Lap dancing has become a part of British working life, a campaign group Female supervisors more likely to be sexually harassed at workplace

Lap dancing has become a part of British working life, a campaign group

What next: Lap dancing, at workplaces?

has said.

According to The Fawcett Society, which campaigns for women’s rights, companies in the UK are turning a blind eye to the use of sex clubs by workers.

The group found that some firms knowingly authorise the use of staff expenses for entertaining clients in lap dancing and strip clubs, reports The Telegraph.

After studying lap dancing clubs’ websites and contacting them directly to ask about their work with corporate clients, Fawcett researchers identified more than 300 such clubs in the UK.

Some 41 per cent of UK lap dancing clubs directly target employers through marketing on their websites, the researchers found.

Kat Banyard, the Fawcett Society researcher who wrote the report, described the sex industry as “a major threat to women’s equality at work”.

She said: “The sex industry is increasingly targeting the corporate market, with lap dancing clubs marketing themselves as ideal venues to host meetings and client entertaining. Yet lap dancing clubs are a form of commercial sexual exploitation and fuel sexist attitudes towards women. Their use in a work context discriminates against female employees and undermines women’s status at work.

A large number of workingwomen have ditched power dressing for tighter clothes with plunging necklines, but such skin show actually does more

A study into "breast habits" by US experts suggests that revealing clothes actually put off males colleagues, and even take a toll on a woman's career prospects.

They found that many working women were swapping their power-suits for more feminine, form-fitting clothes, such as scoop-neck tops and V-neck jumpers teamed with skirts.

American author Elisabeth Squires, nicknamed "The Boob Lady" on US TV, has commissioned the study.

Women who hold supervisory positions are more susceptible to workplace sexual harassment, according to a new

Female supervisors more likely to be sexually harassed at workplace

During the study, nearly 50 percent of women supervisors, but only one-third of women who do not supervise others, reported sexual harassment in the workplace.

In more conservative models with stringent statistical controls, women supervisors were 137 percent more likely to be sexually harassed than women who did not hold managerial roles.

While supervisory status increased the likelihood of harassment among women, it did not significantly impact the likelihood for men, the study found.

"This study provides the strongest evidence to date supporting the theory that sexual harassment is less about sexual desire than about control and domination," said Heather McLaughlin, a sociologist at the University of Minnesota and the study''s primary investigator.

"Male co-workers, clients and supervisors seem to be using harassment as an equalizer against women in power," McLaughlin added.

The researchers examined data from the 2003 and 2004 waves of the Youth Development Study (YDS), a prospective study of adolescents that began in 1988 with a sample of 1,010 ninth graders in the St. Paul, Minnesota, public school district and has continued near annually since.

Respondents were approximately 29 and 30 years old during the 2003 and 2004 waves. The analysis was supplemented with in-depth interviews with a subset of the YDS survey respondents.

The sociologists found that, in addition to workplace power, gender expression was a strong predictor of workplace harassment.

Men who reported higher levels of femininity were more likely to have experienced harassment than less feminine men.

More feminine men were at a greater risk of experiencing more severe or multiple forms of sexual harassment (as were female supervisors).

In a separate analysis examining perceived and self-reported sexual orientation, study respondents who reported being labelled as non-heterosexual by others or who self-identified as non-heterosexual (gay, lesbian, bisexual, unsure, other) were nearly twice as likely to experience harassment.

Researchers also found that those who reported harassment in the first year (2003) were 6.5 times more likely to experience harassment in the following year.

The most common scenario reported by survey respondents involved male harassers and female targets, while males harassing other males was the second most frequent situation.

"Breasts are getting bigger but clothes seem to be getting smaller, especially in the workplace," the Daily Express quoted Squires, author of Boobs: A Guide To Your Girls , as saying.

"A layered style of tight shirts seems to be a major fashion trend fuelled by a look that is very popular in European offices. But what looks great on a 20-something female can look ridiculous on a 40-year-old," she added.

The researchers found that displaying too much flesh in the office could be distracting, and even damage a woman's career.

Men who participated in the study were shown photographs of women in a generic workplace in various outfits, and with different bra sizes.

When asked which of the women looked the most professional and personable, most men picked out "dis creetly dressed" women with "medium-sized breasts".

According to Squires, showing a small amount of cleavage is OK for some women with good figures, and can help propel their careers.

"To look really great in this kind of ''showy'' clothing, you have to have an almost perfect figure. But let's face it, most of us don't," she said.

"Walk around any public place and you will see women with the tell-tale muffin top spilling over too-tight pants and a low-cut top.

"And even for those with perfect figures, there is a question of when to use breast power. But the appearance of a small amount of breast can look really great," she added.

However, Squires warned that no woman should allow herself to "be defined" by her breasts

She added: “For too long, employers have engaged with the sex industry without due regard for the impact on female employees, and have failed to prevent the illicit use of the sex industry by employees in a work context.”

Spirituality is me! not you Rosmah, you snatch him from his first wife you terminated me

this to readmoreCan Najib dismisses Bala’s claims on his sms to SHAFEE ABDULLAH FIXING judge to buttress the evidence.: FIXING BAGINDA’S FREEDOM piritual break, just delve within. Spirituality is all about creating a better version of ourselves, finds Spirituality is me PART 1 Najib to anwar you are finish “The judge tried to buttress the evidence.SHAFEE ABDULLAH: FIXING ANWAR IBRAHIM Anuradha Varma A Bangalore team leader, who couldn’t get along with a ‘defiant’ colleague, realised after some introspection that it was his own insecurity that fuelled the bad vibes. A mother considered her younger son worthless, till she realised that she had transferred her own perception of her errant ex-husband on to him 1 Was rosmah najib's tealady when he was Their problems were not solved on a psychologist’s couch but by acquiring ‘spiritual intelligence’. Says Sri Latha, from Oneness University, “Spirituality means coming in touch with your inner truth, becoming conscious of what you truly are. Spiritual intelligence leads to emotional intelligence, which makes you a happier person.” She recommends, “We tend to block and escape emotional disturbances. Pay attention to your discomfort, probe deeper and change your own perception of the world around you.” As spirituality doubles up as pop psychology, in an “I, me, myself” world, we seem to have evolved to seeking a higher self. Says Los Angeles-based yoga guru Bikram Choudhury, “Yes, I’m the most important person for myself. If I die tomorrow, everything ceases to matter. Self-realisation is God-realisation. Spirituality is about creating a road between your mind and your own atma or soul. Spiritualism is all about learning to connect with your own spirit.” WHY NAJIB FALL FOR ROSMAH?WAS IT FOR HER He adds, “Spirituality and God are two different things. God is a concept, which makes you fear the consequences of your actions. It’s your mind that can make you Jesus or Hitler. Control the mind.” A spiritual moment can come from watching a sunset, from a job well done or being part of any creative process. A spiritual person is one who has managed to achieve calm in the face of crisis and chaos, being more accepting and less judgemental about people around. Explains spiritual guru Rudrabhayananda, “Spirituality is a quest for knowing the self as once that is known, it allows one to seek the universal self, which is the pure, eternal truth.” As Sri Latha says, “Even an atheist can be spiritual.” Radhanath Swami, author of the book, The Journey Home and an American who came to India as a teen, puts it, “There are different levels of spirituality. Buddha did not refer to God, he stressed on life principles. The soul is indestructible. To understand our eternal essence is to find ourselves.” As for the Bangalore team leader, he learnt that he shot down his collea-gue’s ideas in front of his boss as he was afraid of exposing his own shortcomings. The problem, he realised, lay within him. Once he conquered it, the two even became good friends. Even the mother, who constantly found fault with her younger son, did so because she equated him with her husband, and felt he could do nothing right. The realisation changed her attitude. Spirituality means a search for a better, improved version of ourselves. Says author Chetan Bhagat, “Spiritual intelligence comes from a study of spirituality, and not particular rituals, gurus or listening to feel-good speeches. It’s an acute awareness of your inner self, of what truly is important for you and what isn’t at a mental and emotional level, irrespective of the outer world. Praying to God is a useful way to do this.” Filmmaker Madhur Bhandarkar considers his mother his “spiritual anchor”. He explains, “When I spend time with her, it’s as if I connect with the one above. I see God in my daughter’s eyes as I ask her random questions and she gives me the answers I seek.” He adds, “Spirituality does mean a search for my true self. I’m trying to understand myself and people around me better.” Expresses actor Neil Nitin Mukesh, “Spiritual intelligence means respecting people around me, as there exists a supernatural power in them as it does within me. God is not out there and we must seek him within ourselves.” A spiritual awareness is meant to expand one’s capacity to understand ourselves and others without judgement. Its effect can be felt in our personal and working life. Sister Shivani, from the Brahmakumari practice, draws from her connect with God. She explains, “For me, spirituality is not a search for God, it’s when the relationship has begun. Spirituality is charging of the battery (soul), but for that I need to be connected to the Power House — God.” As one evolves spiritually, it leads to an understanding that you already have within you what you seek from others — love, happiness, peace. Says Shivani, “You are then free to act and interact without any ‘agenda’ and to be yourself. You will be at peace with yourself because there is no longer any conflict between the many identities that you had previously created—gender/nationality/profession/possessions, etc. You will contain the world instead of it containing you.” Emotional literacy helps us realise that the cause of our feelings is not external events but the self. How does one achieve a more spiritual self? Remember to pause, don’t rush through life! Experts recommend meditation and learning to make more intelligent choices, an ability to disengage from the world outside and your own thoughts for a deeper understanding of oneself, taking 10 minutes daily for self-introspection. It’s ultimately all about the self!

Sex & scams:: How the Malyasian Democracy has cancer.Barisan government turn a blind eye

Reams on good governance, corruption eating in to entrails of the antion etc. will it make w wee bit effect on the governance. unless effort is made to root, or at least start exposing, intellectual dishonesty, corruption at the highest levels all will remain sowe get rid of these cancerous elements slowly and surely eating away the body of democratic MALAYSIA.

Why are not many educated and patriotic youths getting into politics, so that we can outnumber the MAHATHIRISM of MALAYSIANpolitics?

A nationwide crackdown on money changers has lifted the veil on the huge amounts of capital fleeing the domestic economy, which bankers estimate could be in excess of several billion US dollars each year. AND THE CULPRITS ARE ALL THE WARLORDS AND THEIR CRONIES.

BNM WILL ISSUE STATEMENT TO SAY IT IS MINIMAL, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, NFA.

MEANWHILE, THE RINGGIT KEEPS SHRINKING AGAINST ALL OTHER CURRENCIES

AND IS GOING TO BE PEGGED TO THE RUPIAH.

Trust me, the nearer we are to the GE13, the more money will go out illegally from this country. The BN knows their days are numbered. As such, they will need to move out what ever been plundered into some safe heaven oversea such as in Bahamas etc. I propose for PR government (if they managed to take over the country come next election) to set up a special task force to track down all this ill gotten wealth. This task force need to work ala Mossad and need to get hold of all the crooks by hook or by crook and no matter how long it takes. If we are unable to take down this crook legally, then do it illegally (if you knows what I meant). Just like what they did to the Nazi war criminal. The smaller thieves amongst those thieves, liars and murderers are taking flight, and that's a no no.the Jews are still the ultimate winners in this majong game. As Malaysian crooks seek safe haven in US and Swiss bank a/cs, the owners are still the Jews and Europeans. Their banks create even more money for their economies and nations, while devaluing their paper assets.

I sincerely hope that these UMNOputeras invested in US properties and Dubai properties and financial instruments. Let their ill-gotten assets BURN! Devalue, be worthless!

Bank Negara is such a coward, go after the big fish, like NAJIB with his companies in neighbouring countries. Do you expect the money changers to squeal about their VIP clients?

This bit of so-called 'news' has been in the public domain for donkey years. The more notable one which everybody knows about is our ex Selangor MB with 2 Mohd's in his name who got caught red-handed in Australia. At least the money taken out by non-Malays were mostly hard-earned cash but the vast amount spirited out by the Malays are by UMNOputras who came into the money through corruption and bribes. This is another reason why Malaysia is in deep shit economically. Not only is there a brain drain but there is also physical drain of wealth. This is truly another Malaysia Boleh feat thanks to our Ketuanan-melayu UMNOputrasSenior officers in Bank Negara are involved with the money changers. How else to escape detection by Bnak Negara? Name the officers in charge of overseeing money changers.This has been going on for some time as the UMNO leaders with their huge amount of corrupted money find it hassle free to transfer out this ill gotten money. Bank Negara should not only go all out for the money changers but more for the UMNO leaders who make use of these money changers to remit out the money illegally.

Won't be surprised the rich malays are mostly the politicians and their cronies

(The Straits Times) - A nationwide crackdown on money changers has lifted the veil on the huge amounts of capital fleeing the domestic economy, which bankers estimate could be in excess of several billion US dollars each year.

Since early this year, the central bank, Bank Negara, has closed down 49 money-changing firms after raids by its enforcement division revealed that many operators were illegally remitting funds to countries such as Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The crackdown has attracted fresh public scrutiny in recent weeks following claims by the country's opposition that several high-profile Malaysians, including the Mentri Besar of Negri Sembilan, Datuk Mohamad Hasan, had engaged the services of money changers to transfer vast amounts of money overseas.

Mohamad, a senior politician from Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's ruling

Umno party, is alleged to have transferred RM10 million to London in the middle of last year, according to government officials familiar with the central bank crackdown.

Mohamad has yet to comment on the allegations, but sources close to the politician told The Straits Times that the money represented his personal funds and was meant for the purchase of a piece of property in London.

Foreign exchange rules stipulate that the transfer of funds overseas can be carried out only by licensed financial institutions, such as banks.

But money changers in Malaysia, which like in many Asian cities are run by people from the Indian sub-continent, have long been a popular conduit because they offer foreign exchange rates that are far more competitive as well as low fees to carry out the fund transfers.

There is also another compelling reason.

“Money changers are used mainly because the money is illicit funds from corruption and activities such as drug trafficking and prostitution,” said Datuk Paul Low, president of Transparency International's Malaysian chapter.

The sums involved are huge. Bankers and government officials said that a single money changer can boast a turnover of roughly RM300 million each month, or about RM3.6 billion annually.

A Bank Negara official said that the crackdown was part of an “ongoing surveillance” of the activities of the country's 875 licensed money changers.

She declined to comment on whether action would be taken against those engaging the services of money changers.

Economists said the central bank's move to shutter the businesses of 49 licensed money changers underscores a deeper malaise afflicting the economy: the flight of capital.

Money leaving the country comes from several sources.

Apart from Malaysians building a retirement nest egg or squirrelling money away to pay for their children's education, bankers and money changers said a bulk of the money leaving the country comprises funds from the country's so-called black economy, which thrives on kickbacks from large public sector contracts and illegal businesses such as drug trafficking and prostitution.

Last month, Transparency International said that Malaysia fell to No. 56, from No. 47 last year, in a league table of 180 countries surveyed around the world, and that graft had hit “alarming” levels.

Bankers also said the growing number of capital flight cases is a reflection of the unease over Malaysia's political and economic future, stemming from rising crime rates and the country's increasingly chaotic politics.

“At one time, the main people taking out money were the Chinese. But these days, a large number of them are the rich Malays,” said one money changer in Kuala Lumpur, who asked not to be named.

Our Indian response to a scandalous mess is neat and categorised. Cash and sex are the north and south pole of mass interest, each with a sprawling magnetic field. We divide the hemispheres with the equator of logic. Cash and corruption are the preserve of politics. Sex is the province of glamour. We refuse to recognise any cross-over evidence.

No one wants to know how much black money floats in cinema, although the float might be a flood from dubious sources. Film publications are apathetic to finance. Their cover stories are devoted to who is sleeping with whom, or, more likely, pretending to sleep with whom. Lead stars are sometimes required to manufacture an affair as part of a film’s pre-launch publicity even when it is obvious, from body language, that the hero and heroine are heartily sick of each other.

Equally, mainline media shrugs off a politician’s private life. This is in sharp contrast to the Anglo-American press and public, who hold a public figure to standards of probity they do not apply to themselves. It seems odd that societies so liberated on Friday nights should turn so puritan over politicians’ weekends, but there it is. The French are more honest. They vote for lunch hour frisson.

No journalist worth his or her laptop, therefore, would waste a moment on the private life of Madhu Koda, the 38-year-old Jharkhand politician who worked in a mine in the early ’90s but is apparently purchasing Liberian mines today. If CBI leaks are to be believed, then young Koda has enough left over to lubricate the silent wheels of hawala and make a bid for a Rs 4,000 crore SEZ. Think. If this is what Koda can do at 38, what might he have achieved by 76, which is within the age band of our PMs. Think again. If this is the loot from a small state, what could another Koda earn from Maharashtra, Andhra or Karnataka? The BJP government in Bangalore is not coming apart because of a deep and riveting ideological debate on Hindutva. It’s the money, honey. If the figures seem insane, just remember that greed spits at limits.

A relevant measure of Indian democracy is the shift in the scale of scandal. V K Krishna Menon was pilloried because he arranged some 50-odd jeeps for the Congress in the first general election in 1952. At the end of the decade, Feroze Gandhi, Mrs Indira Gandhi’s husband, commandeered the headlines by exposing a couple of businessmen. Their names are unimportant now. Suffice to say that it was all very secular: one was a Hindu and the other a Muslim. The sums involved were a piffle. No inflation-escalation calculation is going to bring them to Liberian levels.

The connivance of major parties in the Koda scam is the icing on the story. They all helped his upward mobility in one form or the other, with Congress support for his chief ministership being a stunning example of cynicism. Local journalists had reported much of this while he was in power. No one bothered.

The news from the south pole is actually far better. The filmstar scandals of the ’50s were often tainted by the communal acrimony of the post-Partition decade. A film paper like ‘Mother India’ used to go apoplectic when Nargis and Raj Kapoor practised in real life what they preached on-screen. Today, Raj Kapoor’s granddaughter lives with a man born a Muslim and no Indian owl cares two hoots. Nor is box office affected. Indians have shed much of the compulsive bitterness in Hindu-Muslim relations.

The north pole, however, is in meltdown, the body politic ravaged by venality beyond the voter’s comprehension. What was a nick in Nehru’s time, needing a mere Band-Aid, has spread into an incurable cancer.

Patriotism, goes the proverb, is the last refuge of the scoundrel. The first refuge of a man charged with swindling thousands of crores of public wealth is clearly a stomach-ache. The second refuge is high blood pressure. Between the two, you can always smuggle yourself out of the dreary confines of custody, with mere mosquitoes for company, to the more salubrious environment of a hospital, which is where Koda reached at a brisk pace. The stomach-ache is key to this life-enhancing, if not quite life-saving, switch. High blood pressure, regretfully, can be measured and lowered. A stomach can always ache at will, swerving away from the locational probes of a doctor, particularly in a well-nourished stomach.

In any case, time, and a generous bank balance, tends to soften the discomforts of incarceration. If the cash flow is supportive, a prison can even become a health ashram, with badminton thrown in as an optional extra. You never know: with diet control and regular morning walks that stomach might never need to ache again. It is not the health of a robust Koda that should be our concern, but that of a more fragile entity called democracy.

Koda has a stomach-ache. Democracy has cancer.

ROSMANAJIB SLEEPLESS IN PUTRA JAYA

Rosmah: Oh, come on.

Najib: Leave me alone!

Rosmah: It won’t take long.

Najib: I won’t be able to sleep afterwards.

Rosmah: I can’t sleep without it.

YOU WILL LIKE MORE BETTER THAN SAIFOOL’S

Najib: Why do you think of things like this in the middle of the night?

Rosmah: Because I’m worried.

Najib: You get worried at awkward times.

Rosmah: If you love me why did you allow that MCC

fellow to resign

Najib: If you love me you’d be more considerate.

Rosmah: You don’t love me anymore.

Najib: Yes I do, but let’s forget it for tonight.

ROSMAH HOW CAN WE THE GHOST AMINAH IS IS JUST WAITING,

NOW RPK AND BALA HAS JOIN TO FINISH ME OFF

YOU SHULD NOT HAVE SENT THAT SMS LET RAZAK BAGINDA TO ROT

NOW YOU THIS BALA HAS BECOME A PAIN IN MY ASS NOW YOU CONNOT

PENETRATE AS GOOD AS BEFORE

Rosmah: Please…come on

Najib: Alright, I’ll do it.

Rosmah: What’s the matter? Need a flashlight?

NOW WE HAVE THIS GHOST Teoh Beng Hock TO DEAL WITH

Najib: I can’t find it.

Rosmah: Oh, for heaven’s sake, feel for it!

Najib: There! Are you satisfied?

Rosmah: Oh, yes.

Najib: Is it far enough?

Rosmah: Oh! That’s good.

Najib: Now go to sleep, and from now on when you want the window open,

do it yourself.

Now, what were you expecting?CLICK TO READMORE GHOST Altantuya SAYS THE ROPE IS AROUND YOUR NECK SAY YOUR LAST PRAYERS ROSMAH MANSOR

I AM EXPECTING BOTH THE GHOST TO ATTACK US

Sorry To Disappoint All Of You!Can Najib dismisses Bala’s claims on his sms to SHAFEE ABDULLAH FIXING judge to buttress the evidence.: FIXING BAGINDA'S FREEDOM

Read here for more in Malaysiakini LATEST :

The embattled Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief Ahmad Said Hamdan has opted for early retirement and he is to be replaced by his deputy, Abu Kassim Mohamed. It is learnt that Ahmad Said, 57, would begin his leave starting Dec 14.Ahmad Said has been under tremendous pressure from the opposition to quit after Malaysia plummeted in the Transparency International ranking by nine places from last year's 47^th to 56^th in its global corruption perception index. Said Hamdan has opted for early retirement and he is to be replaced by his deputy, Abu Kassim Mohamed. Read here for more

The tragic case of Teoh Beng Hock has taken a supernatural twist, with three individuals reportedly having seen his spirit roaming in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's Selangor headquarters in Shah Alam. According to China Press, his apparition was spotted on the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam, where his remains were found, and on the 14th floor, where the MACC office is located. The report said a security guard and two MACC officers had bumped into the spectre. The sightings took place sometime in October, more than two months after the 30-year-old's death. The security guard, who wished to remain anonymous, said he did not see Teoh's face, but the apparition was clad in the same clothes which the deceased had worn when he came to the MACC office. "I saw his dead body after the fall. I am sure that it was Teoh even though I could only see him from the back," he said, adding that the incident happened around 6.30pm. Recalling the spine tingling encounter, the security guard said he went to the washroom located on the fifth floor where he suddenly heard footsteps. The other officers were not on duty at the time. "I had a strange feeling. Usually at that time, nobody would be around. So I walked out of the toilet... then I saw a man in front of the lift, he was wearing a black coat and white pants," he said. At that point, it did not strike the security guard that this could be Teoh's spirit. "I asked where he was going as no one was upstairs. He just answered 'I am going upstairs', the lift door opened and he went in. That was when I thought it could be Teoh, so I rushed to the security room to check the CCTV and saw there was nobody in the lift," he said. The security guard also related the experience of a MACC officer. "He was sitting on the sofa watching TV when he suddenly felt something biting his neck, and when he checked, he found a red mark on his neck. When he was sitting in the reception area, he saw Teoh walk out from the office. Then the officer felt as if someone was pulling his leg. He got scared and rushed out," he said. Following this, the security guard said the officer requested for a transfer to the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya and "never came back." Teoh, who was the former aide to Selangor exco Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead after a marathon questioning session by MACC officers which dragged into the wee hours of the morning. Although the official version is that Teoh had committed suicide, his family refused to believe that the father to be, who was slated to get married the next day, would take his own life. Following a massive public outcry, the government ordered for an inquest to be held to determine the cause of death. Teoh's remains were exhumed for a second post-mortem after renowned Thai pathologist Porntip Rojasunand made the startling revelation that there is an 80 percent probability of homicide. The inquest continues on Dec 9.

The one Muslim vs the one Rosmah Malaysia One woman’s journey toward pleasing Allah

According to Phyllis Chesler, author of "Death of Feminism," women dressed in a burqa "cease to exist. They are literally ghosts," she writes on her blog. But as a 27-year old Muslimah living in America, wearing the abaya for eight years has never made me feel invisible. In the debate over muslim womens dress and status in the world, stereotypes and rhetoric are once again overshadowing the realities. My abaya has never been the cause for random searches at the airport, nor set off any security alarms at the nearby Wal-Mart.

The decision to wear an abaya has, however, set off different alarms. It has actually been somewhat of a wake-up call. It's the realization that a woman can look simple yet elegant at the same time, discreet yet beautiful. Most importantly though, it's knowing that the choice to wear an abaya is solely to gain the pleasure of Allah, and that is what makes wearing it an act of worship. Hence, the abaya is a form of submission, not to our husbands nor to our parents, but to Allah alone.

"Choice is everything. But Westerners should recognise that when a woman in France or Britain chooses a veil, it is not necessarily a sign of her repression," says Naomi Wolf, author of the "The Beauty Myth," and the feminist on the other side of the veil debate.

"I put on a shalwar kameez and a headscarf in Morocco for a trip to the bazaar. Yes, some of the warmth I encountered was probably from the novelty of seeing a Westerner so clothed; but, as I moved about the market - the shape of my legs obscured, my long hair not flying about me - I felt a novel sense of calm and serenity. I felt, yes, in certain ways, free," says Wolf.

After researching the issue and reflecting upon the evidences behind it, I learned the abaya is a source of freedom, rather than oppression. Freedom from having to keep up with annual trends and fashions. Freedom from the "shop-aholic" syndrome many women claim to suffer from. Freedom from standing in front of a closet filled with clothes, yet clueless as to what to wear. On the contrary, I experienced freedom of movement with the abaya. The freedom to walk about freely without attracting negative attention from men. The freedom of being a mere object of man’s desires.

The abaya, which covers a woman's entire body, also acts as an extra layer in the winter, as well as a layer of protection from summers scorching sun. The question that usually follows is, “Don’t you feel hot while garbed from head to toe in 100 degree weather?” The answer can only be, “Yes, of course!” But then again who doesn’t experience heat stroke at that temperature?

Understanding the purpose and reasoning behind abaya is not something a Muslim girl learns the day she is born. For many, like myself, it was a slow and steady journey; one that required much research and reflection. The first step, however, was to wear a hijab, or head scarf, a step which ultimately drew me much closer to Allah. I continued to wear jeans and pants in an attempt to make hijab look "normal" to both the Muslim girls on campus and the non-Muslims I was giving da'wah to.

With each step that I took towards Allah, I realized that He was coming towards me too; guiding me to what I truly wanted. I learned of the hadith narrated in both Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: "Allah curses those men who imitate women and those women who imitate men." (1) This hadith raised questions of whether or not pants were permissible for a Muslim woman. When I found no evidence of the earlier Muslimahs walking the streets of Madinah or Makkah in a pair of Levi's, I decided to continue my journey onwards. I opted to wear skirts instead, but they too became a source of frustration for me. It was very difficult to find long, loose skirts without a slit running up the side, and finding a matching shirt and hijab wasn't always such an easy task.

Finally I came across a verse from the Qu'ran:

Surah al-Ahzab ayah 59 says:

Ya ayyuha an-Nabiyy qul li azwajika wa banatika wa nisa al-mu'minin yudnina alayhinna min jalabib hinna; dhalika adna an yu'rafna fa laa yu'dhayn. Wa kana Allahu Ghafur Rahim
O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their outergarments (jilbabs) close around themselves; that is better that they will be recognized and not annoyed. And God is ever Forgiving, Gentle. (2)

It wasn’t until I attended an ISNA conference that I came across a rack of abayas. I studied them closely and concluded that this long piece of material fit all of the requirements of modesty. It was long enough, loose enough, and had just the right amount of embroidery to make it feminine. I immediately purchased it and decided never to leave home without it. For the first time, dressed in my abaya and hijab, I felt I was being recognized as a true Muslim; one who submits to the will of Allah. It felt wonderful to represent my deen in this way.

Wearing the abaya made me much more conscious of my actions and dealings with both Muslims and non-Muslims. I was reminded every time I looked in the mirror that Allah was watching my every move. If I looked like a Muslim, then I wanted to act like a righteous one. The decision to dress more modestly in the first place had been for the sake of Allah, and so it was for His sake that I wanted to continue striving to be a better Muslim. I no longer cared about the looks I received, or whether I looked socially acceptable. I only cared about my Creator and what He asked of me. The abaya helped to define me as a Muslim woman, a woman who was seeking only the approval of her Creator. Hence, the way I dress has never been a form of depression or oppression for me, but instead a form of surrender and submission to the Will of Allah.

Mariam Khan, a mother of three, graduated from Penn State in 2004 with her B.A. in elementary education.

Wonderful!! It’s great to finally hear about this from someone who has actually chosen to wear an abaya as an adult making an informed choice about her faith (and not some woman talking about the one time she had to wear one in Iran or Saudi)

So many of the statements hear rang true for me as a hijabi as well. This especially: “Most importantly though, it’s knowing that the choice to wear an abaya is solely to gain the pleasure of Allah, and that is what makes wearing it an act of worship. Hence, the abaya is a form of submission…“

I have definitely thought of wearing an abaya, mostly for comfort reasons (I could be wearing yoga pants and t-shirts all day every day under there if i wanted to!), but my observance of hijab has always been for Allah. All those other things about modesty or identity are pretty secondary for me, icing on the cake if you will. And maybe that’s why the issue of burkhas and burqinis has been so aggravating and frustrating for me.

I understand that everything and anything can have political and social ramifications, especially religion, but when people start pointing fingers and saying ‘Women just want to hypersexualize themselves by covering up’ or ‘Women are just trying to push their religious agenda on others by wearing politically-charged clothing’, I feel like throwing something. No actually, my covering up has nothing to do with you or this dunya at all. It has to do with my devotion to my Lord, my Rabb.

So, thank you so much for writing this. I was waiting for someone to tell the ‘real’ story; not the feminist one or the apologist one or the liberal one. The Muslim one.

it gives me a new perspective on the Abaya. I was raised Christian in America and refused to succumb to the stereotypes the media was selling me about Islam, and decided to find out more for myself. I understood the call to hijab implicitly and have patiently tried to explain it to others, from my open-minded (albeit limited) perspective.

All that being said, it has been very difficult for me to come to terms with Niqab, Abaya…I admit that throughout my travels it has always been unsettling to be unable to speak face to face with a fellow member of humanity. The discomfort is enough to make me avoid speaking with a woman in abaya unless introduced, I know this is an act of fear but it is a common truth. I also know the barrier of abaya is an act of faith and a spiritual cloak of sorts, I think the author has been very eloquent in describing what it means to her. But even knowing that, I cannot help but feel so distant from a sister who wears the abaya, and it makes me feel sad.

The way we dress affects our psychology in HUGE ways that many people in the Western world are not willing to acknowledge. The author is clearly someone who is well-educated and self-determined, and I wonder if this is in fact typical among average women who choose abaya. I do not condescendingly pity women who wear abaya or just assume they are victims. But the symbolism inherent in a woman hiding her entire being and face from the world still resonates too deeply with me to reconcile.

What do a billion Muslims think?Who Speaks for Islam?

The film Inside Islam, based on the 2008 book Who Speaks for Islam?, creates an environment where dialogue among civilisations becomes inevitable. It also prompts American audiences to reconsider their perceptions of Muslims–who are often also their neighbors

BY SARA REEF AND ZEESHAN SUHAIL, NOVEMBER 27, 2009

	A lot, evidently

WASHINGTON, DC

Despite widespread media coverage of global terrorism by various self-proclaimed "Islamic" groups from America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia, little is known about what the majority of the world's Muslims really think and feel. What do Muslims have to say about violence and terrorist attacks, democracy, women's rights and their countries' relations with the West? What are their values, goals and religious beliefs?

This month, Washington, DC and New York movie audiences were able to learn some answers to this question when they watched Inside Islam, a groundbreaking film based on the 2008 book, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, co-authored by Georgetown University professor John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. The film premiered in Washington, DC this summer and has been touring the country since.

The film is based on many years of innovative research. Between 2001 and 2006, Esposito worked with Mogahed at Gallup, a research and public opinion organisation, to complete the largest study of Muslim populations worldwide. Their results challenged the conventional wisdom and the inevitability of a "clash of civilisations" even as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continued.

Long before Who Speaks for Islam? was released, Washington's politicos were crafting policies about a people they barely knew. Indeed, Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu was correct when he said: "In these fraught days of heightened tension and increasing hostility, few books could be more timely."

Unity Productions Foundation (UPF) decided to turn the book into a film in 2008, recognising the importance of the message and the need to take it to an even larger audience. As Alex Kronemer, UPF co-founder and one of the film's executive producers, pointed out, the message of the book is one that US leaders need to hear: "In order to effectively engage the Muslim world, we have to understand what the Muslim world really wants."

The initial screening, specifically for an audience of policymakers, took place in August 2009 at the US Department of State. After viewing Inside Islam participants took part in a discussion with Kronemer, who had served at the US Department of State's Human Rights Desk during the Bill Clinton Administration. The goal of these policy screenings–derived from the Gallup findings–is to help policymakers understand the impact of US foreign policy on Muslim attitudes towards the United States, and to understand that a shift in policies will go a long way towards improving Muslim perceptions of Americans.

The film's 3 June, Washington, DC, premiere featured former US Secretary of State Dr. Madeleine Albright as keynote speaker. After the screening, Albright said, "When fear takes over, communication stops and suspicion builds. That's why Inside Islam is such an important film, and why the extensive surveys conducted by the Gallup organisation are so worthwhile."

Since then, the film has been screened at several cities across North America. These events bring together civic and political leaders and interfaith organisations, usually with a Gallup expert and UPF representative on hand to discuss the film and the poll's findings.

The Gallup poll found, among other things, that when asked what they admire about the West, Muslims frequently mention political liberty and freedom of speech. What audiences might also find surprising is that most Muslims–including 73 per cent of Saudis and 89 per cent of Iranians–say that women should enjoy equal legal rights with men.

To date, the film has been viewed by thousands of people. It appears that from Toledo to Toronto, from New Orleans to New York, audiences everywhere are yearning to know what a billion Muslims really think, including many leading decision makers. Other organisations have gone so far as to express interest in not only helping to screen the film through their networks but to also assist in the creation of educational materials so that younger audiences can benefit from the film's thought provoking information.

The film creates an environment where dialogue among civilisations, as former President Muhammad Khatami of Iran put it, becomes inevitable. The film prompts American audiences to reconsider their perceptions of Muslims–who are often also their neighbours. We hope that through movies like Inside Islam, fear and suspicion can stop, and communication can take over.

Sara Reef is Project Manager at Intersections International and Zeeshan Suhail is a board member of Americans for Informed Democracy. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Now Switzerland does have a darker side.This week's ban on minarets in Switzerland, approved by 57 percent of voters,

This week's ban on minarets in Switzerland, approved by 57 percent of voters, is a sign of the increasing influence of right wing parties in Switzerland's direct democracy - despite there being only four minarets in the entire country.

BY SHEIKH YASIR QADHI, DECEMBER 2, 2009

	Not a safe haven anymore

NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT

Switzerland. The very name evokes images of almost heavenly beauty – idyllic enclaves of pristinely pure lakes surrounded by magnificent lush snow-peaked mountains, dotted with honeymoon-enticing chalets nestled within forests of pine furs towering to the skies. Beautiful, scenic Switzerland – it deserves its status as being one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world. It has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, and its cities are regularly ranked as being amongst the highest in terms of quality of life, in the entire world.

Of course, Switzerland does have a darker side. It has also established its reputation as being one of the most notorious financial centers for money laundering, especially for international drug dealers and mafia lords. Its unique secrecy rules in the banking industry allow even nonresidents to conduct business through offshore entities and intermediaries, providing an almost complete blanket of anonymity.

Apart from the notoriety of Swiss banks, the Swiss do have their own unique set of problems as well. A particularly troubling issue is the preponderance of alcoholics amongst Swiss youth. A survey conducted by a government agency revealed that almost 50 per cent of 13-year-olds in Switzerland had consumed alcohol in the month before the representative survey was made, and another survey revealed that 14 per cent of 13-year-olds get drunk at least once a month.

Switzerland also has one of the highest suicide rates per capita in the Western world (especially amongst young teenagers and the elderly), and a very serious drug problem. Not only is it a direct transit country for the export of cocaine, heroin, and other synthetics, it also has a healthy domestic cannabis cultivation, and one of the highest rates of drug offences in the world (a staggering 50% of the population – contrast this with America, which has an average almost ten times less than that of Switzerland).

It is, therefore, quite surprising that of all things bothering the Swiss, the last thing one would have imagined is the building of mosque minarets. Yet, this past weekend, a referendum was passed that expressly forbids the building of minarets. The referendum passed with a 57 % majority vote, and 22 out of 26 cantons (Swiss provinces) voted in favor of it. Over 55 % of the population voted in this referendum (to put this figure in perspective, that’s around 4.3 million voters).

One would expect, with such a large number of people voting, that the skylines of Zurich were perhaps being threatened with ominous minarets poking up at every street corner. Maybe the beauty of the chalets nestled in the Swiss alps was being marred with the presence of mosques suddenly appearing on the back of Swiss postcards. After all, for 4.3 million people to be motivated for an election, surely some huge quantity of minarets would have to exist.

It is, therefore, almost surreal to discover that in the entire country of Switzerland, there are a grand total of four minarets. Each of these minarets is found in a separate province altogether. Thus, 99.9 % of cities and towns across the country don’t even have a single minaret, and only four cities can boast one minaret each. That works out to about one minaret per four thousand square miles of Swiss soil (Muslims themselves are less than 5 % of the entire population in Switzerland).

So then, why all the fuss? The minaret-furor all began in 2005, when a small mosque in the almost unheard of municipality of Wangen bei Olten wished to construct a 6-meter minaret as part of the mosque structure. Local residents, quite clearly motivated by racist views, objected. Initially, the city council agreed, but over the course of the next few years, the mosque fought back through the legal system, eventually taking this issue up to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, who sided with the mosque authorities and stated that building a minaret was within their legal rights. Therefore, in July of this year (2009), the mosque was finally built with the minaret in place.

However, in Switzerland, a ruling from the Supreme Court can still be challenged. Switzerland has a highly unusual form of democracy. It is characterized by an excessive degree of federalism and a gratuitous reliance on people referendums. The citizens themselves may directly appeal to revoke a federal or Supreme court law, and they may also directly petition the government to institute a law of their own. The Swiss system of direct democracy gives every member of the electorate the chance to wield influence. The federal constitutional initiative allows citizens to put a constitutional amendment to a national vote, provided that they can get 100,000 voters to sign the proposed amendment within eighteen months of its initial advertising.

Therefore, because of this minaret controversy, a number of right-wing conservative parties lobbied the people directly in order to achieve the hundred thousand signatories needed in order to institute this national referendum. One of the main advertising posters used to provoke the masses featured a silhouette of an ominous-looking woman in full niqab against a backdrop of seven black minarets shaped as missiles rising from a colorful Swiss-flag.

Unlike the ban on niqabs and hijabs in neighboring France, which at least attempts to portray the ban as being one on all religious symbols (hence Sikh turbans and Jewish yarmulkes are also technically included), the Swiss referendum was quite blatant in its selective targeting of Muslim mosques. The proposition, which will now be added into Article 72 (Section 3) of the Swiss Federal Constitution, reads: “The building of minarets is prohibited.” Notice, not ‘The building of overt religious public icons…’ or even ‘The building of symbols of non-Christian public houses of worship…,’ but rather, quite bluntly, ‘ The building of minarets…’

What makes this bad situation even more worrisome is the fact that such an overtly xenophobic and racist attitude finds so much support in an otherwise neutral country. If this vote had occurred in, say, Denmark, one would not be surprised, after the Danish cartoon controversies and the reaction in the Muslim world, to find a majority of Danes voting for such a referendum. But, of all places, Switzerland? Muslims worriedly and rightly ask: If these negative attitudes are so popular in Switzerland, what does that augur for other European countries?

Already, right-wing parties across Europe are salivating at the news of this ‘victory’. The leader of the radical-right Austrian Freedom Party, Heinz-Christian Strache, hailed the passage of the Swiss referendum and expressed his delight at the result, and his eagerness to emulate the Swiss example in his own country. Marine Le Pen, vice-president of France’s National Front, congratulated the Swiss for having demonstrated their attachment to their “national identity, their countryside and their culture”, despite calls from the “elites” not to vote in favor of the ban. In Italy, Roberto Calderoli, Berlusconi’s Reform Minister, announced that a clear sign had come from Switzerland: “Yes to church towers, no to minarets” and said that Switzerland should be a model for Italy in this respect.

Perhaps this fear is exacerbated by Europe’s extremely low birth rate (in 2005, Switzerland ranked a miserable 177 out of 195 countries in the world, with an average of 9.6 births per 1000 people), coupled in recent decades with a rise of Muslim immigrants. Perhaps there is also an element of simple, old-fashioned racism against non-whites (however, in Switzerland, most Muslims immigrants are mainly from the former Yugoslavia and Turkey, and are thus white in skin color as well).

But these facts alone cannot explain such xenophobia. Ten years ago, it would have been impossible to even imagine such a referendum being given a shred of respectability, much less actually pass in a nation-wide vote. Rather, one must confront the stark reality that such extreme xenophobia, manifested in the alarmingly fast rise in popularity of all right-wing parties across Europe (and even America), occurs in the backdrop of 9/11 and the ‘War on Terror’.

Increasingly, Islam and Muslims are in the daily news, typically associated with acts of violence and terrorism. The average American and European, who has little interaction with Islam and Muslims, is feeling increasingly troubled by the presence of – as they perceive it – highly-volatile potential fifth-column ‘Islamists’ within their midst. In order to counteract whatever miniscule influence or presence these Muslims have (in most Western countries, Muslims do not even number 5 % of the population), Western nations are ever-eager to demolish the very civil liberties and freedoms that they themselves struggled for centuries to establish. As one right-wing pundit wrote in recent book, these liberties (according to him) were established by Christians to accommodate people from a similar religious and ethnic background – they were not meant to be applied to peoples from radically different ethnicities and religions than those that Europe has been accustomed to for the last five centuries.

In other words, these liberties are afforded only to the peoples of ‘civilized’ nations – those who have reached the pinnacle of humanity. Muslims, being somehow different and inherently inclined to terror, are simply inferior, uncivilized peoples, and hence do not warrant such liberties. ‘Giving them such liberties would mean the end of such liberties for us’ is the basic assumption. While few verbalize it so bluntly, it is in fact this sentiment that underlies such an attitude.

The real threat that ‘Moozlem terrorists’ pose to the West, therefore, is not in the survival of its physical lands, but in the survival of its own values and freedoms that it has struggled so long to secure. In an attempt to stem an alleged ‘Islamization’ of Europe that would supposedly endanger European values and liberties, Europe appears ready to discard those very values and liberties. In the name of protecting freedom, Europe is prepared to lose it. Even as they create the imaginary monster of the ‘Islamist’, they fail to look in the mirror and see the monster that is themselves.

How cherished and universal Western freedoms and values really are is a question that the West itself will have to answer. What happens to these values and freedoms in the next few years will be critical in the formulation of a new Western identity: one that will either be universal and inclusive, or selective and exclusive. And while Western Muslims would welcome being included in that identity, being so minuscule in number, they can only do so much to help in that conversation.

This is an edited version of an article that previously appeared at MuslimMatters and is reprinted by permission of the author. The full version contains a section on how Western Muslims can respond to the minaret ban.

Yasir Qadhi is a prolific author and Islamic teacher who has written several books about Islam. He has a B.A. from the College of Hadith and Islamic Sciences and a M.A. in Islamic Theology from the College of Dawah, Madinah. He is currently pursuing his doctorate, in Religious Studies, at Yale University in New Haven, CT and teaches at the AlMaghrib Instiute. His published works include Riya'a: The Hidden Shirk, Du'aa: The Weapon of the Believer, and An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an.

Print-friendly | Email this | Digg this | Tweet this | Share on Facebook