, I mean "Be a Roman while you are in Rome", no exception and no dodgy conession.
Otherwise better you the Hijab pracitioners, better go back to your own countries, and practice Hijab and other Sharia rules their.
So please note that, here in this Nation, the existing Socilal practices and norms, which you have to follow, not otherwise.

Unfortunately the American society psyche has been warped by 9/11. In Eastern European countries, many women cover their hair with a scarf, hat etc and no one pays any attention. They can walk into banks, restaurants, churches etc and will not be asked to remove them. Unfortunately, hijab has become synonymous with terrorism, oppression and inequality of women etc. Thanks to mass media and lack of cultural familiarity in this country, we will have more instances of such unfortunate encounters.

Hijab is a statement of modesty-that simple.

Hijab is not a WMD and neither threatnes world peace nor the security of bank.

What is important is not what cover the head but what is inside it.

The woman should have been told to remove her hijab or do her business elsewhere. Religion and cultural practices cannot be allowed to interfere with the running of businesses. If you don't like the rules, go somewhere else.

Sorry folks. As long as hiding explosives or identity under a burqa is the technique of terror anywhere in the world, the authorities responsible for security have the right and mandate to ban them. I don't care what your intent is, your right to cover up does not extend to the risk of our safety. If you want to cover up so thoroughly, stay home. Assimilate a little. Don't bring your uptight, militant, and exclusive religion here and expect us to bow down to this nonsense. Except of course at Harvard, Princeton, Columbia University, a few other surrendering institutes like that.

First: There is no common sense in the hijab to begin with, it's male dominance dressed up as the very useful concept of "religion", but that's beside the point.

The point is that for security reasons, people must be identifiable. To say that they can disguise themselves anyway on driver's licence photos by coloring their hair, growing a beard etc doesn't change the fact that rules must be written to, as far as possible, ensure that you can identify the person. If you say it doesn't matter, you may as well allow face-covering burkhas or get rid of the photos altogether. Maybe we should all just leave fingerprints every time we enter a bank?

A hat is something you can wear on a head. The only important word is "can."

You have a right to dress as you please. You do not have to have a reason as long as your dress is within society's limits, i.e., you can not wear dynamite or go nude into McDonalds.

You do not have a right to enter any establishment you wish to enter, whether it's a bank or the main CIA office. You are granted (or denied) that "priviledge" by the building's managers. If denied for a "reason" that "reason" must not be discriminatory (must apply to everyone without regard to race, sex, religion, etc.).....

In this instance, you can not wear a hat into the bank. It's that simple.

Hmmmm...for all the people who freely attack Christians with so much hateful glee and tell them to "keep their religion in Church," I would offer that a Muslim woman should keep her religion in the mosque, or find another bank.

I feel that Hadia Mubarak's statement about her reason for wearing the hijab is articulate and very well thought out. I can agree with her reasoning in the first paragraph, although I do not feel that way. I dress modestly in the style of western women, but I do not need to cover my hair unless it's raining or snowing. Still, if that is her choice, then I can understand it.

However, with regard to her second paragraph, I do not remember "Thou shalt always cover thy hair" as any of the Ten Commandments. I don't remember anything to that effect in the Old or New Testaments. So I'm not quite sure how she can "wear my hijab for God." When did God ask her to wear one?

I think every woman has the right to look attractive if she chooses. Hadia to the contrary, I see a woman in a hajib and I think "oppressed."

You know I am sick and tired of the double standards in this country. As a Roman Catholic America I am told that I can't even say the word God without being told to sit down and shut up, but if anyone of any other religious faith gets offended by their clothing or hair or dress they get to shout and scream and the media responses like moths to a flame.

On top of this I too am a Navy Federal Credit Union Memeber. This policy that so offended this patron is to PROTECT THEIR EMPLOYEES not to offend anyone. If this lady was so offended then you know what - take your buiness else where. Navy Fed is a good company to do business with so don't you dare slam them for this one person's jaded side of the story. I am so sick and tired of the double standards and people whining about this and that for their religious freedoms. Be thankful you can come to this country and do just that - not many countries allow citizens (and non citizens) to do so.

I am also sick and tired of our media focusing on only one side of the story. What happened to focusing on all sides of the story? Where did REAL jouralism go? Out the door obviously.

We have a variety of religious people who dress "differently" than the rest of us starting with the Amish. We should respect and even embrace our ability to live side by side with people with different customs and beliefs. As long as her face was not concealed, what was the problem? But covering one's face with a veil or mask is a different story - with crime and terrorism occurring regularly - people have to be identifiable. In that case, when in the United States, one has to follow the laws of the United States.

Why do we always have to accomodate people who refuse to assimilate like the rest of us. If I start a religion and it requires me to wear sunglasses and a hoodie even at a bank, do you think this would fly? No of course not. But if one of the three main religions who hold so much power over everythign require it, then it's ok. Let's bend the rules for them. Religion, always getting special treatment, it's amazying how brainwashed and sheepish people are. I have to take off my hat and sunglasses at a bank, then so should women wearing a hijab. A hat on my face, does not hide it any more or any less than a hijab does a woman's face. It's common sense that if the policy is applied, apply it to all wihtout special preferential treatment because you worship an invisibly sky dictator

What's she even doing in the bank alone? Shouldn't she be accompanied by a male relative at all times?

If you choose to live by goofy religious proscriptions, it's your problem, not ours.

This article borders on ridiculous, and I don't say that often. Banks are private institutions that have the right to protect themselves and their employees. The purpose of having the head exposed is for SECURITY reasons only. It has NOTHING to do with religious discrimination. The head must be uncovered in order to identify the customer either by the employees or the security cameras if they decide to do bad thing while inside. To say that the rule is wrong because you can come up with other, extreme ways to beat the system (plastic surgery, etc.) is equally ridiculous. To extend this line of logic, why do we have to go through security xrays at airports? To search for guns? There are pure carbon composite guns that don't trip the metal detectors. You would have to search forever to find one, but they DO exist. So since the system is beatable, why bother doing it at all? Do you see the how your argument fails miserably?

One warm summer evening I was at a carnival in the parking lot of Landmark Center (I-395 & Duke Street) with my daughter, who wore shorts and a sleeveless top, modest, attractive, & appropriate to the weather & the occasion. I saw a family with a little girl 6-8 years old, who wore a BURQA! I have seen many families in which the women wore burqas or hijabs but the young daughters were dressed in western clothes, but I was appalled at this. It's not religion, it's child abuse!

Note to dude who wrote this article: get these barbarians out of our country.

"Unfortunately, hijab has become synonymous with terrorism, oppression and inequality of women etc."

Gee, I wonder why this is. Could it be that the women who wear these head coverings actually are oppressed and considered unequal? Hmmmm ....

"Duncan's bill passed the House but it's Senate sponsor pulled out."

s/be

" .....but its Senate sponsor. .."

Some may say this is not a big deal , but I believe that those who post/publish without bothering to check for grammatical, spelling and/or typing errors lead readers to suspect that they (the authors) also may have failed to check the veracity of the other assertions implicit in their writings.

Mr. Waters: You misspell the possessive "its" twice in your post, and also misspell beards. I don't think D.C. firefighters are wearing bears...

Those typos aside, I don't think the hijab is a symbol of female repression--I think Muslim women in the U.S. choose to wear it for their own personal and spiritual reasons, and that's the key here: that they have the choice to wear it or not! A hijab is similar to a hood, but it seems ridiculous to prohibit women from having their drivers license photo taken with it on. It doesn't cover the face, and as a religious head covering it deserves respect or at least tolerance.

As for banks: Although a bank is a private institution, it's still ignorant of them to insult people's religious practices in this way. I can see how a garment that covers the face might be a security issue (you couldn't identify a suspect on the security cameras later). But someone could just as easily carry a mask in their bag or purse and put it on after they enter a bank to commit a robbery. How is this different from a woman wearing a hijab, then pulling it down over her face to commit a robbery? The cameras would have an image of the person before they covered their face.

I fully agree that there should be some common sense while approaching religious practices. Just as Muslim women are standing up to protect their rights to wear the hijab, should they not stand up for the rights of women in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia where a 75 year old women, probbaly a grandmother, was sentenced to be lashed for being in the company of two young men not related to her who got her some groceries. Where is the outrage when illogical and insane religious laws are applied against women. It would be nice to see the Muslim community, especially the women, publicly protesting such outrage and abuses.

Why does the author presume a robber can't use a hijab to cover his/her identity? Seems perfectly realistic to me; furthermore, it seems the author has as a starting assumption that anyone wearing a hijab can't be a bank robber. The bank is there to make a profit; I don't think they particularly enjoy doing things that make their customers run out the door. Therefore, whatever they did CLEARLY should be considered an action based upon security concerns, not an action based upon xenophobia, as some of the other incidents the author cites should be considered. Comparing this to a some sort of politically motivated attempt to ban hijabs does not add up. I think this is a pretty cut and dry question of security in the bank NOT discrimination, and the author of this article has unsuccessfully attempted to make a mountain out of a molehill.

It is shame most of the participants in this forum don't even understand what they are talking about.

The American born Muslim women did not come here, they part of this landscape. They should do in Rome as the Romans do until Romans turn stupid.

No one explained how a hijab (head covering tight your head and no portruding gun hidden) is a security threat? This is where Romans turned stupid.

All my life I have not seen anyone covering head with a bare face robbing a bank. Mostly they are with hoods over their faces.

All of you go smell the coffee, this discussion is beyond you.

of course its a hat and every bit as nisgusting and horrible as the nazi dead head on one.
this one proclaims that they follow a man that proclaimed that anyone not islamic must be converted or killed. that to accomplish those horrible ends that kidnapping, torture, ransom, beheadings, were not just ok but the prefered way.
it proclaims that anyone who believes god came from a woman was subject to being killed. THAT MEANS ALL CHRISTIANS.
it calls jews monkeys and proclaims that it is open season on their murder.
it proclaims that only islamics can be innocent and that women and children of others not islamic cannot be considered innocent under islam.
it proclaims they are followers of a death cult and they only reason YOU who are not islamic are still alive is that they currently fear retribution if they kill you.

From some of the comments posted, you wouldn’t believe this country was founded on the principle of religious freedom. It seems odd that despite our creed of freedom, we are happy to sacrifice it for such relatively trivial matters – we are willing to fight wars half way across the world based on the defense of freedom (or, at least, we will support it based on the claim that it is in defense of freedom), yet we are quick to throw that principle away based on the supposed security needs of a bank. Is the purpose of the constitution not to prevent restrictions of the religious freedom we hold so dear based on the convenience of any private individual or group?

To those invoking the memory of 9/11 and burka-wearing suicide-bombers as justification for this action – get real. None of the 9/11 bombers were wearing a hijab (!), nor has there ever been such a suicide bombing in this country. Indeed, the hijab is simply a symbol of the same religion those terrorists associate themselves with. Since there is nothing special about the bank context in your argument, logically you would quickly conclude that the symbols of the muslim faith have no place in society at any time– surely this is not what you are suggesting. In any case, the argument is outrageously flimsy – I am willing to bet that over 4000 people per year are murdered each year by people wearing the Christian cross (4000 is 1/4 of the total number of homicides) – should we ban Christian symbols on the that basis?

To those questioning the fundamental merits of the hijab or the muslim faith – as clearly outlined in the constitution, this is not your judgment to make.

The hijab is to muslims, what the yamulke is to jews.

"If you can look at a woman in hijab and all you can think is "terrorist", thats exactly the same as looking at a black person and thinking "n*gger"."

Incorrect.
Faulty Logic.

It is like a Klansman wearing a sheet.
It is like a Crip gangmember wearing blue.
It is like a Blood gangmember wearing red.
It is like a Aryan Nation gangmember covered in tattoos of swastikas.

The whole idea that these rules (i.e. - scarfs, hijabs, burqa's) are somehow divinely inspired and handed down from some deity is most insulting. I find the argument rife with interpretation by men (and women) imposing cultural, and religious ideologies on others. I somehow can't help but think that "if" there was God, then he or she would not be expecting us to spend our days wearing a particular outfit or adhering to specific customs that are tied to some sort of worship - dangling in front of us the carrot of eternal life in the hereafter.

Perhaps we should concentrate on trying our best to make the time we get on this planet a better experience for all men and women. Regardless of race, sex, culture. Add meaning to your life by nurturing our planet in a sustainable and fulfilling manner. Respect your cohabitants of the world (all of them - human, animal and plant) This is not some sort of dress rehearsal for the after life so let's make this life count and meaningful!

Thankfully, the Navy Fedreal Credit Union decided that the employee misinterpret the No Hat policy when she insisted that this woman go to a back room to conduct her business in the bank. The woman has been a customer at this CU for over 10 years. The NFCU issued a apology to this woman and will educate their employees on enforcing this policy.

Seriously Mr. Duncan, no glasses? Glasses are part of a persons facial identity. Gimmie a break. He must be a very sad man. If there is nothing on the face which inhibits identification by a police officer, what's the problem? I've seen many driver's license photo's which don't even look like the person weilding it. O - not to mention it's a person's religion we're talking about. Is the state of Oklahoma - or any state - wanting to decree religious pracices? If so, let's start with those inane praise songs some Christians think God wants to hear.

I live down here in SOMD and know this sister. She is very hurt by what happened. The employees have no excuse. She has been doing business with this bank for over 10 years. If you go to a bank for 10 years and they still have no clue who you are... maybe it is best that she and her family to take their business elsewhere.

For those of you who don't know... the Quran mandates the wearing of the hijab but not the burka or jilbab (long dress). The most important thing the Quran mandates for followers is moderation in life. If wearing the hijab is far above moderation for a woman, then she might be oppressing herself by wearing. The Quran specifies moderation. For some women, moderation is the culturally mandated burka - note culturally and not religiously mandated. For the men, we are mandated to dress modestly, must have beards (can and should be groomed), cannot expose our bodies excessively, cannot wear clothing that expose any part of the body between the upper part of the belly button down to the bottom of the knees.

Some so called 'Muslim countries' simply do oppress the people because of the ideology of a few leaders. They will answer to God for their oppression of the people.

Just you all remember, Islam gave more rights to women than was ever given at the time by any other religion... First to give property rights and right to education. It may not appear so today in much of the 'Muslim countries'. Simple example, anything I earn, my wife has full rights to every dollar. Anything my wife earns, I have 0 right to any of it.

We must have education in order to have understanding before we can get along and have peace. So try and read... you will not get education from TV and network news. Many of you are afraid of the Quran and Islam but you refuse to even read it to try and find what you are afraid of... read - words cannot hurt you.

When in Rome, do as Romans do. I would not go to Mecca donning a cowboy hat.

Bottom line: HIJAB WEARERS SHOULD HAVE RESPECT FOR OTHERS.

Love it or leave it.

my god demands i wear a jock strap on my head. please don't judge me - that would be insensitive and my panties would begin to pinch.

Right... and a kilt isn't a skirt, but I don't get to wear mine around the office.

The Post webmaster needs to remove ALL of these ignorant, racist comments from seemingly young, unexposed and uneducated people. This type of ignorance lives on because we allow it to. Do not perpetuate by allowing your publication to promote these hateful views.

If, as Hadia Mubarak claims, you are wearing the hijab to protect yourself from being identified by your appearance, you can't say that the wearing of a hijab has no security ramifications. If the stated purpose of the hijab is obfuscatory, then by definition the Credit Union has a legitimate security reason to not serve women wearing it.

The hijab covers the ears, which are useful in identification. Hadia Mubarak is fooling herself if she thinks she does not dress to please men. The emphasis is just shifted to the face. Furthermore, the overall coverup does NOT do anything to stop men's sexual fantasies.

I recall reading that the kibbutzes (-im?) in Israel originally let boys and girls take showers together well past puberty. This did not increase sexual activity, it led to more intermarriages between groups, as all the sexual mystery was removed in the local unit. So they stopped the communal showers when the children reached puberty.

The Muslim coverup actually places more emphasis on sex.

Last time I looked, federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion trumps any private institution's policies. It's no different, in principle, than the mall-security morons who kick out blind people with seeing eye dogs because they violate a no-pets policy.

Speaking of blind people, there are many who wear dark glasses because they still have a little bit of sight. What about them being served in banks? Laws against discrimination on the basis of handicap also trump private institutions' policies.

That being said, why does anybody go into a bank to do a transaction anyway? Isn't that why we have ATMs and the Internet?

"The Post webmaster needs to remove ALL of these ignorant, racist comments from seemingly young, unexposed and uneducated people."

spoken like a true believer. if someone disagrees with you, call them a heretic and have them silenced. maybe you can throw acid in our eyes, that will get your dogma the attention you seek.

The hijab is worn as a religious expression which would be routinely protected by the First Amendment 'free exercise' clause. However, Islam is a state religion and wearing special clothing is a form of governmental, not spiritual, control of an individual. Is the wearing of such clothing in the name of a state religion a violation of other peoples' right to be free of the establishment of state religion, also stated in the First Amendment? Would the religion of Islam (or any other) itself be illegitimate if it conflicts with the First Amendment? If the Constitution was an instrument intended to enhance human spirituality, which it actually does through the Bill of Rights, does it supersede older spiritual scriptures that endowed political leaders with spiritual leadership?

As long as you can see your customer's face, I don't see what the big deal is about her head covering. She wasn't using it to cover her face, right? I suspect this rule has more to do with ensuring the security cameras can get a good look at you, as well as your teller.

Not saying that she would ever dream of robbing a bank, just that IF someone should do so, hoods and hats can make identification far more difficult.

Would they have denied serving a nun if she were wearing a wimple?

SHAHINAZ wrote :
"as a Muslim woman living in the middle east i dont find the hijab but an adding restriction and chaine for women , and guess what it is not protecting women,we are harassed vield and unvield women 24/7 in all the streets ,and why should i cover myself i am not ashamed from my body ,and again why shoud i cover myself ? and who said that hijab is an order from God , read what scholar Fatima mernissi wrote about the descent of hijab and you will learn that this was not at all a God order but a man misunderstanding or misuse for what God said ."
------
I am delighted to see a comment from a real woman who resents the oppression she is forced to endure. Since English appears to be difficult for you, I have corrected some mistakes in grammar and spelling below in the sincere wish that you improve your ability to communicate:
...
As a Muslim woman living in the Middle East, I find the hajib an added restriction and another chain for women. And guess what? It is not protecting women! We are harassed 24/7 in all the streets whether we are veiled or unveiled.

And why should I cover myself? I am not ashamed of my body. And who said that the hajib is an order from God? Read what scholar Fatima Mernissi wrote about the origin of the hijab and you will learn that this was not at all an order from God, but a (stupid) man misunderstanding what God said or using his interpretation of God's word to oppress women.
...
I hope I have understood what you are trying to communicate. And, sorry, but I could not resist adding "stupid!"

"I live down here in SOMD and know this sister. She is very hurt by what happened. The employees have no excuse. She has been doing business with this bank for over 10 years. If you go to a bank for 10 years and they still have no clue who you are... maybe it is best that she and her family to take their business elsewhere."
***********************************

The employees may have misinterpreted the rule, but to say they had no excuse is incorrect. They thought it was a rule and were merely trying to follow that rule, plain and simple. To try to play the religious discrimination card is bad poker.

FYI - I have been going to the same bank for over 20 years and I can guarantee you they don't know me. There is a different person behind the counter each time due to the time of day and employee turn over. Even if they "know" you, they will still be required to ask for identification. To be "hurt" by this is simply being over sensitive. It would be nice if we all lived in Mayberry where everyone knows and trusts each other, but it's just not reality. Deal with it.

One legal point regarding the Credit Union and the comment by the religious advocate, Ibrahim Hooper--a credit union is a private entity. For that reason, they do not come under the First Amendment. The language of the First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law...." and by operation of the 14th Amendment, it applies to the states and state action. The credit union is not a state actor, unlike the state department of motor vehicles, which is a state actor but might have a good reason for insisting on the no hat/no scarf rule.

"Last time I looked, federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion trumps any private institution's policies. It's no different, in principle, than the mall-security morons who kick out blind people with seeing eye dogs because they violate a no-pets policy."
************************

While I have no idea whether or not the above statements are true (I'm not a lawyer), you seem to be comparing apples and oranges. Exceptions such as allowing seeing-eye dogs for the blind clearly have a protection and safety factor involved. These people need these dogs to ensure their safety. Also, these animals tend to be highly trained and thus are generally considered a low risk against the types of activities that probably banned them in the first place. In sharp contrast, religious exceptions would offer no similar need for protection to the person trying to use one.

"A federal judge said District of Columbia firefighters can continue to wear bears for religious reasons."

******************

What religion is that?

It must be hard fighting fires wearing a bear!

What's the religious penalty for taking off your bear to fight a fire? Do you have to say 3 wolves and 2 elks?

Most hats obscure a person’s face less than does the hijab. While a hijab is not a hat, it is a head covering, as is a hat. If you want to be scrupulous, a cap is not a hat; if it were a hat, it wouldn’t be called a cap. If done for security purposes, not as religious discrimination, what is the issue? A real, immediate threat exists if exceptions are made to a security policy instituted to prevent bad actors from obscuring their features, which trumps the spiritual agnst that might be caused by forcing a woman to reveal her hair.

of course a hijab is not a hat but that is not the point.

follow company policies PERIOD

Sorry, but you have to follow the rules. I'd love to frequent safeway without shoes or a shirt but guess what, I don't. Deal with it.

I am a Muslim man. Personally, I do not believe that the Hijab (head cover) is mandated for Muslim women, however my wife does, so she wears it. That is her right and I would be dissapointed if she does not follow her conviction. I have worked and am still working in a bank since 1980. I have never seen a case where a head covering was a problem. I used to work for Citizen Bank in Kemp Mill area (Montg. County) - next to a Synagouge and many ofthe women wore wigs. I fail to see the difference between the hijab and a wig, except the wig conceals a lot more. Furthermore, when it's freezing cold, many women and men wear head coverings and they don't bother to take it off coming in to the bank or drive tru.
I have been in the bank when it was robbed by well dressed men wearing suits. Besides, how many times have a bank been robbed by women wearing a hijab? Have we not learned that the real robbers are those the likes of which wear fancy suits and work in places like Wall Steet?

Shahinaz wrote:
"as a Muslim woman living in the middle east i dont find the hijab but an adding restriction and chaine for women , and guess what it is not protecting women,we are harassed vield and unvield women 24/7 in all the streets ,and why should i cover myself i am not ashamed from my body ,and again why shoud i cover myself ? and who said that hijab is an order from God , read what scholar Fatima mernissi wrote about the descent of hijab and you will learn that this was not at all a God order but a man misunderstanding or misuse for what God said ."

*******************

You go girl! God bless you and hang in there, I cannot even imagine what life is like for you.

"Have we not learned that the real robbers are those the likes of which wear fancy suits and work in places like Wall Steet? "

As this is an On Faith section, I feel that a hearty "Amen!" is in order. (Deist or not, you know?)

All the pictures or portraits that I have seen of Mary, the mother of Jesus (Peace be unto him) have been with her wearing a hijab - head covering. This is teh very head covering that was mandated for pious women during the time of Moses (peace be unto him)... to distinguish them from the prostitutes (well documented in Christian sources).
So what many of you are saying is that if Mary, the mother of Jesus, were alive today, she MUST take off her head covering before she enters any bank. And for some of you, she would be a repressed woman for even wearing it in the first place.

I'm thinking of my grandmother, who wore a babushka every waking hour of my life anyway. I wonder if she ever had any troubles due to it? She's dead now, I can't ask.

When was the last time a bank required a nun in full habit to remove her head covering before serving her?

I rest my case.

I realized there may be those who aren't acquainted with babushkas.

babushka - a woman's headscarf folded into a triangle and tied under the chin; worn by Russian peasant women
headscarf - a kerchief worn over the head and tied under the chin

Versus wearing it tied behind your head, under your ponytail or hair.

When you consider that there probably is no God - dressing funny just to please Him is absurd.

Even if there really was God - what would He care about how earthlings dress? What would it matter?

Dress any way you wish, people. Life is short.

As far as we KNOW there is no other life than this one...so enjoy it.

"I'd love to frequent safeway without shoes or a shirt..."

Luca_2009,

Why?

What possible reason could you have for wanting to walk around a supermarket barefoot and bare-chested?

You're just making a snarky remark here.

Alot of comparisons here to a Nun wearing a Habit, which I think is a valid comparison and point. I can't find anything in the USA but did find this one from Germany:

"A German court has ruled that a regional ban on Muslim teachers wearing headscarves in state schools must also apply to Christian nuns, reports say.
The south-western state of Baden-Wuerttemberg passed a law in April, preventing teachers from wearing Islamic-style headscarves.

But Germany's highest administrative court says the law must apply to all faiths, Der Spiegel magazine reports.

Last year, the Constitutional Court said states could ban headscarves.

No exceptions

"Exceptions for certain forms of religiously motivated clothing in certain regions are out of the question," the federal judges of the Federal Administrative Court wrote in their ruling as quoted by Der Spiegel, in an advance copy of its Monday issue.

A copy of the ruling was not available.

The court's decision means that nuns, who often work in state schools in the predominantly Roman Catholic Black Forest region of Baden-Wuerttemberg, will have to remove their habits before going into classrooms."

You dont like the treatment in the U.S.??? Dont let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

Headscarf,veil are the symbols of Subjugation and Oppression.
Black Wrap,Burqa are the mark of being second(even third) class citizen.

Hadia Mubarek says *I relish in the freedom the hijab gives me* Which freedom ?
-To be one of Four women who has no freedom to divorce her husband.
-To be scourged by her husband.Is this Relish ?
In that case,the most free women in the world are Afghan women ?

There is very interesting point in her article,*the hijab is a form of protection,that means tasitly *if you dont wear hijab,you may be assaulted by muslim man* It summarizes the Mentality of islamic society.

The freedom to practice my religion is still, for the time being, protected by the Constitution. A Christian headcovering and an Islamic headcovering are both relatively known in the U.S. Those requiring the removal are showing their disdain for religion of any kind. The Constitutional freedom trumps foolish misconceptions. I've worn a Christian headcovering for many years now. Were I told I had to take it off for some lame governmental reason, I'd go see my Congressman, then seek other protection. I serve God first, so the covering has to stay. Sometimes you who are atheists or who don't allow the same freedoms for all, need to take a deep breath and not worry so much about everyone else and tend to your own business.

I think that people who argue that muslim women should "comform" to american social/cultural standards should take a moment to actually read the 1st ammendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't matter what you think of Islam, religious dress, 9/11 symbology or even the very concept of "God", they have a guaranteed freedom to excersise their beliefs. Period. It does not, as many here argue, constitute pandering to religious extremists; it is the law. And a damn good one at that.

One commentator says:

"Further, why can’t muslims adapt to the country they are in and leave their religion at home?"

This is a specious argument simply because, by and large, americans don't "leave their religion at home". One has only to drive around on any given day to see bumper stickers proclaiming the glory of Jesus Christ, or watch a Presidential inauguration, or the massive billboards outside churches, or the many religiously based holidays (ie Christmas.... "Christ" & "Mass") to understand that the U.S. is awash with religious symbology every single second of every single day. What the commentator seems to be really saying is that only the familiar christian symbols, habits and messages are acceptable "american customs".

I am terrified of extremists: muslim extremists, Christian extremists, Sikhs, Budhists or jewish. But I was also raised in a culture that worships tolerance, that thrives on variety and applauds nuance. The vast, vast, vast majority of devout human beings are both peaceful and conscientious. They should not be treated as "proto criminals". We really are better than that.

" halozcel1

"Headscarf,veil are the symbols of Subjugation and Oppression."

Can be. That's why, in America, people should be free to take them *off,* in fact, refuse to regognize *any* purely-religious taboo, even if religion doesn't like it. That goes for you, too.

"There is very interesting point in her article,*the hijab is a form of protection,that means tasitly *if you dont wear hijab,you may be assaulted by muslim man* It summarizes the Mentality of islamic society."

Frankly, I think it's a pretty silly thing conservative Christianity shares with Islam: if you impose these tabooes in the first place, then any perceived, imagined, or inadvertent breach of such tabooes becomes an excuse for rape or harassment.

Conservative Christianity such as you espouse has no 'moral high ground' on this. When *I* mischanced to be subject to a rape, there was *still* ongoing 'controversy' about whether or not how the victim was dressed should be allowed to continue to be a factor in whether or not one was raped. Or 'asking for it.'

In the beginning of this century, showing ankle may as well have meant you were a 'harlot.'

I am not 'free' if I dress as for 'Girls Gone Wild' and I am not 'free' if I wear the living room drapes for 'protection.'

Free. Is. I'm a free person, stark naked or in twelve yards of burlap with eye-holes.

Frankly, the problem just isn't how much fabric you wear, it's men feeling 'entitled' (perhaps via a 'God's Will') to whatever much or little they *do* see.

It's kind of like in America, ...was the uproar about women burning bras and going without because the lack of such shaping *libidinous* ...or was it cause it wasn't libidinous *enough?*

Dig?

Mr Kareem, a muslim writes: "For those of you who don't know... the Quran mandates the wearing of the hijab but not the burka or jilbab (long dress)."

And then a little later MRahaman writes: "I am a Muslim man. Personally, I do not believe that the Hijab (head cover) is mandated for Muslim women, however my wife does, so she wears it."

And the muslim at the site states: http://www.muhajabah.com/hjbscared.htm
"The jilbab seems to be the forgotten obligation of hijab. This article presents dalils from Quran and Sunna, and opinions of many scholars, to show that wearing a jilbab is fard, and it also discusses the conditions and rules of the jilbab."

And Shahinaz informs us that " who said that hijab is an order from God , read what scholar Fatima mernissi wrote about the descent of hijab and you will learn that this was not at all a God order but a man misunderstanding or misuse for what God said ."

Obviously there is no consensus among the muslims whether wearing a hijab is part of islam or not. Should we be bending over backwards to every ahmed, billal, or muhammad who comes around shouting islamophobic and telling us what Islam wants?

"Obviously there is no consensus among the muslims whether wearing a hijab is part of islam or not. Should we be bending over backwards to every ahmed, billal, or muhammad who comes around shouting islamophobic and telling us what Islam wants?"

I think the problem lies in Christians in America feeling *their* religion entitles them to say how people dress, and figuring the real question is if some 'foreign' authority should do the same.

Actual fact is, America is here to guarantee individual liberties, not legislate what a religion or interpretation thereof demands.

Muslim women should be able to wear or not wear the hijab with full state support.

And if they don't want to show their faces, it's silly to ask the state for *identification.*

Beyond that, it's all reasonable accomodation.

It's that simple.

Once again:

The Credit Union and for that matter any bank or savings and loan establishment need all the security available. Cameras help provide that. Any head piece to include the head coverings of nuns and Muslims reduce the security these cameras provide.

The hijab is also a painful reminder of 9/11 as it is a symbol of the religion behind this horrific tragedy. Its requirement should be deleted from the "worst book ever written" aka the koran along with all the passages that subjugate women, demand death for all infidels/pagans and apostates and that dictate that Islam should dominate the world.

So, what you're saying, there, CCNL, is you're trying to justify a thin 'practical' excuse to justify trying to ban what you find symbolically-troubling?

If a bank is gonna get ripped off by one of their own tellers, lack of a headscarf is *not* gonna help.

Also, CCNL, if you want to figure all Muslims for terrorists, maybe you should consider that the most violent factions of 'jihadists' consider the *only* time it's acceptable to break dress code *is in fact in the course of pursuing 'jihad.'*

Even in your own paranoid world, you ought to see there's no point to your demands.

Paganplace,

You miss the *core issue*

Muslim woman can not choose anything.
Muslim/submission follower woman has no *right of choice*
You say *If they dont want to show their faces.....* Fifth class empty word.Can they want to do anything ? Absolutely NO,no,no.

Hadia Mubarek says *a woman is valued for her intellect,Personality and merit* Another tenth class Fairy Tales.Which merit ? Does woman have right to work ? Look at Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Which Personality ? Personality under Black Wrap,Burqa ? Comedy....

First of all,Ms.Mubarek doesnt know what islam/submission is.
Woman in submission has no right to say NO(to her dad,husband,brother)
Submission follower woman has no right to choose.
Woman in submission has no right of Inheritance,Divorce,Witness,Working.
Submission follower woman is a *baby making machine* and *tilth*

The State,if state is state,must protect women,otherwise,women is enslaved in islamic life.
And,let me remind,Submission is the Cult in Afghanistan,Svat Valley,Saudi Arabia,Islamic Republic Iran,Not in Alice's Wonderland.

The credit union has the right to make it own determination regarding the needed security measures to avoid robbery and to ensure safety of the employees. This Muslim woman does not want to assimilate into American society. Why didn't she take the lousy hijab off while making the transaction? Because she wanted to cause trouble. The credit union should not have gone ahead with what she wanted done. The hijab should have been ripped off her head, and she should have been literally thrown out the door, hopefully with a hard landing.

The Muslims are riff-raff. They will not assimilate. This constant capitulation to them will ruin America. If they do not want to take on our customs, they should be thrown out of the country. The host country does not accomodate immigrants. The immigrants assimilate into the society in which they are living.

Political correctness has gone too far. I am sick of "sensitivity." This is liberal jibberish and nothing more.

Muslims are vermin.

@MaryAnn261: "Muslims are vermin".

No they are not. That merely tells that you have never met Muslims. There are some very very excellent humans who are Muslims. The problem is Islam which is a very violent and oppressive ideology. The error is in treating Islam as a religion like the other great religions of the world. It is not. It is only when Muslims become devout and start really following Islam that they become vermin. Please see the new book by an exmuslim
http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/Islamic-Jihad-Legacy-of-Forced-Conversion-Imperialism-Slavery.htm

Yes the woman should be able to wear what ever she wants, but she has very little justification to invoke religion, any religion as a cover to whine and moan. The credit union had every right to treat her the way they did. They were very very reasonable.

Whining does get attention and privileges. It is obvious that the whining Muslims have been very successful at obtaining many many privileges in Europe. Hopefully, Americans will learn from the European experience and not give into the whining.

Hijab gives no freedom, it's restrictive, and demeaning. Why do Muslim men feel their women need to be covered? Is It because centuries ago their prophet and his band of merry men raided, looted and traded women and children, they enslaved or "married" the ones they deemed pretty? Their prophet Mohammad in fact envied one women "taken" by one of his bandits and re-possessed her into his harem. Perhaps that is when the tent was invented? That day onwards Muslim's would hide their booty least their lustful prophet would deem a woman his... after all he took his own sons wife, shameless bastard.

This hide hair/face that they do for a stupid deity is rubbish, how can a creator create something and then want its face or worse its hair hidden? what a crock. Its high time this nonsense of covering women from men should be something of the past. Islam has two joys, sex and food. Food with so many restrictions is Islams only joy. Sex, well, what can we say, as soon as they come into power they subjugate the women. The latest Islamic triumph is in Swat Pakistan where the taliban have taken over, guess who suffers the most; the women. Where once women were relatively free now will not even be allowed in school. What is it about the Muslim and his women? why are they so obsessed with sex and how a woman dresses herself. They kill for this, they stone women for having sex, they behead their wives they kill them if they suspect them in the name of honor killing.
Please we don't want to encourage the demeaning "hijab" it only gives the all powerful Muslim male pig more power and less to worry about. If the state encourages the hijjab then one less worry for the muslim male. Yes its not a hat it's a demeaning disgraceful RAG.

This is a very well written and argued article that captures my feelings on the Muslim hijab and the reasons of modesty perfectly and succintly.

Apparently Arif2 (an imposter name) still doesn't get it. Its like you can have the best and the brightest explain a scientific theory in the most basic of laymen terms yet still there are those who ostriches who choose to stick their head in the sand letting their bigotry speak anonymously over the internet.

In any case, Kudos to this piece, and Hadia Mubarak's explanation is probably the best personal explanation thus far for me why people of the Islamic religion wear the headscarf. Kudos!

@Rednova:
There really is no cure for terminal stupidity. Arif is not an imposter name. Arif2 might be for I have never come across a name with a numeric in it before. But if someone thinks that there are no ex muslims who really have thrown off the curse of the vile cult and now express their disgust at the violent ideology of a prophet who legitimized sex and marriage with prepubescent girls, then that someone is in for a rude shock. I suggest that you contact any number of exmuslim sites and see what those tens of thousands of apostates think of Mubarak's words.

Here is Hirsi Ali on women in Islam for instance:

One business school student (Muslim male) asked "If Islam is so oppressive to women, how can you explain that Muslim countries like Pakistan and Indonesia have had women prime ministers?" Her response to that was deadly: "In some Muslim countries such as Iran and Afghanistan, under sharia, women are forced to wear hijab, adulters are stoned (mostly women, not the men), daughters get half the inheritance that sons do, and a man can easily get a divorce, while it's very difficult for women to get divorced. In secular Muslim countries like Turkey and Indonesia, fundamentalist Islam is on the rise. Twenty years ago, Indonesian women did not go around in hijab, now it is commonplace. There is an attitude of denial in the face of a great deal of empirical evidence about the oppression of women. Anyone who denies this evidence is personally contributing to the subjugation of women." (That means YOU, Dude).

The last questioner (Bangladeshi woman) asked "Do you identify yourself as a woman? If so, why aren't you concerned with domestic abuse? Why are you only harping about Islam?" Ayaan was amused. "Yes, I identify myself as a woman, I think that's self-evident." She replied that much of her work is against violence and oppression of girls and women around the world, which is easily confimed by reading her books and lectures. At this point, given the overt hostility of the questioner, Ayaan noted that debate and criticism of Islam is not the same as attacking Islam. "I'm not attacking Islam, I want to reform Islam." Here Ayaan asked "I really wonder what you (referring to all the grad students) are doing here" It was along the lines of "What are they teaching you anyway? Do you not know how to debate or discuss an issue?"

I was pleasantly surprised to hear again from A Kafir and Arif. Both are highly educated ex Muslims who know more about the Muslims' religion and the Indian subcontinent’s culture than any on those boards.

When I learn that Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates such as Hamas and Hezbollah pay huge sums of money to female public figures in the Middle East’s news media and the movies to wear the Hijab I begin to suspect that the veil has more to do with a political agenda than a mere penitence to Allah’s favor.

"It doesn't matter what you think of Islam, religious dress, 9/11 symbology or even the very concept of "God", they have a guaranteed freedom to excersise their beliefs. Period. It does not, as many here argue, constitute pandering to religious extremists; it is the law. And a damn good one at that."

Right. The problem arises when the freedom to exercise those beliefs infringes on another persons rights, or their security.

I admit, it's a bit of a stretch - how much difference can wearing a hat make when trying to ID somebody directly in front of you? But if it is regarded as a legitimate security problem, then I don't think it's fair to excuse certain people based on their beliefs. Wouldn't that even technically count as discrimination?

The main problem, however, is that it is only a matter of time before somebody takes advantage of the loophole to do something wrong. Then the backlash against the policy gets unstoppable, and the REAL bigots and extremists come out.

Even though I'm an athiest, I fully support the idea that people should be able to hold whatever beliefs and practices they want - as long as those practices are not harmful to myself or anyone else.

The bottom line though is that the bank chooses to do it's business here in America, where freedom of speech, religion etc. is a big deal. They know our Constitution and rules we have set up - abide by them.

Halozcel:

"Paganplace, You miss the *core issue*

"Muslim woman can not choose anything.
Muslim/submission follower woman has no *right of choice*
You say *If they dont want to show their faces.....* Fifth class empty word.Can they want to do anything ? Absolutely NO,no,no."

You miss the core issue: In America, they *can choose.* Of course authoritarian religions try to muddy this fact, and exert real and oppressive pressures on real people in real circumstances to keep them un-free.

Doesn't take Islam to do *that,* I assure you.

Authoritarian religions are *all* about 'submission,' and teach a world where some will find abuse OK.

This doesn't mean that a bank has a right (or a real need, despite spurious 'practical' justifications) to stop a woman from observing or expressing her religion.

This may be hard for you to see, Halo. Since you want theocratic power for your *own* religious tabooes and observances, and only are indignant about Islam because it's *not *your* way,*

But in America, we don't stop anyone from observing their religion. We also protect the rights of the individual when the time comes to say *no* to such religions.

That's how we're supposed to do this, not play into the very isolationism you fear by actually pitting women *against* repressive households. If someone is *forcing* them to wear the hijab, then with them, the job's gonna have to go, and then the women don't have the ability to leave if they need to.

That's not helping freedom, ...and you can't use repression to free people, anyway.

Besides, using fear of 'terrorism' as an excuse to restrict these things with a 'no hats' policy, (As I said, if a bank is gonna get ripped off by their own tellers, and a hat of any kind is the deciding factor, they have bigger problems,)

Well, that's not just about Muslims, or why some want to say they're 'vermin,' (Gods, people. What *are* you trying to defend, if you speak like that of fellow citizens?)

Some Jews wear 'hats,' ...Sikhs wear 'hats' ...Mennonites wear hats, (and the women cover their hair, too, as a religious necessity, I believe... not that they'd be allowed to work in a bank at *all,* anyway.)

In the 'Christian Europe' some want to drag us back to, *married women* covered their hair with wimples.

This is why we have a secular society. Choosing one religious authority over another doesn't 'free' anyone. Even *with* full civil rights and Christian privilege, women *still* have to find the courage to walk out that door, if the situation requires, and claim their status as free and equal American citizens.

Doesn't always happen. But it's not gonna happen more if you actually *make* it seem like they must choose between their God and their freedom to get by in American society.

Sez 'Legendary Punk.'

"The main problem, however, is that it is only a matter of time before somebody takes advantage of the loophole to do something wrong."

But isn't that kind of the point, in a way? Nuns'll want you to wear tartan skirts that are none too long, then measure hemlines and fear reflections from patent leather shoes.

No one in America said you couldn't wear em with combat boots after school.

Speaking of punk rock. :)

I don't quite see the problem here. With or without a hijab, a woman is recognizable. If we are saying that this is a separation of church and state issue, then, of course, it has to be applicable to both sexes and to all religions.

"I relish in the freedom the hijab gives me, the freedom from having my body exposed as a sex object or from being judged on a scale of 1-10 by strange men who have no right to know what my body or hair look like."
Typically Muslim women grow long hair, in my culture it was almost religion for women to keep long hair. Wearing that cloth around the head, or the tent, or the chaddor is uncomfortable and very unflattering. All humans have self pride, in fact unkempt un groomed people my be that way due to illness or a mental deficiency. Grooming and looking presentable is human and very natural. People who deliberately want to look frumpy look deeper for you may be a member of a cult.
Most people male/female are normal, to have the notion that you are constantly being lusted over by your fellow humans is a far stretch. This is just a false notion forced upon muslim woman. Islam lays too much stress upon the sexual nature of women; all evils of society are blamed upon women. One only has to observe Pakistan where the Islamists have control in the North, there is virtually no woman performing any civic duty other than cooking and raising children. Any woman found in public must be covered by the demeaning shroud, least she'd be hunted and groped on purpose. They immediately cage women and keep them from education for fear of retribution from Allah. Women who need medical attention suffer gravely and even die due to neglect for fear of going to a male doctor. How can a society that prevents women from education produce a female doctor? Advanced nations must restrict all forms of male dominance. Male dominance that hides behind religion/cult to demand piety from the physically weaker partner should banned. BAN THE BURKA, THE HIJJAB, these are nothing but left over superstitions of a womanizing, slave trading, child marrying, war mongering mad man from Arabia; Mohammed just in case you did not know.
When these nations - deemed Kafir nations "fight" for the right to have women wear tents and rags over their heads, the Islamists are empowered even more.

Arif

Certainly, Arif, as I said below, there are religiously-demeaning things about several customs in the book-religions, some less-observed in Christian society than muslim, but all rooted in the same attitudes.

Certainly, it does no real good to expect women to cover up: demand long skirts, peopel wound up about sex will fetishize *ankles* and see whatever they consider 'revealing' as 'open invitation.'

But neither does it mean that *less* clothing is inherently indicative of a nobler attitude. I dress pretty modestly, and often there's pressure from people whose business it is not, for me to bare more skin. (Or, perhaps, be called 'mentally ill?' 'Frumpy?' )

Cause, you know, jeans and tops designed to bare the midriff are not 'liberating' when you're trying to do some work. They can be just as restrictive, if not more so, than a floor-length skirt. (At least you can stoop in those)

It's like, if the *fashion* industry says for upwards of a decade, 'Show me your navel or wear granny's-or-men's clothes,' ...that's hardly 'free.' Not that I've got anything against showing navel, but, it became just another 'uniform.' That men expect, maybe, even.

Demand thongs, be scandalized if nipple shows. What's *that?*

I mean, sure, people see some huge difference between 'Girls Gone Wild' and throwing a chador over all women, but the phenomena are really based on the same premises.

Arif: "BAN THE BURKA, THE HIJJAB,"

"When these nations - deemed Kafir nations "fight" for the right to have women wear tents and rags over their heads, the Islamists are empowered even more."

Maybe you shouldn't 'deem' us so unfamiliar with how to progress in Liberty, yourself.

Free your *mind.*

If a rag can stop you from being free, you ain't free yet.

You can't *make* people be free. And you can't assume people... or you... *are* free just cause they or you are or aren't wearing a piece of cloth.

Much more is made of this than it really is in *my* religion, ...it's not really such a big deal *now,* because most of us don't *make* such a big deal of nudity, anyway, but...

I still think it's important to greet the Gods... and probably each other, 'skyclad,' at least once. Arguing over how much or what kind of cloth suits whatever nudity taboo or what it 'means' or 'should be' ...is actually pretty much *all* making a piece of cloth, of whatever square footage or inch-age... Some kind of bond, ruler, master, *substitute* for humanity, reason, and divinity, all.

It was a bigger deal when clothing conventions had more overt power in Western society, but apparently, lesson not entirely learned yet, by some.

A woman's value or a man's honor, (or vice versa) cannot hang on hiding or revealing flesh or hair. We all should know how that goes.

America, is about *individual freedom,* not group dominion. Not a minority, not a majority, not anyone.

We are all, in essence, nude before the Gods, 'God,' if you will, and each other. Curtain-dances with each other about clothing (maybe some fig leaves,) may be fun, expressive, even, but all in all, no substitute for really respecting each other.

Paganplace,

If Headscarf is right,Black Wrap is right.
If Black Wrap is right,Veil is right.
If Veil is right,Burqa is right.
If Burqa gives woman freedom,as it is said,the most free women on the earth are Afghan ones.

It is not Prohibition which prohibits the Prohibition.It is not Repression that prohibits the Repression.

The State,if state is state,has to protect women and children and Contemporary Values and *man-woman equality*
*Freedom of Religion/Cult* is a *round word* and it can be discussed.
Son of God sharply prohibited Divorce,but in US,Divorce is legalized,so,can it be considered *US uses repression to free people*
Book of God,which says *World is Flat* and *slaves should obey their masters*,but,Jewish rooted Lincoln had warred to abolished the slavery.Was it repression or stopping anyones from observing their religion ?

Paganplace/Mother Cult Follower,
The State must be Consistent.If a submission follower man wants to take second or third or fourth wives,what would you answer him.If you reply No,how can you deprive him from his *God/Allah given right* Is this repression ?
You are speaking/writing Abstract,not Realistic.Burqa/Black Wrap is a Torture to woman.It is the task of State not only to ban ,but struggle against Torture,Oppression and Subjugation.

Today is Headscarf,tomorrow Black Wrap,after tomorrow Veil,day after tomorrow Burqa/Free Women and later Swat Valley and Afghanistan.No,this is not American Value and US Constitution.
*You cant 'make' people be free* Completely Wrong.Jewish Lincoln did made Africans be free.Yes,absolutely.
The State can,yes can and should make women(and males also) be free.Nobody can wait for five hundred years(no guarantee after 500 years as well)

*Free your ''mind''*,yes,please,listen Ray Charles,*Unchain my heart* Yes,*Unchain your Mind* You can listen from YouTube.

Let me repeat one more time,
It is not Repression which prohibits the Repression.

" halozcel1
"Paganplace,

"If Headscarf is right,Black Wrap is right.
If Black Wrap is right,Veil is right.
If Veil is right,Burqa is right.
If Burqa gives woman freedom,as it is said,the most free women on the earth are Afghan ones."

There is no 'freedom' in this thought process. Whichever 'side' you take.

Freedom is knowing all these things are pieces of cloth. Things we make. Nothing more.

We may use them to honor ourselves, each other, the Gods, or 'God.'

But they have no intrinsic meaning, never mind a binary one.

Somewhere along the line, the 'Book' religions got the idea in their head that everything must be either proscribed, or mandatory.

There's no freedom, there.

You see, this is where you are all bound up, btw, Halo, you and much of the 'Right:'

"Son of God sharply prohibited Divorce,but in US,Divorce is legalized,so,can it be considered *US uses repression to free people*"

It is not 'repression' to refuse to enforce a religious dictate. Even your own particular Son of a God *told* you not to even try to *do* this.

If you want to honor your God by not getting divorced, you may do so. But you can't tell the government to enforce this edict for you, any more than you can tell the government to prevent people from wearing 'hats' to honor their/your God in *their* way.

It is not *the same* as 'repressing you' for the government to not *enforce* your religious ways, and only your religious ways.

If Jesus had said, 'OK, all you guys, do-rags are mandatory.' would *you* want the government saying you couldn't? You scream bloody murder if you see a library book that *doesn't* defame other religions in the public schools.

You whine 'oppression' when people say 'No' to *you,* *having your way over all others.*

The *promise* of America, for women in particular, is not that it's gonna paternalistically-take away a scarf.

Or a skirt. Or a pair of heels. Or whatever.

The promise of America is that we may all *choose* whether or not to obey a religion. And still get a fair and equal shake and human respect in society.

You can't force that.

You know, it's kinda funny, just had some proselytizing Christian women in high heels come around. For JW's, actually quite pleasant.

Gathering they didn't have a notion the purpose of high heels is to make your behind look more receptive, to them it was just receptive.

As binary thinking goes, they said, 'Is money your servant or your master?' And I said... 'Well, we don't have enough here to be sufficient for either purpose.'

Good laugh, there.

They pried about personal info, though. Got a little confused when it wasn't forthcoming.

Why? Gods know.

Binary thinking, though.

It'll getcha into trouble.

To them it was just 'proper,' rather. :)

There's so little of humanity in certain senses of entitlement, though, both in calling things 'Right Or Wrong' or in 'I deserve to know random stuff about you cause we're on a 'mission' or in 'Your Religion is My Business, and it's 'Persecution' if you don't obey.'

Paganplace pontificates thus:
"But in America, we don't stop anyone from observing their religion."�

Wearing a Hijab is not observing a certain religion. Many women in Muslim societies do not wear this head cover, and many who wear it wear at the same time jeans and high heels, and paint their faces with all sorts of pastes. It is simply making an ideological statement.

Furthermore what you describe as a "religion"� is more of a cult which is supremacist and discriminatory. Their stated goal is to replace the US constitution with their form of governance which they call Sharia and which is responsible for all that ignorance, corruption and poverty in all of those societies that practice it. Is this what you wish for us? They use the freedoms practiced in the West to attain power, as they had done in many parts of the world,and the first thing that goes when they seize power are the freedoms you talk about.

Paganplace says *You cant 'make' people be free*,so,let them remain slave.
What a Mentality and Reason !

A woman advocates *woman slavery*,is this American Value ? Is this Contemporary Value ?

fr Realistsh:

>...The bank has a sound business reason for disallowing hats, and a hat by any other name is a hat.

A hajib is NOT a "hat". Therefore, your "point" is disproven.

@Alex511

Wikipedia gives for hat:
"A hat is a headcovering. It may be worn for protection against the elements, for religious reasons.."

So by Wikipedia's criterion a hijab is a hat. I do not know what a Hajib is? I do not know who is Haji b either, but I think I know who may be an ignoramus.

I wonder if governments overseas would bend over and kiss mine if I complained they did not do enough to cater to me if I lived there.You know,stop the way they prayed,whatever because It offended me.NOT
Isn't it enough we give so much of our tax dollars to the people who flock here in groves by way of food stamps and medicaid.Can't that be enough?What will happen when we can no longer support our non-working, system riding, blood sucking neighbors?You know,the baby mills?We are broke on this end on main street.Take you hats and your trivial gripes and put them where I only wish I could.

PS- This is not a muslem country

fr wmboyd:

>In this instance, you can not wear a hat into the bank. It's that simple...

A hajib is not a "hat", it is a religious headcovering. The NFCU had absolutely NO right to insist that the woman remove it, or be served in a back room. The teller who insisted that the woman remove her hajib needs either cultural sensitivity training or just to be fired.

It's that simple.