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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You confuse exposure with liberation. The things that you "ought" to be happy about is that women in these photos are working or studying or reading. Not that they are wearing the outfits that meet your approval. It's not your business how they decide to dress. What if there was a photo of a niqabi surgeon, would she not be evolved enough for you? You don't own other women's bodies.

I'm not interested in "owning" other women's bodies! I want each and every woman to own her own body to the fullest extent. This means not feeling that anything about herself is inherently "impure" just because it is female.

Unless Muslim men are held to the same standard...the EXACT same standard, then this is simply another way to repress and subjugate Muslim women.

What makes you think anything about a woman is inherently impure?

What exact same standard? You want men to dress the same as women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You confuse exposure with liberation. The things that you "ought" to be happy about is that women in these photos are working or studying or reading. Not that they are wearing the outfits that meet your approval. It's not your business how they decide to dress. What if there was a photo of a niqabi surgeon, would she not be evolved enough for you? You don't own other women's bodies.

I think the liberation=exposure=promiscuity equation is a red herring.

The liberation in question is also from what hijab symbolizes--that a woman has value only if she's pure and virginal.

There's also liberation in having choices in how to dress, whether they're surgeons on SAHMs. In a culture where only the most brazen women show their limbs, however, then men will interpret this as advertising sex, and the choice goes away.

That said, I agree with you somewhat. Having worked in developing countries, I've seen the studies and surveys that show that feminism is down the list of women's priorities. First come food, water, housing, education for their children. Things like the right to vote or to choose how to dress are usually way down the list.

Who brought promiscuity into this discussion? You?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You confuse exposure with liberation. The things that you "ought" to be happy about is that women in these photos are working or studying or reading. Not that they are wearing the outfits that meet your approval. It's not your business how they decide to dress. What if there was a photo of a niqabi surgeon, would she not be evolved enough for you? You don't own other women's bodies.

No. But, please note the bolded. The women in those pictures had the option of "not covering". They no longer have that option. So, WHO is choosing HOW THEY DECIDE TO DRESS? It may not be "my business", but I think it should be theirs. You, obviously, disagree that it is their business.

Please tell me why Iranian women who live in the US do not cover--yet must cover when they go home to visit?

I am more interested in why you think that women who have the freedom not cover, and still cover, must necessarily be brainwashed.

I do not support any government-mandated dress codes for women. I also do not support judging a woman by how she dresses. Yet so many in this thread are ready to judge a covered woman.

What you're interested in is changing the subject.

[Anonymous]

Not reading through this whole thread, but agree with OP. What a relief to read this refreshing view from Muslim women I can relate to! Womenkind, unite! Cast off the shrouds of crude male and misogynist culture!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You confuse exposure with liberation. The things that you "ought" to be happy about is that women in these photos are working or studying or reading. Not that they are wearing the outfits that meet your approval. It's not your business how they decide to dress. What if there was a photo of a niqabi surgeon, would she not be evolved enough for you? You don't own other women's bodies.

I am posting this AGAIN from earlier in the thread because seriously, why re-write the same point over and over:

It absolutely is my business how they (women) dress. It is my business when I go to the country where my parents where born, where my family still lives, and am harassed and yelled at in the street because men have internalized the idea that women are the ones responsible for their arousal, and that a woman who is not covered is "asking" for it. It is my business that in a place where my mother used to walk about in a miniskirt without being bothered, no women, veiled or not, can walk without being bothered. It is my business when my daughter see families where the woman is dressed head to toe in a tent and the man is in shorts, looking comfy. What should I tell her about this? What message is that sending to other women, to young kids? Deny it all you want, but our clothes send a powerful message to the people around us. The way we dress is a powerful form of self-expression, and the article is arguing that in this instance, it is sending a political message, not just a personal religious one. I agree with the article because it reflects what I have seen and read. You can disagree all you want.

I would also add that your clothes make a statement about you. If a woman walks down the street with a tshirt with a swastika on it, she's communicating something. If a woman walks down the street wearing a bra and booty shorts, she's trying to communicate something as well. And when a woman wears a hijab, it's communicating that she subscribes to an ideology that I find inherently backwards and repressive.

And honestly, do you think a woman who is in a niqab could make it as a surgeon? Do you think she would be able to connect with patients and have them trust her? Do you think she would be able to perform surgery comfortably in her clothing? The niqab is an innovation, designed to limit women from connecting with the world around them, and totally successful. Decades ago, no woman in the Arab world wore them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You confuse exposure with liberation. The things that you "ought" to be happy about is that women in these photos are working or studying or reading. Not that they are wearing the outfits that meet your approval. It's not your business how they decide to dress. What if there was a photo of a niqabi surgeon, would she not be evolved enough for you? You don't own other women's bodies.

I'm not interested in "owning" other women's bodies! I want each and every woman to own her own body to the fullest extent. This means not feeling that anything about herself is inherently "impure" just because it is female.

Unless Muslim men are held to the same standard...the EXACT same standard, then this is simply another way to repress and subjugate Muslim women.

What makes you think anything about a woman is inherently impure?

What exact same standard? You want men to dress the same as women?

Try reading it again. NOTHING about a woman is inherently impure.

I want the same *standards*; otherwise it's oppression of women when they are the only ones expected or forced to cover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You confuse exposure with liberation. The things that you "ought" to be happy about is that women in these photos are working or studying or reading. Not that they are wearing the outfits that meet your approval. It's not your business how they decide to dress. What if there was a photo of a niqabi surgeon, would she not be evolved enough for you? You don't own other women's bodies.

I think the liberation=exposure=promiscuity equation is a red herring.

The liberation in question is also from what hijab symbolizes--that a woman has value only if she's pure and virginal.

There's also liberation in having choices in how to dress, whether they're surgeons on SAHMs. In a culture where only the most brazen women show their limbs, however, then men will interpret this as advertising sex, and the choice goes away.

That said, I agree with you somewhat. Having worked in developing countries, I've seen the studies and surveys that show that feminism is down the list of women's priorities. First come food, water, housing, education for their children. Things like the right to vote or to choose how to dress are usually way down the list.

Who brought promiscuity into this discussion? You?

You seem to have implied it. You certainly read all the time from hijab defenders that uncovered western women are promiscuous, so even if you didn't mean to say that, many of your fellow hijab defenders do.

[Anonymous]

What is more, hijabs have become so ubiquitous in some Arab countries that women whose choice would be to not cover feel obliged to cover themselves to avoid harassment from men in the street because the message has been sent that those who do not cover are impure and, thus, available to men for the asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Words fail.

You're talking to me. I did, however, do two semesters of Islamic history in college (as part of a Middle Ages history major). I have also read the Quran, including tracking the changing historical context as the Quran was revealed. Willing to bet I know more about it than you do. I haven't been posting much on this thread, but if academic creds are an issue for you, than as a non-Muslim I may have better creds than you.

I can't tell if I'm communicating with an adult DCUM'er or an arrogant tween brat here. How old are you? This much I know, your two semesters in college don't put you on quite the same standing as Leila Ahmed, Karen Armstrong, and Mark Jeurgensmeyer, Muzammil Siddiqi. Muslims will not be interested in your interpretation or opinion, either.

The point, which you're apparently incapable of addressing, is that you're wrong about your own religion when you keep insisting that decades of study of history and Quranic Arabic are necessary. Or that in the absence of decades of study, Muslims should all to listen to a priestly class of your vaunted theologians. (Which of the many individuals and schools of theologians, BTW?)

Pretty sure Karen Armstrong agrees with me on the issue of decades of study not being required. You're saying something antithetical to the stated purpose of your own holy book. Not to mention, putting interpretation in the hands of men with their own cultural biases and agendas when it comes to things like veiling.

Being unable to address the point, you go for cheap insults. And since when does citing writers like Karen Armstrong, without mentioning her position on veiling, constitute an adult way to conduct an argument?

What was the cheap insult? That scholars such as Karen Armstrong, Muzammil Siddiqi, Mark Jeurgensmeyer, Leila Ahmed are far more knowledgeable than you with your two semesters of college study? That's not meant to insult; it's a fact. To consider this a cheap insult means you were offended. To be offended means you really do have quite an ego, based on your two semesters of college study I presume.

Some scholars will say hijab is required based on the fact that hair is an adornment and the Quran asks women to cover their adornments. Others will say the Quran does not require covering the hair but say many Muslim women cover their hair by choice. To many Muslim women it is a symbol of liberation from imposing western ideology that emphasizes revealing skin, the curves of a woman's body, and adornments. Other Muslim women sincerely believe since hair is an adornment, it must be covered. It is not a symbol of oppression to many Muslim women.

If every Muslim country got rid of hijab mandate, you may still see many Muslim women covering their hair. This would certainly crush Ms. Nomani's heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Words fail.

You're talking to me. I did, however, do two semesters of Islamic history in college (as part of a Middle Ages history major). I have also read the Quran, including tracking the changing historical context as the Quran was revealed. Willing to bet I know more about it than you do. I haven't been posting much on this thread, but if academic creds are an issue for you, than as a non-Muslim I may have better creds than you.

I can't tell if I'm communicating with an adult DCUM'er or an arrogant tween brat here. How old are you? This much I know, your two semesters in college don't put you on quite the same standing as Leila Ahmed, Karen Armstrong, and Mark Jeurgensmeyer, Muzammil Siddiqi. Muslims will not be interested in your interpretation or opinion, either.

The point, which you're apparently incapable of addressing, is that you're wrong about your own religion when you keep insisting that decades of study of history and Quranic Arabic are necessary. Or that in the absence of decades of study, Muslims should all to listen to a priestly class of your vaunted theologians. (Which of the many individuals and schools of theologians, BTW?)

Pretty sure Karen Armstrong agrees with me on the issue of decades of study not being required. You're saying something antithetical to the stated purpose of your own holy book. Not to mention, putting interpretation in the hands of men with their own cultural biases and agendas when it comes to things like veiling.

Being unable to address the point, you go for cheap insults. And since when does citing writers like Karen Armstrong, without mentioning her position on veiling, constitute an adult way to conduct an argument?

What was the cheap insult? That scholars such as Karen Armstrong, Muzammil Siddiqi, Mark Jeurgensmeyer, Leila Ahmed are far more knowledgeable than you with your two semesters of college study? That's not meant to insult; it's a fact. To consider this a cheap insult means you were offended. To be offended means you really do have quite an ego, based on your two semesters of college study I presume.

Some scholars will say hijab is required based on the fact that hair is an adornment and the Quran asks women to cover their adornments. Others will say the Quran does not require covering the hair but say many Muslim women cover their hair by choice. To many Muslim women it is a symbol of liberation from imposing western ideology that emphasizes revealing skin, the curves of a woman's body, and adornments. Other Muslim women sincerely believe since hair is an adornment, it must be covered. It is not a symbol of oppression to many Muslim women.

If every Muslim country got rid of hijab mandate, you may still see many Muslim women covering their hair. This would certainly crush Ms. Nomani's heart.

Oh please. Calling someone a teenage brat is the definition of a cheap insult and reveals the level of discourse and thinking that you're able to engage in - a low level.

Instead of continuing to insult that poster and Ms Nomani, how about addressing some of the much more recent posts on this page?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Words fail.

You're talking to me. I did, however, do two semesters of Islamic history in college (as part of a Middle Ages history major). I have also read the Quran, including tracking the changing historical context as the Quran was revealed. Willing to bet I know more about it than you do. I haven't been posting much on this thread, but if academic creds are an issue for you, than as a non-Muslim I may have better creds than you.

I can't tell if I'm communicating with an adult DCUM'er or an arrogant tween brat here. How old are you? This much I know, your two semesters in college don't put you on quite the same standing as Leila Ahmed, Karen Armstrong, and Mark Jeurgensmeyer, Muzammil Siddiqi. Muslims will not be interested in your interpretation or opinion, either.

The point, which you're apparently incapable of addressing, is that you're wrong about your own religion when you keep insisting that decades of study of history and Quranic Arabic are necessary. Or that in the absence of decades of study, Muslims should all to listen to a priestly class of your vaunted theologians. (Which of the many individuals and schools of theologians, BTW?)

Pretty sure Karen Armstrong agrees with me on the issue of decades of study not being required. You're saying something antithetical to the stated purpose of your own holy book. Not to mention, putting interpretation in the hands of men with their own cultural biases and agendas when it comes to things like veiling.

Being unable to address the point, you go for cheap insults. And since when does citing writers like Karen Armstrong, without mentioning her position on veiling, constitute an adult way to conduct an argument?

What was the cheap insult? That scholars such as Karen Armstrong, Muzammil Siddiqi, Mark Jeurgensmeyer, Leila Ahmed are far more knowledgeable than you with your two semesters of college study? That's not meant to insult; it's a fact. To consider this a cheap insult means you were offended. To be offended means you really do have quite an ego, based on your two semesters of college study I presume.

Some scholars will say hijab is required based on the fact that hair is an adornment and the Quran asks women to cover their adornments. Others will say the Quran does not require covering the hair but say many Muslim women cover their hair by choice. To many Muslim women it is a symbol of liberation from imposing western ideology that emphasizes revealing skin, the curves of a woman's body, and adornments. Other Muslim women sincerely believe since hair is an adornment, it must be covered. It is not a symbol of oppression to many Muslim women.

If every Muslim country got rid of hijab mandate, you may still see many Muslim women covering their hair. This would certainly crush Ms. Nomani's heart.

Sure they would continue to cover because otherwise they would be faced with harassment in the street from men conditioned to believe a woman showing her hair is impure and available.

[Anonymous]

This discussion is a great example of white neocolonialism running amok, concerned white women wringing their hands over how to transform uncultured natives.

Have any of you ever asked a living, breathing, woman why she wears a headscarf?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This discussion is a great example of white neocolonialism running amok, concerned white women wringing their hands over how to transform uncultured natives.

Have any of you ever asked a living, breathing, woman why she wears a headscarf?

Thanks, but I'm not white, I'm Arab-American, just like neither of the authors are white, and we all happen to think hijabs are an innovation that has backrolled progress for women in the Muslim world.

Sorry not sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This discussion is a great example of white neocolonialism running amok, concerned white women wringing their hands over how to transform uncultured natives.

Have any of you ever asked a living, breathing, woman why she wears a headscarf?

Yes

had a colleague who covered for the reasons mentioned on this thread


married to a "model" in her community who beat the fuck out of her

She no longer covers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This discussion is a great example of white neocolonialism running amok, concerned white women wringing their hands over how to transform uncultured natives.

Have any of you ever asked a living, breathing, woman why she wears a headscarf?

The Wahabis are the neocolonialist here, PP. Study up on your Middle East history. The Wahhabis, using KSA petrol bucks, have been pushing the niqab on many middle eastern communities where it didn't exist several decades ago.