Ms Schmidt, you propose a false dichotomy with biased terminology intended to elevate your moral and intellectual position.

'Free vs oppressive system' is such an example. As I have mentioned elsewhere here on the Fray, true "freedom" is beyond human reach- it is a utopic ideal. It would arguably be more accurate to call the matter of wearing clothing a 'liberty'. Calling a 'liberty' a "freedom" is a misleading misnomer born of ideological rhetoric.

In reality, there are consequences for every action, or inaction. Life is the consequence in which all the living are enslaved to continual chains of consequences for action and inaction, both with positive and negative outcomes. Humans have struggled with the burden of this weight since the beginning. And mankind has turned for guidance to deal with the burden of this life to their Creator.

Islam is the last response of the Creator to mankind in which He provided the systems by which mankind can organize and govern his/her affairs in order to maintain peace, justice, purity of the human being, relieving much of the burden of life in which mankind otherwise suffers oppression, conflict, degradation.

The Western world, if you will, never experienced or adopted Islam. In fact one could say the Western world inhibited and obstructed the awareness and message of Islam. Instead, the Western World struggled with Christianity. Because of the inherit doctrinal conflicts with reality, Christianity and the Christian conceptualization of revelation, of God, of God's system for mankind, the West determined a compromise. Instead of asking whether there was a Creator to whom mankind should submit or not, the compromise would be: whether there is a Creator or not, mankind will determine his own system for governance and public affairs. All matters pertaining to the Creator would be relegated to individual and private matters.

On this basis, the Western world designated 'the people' as the sovereign and authority. And 'the people' essentially are empowered to determine their affairs as they like, including wearing whichever clothing or lack of clothing they so choose. In America, the matter of attire is delegated to lower municipalities to determine. And each municipality is essentially empowered to make its own regulations regarding attire, though within state and federal constitutional principles. Here in Florida, there have been efforts by women in Daytona to be topless in public and on their own property. However, this was rejected by the judicial branch based on the recognized right of the municipality to enforce a standard of 'decency' based on the moral code of the public.

Islam does not adopt this compromise. Islam recognizes that there is a Creator and the Creator provides mankind with systems by which to govern his/her society's affairs. And no man or woman, or collective of men and women, can overrule or supercede the Creator as the sovereign Legislator. Islam does recognize the authority rests with the people, as well, the people have the authority to interpret the text of the revelation of the Creator and to determine administrative and regulatory methods to implement the Creator's legislation.

Essentially, the matter is no human is truly "free". True "freedom" escapes all of us. And every individual is confined to be merely an element of a larger set, a child within a family, a nieghbor within a neighborhood, an employee within a profession, an individual within a society.

In an effort to device its own system, the Western world chose to make the individual the center of the society and around which the systems of the society would be designed.

Thus, the individual's right supercedes the custom of the family. As well, the individual's choice of dress also supercedes the 'honor' and authority of the family. In fact, the family has no authority or right over the individual.

Islam recognizes the individual NOT as the center of the society, but as a component of the society who shares rights within the family; and the family is the critical pillar of the society.

'Free vs oppressive system' is such an example. As I have mentioned elsewhere here on the Fray, true "freedom" is beyond human reach- it is a utopic ideal. It would arguably be more accurate to call the matter of wearing clothing a 'liberty'. Calling a 'liberty' a "freedom" is a misleading misnomer born of ideological rhetoric.

In reality, there are consequences for every action, or inaction. Life is the consequence in which all the living are enslaved to continual chains of consequences for action and inaction, both with positive and negative outcomes. Humans have struggled with the burden of this weight since the beginning. And mankind has turned for guidance to deal with the burden of this life to their Creator.

Islam is the last response of the Creator to mankind in which He provided the systems by which mankind can organize and govern his/her affairs in order to maintain peace, justice, purity of the human being, relieving much of the burden of life in which mankind otherwise suffers oppression, conflict, degradation.

The Western world, if you will, never experienced or adopted Islam. In fact one could say the Western world inhibited and obstructed the awareness and message of Islam. Instead, the Western World struggled with Christianity. Because of the inherit doctrinal conflicts with reality, Christianity and the Christian conceptualization of revelation, of God, of God's system for mankind, the West determined a compromise. Instead of asking whether there was a Creator to whom mankind should submit or not, the compromise would be: whether there is a Creator or not, mankind will determine his own system for governance and public affairs. All matters pertaining to the Creator would be relegated to individual and private matters.

On this basis, the Western world designated 'the people' as the sovereign and authority. And 'the people' essentially are empowered to determine their affairs as they like, including wearing whichever clothing or lack of clothing they so choose. In America, the matter of attire is delegated to lower municipalities to determine. And each municipality is essentially empowered to make its own regulations regarding attire, though within state and federal constitutional principles. Here in Florida, there have been efforts by women in Daytona to be topless in public and on their own property. However, this was rejected by the judicial branch based on the recognized right of the municipality to enforce a standard of 'decency' based on the moral code of the public.

Islam does not adopt this compromise. Islam recognizes that there is a Creator and the Creator provides mankind with systems by which to govern his/her society's affairs. And no man or woman, or collective of men and women, can overrule or supercede the Creator as the sovereign Legislator. Islam does recognize the authority rests with the people, as well, the people have the authority to interpret the text of the revelation of the Creator and to determine administrative and regulatory methods to implement the Creator's legislation.

Essentially, the matter is no human is truly "free". True "freedom" escapes all of us. And every individual is confined to be merely an element of a larger set, a child within a family, a nieghbor within a neighborhood, an employee within a profession, an individual within a society.

In an effort to device its own system, the Western world chose to make the individual the center of the society and around which the systems of the society would be designed.

Thus, the individual's right supercedes the custom of the family. As well, the individual's choice of dress also supercedes the 'honor' and authority of the family. In fact, the family has no authority or right over the individual.

Islam recognizes the individual NOT as the center of the society, but as a component of the society who shares rights within the family; and the family is the critical pillar of the society.