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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You don't know WHY he married others. Don't make things up.

You also don't seem to know that in Islam, the dowry belongs to the woman.

You want to suggest that it's because he was deeply in love with a six-year-old? I'm much more comfortable with the traditional explanation, which is that she represented a valuable alliance. As PP said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1) Is it all Egyptian women or the urban elites? U sure?

2) If you want to point a finger somewhere, point it at your men. If they didn't support this, the idea of covering women wouldn't get very far.

I am the Egyptian pp, and my family was as far from urban elites as you can imagine, both geographically and culturally. We're also Christian, so you can't point at "my" men.

Then your family never had to cover, and neither do you, now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't know WHY he married others. Don't make things up.

You also don't seem to know that in Islam, the dowry belongs to the woman.

You want to suggest that it's because he was deeply in love with a six-year-old? I'm much more comfortable with the traditional explanation, which is that she represented a valuable alliance. As PP said.

Being deeply in love with a 40-year old with lots of mileage on her (for a 25-year old man) isn't much better of a theory.

That said, there is no evidence that his first wife didn't LET him marry others. Saying that is BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1) Is it all Egyptian women or the urban elites? U sure?

2) If you want to point a finger somewhere, point it at your men. If they didn't support this, the idea of covering women wouldn't get very far.

I am the Egyptian pp, and my family was as far from urban elites as you can imagine, both geographically and culturally. We're also Christian, so you can't point at "my" men.

Then your family never had to cover, and neither do you, now.

I never had to "cover" but I could never go outside with clothes above the knee or a sleeveless top. I was constantly stared at by all kinds of people and heckled by men and treated like shit. Going outside by myself became a huge chore. My mother, who grew up in a village where most people didn't even have electricity, felt no such pressure in her youth. The culture of the majority affects everyone, pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't know WHY he married others. Don't make things up.

You also don't seem to know that in Islam, the dowry belongs to the woman.

You want to suggest that it's because he was deeply in love with a six-year-old? I'm much more comfortable with the traditional explanation, which is that she represented a valuable alliance. As PP said.

Being deeply in love with a 40-year old with lots of mileage on her (for a 25-year old man) isn't much better of a theory.

That said, there is no evidence that his first wife didn't LET him marry others. Saying that is BS.

Jeez you constantly change subjects when you have no good answers. I was talking about 6-year-old Aisha, as you know. So give us a different, but still credible, theory about their marriage, if the love angle repels us both and you reject the alliance theory.

Also, you can't call something "BS" if you admit to not actually knowing one way or another. Just saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1) Is it all Egyptian women or the urban elites? U sure?

2) If you want to point a finger somewhere, point it at your men. If they didn't support this, the idea of covering women wouldn't get very far.

I am the Egyptian pp, and my family was as far from urban elites as you can imagine, both geographically and culturally. We're also Christian, so you can't point at "my" men.

Then your family never had to cover, and neither do you, now.

I never had to "cover" but I could never go outside with clothes above the knee or a sleeveless top. I was constantly stared at by all kinds of people and heckled by men and treated like shit. Going outside by myself became a huge chore. My mother, who grew up in a village where most people didn't even have electricity, felt no such pressure in her youth. The culture of the majority affects everyone, pp.

I'm sure it did, and this is why I'm saying that if men didn't heckle before and are heckling now, this is where your finger should be pointing.

I also am kinda having trouble believing your mom tooled around in a miniskirt in an Egyptian village with no electricity when she was a young marriageable girl. Just saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you guys so concerned with Muslims women wearing headscarf? Do you fear them? I believe it's their rights to wear whatever they want.

Why are they considered backward when they choose to cover themselves. Covering your body with less and less clothing are backwards to me because it seems that people wants to be like in cavemen yesteryear.

Just because these Muslim women against hijab, doesn't mean that they representing other muslims's opinion in why they wear hijab.

We should be judged by our character and ability, and not by the way we clothes.

If only it were a choice for most women. But most are forced by the men in their lives to wear it.

You can argue that is done for free will and choice, but there is nothing you can say to convince me that a woman "chooses" to cover herself and daughters from head to toe to wrist in heavy black fabric with only her face showing on the beaches of Hawaii, while her husband and sons frolic in board shorts, or "chooses" to cover herself completely, including her face, during a humid, upper 90 degree sweltering August day.

+1,000,000,00000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1) Is it all Egyptian women or the urban elites? U sure?

2) If you want to point a finger somewhere, point it at your men. If they didn't support this, the idea of covering women wouldn't get very far.

I am the Egyptian pp, and my family was as far from urban elites as you can imagine, both geographically and culturally. We're also Christian, so you can't point at "my" men.

Then your family never had to cover, and neither do you, now.

I never had to "cover" but I could never go outside with clothes above the knee or a sleeveless top. I was constantly stared at by all kinds of people and heckled by men and treated like shit. Going outside by myself became a huge chore. My mother, who grew up in a village where most people didn't even have electricity, felt no such pressure in her youth. The culture of the majority affects everyone, pp.

I'm sure it did, and this is why I'm saying that if men didn't heckle before and are heckling now, this is where your finger should be pointing.

I also am kinda having trouble believing your mom tooled around in a miniskirt in an Egyptian village with no electricity when she was a young marriageable girl. Just saying.

It kind of doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is the truth. And that was the truth- people could wear what they wanted and people were respectful. And the attitudes of the people there are everybody's responsibility. Who raised the young men who are now heckling and harassing women? Mothers. Who placed the responsibility of men's sexual urges on women? Religious authorities. If you think these changes are unrelated to the hijab and Islamic fundamentalism, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't know WHY he married others. Don't make things up.

You also don't seem to know that in Islam, the dowry belongs to the woman.

You want to suggest that it's because he was deeply in love with a six-year-old? I'm much more comfortable with the traditional explanation, which is that she represented a valuable alliance. As PP said.

Being deeply in love with a 40-year old with lots of mileage on her (for a 25-year old man) isn't much better of a theory.

That said, there is no evidence that his first wife didn't LET him marry others. Saying that is BS.

Jeez you constantly change subjects when you have no good answers. I was talking about 6-year-old Aisha, as you know. So give us a different, but still credible, theory about their marriage, if the love angle repels us both and you reject the alliance theory.

Also, you can't call something "BS" if you admit to not actually knowing one way or another. Just saying.

How am I changing subjects? A PP said his first wife didn't let him marry others. I said there is no evidence to say that was the reason he didn't. I keep saying that.

As for the marriage to Aisha, she collected on her marriage big time, so I doubt she was discommoded much. I am also wiling to believe that a 50-year old doesn't need a particularly strong reason to pair up with a young girl. Most 50-year olds will sleep with the youngest legal option if they could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't know WHY he married others. Don't make things up.

You also don't seem to know that in Islam, the dowry belongs to the woman.

You want to suggest that it's because he was deeply in love with a six-year-old? I'm much more comfortable with the traditional explanation, which is that she represented a valuable alliance. As PP said.

Being deeply in love with a 40-year old with lots of mileage on her (for a 25-year old man) isn't much better of a theory.

That said, there is no evidence that his first wife didn't LET him marry others. Saying that is BS.

Jeez you constantly change subjects when you have no good answers. I was talking about 6-year-old Aisha, as you know. So give us a different, but still credible, theory about their marriage, if the love angle repels us both and you reject the alliance theory.

Also, you can't call something "BS" if you admit to not actually knowing one way or another. Just saying.

How am I changing subjects? A PP said his first wife didn't let him marry others. I said there is no evidence to say that was the reason he didn't. I keep saying that.

As for the marriage to Aisha, she collected on her marriage big time, so I doubt she was discommoded much. I am also wiling to believe that a 50-year old doesn't need a particularly strong reason to pair up with a young girl. Most 50-year olds will sleep with the youngest legal option if they could.

Khadijah was referenced very briefly, what, 2-3 pages ago. Yet you dredge her up again rather than answer the question about Aisha that's in the quote you're supposedly replying to. That's why you're being accused of sleazeball-dom.

Factually, though, Khadijah had a lot of power in that marriage. He came to the marriage poor but ambitious, and she had all the money and business holdings. She was a cougar, and all power to her. I'm not saying love wasn't involved, and by most accounts they had a very close relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How am I changing subjects? A PP said his first wife didn't let him marry others. I said there is no evidence to say that was the reason he didn't. I keep saying that.

As for the marriage to Aisha, she collected on her marriage big time, so I doubt she was discommoded much. I am also wiling to believe that a 50-year old doesn't need a particularly strong reason to pair up with a young girl. Most 50-year olds will sleep with the youngest legal option if they could.

OK, gross. Now you're all but shrugging off Aisha's marriage as being a "guy thing."

Aisha was the daughter of one of Mohammed's top lieutenants. Yet you prefer to toss out the alliance theory in favor of your notion that a six-year-old enters marriage with dreams of "collecting big time." You also "doubt she was discommoded"--well hello sweeping assumptions based on no factual or historical evidence whatsoever. But it's OK when you do this, right?

[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. 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.

Way to make up a hill of bullshit that wasn't in the post to fit your narrative. Wives staying at home? Brainwashed women? Their "wives" share it? Can you even read or do you just make it up as you go along?

Pardon me. What you said is, "Right now Muslims have a bad rap, so their women (not wives as I wrote) share it." You also said, "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 both cases, Muslims are to one side and their women are to the other. Implicitly then, Muslims in both these cases refer to Muslim men. That is, Muslims of any importance, whether engaging in achievements or getting notoriety, are males. The women are just along for whatever ride comes out of their men's actions and are not themselves engaging in the achievements or the primary targets of the bad rap.

This is the total subsuming into men that many of us has said the hijab represents for women and your words confirm that is precisely what is happening in Islam today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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. 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.

Way to make up a hill of bullshit that wasn't in the post to fit your narrative. Wives staying at home? Brainwashed women? Their "wives" share it? Can you even read or do you just make it up as you go along?

Pardon me. What you said is, "Right now Muslims have a bad rap, so their women (not wives as I wrote) share it." You also said, "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 both cases, Muslims are to one side and their women are to the other. Implicitly then, Muslims in both these cases refer to Muslim men. That is, Muslims of any importance, whether engaging in achievements or getting notoriety, are males. The women are just along for whatever ride comes out of their men's actions and are not themselves engaging in the achievements or the primary targets of the bad rap.

This is the total subsuming into men that many of us has said the hijab represents for women and your words confirm that is precisely what is happening in Islam today.

That's the part you made up. I get it, it works for your narrative, so more power to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How am I changing subjects? A PP said his first wife didn't let him marry others. I said there is no evidence to say that was the reason he didn't. I keep saying that.

As for the marriage to Aisha, she collected on her marriage big time, so I doubt she was discommoded much. I am also wiling to believe that a 50-year old doesn't need a particularly strong reason to pair up with a young girl. Most 50-year olds will sleep with the youngest legal option if they could.

OK, gross. Now you're all but shrugging off Aisha's marriage as being a "guy thing."

Aisha was the daughter of one of Mohammed's top lieutenants. Yet you prefer to toss out the alliance theory in favor of your notion that a six-year-old enters marriage with dreams of "collecting big time." You also "doubt she was discommoded"--well hello sweeping assumptions based on no factual or historical evidence whatsoever. But it's OK when you do this, right?

What she dreamed about, no one knew. And who cares? That wasn't even her first engagement.

That she has reaped very big gains out of this marriage is an actual fact.

I don't actually have a theory on what drove her. That wasn't my story. I said we don't know whether Mohammed's first wife banned him from marrying others. That's my story, I'm sticking to it.

[Anonymous]

PS: I don't reject the alliance theory. All I'm saying it it's a theory, we don't know for sure. You should be comfortable admitting that, too, instead of stating it as if it were a fact.