Muslim women speak out against the hijab as an element of political Islam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't blame Muslim PP for constantly contesting what others say by putting down their authority to say it.

I feel sorry for her because she was taught to defend her religion solely by saying this is what so and so supposed authority has said rather than by using critical thinking to lay out a reasoned rational defense of her beliefs.

She has been taught a winning attack on others' reasoned views consists simply of dismissing them solely on the grounds that they are not a regurgitation of what some supposed scholar who has undergone years of study has said, never mind the quality of that scholarship.

She is not unlike those Christians who cannot defend their beliefs except by quoting verses from the Bible.

LOL right, whatever you say is a "reasoned view", whatever others say to disagree is a "regurgitation". Got it.

What's really interesting is that you think anyone here is trying to defend their beliefs. Muslim PPs are content to believe what they do. They aren't interested in defending it from you. What you think is simply not important to them.

So why are you on here defending yourself with insults instead of with rational arguments? If you're content, then why bother?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

God didn't say women are responsible for men's urges. He also asked men to lower their eyes and control themselves.

Jesus said that. "But I say to you, anyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it away...." Harsh, maybe, but it puts the responsibility where it belongs. Is there a comparable Quranic verse?

Why SHOULD there be one? Why do you want Islam to be just like Christianity?

Of course not. But if there's no verse in the Quran, and no teaching by scholars, that men are responsible for their lust and their actions, then it is further proof that Islam is fundamentally anti-woman and not feminist. From what I know, which is probably less than most posters on this thread, women are unequal in Islam, lesser compared to men. A head covering is a visual part of that.

As PP has pointed out, there is a verse about men lowering their gaze. Given the times, Islam in my view cannot be construed as anti-women. It forbade the practice of infanticide, most commonly practiced on female babies. It guaranteed women the right of inheritance from both their husbands and their parents, giving widows and orphans some means to support themselves. The testimony of women was accepted legally. Women were given the right of divorce and the right to put whatever other conditions they wished in their marriage contracts.

These were impressive progressive rights for the time, and much more than what many women in the West had during that period or indeed for centuries afterward. If we look at them from the lens of today, however, they do appear to fall short. A man inherits twice what a woman does from his parents. A husband inherits half from his wife; the wife inherits one-eighth (one-fourth if she has no children). In most matters, the testimony of a woman counts one half of a man's testimony. While women can put whatever they wish in their marriage contract, in practice this is seldom done and women rarely negotiate their own contracts.

The tussle today centers on whether the progressive spirit of Islam should move with the times or be ossified in the seventh century. It is clear the fundamentalists and extremists firmly believe in the latter. There are reformers, however, who believe the former, but at this point they are a minority voice. Arrayed against them are phalanxes of under- and ill-educated and often not particularly bright Islamic "scholars," who disseminate their views on thousands of Islamic websites.

It is no doubt misleading to generalize those who are reform-minded, but if I had to I would say that they do not view hadith, or sayings of the Prophet, as particularly authoritative and believe that many of the verses of the Quran that dictate certain ways of behavior or social arrangements need to be viewed in the context of the times and that they point the way to a spirit that should be followed today. Thus, they would say the take away of the verse in dispute in this thread is that women should dress modestly, whatever that is for the society in which they live. And the same would apply to men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

God didn't say women are responsible for men's urges. He also asked men to lower their eyes and control themselves.

But if they should slip and keep their eyes up, the veiling will kill all sexual urges.

Hail to the veil, I say!

You're making women responsible for controlling men's sexual urges, which are apparently always flaming and uncontrollable.

That's both sexist and gibberish.
- it makes men *less* able to control themselves and *increases* the sexualization of female-male relations.
- why should women take the burden here and not those lust-ridden men?
- if you really think the onus should be on women, why not just wear buns? Or cut the hair short like men's hair, which is OK, right?

I was being sarcastic.

Veiling is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

In America, we respect the right for others to dress as they choose. We allow for freedom of religion. Therefore, if you want to wear oppressive clothing, I won't stop you. I won't say anything to you about it. I would not refuse to serve you at my business, nor would I practice or support discrimination against you.

But in the privacy of my thoughts, I will have no respect for you and will view you as a brainwashed idiot.

Unless hijab is worn by both men and women, it is oppressive to women, period, and I will despise it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In America, we respect the right for others to dress as they choose. We allow for freedom of religion. Therefore, if you want to wear oppressive clothing, I won't stop you. I won't say anything to you about it. I would not refuse to serve you at my business, nor would I practice or support discrimination against you.

But in the privacy of my thoughts, I will have no respect for you and will view you as a brainwashed idiot.

Unless hijab is worn by both men and women, it is oppressive to women, period, and I will despise it.

Why are your feelings important? Who exactly is clamoring for your respect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In America, we respect the right for others to dress as they choose. We allow for freedom of religion. Therefore, if you want to wear oppressive clothing, I won't stop you. I won't say anything to you about it. I would not refuse to serve you at my business, nor would I practice or support discrimination against you.

But in the privacy of my thoughts, I will have no respect for you and will view you as a brainwashed idiot.

Unless hijab is worn by both men and women, it is oppressive to women, period, and I will despise it.

Why are your feelings important? Who exactly is clamoring for your respect?

Everyone! I am so awesome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In America, we respect the right for others to dress as they choose. We allow for freedom of religion. Therefore, if you want to wear oppressive clothing, I won't stop you. I won't say anything to you about it. I would not refuse to serve you at my business, nor would I practice or support discrimination against you.

But in the privacy of my thoughts, I will have no respect for you and will view you as a brainwashed idiot.

Unless hijab is worn by both men and women, it is oppressive to women, period, and I will despise it.

Why are your feelings important? Who exactly is clamoring for your respect?

I knew some idiot would respond with this. I don't really care who wants my respect. It's just an opinion. It's what we write here. If you don't care to know about it, go elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

Or that women should simply show modesty with their hair as well as dress, by wearing it plain (undyed, uncurled, unperfumed), putting it up in buns or even keeping it cut short.

Anyway, can't you see how sexist it is to think that women don't simply have hair, but instead they're always using it to "attract members of the opposite sex".

Women have breasts too - is that sexist?

There's *no* disagreement in this thread that the Quran wants women to cover their breasts. The disagreement is over how to interpret it's silence about hair.

Actually, you are confusing two things: 1) what the Quran says, and 2) whether what it says makes sense. You think it's sexist that women are asked to cover their hair and men aren't. But you are OK with women being asked to cover their breasts, and men allowed to go about in their shirtless glory. That, too, is sexist in that it treats sexes differently.

That very thought actually crossed my mind. But I figured there was no percentage in going there because PP, who is all about changing the subject when she has no good answer to the question at hand, would turn this into a debate about showing your breasts on the beach. I do agree with you.

You ninny, I'm the PP you're responding do, and also the PP you think is changing the subject when I point out that no Muslim is interested in debating the finer points of their faith with a random chick on DCUM. We are, as it were, the same person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In America, we respect the right for others to dress as they choose. We allow for freedom of religion. Therefore, if you want to wear oppressive clothing, I won't stop you. I won't say anything to you about it. I would not refuse to serve you at my business, nor would I practice or support discrimination against you.

But in the privacy of my thoughts, I will have no respect for you and will view you as a brainwashed idiot.

Unless hijab is worn by both men and women, it is oppressive to women, period, and I will despise it.

Why are your feelings important? Who exactly is clamoring for your respect?

Everyone! I am so awesome.

I think you are awesome, mostly because I agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In America, we respect the right for others to dress as they choose. We allow for freedom of religion. Therefore, if you want to wear oppressive clothing, I won't stop you. I won't say anything to you about it. I would not refuse to serve you at my business, nor would I practice or support discrimination against you.

But in the privacy of my thoughts, I will have no respect for you and will view you as a brainwashed idiot.

Unless hijab is worn by both men and women, it is oppressive to women, period, and I will despise it.

Why are your feelings important? Who exactly is clamoring for your respect?

I knew some idiot would respond with this. I don't really care who wants my respect. It's just an opinion. It's what we write here. If you don't care to know about it, go elsewhere.

It's not that I don't care to know it (although I don't), it's the sheer ridiculous value in you using your feelings as an argument that you think holds any weight. "You should agree with me! If you don't, I won't respect you and think you're an idiot!" Yeah, that's definitely going to win the hearts and minds. Not.

[Anonymous]

I would fight to defend the right of a woman to wear hijab. (Niqab in public, no, but only because it is a security risk.)

But in my personal interactions with a hijab wearer, yes, I will be on guard against certain things. Does she have a chip on her shoulder about Islam that will be tiresome and boring to deal with? Definitely have had to deal with those--ugh. Is she someone who is charitable to all or just to Muslims? Happy to report that the most sympathetic retail service I have ever received was from a hijab wearer (I was sick). It was the only time I went to a store after and sought out the manager to commend (or complain about) an employee.

Is she incapable of critical thinking and just does what she has been told to do by family or peer pressure? Have definitely met my share of vacuous scarf wearers who can barely manage a limp handshake. But a few have been bright and witty and vivacious. Does she harbor extreme Islamist supremacist views like Tafsheen? Guessing and hoping I actually have not mingled with any of these, but of course I probably would not know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

Or that women should simply show modesty with their hair as well as dress, by wearing it plain (undyed, uncurled, unperfumed), putting it up in buns or even keeping it cut short.

Anyway, can't you see how sexist it is to think that women don't simply have hair, but instead they're always using it to "attract members of the opposite sex".

Women have breasts too - is that sexist?

There's *no* disagreement in this thread that the Quran wants women to cover their breasts. The disagreement is over how to interpret it's silence about hair.

Actually, you are confusing two things: 1) what the Quran says, and 2) whether what it says makes sense. You think it's sexist that women are asked to cover their hair and men aren't. But you are OK with women being asked to cover their breasts, and men allowed to go about in their shirtless glory. That, too, is sexist in that it treats sexes differently.

That very thought actually crossed my mind. But I figured there was no percentage in going there because PP, who is all about changing the subject when she has no good answer to the question at hand, would turn this into a debate about showing your breasts on the beach. I do agree with you.

You ninny, I'm the PP you're responding do, and also the PP you think is changing the subject when I point out that no Muslim is interested in debating the finer points of their faith with a random chick on DCUM. We are, as it were, the same person.

I'm referring to the Muslim poster(s) whose main arguing techniques, which seem to be insults and changing the subject. If that's you, flaunt it proudly.

Back to my point: let's stick to the thread topic, which is about what the Quran does NOT say about head coverings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

God didn't say women are responsible for men's urges. He also asked men to lower their eyes and control themselves.

Jesus said that. "But I say to you, anyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it away...." Harsh, maybe, but it puts the responsibility where it belongs. Is there a comparable Quranic verse?

Why SHOULD there be one? Why do you want Islam to be just like Christianity?

Of course not. But if there's no verse in the Quran, and no teaching by scholars, that men are responsible for their lust and their actions, then it is further proof that Islam is fundamentally anti-woman and not feminist. From what I know, which is probably less than most posters on this thread, women are unequal in Islam, lesser compared to men. A head covering is a visual part of that.

As PP has pointed out, there is a verse about men lowering their gaze. Given the times, Islam in my view cannot be construed as anti-women. It forbade the practice of infanticide, most commonly practiced on female babies. It guaranteed women the right of inheritance from both their husbands and their parents, giving widows and orphans some means to support themselves. The testimony of women was accepted legally. Women were given the right of divorce and the right to put whatever other conditions they wished in their marriage contracts.

Actually, we only have Islam's word on the claim that in pre-Islamic Arabia none of that was possible. And it is of course in the interest of Islam to paint the time before it with a dark brush. From the example of Mohammad's first wife, who grew up pre-Islam, we know that women before the advent of Islam had money, ran businesses, hired men, and proposed to candidates of their choosing directly. That doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In America, we respect the right for others to dress as they choose. We allow for freedom of religion. Therefore, if you want to wear oppressive clothing, I won't stop you. I won't say anything to you about it. I would not refuse to serve you at my business, nor would I practice or support discrimination against you.

But in the privacy of my thoughts, I will have no respect for you and will view you as a brainwashed idiot.

Unless hijab is worn by both men and women, it is oppressive to women, period, and I will despise it.

Why are your feelings important? Who exactly is clamoring for your respect?

Everyone! I am so awesome.

I think you are awesome, mostly because I agree with you.

Me three.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

Or that women should simply show modesty with their hair as well as dress, by wearing it plain (undyed, uncurled, unperfumed), putting it up in buns or even keeping it cut short.

Anyway, can't you see how sexist it is to think that women don't simply have hair, but instead they're always using it to "attract members of the opposite sex".

Women have breasts too - is that sexist?

There's *no* disagreement in this thread that the Quran wants women to cover their breasts. The disagreement is over how to interpret it's silence about hair.

Actually, you are confusing two things: 1) what the Quran says, and 2) whether what it says makes sense. You think it's sexist that women are asked to cover their hair and men aren't. But you are OK with women being asked to cover their breasts, and men allowed to go about in their shirtless glory. That, too, is sexist in that it treats sexes differently.

That very thought actually crossed my mind. But I figured there was no percentage in going there because PP, who is all about changing the subject when she has no good answer to the question at hand, would turn this into a debate about showing your breasts on the beach. I do agree with you.

You ninny, I'm the PP you're responding do, and also the PP you think is changing the subject when I point out that no Muslim is interested in debating the finer points of their faith with a random chick on DCUM. We are, as it were, the same person.

I'm referring to the Muslim poster(s) whose main arguing techniques, which seem to be insults and changing the subject. If that's you, flaunt it proudly.

Back to my point: let's stick to the thread topic, which is about what the Quran does NOT say about head coverings.

Go find one quote from the poster you think is Muslim. Let's see if you can tell one from the other.