>> ^jwray:
This is a one-sided propaganda video

Calling this a propaganda video is taking a bit far, its explaining the choices of some muslim women who choose to wear the hijab in the Western world, its not the videos fault when it doesn't answer all your questions about one religion or the other.

Its not required by Islam to wear a hijab, it is mainly traditional and social based phenomena mostly caused by spread of Wahhabi Islam of Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan is a Islamic nation but we do not follow the Sharia nor do our women wear the hijab.

If people have such a problem with extremist Islam why not start at the source called Saudi Arabia which imposes a strict interpretation of Islam used as a political tool of control and influence by the Royal Family against their own population.

But of course that won't ever happen, the oil is too important.

The arguments sound like Scientology and hard core Evangelism.

"if you're a Muslim woman you really -should- wear the hijab".

translation:

if you're a Muslim woman you -will- do what you're told and you -will- wear the hijab or else you'll be endlessly harrassed by zealots who are more than willing to relentlessly inflict their twisted view of reality on your til you cave in, see the light, and conform.

Of course it's your choice.

Im pretty sure the Koran doesnt demand women to wear hijab or burkas. Its more of a tradition imposed so that a wife wont be seen by other men and so that the men wont be turned on. Something like that...

This is a one-sided propaganda video that neglects to interview anybody in more conservative regions where Hijab is required by law, and neglects to interview muslims who have chosen not to wear the hijab about the reactions of their families and societies.

If you don't look at what happens to women when they choose to stop wearing the hijab, then saying the hijab is a free choice is unfalsifiable (like saying the unicorn repellant is working).

Though I disagree with most of these ladies' reasons for wearing hijabs, I respect their right to wear them if that's what they really want. As long as it's not being forced upon them in any way, either directly or indirectly, then let them freely express their religious beliefs through their personal garb.

I still see the hijab as a symbol of patriarchy, but then Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have always been patriarchal faiths. Just one more reason that religion is not my bag.

The curious thing to me, is that even with the girls who wear the hijab here in the Kuwait, they wear the hijab yes but then wear tight fitting clothes that leave nothing to the imagination coupled with copious amounts of make up.

This is true even with most who do not wear the hijab, they really have no sense of fashion or good taste. I find it a curio living here in Kuwait. Maybe they need time to find their own style.

The government stance is liberal here in Kuwait, there is no social religious enforcement bar, however this is not reflected in the political process where some Salafist MPs constantly try to impose wearing the hijab to female ministers because frankly they have no better political ideas to work off.

It's good to be different. This makes me look like every other follower of Islam. And that's different. What?

I want to hear from a girl who stopped wearing the Hijab. How did her family react? How did her peers react? The fact that this is so one-sided makes me question it.

Oh, and how about you stop wearing make-up if it's supposed to be about removing distractions?

I just love the denial filled responses here. There is a lot of focus on how wearing the hijab makes you different and unique and how that is a great thing. Well that only works in a westernized country. What about back in there native countries? The hijab is the norm so using their logic that it is "good to be different" they should NOT wear the hijab when in an environment were that does not make them stand out as being "different".

They also talk about how "men don't force them" to wear the hijab. Really? Just because you think you are choosing to do what they would force you to do otherwise doesn't remove that element from the equation. Tell us what your family and the men of your religion would do if you stopped wearing the hijab and started wearing western style clothes. If the "men don't force them" then it should not be an issue right?

And as usual...it always comes back to us oversexed horn-dog males who can't focus on anything accept sex if we know there is a female near by.

Finally...if all these reasons for the hijab are valid...why only for women? Why are they also not as valid for the men?

>> ^laura:
>> ^Pprt:
To clarify, the individuals subject to scrutiny were placed into an completely artificial environment where the desired outcome of their behaviour was decidedly engineered. I have no doubt that the clerk actively incited participation from bystanders.
^ of course he did, however...I would point out that the customers' reactions were not necessarily engineered. For example, I don't care how artificial of an environment I am in, I will still act like myself.

Compare this to an Asch paradigm where the control doesn't exist and the ratio matches up perfectly.

To claim that this is "How Muslims Are Treated In [sic] USA" is patently ludicrous. The only fair assessment would be a hidden camera tracking a hijab-clad woman going about daily tasks.
^ I don't think anyone here claimed this was an awesome scientific/social experiment. Entertaining demonstration/exhibition of various reactions to the "elephant in the room" is what is inherent.
It seems that the fact that all we saw was a well-rehearsed performance by professional actors went over everyone's head. If there's one thing people can't get enough of it's righteous indignation.

^again, I will say that the customers do not appear to be actors, and I don't think that anyone here missed the fact that the woman and the clerk WERE actors. Your suggestion that a fair assesment would be a hidden camera tracking a hijab-clad woman going about daily tasks is excellent should anyone wish to follow through with a scientific experiment. I believe for some reason that this was never meant to be passed off as such, and rather more of what I stated above.


The customers were indeed subjects, and social behaviour is indeed defined by one's company.

My offense is that this is certainly not an accurate depiction of "How Muslims Are Treated In The USA" (by the way, thank you for editing the title Farhad2000).

Muslims are free to practicce their faith, minarets dot the landscapes of Washington and many American cities, laws were enacted prohibiting discriminatory practices and Muslims currently enjoy a priviledged status regarding their religion in the public space.

Farhad2000, that debate is entirely unrelated to the video posting and its reticulum is far too wide for superficial rebuttal... I'm not sure it's proper to broach such complex matter considering the raison d'etre of this video posting. Suffice to say that if you are suggesting Islam is devoid of militarism you either ill-informed, oblivious or a seasoned Taqqiya expert.

In my esteem, any religion that encompasses a penal code (jurisprudence), financial regulations, actively censures opposition, legiferates all spheres of life (public and private) must be judged in toto as a political entity as well as a faith. As such, the drive of maintaining a parallel political system for a certain strata of society is indeed indicative of a "threat" to many Western nations.

>> ^Pprt:
To clarify, the individuals subject to scrutiny were placed into an completely artificial environment where the desired outcome of their behaviour was decidedly engineered. I have no doubt that the clerk actively incited participation from bystanders.

^ of course he did, however...I would point out that the customers' reactions were not necessarily engineered. For example, I don't care how artificial of an environment I am in, I will still act like myself.


Compare this to an Asch paradigm where the control doesn't exist and the ratio matches up perfectly.


To claim that this is "How Muslims Are Treated In [sic] USA" is patently ludicrous. The only fair assessment would be a hidden camera tracking a hijab-clad woman going about daily tasks.

^ I don't think anyone here claimed this was an awesome scientific/social experiment. Entertaining demonstration/exhibition of various reactions to the "elephant in the room" is what is inherent.

It seems that the fact that all we saw was a well-rehearsed performance by professional actors went over everyone's head. If there's one thing people can't get enough of it's righteous indignation.

^again, I will say that the customers do not appear to be actors, and I don't think that anyone here missed the fact that the woman and the clerk WERE actors. Your suggestion that a fair assesment would be a hidden camera tracking a hijab-clad woman going about daily tasks is excellent should anyone wish to follow through with a scientific experiment. I believe for some reason that this was never meant to be passed off as such, and rather more of what I stated above.

To clarify, the individuals subject to scrutiny were placed into an completely artificial environment where the desired outcome of their behaviour was decidedly engineered. I have no doubt that the clerk actively incited participation from bystanders.

Compare this to an Asch paradigm where the control doesn't exist and the ratio matches up perfectly.

To claim that this is "How Muslims Are Treated In [sic] USA" is patently ludicrous. The only fair assessment would be a hidden camera tracking a hijab-clad woman going about daily tasks.

It seems that the fact that all we saw was a well-rehearsed performance by professional actors went over everyone's head. If there's one thing people can't get enough of it's righteous indignation.

FWIW, and I'm no scholar of Islam, I do remember reading that the Koran enumerates something like 10 powers of sexuality and, according to this enumeration, women possess something like 7 of them. Apparently, the hijabs and birqas are Islam's way of leveling the powers so that the genders can relate with one another with more equality. A very different way of thinking from the West, to be sure, but I think this is rarely appreciated or understood in the West.

My goodness. Can't believe we actually have to DEFEND evolution...

By now (now as in modern living with heat-proof spatulas, extra absorbent paper towels, pools with chlorine, electric powered lawn-mowers etc etc) I would've thought scientific teachings would be a common knowledge.

But apparently we still live in 19th century and appalled by the idea that we're somehow related to apes. In fact, why don't we revert everything back to the 19th century?

Forget the sports bras, make women dress up in corsets and layers upon layers of clothing to hide all their skin except the hands and face! (European hijab!), throw away the modern medicine and surgical technology and go back to the good ol' leeches and skull-crackin' iron tools with questionable sanitation.

Ehbolooshun? Bahumbug! That Darwin boy sure is a tardy old fool!

Man related to Monkeys? The nerve! *scoffs*

Agreed, there no excuse for taking away the freedom of certain women with things like forced marriage and forced hijab. Believing something is moral or immoral doesn't make it so. That is the bankruptcy of moral relativism. Is anybody suprised to hear this from an atheist?

Tofumar, I think you're veering off from the main argument.

What you're arguing now is 'you don't have enough knowledge to defend my culture', which is a totally different ballpark. And I got no opinion on that.

For the record, I support GoogTube's 'Stance'. Who are we to tell them how to do things in their home? In fact, that's the attitude we Americans have that makes us the most hated country in the world.

We all have different idea of how to do things. I mean, I think dog eating is wrong, but when your country has been colonized and and your family is starving, who am I to say 'Ay, dogs are a man's best friend!' to their face?

Plus, it's the friggin desert. You Americans every been to the middle east? The sun is friggin hot. You gotta cover up or otherwise you'll dehydrate. There's a reason why both women AND men wear long thin fabrics to cover their entire body to maximize airflow and minimize exposure to sun.

It's an old tradition stemming from practicality. They didn't invent the hijab just to make women miserable. Yeah, they've urbanized rapidly, especially after World War 2. So it may not fit your urban lifestyle. But saying hijab is some device of the devil created 'just' to hinder women's lifestyle is just stupid.

Your concept of beauty also comes into play here. Women of Asia find pale skin beautiful. Obviously you've seen girls of Asia with umbrellas in sunshiny days. They don't want tans, they wanna stay pale. But what do you do when you're in the desert and the sun is always shiny? You wear a hijab to not get tanned.

Over time it no longer became a choice to wear hijab, but obligatory to wear one. Yea, that's fucked up, and that kind of oppressive society should change since middle east now has a pretty strong economy, and is no longer in need of such harsh ways to govern themselves. But again, wearing hijab itself isn't a sin, especially when you're out in the sun.