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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not exactly following what you guys are arguing about, but acting like a woman who was married off at 6 "reaped very big gains" is just so grotesque and awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody is disputing that Aisha made out "big time." What we are questioning is whether she was HAPPY. See the difference?

It's hard to swallow your blithe assurances that she was probably not "discommoded much." Your "who cares, she was rich and anyway she was on her second engagement so it doesn't matter" is actually appalling.

PP, you've been accused of, effectively, misogyny twice on this page alone. In two different contexts, by two different people (me and someone else). As you defend the veil. Do you see a problem here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Fine, but you've been asked to give us credible alternative theories. Just one credible alternative theory will do.

In Aisha's case, if you want to go with "it's a guy thing and all the boys were doing it" then it would be harder to argue against than your silly contention that six-year-old understood the riches she'd enjoy later in life. But the "guy thing" theory doesn't reflect well on your prophet. I suggest you come up with something better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Perhaps English is not your first language?

Language matters. When you write "Muslims and their women" you are ascribing male gender only to Muslims. No females because they are captured by "and their women." And you did this twice.

So clearly you meant if Muslim men had great achievements, no one would care that their women wear hijabs and would in fact would look up to them. Presumably to gaze upon the reflected glory of their accomplished husbands, fathers, sons, or brothers. And no one would notice or care about their subservient status because a man's great accomplishments make up for it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody is disputing that Aisha made out "big time." What we are questioning is whether she was HAPPY. See the difference?

It's hard to swallow your blithe assurances that she was probably not "discommoded much." Your "who cares, she was rich and anyway she was on her second engagement so it doesn't matter" is actually appalling.

PP, you've been accused of, effectively, misogyny twice on this page alone. In two different contexts, by two different people (me and someone else). As you defend the veil. Do you see a problem here?

To be clear, Aisha didn't have any choice in the matter. Her happiness is a valid question.

Where motives are concerned, however, it's the motives of her father Abu Bakr and Mohammed that actually reflect free agency. We can't know for sure. But we can speculate. So far Muslim PP seems to be leaning away from alliances and towards "who wouldn't want a pre-pubescent girl?" Are there any other theories out there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Khomeini issue a pronouncement about whether it's permissible to have sex with chickens? Shia, of course.

More fundamentally, Islam is a religion that covers many aspects of life and law. The incursion of the beards into sex with chickens and dead wives is an extension of this. These pronouncements take the preachers way beyond the Quran, which doesn't go near the questions of sex with chickens and dead wives. It's unfortunate and unnecessary, but symptomatic of the control these guys are trying to grasp today.

Shia, "of course"?

You are a fucking bigot.

Is Khomenei not Shiite? I put that in to forestall the inevitable "but he's Shiite and I'm Sunni so he doesn't count".

You're a fucking moron looking for a fight. Excuse the French.

[Anonymous]

Khomeini was, not is.... But you're still an effin moron itching for a fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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're a moron - plain and simple b/c you just don't get the analogy
For years women have been props, property - and this is especially true in Islam.


Furthermore, I was the one who mentioned that your beloved prophet married these women to honor the dead men who were martyrs for Islam and to make connections to other tribes.

once a prop, always a prop
in Islam, that is

[Anonymous]

Maybe PP really doesn't speak English as a first language. "Of course" definitely isn't freighted with the pejorative meaning she read into it.

Or, she's looking for a fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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're a moron - plain and simple b/c you just don't get the analogy
For years women have been props, property - and this is especially true in Islam.


Furthermore, I was the one who mentioned that your beloved prophet married these women to honor the dead men who were martyrs for Islam and to make connections to other tribes.

once a prop, always a prop
in Islam, that is

To be fair, lots of us were already aware of the building alliances motive. This included alliances with other tribes. I've been pounding away at it above.

[Anonymous]

New to the Aisha/Muhammed subplot in this thread.

Mutual love could not be a reason because Aisha simply wasn't old enough. Also, although the poetry of the time is full of romantic love, this almost never factored into marriage (much as in Europe in medieval times and later).

So we are pretty much left with two scenarios. The first is an alliance as earlier described. The second is that Muhammed became besotted with the young Aisha and sought her hand in marriage. And her father agreed as he could readily see the advantage of the alliance that would result.

Either way, an alliance, so that is my vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody is disputing that Aisha made out "big time." What we are questioning is whether she was HAPPY. See the difference?

It's hard to swallow your blithe assurances that she was probably not "discommoded much." Your "who cares, she was rich and anyway she was on her second engagement so it doesn't matter" is actually appalling.

PP, you've been accused of, effectively, misogyny twice on this page alone. In two different contexts, by two different people (me and someone else). As you defend the veil. Do you see a problem here?

Perhaps you can read the stories she left behind and figure out whether she was. As it were, you are basing your opinion on how would you feel in this situation, and that's a false approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Fine, but you've been asked to give us credible alternative theories. Just one credible alternative theory will do.

In Aisha's case, if you want to go with "it's a guy thing and all the boys were doing it" then it would be harder to argue against than your silly contention that six-year-old understood the riches she'd enjoy later in life. But the "guy thing" theory doesn't reflect well on your prophet. I suggest you come up with something better.

My prophet?

What makes you think I'm Muslim?

Your habit of assuming things about people to fit your stories?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody is disputing that Aisha made out "big time." What we are questioning is whether she was HAPPY. See the difference?

It's hard to swallow your blithe assurances that she was probably not "discommoded much." Your "who cares, she was rich and anyway she was on her second engagement so it doesn't matter" is actually appalling.

PP, you've been accused of, effectively, misogyny twice on this page alone. In two different contexts, by two different people (me and someone else). As you defend the veil. Do you see a problem here?

Perhaps you can read the stories she left behind and figure out whether she was. As it were, you are basing your opinion on how would you feel in this situation, and that's a false approach.

How convenient for you as a way to shut down any talk of Aisha's happiness. Still waiting for you to address the misogyny charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Fine, but you've been asked to give us credible alternative theories. Just one credible alternative theory will do.

In Aisha's case, if you want to go with "it's a guy thing and all the boys were doing it" then it would be harder to argue against than your silly contention that six-year-old understood the riches she'd enjoy later in life. But the "guy thing" theory doesn't reflect well on your prophet. I suggest you come up with something better.

My prophet?

What makes you think I'm Muslim?

Your habit of assuming things about people to fit your stories?

You're arguing with 3-4 people here.

Granted it's hard to tell who's who here. But there's definitely a poster on tonight doing Muslim apologetics. That's you, if you're the poster referring to "Muslims and their wives" and writing "who cares, she made out like a bandit" about Aisha. You're also assuming a stance towards women's roles and rights--again, the wives of Muslim philanthropists and scientists, as well as Aisha's rights--that most non-Muslims would be uncomfortable with. Or at least would know better than to post that here.

I'll play along and rephrase. "The 'guy' theory doesn't reflect well on Islam's prophet." Happy now? OK, how about finally rising to the challenge of offering better theories, instead of looking for new ways to pick pointless fights?