You are still making this connection of Islam and oppression of women, though.

sigh... this is a discussion about full-face veils! I thought we agreed that they were indeed a symptom of oppression of women in many cases...

I am very clear in my own mind that Islam does not require the oppression of women (if that were not the case, I would be in the uncomfortable position of finding myself intellectually obliged to be against Islam).

The fact that there is no scriptural requirement for women to cover themselves, and that the whole tradition of veiling women arises from an anecdote about the Prophet's close family, does not affect the fact that, for most Muslims, the veil in some form is an obligation for women.

Opinion in Muslim countries as to what is appropriate modest attire is very interesting, and quite variable (did you see the recent Pew study?). It closely models the political situation, and degree of freedom for women, of each country surveyed.

It is a sad fact that those who insist on veiling their women most strictly are those who wish to adhere to the tribal morals of the pre-Islamic society from which the Prophet emerged. These are reactionary morals by any standard -- I am not talking about any imposed "western" morals, but of the evolution of societies where Islam is the dominant religion.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}

Okay. You are still making this connection of [Really Existing] Islam and oppression of women, though.

I'm also making the connection of (Really Existing) Christianity and oppression of women. And (Really Existing) Communism and oppression of homosexuals. And (Really Existing) Capitalism and oppression of, well damn near everybody.

This is controversial how?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

What evidence there is is almost exclusively limited to the West and its cultural exports.

So far as I can tell the idea hasn't even existed in most cultures for most of history - which, let's remember, were far more likely to be practicing more or less overt forms of slavery and viewing aristocracy and hierarchy as divine, and using that as a template for political and personal relationship.

If you look for it in Greece, India, Rome, China, Egypt, or others, you're not going to find much evidence for it - which makes it an unlikely kind of universal.

More, you're going to have a hard time finding evidence that women demanded it. You could use this as evidence of Stockholm Syndrome, and you might be right.

But evidence is evidence, and if you're looking for universals, it simply isn't one.

(And the idea of "forcibly liberating" slaves is a bit of a stretch. The only "forcible" aspect is the violation of the property rights of the owners.)

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}