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

[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.

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.

His first wife also wouldn't let him take additional wives.

[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.

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.

His first wife also wouldn't let him take additional wives.

We don't know whether she wouldn't let him, or whether he didn't want to. Don't make things up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Go pound sand. Really. If you want to talk about yourself and boobs on the beach instead of headscarves, it's clear nobody can stop you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

His first wife also wouldn't let him take additional wives.

We don't know whether she wouldn't let him, or whether he didn't want to. Don't make things up.

He took multiple wives after she died.

[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?

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.

I am not presenting my feelings as an argument. There is no argument to be had here; there is no possible way you can prove to me that wearing hijab is not sexist and not oppressive. You cannot. Wearing hijab is ridiculous. My post is merely to point out that the only reason I tolerate it is because I believe in the rights we have as Americans. I support the freedoms of American even when it means tolerating something I find repellent. Do you understand now?

Probably not.

[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?

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.

I don't think PP was making an argument, She was simply stating how she views those wearing a hijab. Her assumption is that they are brainwashed. This is on par with those who say if they see a person who is markedly unkempt in public they assume they are either homeless or have mental health problems.

People do and must use heuristics or shortcuts that use outer appearance to make quick assessments of another's circumstances in order to process the world and decide on a next action without being overwhelmed. More information, though, may change the judgment made through the heuristic. PP's heuristic for a hijab wearer is brainwashed woman, not much gong on there, and, possibly, not worth my time and more deserving of my pity.

Hijab wearers may or may not care that people see the scarf and make a quick judgment that she is brainwashed or arrogant or of extremist views. But I am guessing that at least some of them think the hijab should be seen as a positive message of their love and respect for God and man. I think I can safely say that is probably not the default heuristic for the vast majority of Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I am not presenting my feelings as an argument. There is no argument to be had here; there is no possible way you can prove to me that wearing hijab is not sexist and not oppressive. You cannot. Wearing hijab is ridiculous. My post is merely to point out that the only reason I tolerate it is because I believe in the rights we have as Americans. I support the freedoms of American even when it means tolerating something I find repellent. Do you understand now?

Probably not.

Actually, that's not true. The reason you tolerate is that the laws of the land don't give you any other options. I mean, what are you gonna do? Spit across your shoulder and spin around three times when you see a hijabi? Read three Hail Marys out loud? Charge at a covered woman and tear her scarf off? In what possible way would you be able to "not" tolerate it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I don't think PP was making an argument, She was simply stating how she views those wearing a hijab. Her assumption is that they are brainwashed. This is on par with those who say if they see a person who is markedly unkempt in public they assume they are either homeless or have mental health problems.

People do and must use heuristics or shortcuts that use outer appearance to make quick assessments of another's circumstances in order to process the world and decide on a next action without being overwhelmed. More information, though, may change the judgment made through the heuristic. PP's heuristic for a hijab wearer is brainwashed woman, not much gong on there, and, possibly, not worth my time and more deserving of my pity.

Hijab wearers may or may not care that people see the scarf and make a quick judgment that she is brainwashed or arrogant or of extremist views. But I am guessing that at least some of them think the hijab should be seen as a positive message of their love and respect for God and man. I think I can safely say that is probably not the default heuristic for the vast majority of Americans.

The default heuristic for the vast majority of Americans is determined by the behavior of the community first, and its dress code second. No one thinks badly about nuns despite their ridiculous outfits because nuns are famous for the good deeds (generalizing). If Muslims were known primarily for charity, top scientific achievements, kindness to neighbors and superior intelligence, no one would care what their women dress like. In fact, people would have looked up to the hijabis if that was the case. Right now Muslims have a bad rap, so their women share it. That's about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

He took multiple wives after she died.

You don't know WHY he did it.

[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.

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.

Non-Muslim PP here who wrote she does not construe Islam as being anti-women for the times. It is true that most of the sources are Islamic with a distinct anti-jahilliyya bias. Also true that Khadija and Hind (who went into battle) were formidable pre-Islamic women.

But I also believe that rights of women in pre-Islam probably varied greatly among the various tribes. It is said, for example, that at the time of Muhammed there was probably only one tribe that uncommonly practiced infanticide and so it was a limited problem and far from a widespread practice.

It could well be the case that Islam curbed rights for some women, but I think it is likely that it left women as a whole better off--for the time. And Muslim women had more rights for a number of centuries than many women in the West. This of course may be looking at the history through a too-optimistic lens, but for me it holds hope that Islam began in a progressive spirit and that that someday could be carried over into today.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure there are many reasons for wearing the veil.

I know several bright Muslim women, and it's not OK to write them all off as brainwashed or stupid. That's bigotry.

That said, in my experience, the veil is more akin to the arrogance a PP mentioned. I know it's not required in the Quran, and I know my Muslim women engineer acquaintances and friends know that too. So it seems like a statement about being purer, holier than thou.

Or maybe sometimes it's a political statement.

And yes, some women do wear it because they honestly believe it's a requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

His first wife also wouldn't let him take additional wives.

We don't know whether she wouldn't let him, or whether he didn't want to. Don't make things up.

He married others - after apparently being devoted to his first wife for many years - for political and religious reasons. to honor the dead men who fought in the name of Islam, to build connections with other tribes

So these women were simply props - no different from how they were used when they were married off for their dowries. But in this case, it was to further Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I don't think PP was making an argument, She was simply stating how she views those wearing a hijab. Her assumption is that they are brainwashed. This is on par with those who say if they see a person who is markedly unkempt in public they assume they are either homeless or have mental health problems.

People do and must use heuristics or shortcuts that use outer appearance to make quick assessments of another's circumstances in order to process the world and decide on a next action without being overwhelmed. More information, though, may change the judgment made through the heuristic. PP's heuristic for a hijab wearer is brainwashed woman, not much gong on there, and, possibly, not worth my time and more deserving of my pity.

Hijab wearers may or may not care that people see the scarf and make a quick judgment that she is brainwashed or arrogant or of extremist views. But I am guessing that at least some of them think the hijab should be seen as a positive message of their love and respect for God and man. I think I can safely say that is probably not the default heuristic for the vast majority of Americans.

The default heuristic for the vast majority of Americans is determined by the behavior of the community first, and its dress code second. No one thinks badly about nuns despite their ridiculous outfits because nuns are famous for the good deeds (generalizing). If Muslims were known primarily for charity, top scientific achievements, kindness to neighbors and superior intelligence, no one would care what their women dress like. In fact, people would have looked up to the hijabis if that was the case. Right now Muslims have a bad rap, so their women share it. That's about it.

You are assuming that Muslim women performing great works of charity and performing brilliantly in the sciences and other spheres would be hijabis. Evidence to date suggest Muslim women doing those things do not wear the hijab. And that certainly may not be a coincidence.

At least I hope that is your assumption. Because if you are talking about Muslim men making these achievements but their wives are staying at home in their hijabs you are mistaken if you think people would look up to these women. And, yes, people would think less of these men for marrying brainwashed women.

Interesting that in your last sentence--"Muslims have a bad rap, so their wives share it"--the word Muslim is used to mean Muslim men. Kind of conveys only men are fully Muslim; women are just an appendage thereof that get the reflected glory or infamy. This points to a reading of your earlier comments as having the second meaning I described above.

This pretty much sums up just about everything that is dislikeable about the hijab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I don't think PP was making an argument, She was simply stating how she views those wearing a hijab. Her assumption is that they are brainwashed. This is on par with those who say if they see a person who is markedly unkempt in public they assume they are either homeless or have mental health problems.

People do and must use heuristics or shortcuts that use outer appearance to make quick assessments of another's circumstances in order to process the world and decide on a next action without being overwhelmed. More information, though, may change the judgment made through the heuristic. PP's heuristic for a hijab wearer is brainwashed woman, not much gong on there, and, possibly, not worth my time and more deserving of my pity.

Hijab wearers may or may not care that people see the scarf and make a quick judgment that she is brainwashed or arrogant or of extremist views. But I am guessing that at least some of them think the hijab should be seen as a positive message of their love and respect for God and man. I think I can safely say that is probably not the default heuristic for the vast majority of Americans.

The default heuristic for the vast majority of Americans is determined by the behavior of the community first, and its dress code second. No one thinks badly about nuns despite their ridiculous outfits because nuns are famous for the good deeds (generalizing). If Muslims were known primarily for charity, top scientific achievements, kindness to neighbors and superior intelligence, no one would care what their women dress like. In fact, people would have looked up to the hijabis if that was the case. Right now Muslims have a bad rap, so their women share it. That's about it.

You are assuming that Muslim women performing great works of charity and performing brilliantly in the sciences and other spheres would be hijabis. Evidence to date suggest Muslim women doing those things do not wear the hijab. And that certainly may not be a coincidence.

At least I hope that is your assumption. Because if you are talking about Muslim men making these achievements but their wives are staying at home in their hijabs you are mistaken if you think people would look up to these women. And, yes, people would think less of these men for marrying brainwashed women.

Interesting that in your last sentence--"Muslims have a bad rap, so their wives share it"--the word Muslim is used to mean Muslim men. [b]Kind of conveys only men are fully Muslim; women are just an appendage thereof that get the reflected glory or infamy. This points to a reading of your earlier comments as having the second meaning I described

This pretty much sums up just about everything that is dislikeable about the hijab.

Based on what you've written, it goes beyond the hijab and extends to Islam.

If that's the case, the only reason the religion is protected is b/c of brainwashing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I don't think PP was making an argument, She was simply stating how she views those wearing a hijab. Her assumption is that they are brainwashed. This is on par with those who say if they see a person who is markedly unkempt in public they assume they are either homeless or have mental health problems.

People do and must use heuristics or shortcuts that use outer appearance to make quick assessments of another's circumstances in order to process the world and decide on a next action without being overwhelmed. More information, though, may change the judgment made through the heuristic. PP's heuristic for a hijab wearer is brainwashed woman, not much gong on there, and, possibly, not worth my time and more deserving of my pity.

Hijab wearers may or may not care that people see the scarf and make a quick judgment that she is brainwashed or arrogant or of extremist views. But I am guessing that at least some of them think the hijab should be seen as a positive message of their love and respect for God and man. I think I can safely say that is probably not the default heuristic for the vast majority of Americans.

The default heuristic for the vast majority of Americans is determined by the behavior of the community first, and its dress code second. No one thinks badly about nuns despite their ridiculous outfits because nuns are famous for the good deeds (generalizing). If Muslims were known primarily for charity, top scientific achievements, kindness to neighbors and superior intelligence, no one would care what their women dress like. In fact, people would have looked up to the hijabis if that was the case. Right now Muslims have a bad rap, so their women share it. That's about it.

You are assuming that Muslim women performing great works of charity and performing brilliantly in the sciences and other spheres would be hijabis. Evidence to date suggest Muslim women doing those things do not wear the hijab. And that certainly may not be a coincidence.

At least I hope that is your assumption. Because if you are talking about Muslim men making these achievements but their wives are staying at home in their hijabs you are mistaken if you think people would look up to these women. And, yes, people would think less of these men for marrying brainwashed women.

Interesting that in your last sentence--"Muslims have a bad rap, so their wives share it"--the word Muslim is used to mean Muslim men. [b]Kind of conveys only men are fully Muslim; women are just an appendage thereof that get the reflected glory or infamy. This points to a reading of your earlier comments as having the second meaning I described

This pretty much sums up just about everything that is dislikeable about the hijab.

Based on what you've written, it goes beyond the hijab and extends to Islam.

If that's the case, the only reason the religion is protected is b/c of brainwashing.

Yes, everything that is dislikable about the fundamentalist and extremist views of Islam disseminated today, of which the hijab is a symbol. But not about a moderate, reformist, and progressive Islam that is struggling to make itself heard.