no-hijab and even nudism does not have a material effect on anyone except on the
person who practices them. This is not something the society should
intervene. It must be left to the individual to dress the way he or she deems
appropriate. Imposing a dress code is infringing upon the human rights of the
individual and restricting his or her freedom. Such an imposition would be unethical. Although
licensing nudism in the streets violates the rights of others who do not
want to be shocked by exhibitionists, I have no objection for nudists to have a
designated place to go and show off and get over it. As long as they do not rub
it in my face, I have no right to impose my morality on them. I have no idea
what makes nudists to take off their clothes, but if what they do does not
materially affect me, it is none of my business.
the same thing can be said about
hijab. How people dress must be left to the
individual. If a person likes to wear a religious robe no one should stop him or
her. But no state
should enforce it on its citizens by law because that would be violating their
freedom. Hijab however, falls into a different category. Hijab is a statement of
defiance of freedom and democracy. It is very much like the swastika worn
by Nazis. Hijab is not just a fashion statement but a political statement.
The statement behind hijab is that I am against freedom and democracy and
my goal is to overthrow the democracies and establish Islamic
dictatorship, take away the rights of others and subdue anyone who does
not agree with my fascistic views. As such hihab must be banned. Just as
it it offensive to wear swastika in public, it is also offensive to wear
hijab because of the political message behind it.
the Muslim's claim that laxity in dress code breeds violence quite the opposite
is true. Honor killings amongst Muslims is proof that a lot of violence is
caused by being restrictive about sexuality.
what about wife swapping? Well, that is adultery. Even
though it is mutual and consensual. To the question, what an irreligious society
should do in this regard, my answer is the same that Pierre Trudeau gave in the
Canadian Parliament. He said; “The State has no place in the bedroom's of the
people”. He delivered that speech more than 30 years ago and the Canadian
government took that recommendation to heart. However I do not see my fellow
countrymen offering their wives to each other.
it is none of my business what my neighbors do. As Muslims say, I am not going
to be buried with them in the same grave. Why you and I should even be talking about it?
look at Islamic countries where state regulates the private lives of its
subjects. Women victims of rape are stoned to death in the most horrendous way
because they could not produce four witnesses to the rape happening but their
sexual intercourse out of wedlock is evident because of the child that they
Is that moral? People are flogged for eating in public during the month of Ramadan. Women
are beaten and bloodied because their scarves slipped and some of their hair
became visible they flashed some skin when they stretched their arm out of their
burqua. Is this a good morality? Which morality is more evil?
We must distinguish between what is immoral and what is
unethical. Moral issues should be left to the individuals; ethical issues
must be taught in schools and be enforced by law or code of ethics. Is
promiscuity immoral or is it unethical? The answer to the first part of
this question depends on who you are. If you belong to the “ultra”
liberal faction of the western society or if you are a practicing Muslim,
it may not be immoral for you to have multiple sex partners. But if you
are an average westerner, you would consider it immoral. This is a matter of
taste, culture and upbringing. We should not be concerned about the
morality of this question. What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is
none of our business. The question is whether it is ethical?
promiscuity is institutionalized such as in polygamy, is it still immoral?
Those who practice it may not think that way but it certainly is
unethical. Marriage is a social institution that affects more than those
who make the vow. Not only children are affected but the whole society
that would eventually have to take the tab to support such families that
turn up to be dysfunctional will also be affected. The society has to pay
for the education of the kids, their food and clothing as well as suffer
the consequences of dealing with misfit individuals that would most likely
result from such dysfunctional and highly patriarchal families. Polygyny
must be outlawed not for its immorality, that as we said is a personal
matter, but because it is unethical. It harms the children and it harms
is moral is fuzzy. Religious morality does not seem ethical any more. And
what we consider to be moral is not so for religions. Polygyny, slavery,
animal sacrifice, marriage with the minors, etc are not immoral in Islam.
But it is immoral for women to travel alone, not wear hijab or enter in an
elevator alone with a stranger.
morality should definitely be left to the individual’s discretion as it
is subject to change. But what is ethical is well defined. Ethical values
are driven from logic and the Golden Rule. They are universal and not
subject to change. In a nutshell, what hurts other people and violates
their rights is unethical. In fact, even animals have rights that an
ethical society must protect and respect.
religious morality is the morality of the ancient man. Patriarchal
societies imposed codes of moralities on women that would give men more
control on their wives. Religious morality is not divinely ordained. It
reflects the fears and the possessiveness of the men who made them. Islam
imposes Hijab. Has this anything to do with Muhammad's worries as an aging
man who wanted to control his beautiful wives and protect them from they
prying eyes of the young men whom he feared as rivals? He constantly kept emphasizing
the importance of obeying one's husband. Did this have anything to do with
the fact that most of his wives were teenagers and as such rebellious?