The danger of radical Islam

[Vajrasattva]

I'm not so sure that "garbage " is the best name to call those that need conversation and perhaps some new,meaningful ways to become aware of how their system is disaffecting the rest of Islam etc...

 

In other words as a supporter of Sufi wisdom isn't it more helpful to get their ear- or are they equally antagonistic towards Sufis, as any other approach to Allah?

 

 

I agree but i mean their ways of dealing with NON MUSLIM & SUFI is GARBAGE.

 

As people and souls they are just as important as good people. But right now these people are HIJACKED.

[Wayfarer64]

My point is that it seems much more sensible for other followers of Islam to address thier (the Wahabbists)misconceptions than any other group could - If we stand up to the hijackers as it were, like those who died in Pennsylvania did on 9/11...We have a chance of avoiding greater harm done in future perhaps...

 

Due to a lack of wisdom or what ever the cause... it seems to be a real fight. I believe that other Muslems have some responsibility to argue philisophical interpretations etc...The hubris of ignorance has held sway too long...

[goldisheavy]

My point is that it seems much more sensible for other followers of Islam to address thier (the Wahabbists)misconceptions than any other group could - If we stand up to the hijackers as it were, like those who died in Pennsylvania did on 9/11...We have a chance of avoiding greater harm done in future perhaps...

 

Due to a lack of wisdom or what ever the cause... it seems to be a real fight. I believe that other Muslems have some responsibility to argue philisophical interpretations etc...The hubris of ignorance has held sway too long...

 

This is an interesting point. I tend to agree with you, although I know a lot of people who think they take no responsibility for other members of the group they belong to.

 

I believe even personal identity can be troublesome, but a group identity is even more so! Group identity comes with a lot of baggage. So if you say "I am a democrat" or "I am a republican" or "I am a Christian" and so forth, you are taking on huge amounts of baggage. And in my opinion, yes, you are responsible for that baggage. If you don't like the baggage that comes with the group identity, either work to clear the group identity, or don't associate with that group. It's that simple.

 

My own attitude is that I can benefit from someone's wise words without subscribing to the group that got started in that person's name. If I like Buddha, why can't I benefit from Buddha's wisdom without calling myself "Buddhist"? If more people did that, I think we'd have more peace. Once the person commits to a group identity, the group identity becomes more important than personal identity. This is why people will often go along with the group, even if they don't personally believe in it, as long as that difference in belief is not too large. And that's how it has to be for groups to remain stable. If anyone departed from the group based on the tiniest disagreement with it, there'd be no groups at all. So group identity necessarily implies some level of ditto-headedness. An intelligent and wise person would know this and would chose the group identity responsibly. So if the group gets blamed for the action of some of its members, there is no dodging this. That's the baggage that you subscribed to, knowingly.

 

The only sucky part is that in some countries if you quit Islam, you can get killed. So this makes it so that the only people who have a free choice in their associations are either the fearless ones or the extremely principled ones.

[Sunya]

Also remember MANY tantric secrets where brought in to Tibet by Atisha from Indonesia (Java).

Are you speaking from books you have read or actual empowerments in to Dzogchen path?

 

Its about the "nature of the mind" (non - Conceptual mind) and the "self Arising with out effort out emptyness."

 

"primordial awareness"

"AH"

wikipedia

 

the great perfection

 

Is no different than

 

"AH" in the "ALLAH"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Allah-eser2.png

Look closely and you will see its NOT THAT DIFFERENT. Their meaning and effect and meditations and understanding are almost identical.

 

 

the same syllable does not mean its the same thing.

they are two completely different concepts, two completely different realizations. rigpa is the natural state of mind... and mind is individual! there is no such thing as an all encompassing intelligence in buddhism, they just don't align.

 

i'm speaking from things i've read (dzogchen is a subject widely published these days) and talked to a bunch of highly realized practitioners. like i said, i'm still trying to decide whether to pursue this path or stick to something more simple like Zen. all the visualizations (preliminaries to Dzogchen) are a bit tedious..

 

and btw -- the whole non-conceptual thing is tricky because thats the main difference between vajrayana and chan/zen. vajrayana requires a grounding in madyamaka philosophy and understanding, there is conceptual understanding necessirary to realize the non-conceptual (kind of ironic and strange i think)

[goldisheavy]

I'm speaking from things i've read (dzogchen is a subject widely published these days) and talked to a bunch of highly realized practitioners. like i said, i'm still trying to decide whether to pursue this path or stick to something more simple like Zen. all the visualizations (preliminaries to Dzogchen) are a bit tedious..

 

If you think Zen is different from Dzogchen, then you are getting a watered down Zen, a castrated Zen and not the Zen of the patriarchs.

 

There is a huge misunderstanding of Zen in the West. Zen is as conceptual as Dzogchen. Just read Dogen, for example. He's highly philosophical and logical. Understanding "the view" is as important in Zen as it is in Dzogchen. Some westerners like to think Zen is just counting your breaths and then "just sitting". That's the clown Zen. Zen is about liquefying your worldview, just as much as the Dzogchen is.

 

and btw -- the whole non-conceptual thing is tricky because thats the main difference between vajrayana and chan/zen. vajrayana requires a grounding in madyamaka philosophy and understanding, there is conceptual understanding necessirary to realize the non-conceptual (kind of ironic and strange i think)

 

It's not strange at all. Do you understand that the meaning of "light" is "not dark"? The meaning of "left" is "opposite of right"? The meaning of "conceptual" is "not non-conceptual" and the meaning of "non-conceptual" is "not conceptual?" In other words, these seemingly polarized notions are whole and one within cognition. When you treat some experience as non-conceptual, it's because you compare it to conceptual! How can you know something is non-conceptual if you don't set it apart from the conceptual? But do you understand that this very "setting apart" process is what conceptuality IS in the first place?

 

See, if you contemplated these issues besides just following along mindlessly, you'd know this intimately. Just think about it. Seriously. Thinking really has an unjustifiably bad reputation in Buddhism. Maybe being part of an "ism" is part of the problem.

[Seth Ananda]

Its funny that there are so many arguments from the Buddhists saying that 'their Enlightenment' is the special different one and yet all the Descriptions of the Dharmakaya state are pretty much the same descriptions as the Yogi's, Sufi's and Mystics the world over.

 

If the Buddhists had the one true enlightenment, wouldn't they have the most powerful masters? They don't. Masters from all traditions do pretty much the same amazing things.

 

I think that the problem comes from Buddha's language. He was so intent on there not being an Atman that when he realised it he used a very convoluted set of ideas to avoid acknowledging a Self.

Including the crazy 'mind streams' argument to avoid the fact of reincarnation of the soul.

In my opinion, Buddha nature is the Self, and so far the descriptions of them are the same.

 

Also Many Buddhists (like master Nan) agree with this. Bodri has written extensively on the Highest enlightenment in all traditions being the same.

 

Seth.

[Vajrasattva]

Its funny that there are so many arguments from the Buddhists saying that 'their Enlightenment' is the special different one and yet all the Descriptions of the Dharmakaya state are pretty much the same descriptions as the Yogi's, Sufi's and Mystics the world over.

 

If the Buddhists had the one true enlightenment, wouldn't they have the most powerful masters? They don't. Masters from all traditions do pretty much the same amazing things.

 

I think that the problem comes from Buddha's language. He was so intent on there not being an Atman that when he realised it he used a very convoluted set of ideas to avoid acknowledging a Self.

Including the crazy 'mind streams' argument to avoid the fact of reincarnation of the soul.

In my opinion, Buddha nature is the Self, and so far the descriptions of them are the same.

 

Also Many Buddhists (like master Nan) agree with this. Bodri has written extensively on the Highest enlightenment in all traditions being the same.

 

Seth.

 

 

Amen brother.

 

 

peace

 

Santiago

[Vajrasattva]

the same syllable does not mean its the same thing.

they are two completely different concepts, two completely different realizations. rigpa is the natural state of mind... and mind is individual! there is no such thing as an all encompassing intelligence in buddhism, they just don't align.

 

i'm speaking from things i've read (dzogchen is a subject widely published these days) and talked to a bunch of highly realized practitioners.

 

 

Mikael,

 

"SELF" realization is the same thing.

 

These things all stem from VERY ancient practices that are "PRE BUDDHIST".

 

Dig deeper and experience more.

 

Its not something you "Intellectualize". Its something you do and experience.

 

i'm speaking from things i've read (dzogchen is a subject widely published these days) and talked to a bunch of highly realized practitioners.

 

I have empowerments & Transmissions from "Highly Realized" :

 

Dalai Lama

Lama Khenpo Yurmed Tinley Rinpoche

Lama Kyemsar

Lama Olse Dorje

Geshe Palden Drakpa

 

Its better to get it from the actual horse's mouth.

 

 

Peace,

 

Santiago

Edited March 20, 2009 by Vajrasattva

[33865_1494798762]

Please watch this documentary film made by a real moderate Muslim who wants to stop the threat of radical Islam:

 

http://blip.tv/file/1382254

 

Wake up and open your eyes.

 

 

The only danger to anything is You, believing in it!

 

You are it!

[rex]

Its funny that there are so many arguments from the Buddhists saying that 'their Enlightenment' is the special different one.

What ism doesn't?

[Sunya]

Edited March 20, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

 

Also Many Buddhists (like master Nan) agree with this. Bodri has written extensively on the Highest enlightenment in all traditions being the same.

 

Seth.

 

thanks for your reply

could you cite a source for that?

I have Best and Worst Spiritual Paths by Bodri and Nan and they say the complete opposite.

[forestofsouls]

I fear I must disagree with you. No-self follows from impermanence like thunder follows lightening. It is not a mistake, it is a cornerstone of the Buddhist way, indeed, a dharma seal.

 

But to illustrate what I mean, let us consider an example. In Zen, you might say there is no river. Clearly, there is a river--- if you step in it, you get wet. But there is no river as a static, unchanging thing--- the river is dynamic, impermanent, etc. You can never step in the same river twice. So it goes with the mind. Zen practitioners sometimes say that when the mind gets caught, and no longer freely flows, this is ignorance.

 

Yet to even say there is a river separate from the bank in which it flows, the clouds which feed it, the earth's gravity which pulls it, the ocean it empties into, without the solar system and the sun, in fact, without the whole fluid, dynamic universe, this is also a mistake.

 

You could of course say the changing, dynamic, interdependent river is in fact the "true river" or the "no river", this would be the same.

 

So I do not think the Buddha was "using a convoluted set of ideas to avoid acknowledging a Self."

 

 

I think that the problem comes from Buddha's language. He was so intent on there not being an Atman that when he realised it he used a very convoluted set of ideas to avoid acknowledging a Self.

Including the crazy 'mind streams' argument to avoid the fact of reincarnation of the soul.

In my opinion, Buddha nature is the Self, and so far the descriptions of them are the same.

 

I asked Shinzen Young why some people say there is a Self and some say there is No-Self. He said that it was because half the old masters realized enlightenment and said there was a True Self. The other half realized enlightenment and said there was no Self. Same thing, different words.

Edited March 20, 2009 by forestofsouls

[Seth Ananda]

the Dalai Lama talking with John F. Avedon, in interview with the Dalai Lama, 63-64, says:

 

"there are two types of "I" or Self: coarser and more subtle. There is the "I" which is designated on the gross mind and body and that which is designated on the subtle mind and energy. When the one is active the other is not. The coarse "I" is designated in dependence on the coarse mind and body. But even when they are not operating, there has to be an "I" designated. That is then designated to the subtle mind and body which are then present. For instance, a highly developed Yogi who is able to manifest a subtler consciousness and at the same time view conventional phenomena, for that person there is an innate sense of "I"- not in the coarser sense, but in a far more subtle sense - designated on the subtle mind and body."

***

JA: What happens to the most subtle energy-mind when a being becomes enlightened?

DL: The "I" of a Buddha, the Self of a Buddha, is this subtle "I".

 

This is exactly the same as what most Yogi's and Mystic's claim. The False self fades slowly away as you see through its Facades (shunyata, Annihilation, the disappearance of the Mystic before god, or as bodri talkes about in his Kabbalah thread, the dissolving into Ain Soph(or something like that, its a while since i read him))

 

Then after Dissolving his ego he enters The true self or Buddah nature, the Dharmakaya. Which is described as pure Luminous being.

 

Funnily enough this is what they all say about it. Only Buddha (God bless his soul) Chose to confuse the Issue with convoluted arguments about how the same thing was not the same thing.

 

Indian Yoga: Brahman the true Self behind all - Described as Luminous Pure Being...

Indian Tantra: Shiva or the Aham... The deepest purest "I" sense, The true Self, Infinite Luminous Being...

European Alchemy and Hermetic science: Anima Mundi, The Soul of the World, Luminous Shining Being...

Sufism: Allah is the Oneness of Being, Infinite and shining behind all...

Kabbalah the same...

Many Shamanic traditions the same...

 

Blessings to all, May all Attain!

Seth

[Wayfarer64]

Has this thread drifted into a crossroads where it indicates that we should bring esoteric Buddhists together with Wahhabists? This would be the place to try. Anyone know any fundamentalist Muslems to bring here for a chat?

[goldisheavy]

[xabir2005]

Edited March 21, 2009 by xabir2005

[rex]

Has this thread drifted into a crossroads where it indicates that we should bring esoteric Buddhists together with Wahhabists? This would be the place to try. Anyone know any fundamentalist Muslems to bring here for a chat?

It has taken an unexpected twist. Moderators would it be possible to split the off topic debate into it's own thread? Edited March 21, 2009 by rex

[Pero]

Its better to get it from the actual horse's mouth.

 

That's the best advice, considering that apparently some of the people here who heard the horse's language misunderstood it to be the elephant's.

[Seth Ananda]

wow Xabir2005, thanks for going to all that effort to reply.

 

I am not really sure how to answer so many points without writing a thesis, but I can't help feeling that you did exactly what I was talking about here. You wrote many clever words without simply looking at the simple shared reality described by so many traditions.

 

You did of course look at the reality but from where? Certainly not from the simple shared experience...

 

It doesn't matter how different the way in is. It doesn't even matter what the traditions particular perspective is compared to another's (I believe) as long as it can get you there.

 

The simple fact is that They all describe the same State at the high levels. Did you not read the Dalai Lama's description of the true self?

That is what they all describe.

You can talk all day about dependent origination and emptiness, but anyone in the Dharmakaya state is in the same true self as anyone else experiencing the Self.

 

The Self in Kashmir Shavism for Instance is not seen as some witness, but is experienced as Pure consciousness that contains the world and thoughts, and also is them at the same time, while also being pure empty freedom at the same time as well. It completely Includes everything we can see or experience in this world and goes way past it as well.

Its All you at once in happy play.

 

Seth

[Desert Eagle]

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

 

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

 

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

[Zenshiite]

Sorry to resurrect another thread, I had done a search for that Ramadan thread I awoke from the dead because I saw it a couple weeks ago before I figured out how to log on... in the search I saw this one.

 

First things first, let's say out right that Wahhabism/Salafism is a deviant sect of Islam that, while considering themselves to be quite orthodox, are in fact extremely heterodox. Even their beliefs about God run in contradiction to traditional Islam... namely, attributing a corporeal form to God. The also work pretty hard to distort the meaning of the Qur'an and hadith to suit their own ends. Also, I notice some contributors to this thread and others have a curious hostility to the hadith books, and to their own misunderstandings of Shariah, that is undoubtably rooted in a pretty huge ignorance of hadith and the science of hadith. Hadith are not, and never were meant to be, a completely "canonical" or flawless collection of the sayings of the Prophet(and in Shi'ism the Imams of his family as well). Certain scholars collected as many sayings as they could, then they developed a process of verification based on the reliability of the people said to have passed the story on. A complete hadith will usually have a long chain of narrators who transmitted the story. So and so, heard from so and so, that so and so was told by the Prophet this "...." If a person in that chain is considered to have had a bad reputation, the hadith is thrown out. The hadith is also to be thrown out if it directly contradicts the Qur'an.

 

Also, the Shariah, the Shariah is something that took centuries to develop and it is continuing to develop. Sunnism is in a curious position with this because they have said the gates to ijtihad are closed with the founders of their four madhabs(schools) of law... Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi'i and Maliki. Though there are those agitating for a return to ijtihad. Shi'a scholars still practice ijtihad in the main, which is why you'll find rulings amongst Shi'a scholars that abortions can be permissible under certain circumstances, and even the most vilified of Shi'a scholars in recent decades Ayatullah Khomeini issues his ruling(or juristic opinion) that sex change operations are permissible. Ijtihad, however, was never fully open to the vast majority of Muslims simply because it was something that was based upon religious knowledge specifically and isn't supposed to be done just at your own whim but with specific knowledge about the topic at hand. There are, unfortunately, some cases where the Shariah as conceived by fallible minds contradicts the Qur'an... for instance, stoning adulterers. The Qur'an doesn't distinguish between adultery and fornication, it uses the same word: zina. The prescribed punishment for zina is 100 public lashings. And even then there was some stipulation that it shouldn't mutilate or even really leave marks. It's a public humiliation for a crime that is considered quite destructive to society. It's also the only sin/crime for which mercy is not supposed to come into play. Execution is mandated for murder, but the family of the murdered is encouraged to forgive "for it is better if you but knew." As for apostasy, that has some specific conditions in relation to the person that was born into a Muslim family or a person who converted to Islam... but it also is intimately tied up with the status of the early Muslim community in Arabia and the challenges they faced where the apostate was usually switching to the other team and informing on the Muslims. It wasn't just that they left the religion(after all, the chapter in the Qur'an called "the Unbelievers(al-Kafirun)" says specifically "I will not worship what you worship, nor will you worship Who I worship. To you your religion, and to me mine") it was about literal betrayal of the community in time of war when the Muslims were quite literally being oppressed by the polytheists of Arabia. I don't think there's any religion where parents are too keen on their kids changing religions, heck my parents weren't even big Bible or church buffs but they still aren't comfortable with my conversion to Islam 10 years on. The same is true in Muslim countries, and I can't recall the last time I heard anything about anyone being executed for apostasy in any country but perhaps Afghanistan under the Taliban. Not even in the much maligned Iran, or the far worse Saudi Arabia.

 

Sufism. Sufism is considered to be the heart of Islamic tradition. Where Sufis are vilified, it's usually in relation to anti-nomian "Sufis" who openly flout Islamic norms and there-by violate the very foundations of Sufism itself in the esoteric and exoteric teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and Imam 'Ali. They quite literally undermine their own practice when they don't stick with the foundational practices. Which brings me to the so-called "Universal Sufi Order." Inayat Khan was, simply put, mistaken in identifying Sufism or tasawwuf as being something universal. It's not. It cannot be. It was formed in the crucible of Islamic teaching by people steeped in Islamic teaching and daily life. Sufism's aim is toward the esoteric truth that all seekers aspire towards, but it's not the esoteric truth. And I think that's what you'd have to believe in order to make "Sufism/tasawwuf" out to be "universal." Sufism is not the same as Taoist esotericism, nor is it the same as Hindu or Buddhist or Christian or Jewish esotericism. It is unique to Islam and its practices are based upon Islam and the exoteric teachings of Islam. You cannot be said to be a Sufi and not also be a practicing Muslim, anymore than you can be a Dominican monk and not be a Catholic. Or a Shaolin monk and not be a Buddhist, or a Wudang priest and not a Taoist. Sufism without Islam is no different than New Age-ism.

 

Back to the thing about Wahhabis/Salafis. I think Muslims need to confront their deviant take on Islam, but I don't think it will be done peacefully. Not on the whole, at any rate. There are those who will be reached intellectually and with better proofs than their "scholars" offer them; but there are some that are just so set in their way or brainwashed that they can't be react violently. And they will need to be fought, because they are spreading injustice in the world as equally as are those they've declared their enemies. Unfortunately, Wahhabism is backed by Saudi Arabia's oil dollars and they've pretty much flooded the market in the Muslim diaspora for books and what not. They are the shoddiest materials I've ever seen in my life, but then again... their main audience are the disaffected in American and European ghettos. Which is what really comes down to the real root of the so-called "radical Islam" problem. Injustice and iniquity. Wahhabism, like Christian and Jewish fundamentalism, is a modern reaction to the modern world and it's message resonates with those who feel or are slighted, poor, and oppressed. Be they feeling the oppression and exploitation that has come hand-in-hand with European and American colonialism, imperialism and neo-colonialism; or at the hands of their own countries' dictators who are backed by American and European money. This is especially true in the case of resistance movements and terrorist groups rallied under the banner of Islam. What are they saying that their beef is? Most of them are saying "it's because you stole our land and are oppressing our people or are supporting the oppressors of our people." Most are not saying "we hate you because your religion is different from ours." Also "radical Islam" is no more a monolith than Islam itself is. Hamas and Hizbullah, for instance, =/= al-Qai'da. If you want to solve that problem, then you remedy the circumstances that make people want to take up arms to fight against what they feel is threatening them. The US and Europe need to deal as harshly with Israel as they do with the Palestinians and Lebanese, because they can't be an honest broker otherwise and there will never be justice, and therefore peace, in the Middle East. That's just one key issue.

 

Peace,

Dawud

[Apech]

Thank you for this excellent analysis.

 

I like this:

 

If you want to solve that problem, then you remedy the circumstances that make people want to take up arms to fight against what they feel is threatening them. The US and Europe need to deal as harshly with Israel as they do with the Palestinians and Lebanese, because they can't be an honest broker otherwise and there will never be justice, and therefore peace, in the Middle East. That's just one key issue.

[NeiChuan]

That is pretty much right.. Its not that you have to fight against "Radicalists" its that you fight against the idea of effecting others in a negative fashion with your arrogant ideas.

 

Like alotta've people in the face of religion dont like to present what they think because fear of scrutiny. Although it does leave everything out in the open if you do..

 

Just really bothers me when people go blowing themselves up or going to townhalls and dont have the best reason - Being the reason they came up with it themselves and for them (Not that blowing up is a + idea) also they keep thinking that when there gone planet wont still be here.. Its going to be here for ALONG time..

 

I guess what im saying is - If you dont like the team that much get outta've the stadium.

Edited September 17, 2009 by NeiChuan

[Zenshiite]

That is pretty much right.. Its not that you have to fight against "Radicalists" its that you fight against the idea of effecting others in a negative fashion with your arrogant ideas.

 

Like alotta've people in the face of religion dont like to present what they think because fear of scrutiny. Although it does leave everything out in the open if you do..

 

Just really bothers me when people go blowing themselves up or going to townhalls and dont have the best reason - Being the reason they came up with it themselves and for them (Not that blowing up is a + idea) also they keep thinking that when there gone planet wont still be here.. Its going to be here for ALONG time..

 

I guess what im saying is - If you dont like the team that much get outta've the stadium.

 

Historically speaking, the only group that's ever used suicide bombing in any way that I don't find morally reprehensible and even potentially justifiable under Islamic law is Hizbullah. They've always targeted military convoys or the like, specifically those on their land. I've never read of Hizbullah using that tactic in any other way. They've never sent anyone into a pizza parlor, for instance. Suicide bombing is the poor man's guided ballistic missile in some ways, and when it's used, not in an indiscriminate manner, but in a highly discriminate manner to target civilian people in civilian places it is reprehensible. When it's used in a discriminate manner to target the military forces that have invaded your home and whose guns are targeted at you and your children, it's a bit of a different story. And, of course, we shouldn't limit our understanding to this tactic being used only by Muslim fighters. It's a tactic that was, to my understanding, innovated by the Tamil Tigers.

 

The fact is, radicalism in all its forms is merely a symptom of the deep spiritual malaise that our world is experiencing. The question really isn't one about "modernizing" or anything like that, in fact I'd say that modernizing is probably going to only make the situation worse. It's also not a matter of one side forcing upon the other it's vision for the other... that's a major problem with those in the West especially. We tend to cop a smug attitude about our own superiority, and it's an attitude that isn't warranted. It's like this notion that women covering their hair and bodies in public is a bad thing, what is demonstrably wrong with this practice? Why would you want to encourage women to abandon their traditional modesty? If your objection is fathers, husbands or brothers actually forcing this on their wives, daughters, mothers and sisters... well, you should realize that this is not the reality for the vast majority of Muslim women that do cover their hair. Many of them wish to remain devoted to God by adopting the modest dress mentioned in the Qur'an and the template of the most prominent of Muslim women. I find it odd that many people in the west take issue with hijab so much but don't have any problems with a nun's habit. You've got to wonder about the real motivations here, and whether or not that's simply a manifestation of a culture where-in most people don't have a public religious life anymore and it's "supposed" to be relegated to enclose structures like convents and monasteries. That's not at all the reality for Muslims, nor indeed many other religions in the world, where certain elements of Islamic practice are regarded as social responsibility. Hijab is one of them, and men also have hijab standards they have to meet. Both parties are enjoined to lower their gaze from the opposite sex, as well.

 

It's truly mind boggling the arrogance that is assumed by people in the West when it comes to Islam especially. It's indicative of the imperialist tendencies still rife in our culture.