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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the poster being responded to and I agree with PP. A Muslim, nobody else, first mentioned the supposed link between Western women, promiscuity, STDs and teen pregnancy.

PS, Muslim PP is free to judge my wardrobe! I too doubt that many here would find it provocative, yet a Muslim here already put me at risk of STDs just because I live in a culture without veils.

That's how it works! You privately and publicly condemn all of us for promiscuity. You can't turn around and demand that we rid our minds of all negative thoughts about the veil, either privately or on what we post here. The religious angle gives no special protection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the poster being responded to and I agree with PP. A Muslim, nobody else, first mentioned the supposed link between Western women, promiscuity, STDs and teen pregnancy.

PS, Muslim PP is free to judge my wardrobe! I too doubt that many here would find it provocative, yet a Muslim here already put me at risk of STDs just because I live in a culture without veils.

That's how it works! You privately and publicly condemn all of us for promiscuity. You can't turn around and demand that we rid our minds of all negative thoughts about the veil, either privately or on what we post here. The religious angle gives no special protection.

The wonderful thing about this country is that I am free to practice my religion and to dress in miniskirts and high heels, or to dress in hijab. I can go to any public place dressed like that, I can work in many places dressed like that. I can judge and be judged and do the same for others, without bringing the government into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the poster being responded to and I agree with PP. A Muslim, nobody else, first mentioned the supposed link between Western women, promiscuity, STDs and teen pregnancy.

PS, Muslim PP is free to judge my wardrobe! I too doubt that many here would find it provocative, yet a Muslim here already put me at risk of STDs just because I live in a culture without veils.

That's how it works! You privately and publicly condemn all of us for promiscuity. You can't turn around and demand that we rid our minds of all negative thoughts about the veil, either privately or on what we post here. The religious angle gives no special protection.

The wonderful thing about this country is that I am free to practice my religion and to dress in miniskirts and high heels, or to dress in hijab. I can go to any public place dressed like that, I can work in many places dressed like that. I can judge and be judged and do the same for others, without bringing the government into it.

Well, not directly, but all things being equal between two candidates, one practices your religion, and one practices a different or no religion, who would you vote for? Between a Muslim politician and an atheist politician, who is more likely to push for implementation of Sharia law. How do you think the word "under God" got into the pledge of allegiance, or "In God We Trust" onto the US currency. Sure the US has implemented one of the most effective separations of church and state, but lets not be naive and think that private practice of religion has no effect on the affairs of the government. The government as an entity exists only as a collection of individuals who have agreed to behave in a certain way as a collective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the poster being responded to and I agree with PP. A Muslim, nobody else, first mentioned the supposed link between Western women, promiscuity, STDs and teen pregnancy.

PS, Muslim PP is free to judge my wardrobe! I too doubt that many here would find it provocative, yet a Muslim here already put me at risk of STDs just because I live in a culture without veils.

That's how it works! You privately and publicly condemn all of us for promiscuity. You can't turn around and demand that we rid our minds of all negative thoughts about the veil, either privately or on what we post here. The religious angle gives no special protection.

The wonderful thing about this country is that I am free to practice my religion and to dress in miniskirts and high heels, or to dress in hijab. I can go to any public place dressed like that, I can work in many places dressed like that. I can judge and be judged and do the same for others, without bringing the government into it.

Well, not directly, but all things being equal between two candidates, one practices your religion, and one practices a different or no religion, who would you vote for? Between a Muslim politician and an atheist politician, who is more likely to push for implementation of Sharia law. How do you think the word "under God" got into the pledge of allegiance, or "In God We Trust" onto the US currency. Sure the US has implemented one of the most effective separations of church and state, but lets not be naive and think that private practice of religion has no effect on the affairs of the government. The government as an entity exists only as a collection of individuals who have agreed to behave in a certain way as a collective.

Please drop this line of argument. It is a complete red herring to say that Muslims in the US want to implement Sharia law here. You can look at the Pew surveys that show the majority of Muslims in countries where they dominate do not want to implement Sharia law in their own countries.

(A major exception is for matters of civil status where Muslims follow Sharia law and Christians use church law--this is the status quo in virtually all the majority Muslim countries.)

[Anonymous]

Re: the STDs.

STDs are epidemic in Iran despite the chador mandate.

Iran's fertility rate has declined far faster than any other country. As of 2012, the birth rate for women stood at 1.6, below replacement. It has a lifetime infertility rate of between 22%and 25%, the highest in the world.

The tentative conclusion is that the decline in birth rates is due to STD-induced infertility. The government has made IVF available very cheaply as a counter measure.

You will notice that the onset of the decline in birth rates lagged by two years or so the Iranian Revolution. Can we conclude that the chador and other government mandated coverings are associated with a rise, rather than a decrease, in STDs? In any case, there appears to be no substance to the hijab as protection from STDs argument.

http://www.meforum.org/5000/strategic-implications-iran-std

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: the STDs.

STDs are epidemic in Iran despite the chador mandate.

Iran's fertility rate has declined far faster than any other country. As of 2012, the birth rate for women stood at 1.6, below replacement. It has a lifetime infertility rate of between 22%and 25%, the highest in the world.

The tentative conclusion is that the decline in birth rates is due to STD-induced infertility. The government has made IVF available very cheaply as a counter measure.

You will notice that the onset of the decline in birth rates lagged by two years or so the Iranian Revolution. Can we conclude that the chador and other government mandated coverings are associated with a rise, rather than a decrease, in STDs? In any case, there appears to be no substance to the hijab as protection from STDs argument.

http://www.meforum.org/5000/strategic-implications-iran-std

That's completely ridiculous - to presume that the decline in fertility is attributed to STDs. Iran always had a very healthy attitude to birth control - to the point where the ayatollah himself opined and suggested that birth control is a good and reasonable thing to do, and that two to three children is what normal families should have and no more. Iran never allowed a religiously inspired prejudice against birth control to emerge, and it has also put its state-managed healthcare system behind this decision.

A more likely conclusion (this, too, is a guess) that in Iran, like everywhere, couples are marrying later and having fewer children. Or that the economy isn't doing well so people aren't hot to procreate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: ... What vested goal and interest do they have to imply women, who do choose to wear hijab, are gullible, oppressed, and naive? The goal is in shaming hijabi women until they adopt a more western style of clothing. The interest is in diluting the faith and practice of Islam. ...

That you make such a ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim completely undercuts anything else you might say. Literally no one has said that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: the STDs.

STDs are epidemic in Iran despite the chador mandate.

Iran's fertility rate has declined far faster than any other country. As of 2012, the birth rate for women stood at 1.6, below replacement. It has a lifetime infertility rate of between 22%and 25%, the highest in the world.

The tentative conclusion is that the decline in birth rates is due to STD-induced infertility. The government has made IVF available very cheaply as a counter measure.

You will notice that the onset of the decline in birth rates lagged by two years or so the Iranian Revolution. Can we conclude that the chador and other government mandated coverings are associated with a rise, rather than a decrease, in STDs? In any case, there appears to be no substance to the hijab as protection from STDs argument.

http://www.meforum.org/5000/strategic-implications-iran-std

That's completely ridiculous - to presume that the decline in fertility is attributed to STDs. Iran always had a very healthy attitude to birth control - to the point where the ayatollah himself opined and suggested that birth control is a good and reasonable thing to do, and that two to three children is what normal families should have and no more. Iran never allowed a religiously inspired prejudice against birth control to emerge, and it has also put its state-managed healthcare system behind this decision.

A more likely conclusion (this, too, is a guess) that in Iran, like everywhere, couples are marrying later and having fewer children. Or that the economy isn't doing well so people aren't hot to procreate.

You have ignored that Iran has the highest lifetime infertility rate in the world. This is the opposite problem of birth control. It means that a quarter of couples who want children are unable to conceive. And a very, very common cause of infertility is STDs that have gone untreated or were inadequately treated.

You also ignored information in the article stating that the incidence of chlamydia in Iran has been gauged at 12.6% on one survey and 21.25% on another survey. The incidence in the US is 0.6%. This very high rate in Iran is likely a major contributor to the high infertility rate there as this infection frequently is unrecognized and goes untreated and is a known cause of infertility.

Finally, you ignored the implosion in Iran's birth rate, which is highly unusual. Typically, the trend goes down gradually as women become literate, stay in school longer rather than getting married early, and become more educated with regard to birth control options.

As the article states: "Iran's fertility decline from about seven children per female in 1979 to just 1.6 in 2012 remains a conundrum to demographers. Never before in recorded history has the birth rate of a big country fallen so fast and so far. Iran's population is aging faster than that of any other country in the world."

A decline like this needs an explanation and the easy ones you give are the ones that explain a normal decline in birth rate but not a precipitous one. Other factors need to be explored--thus the article posits that high rates of STDs like chlamydia that lead to infertility if not properly recognized and treated are a cause.

This may not match with your theory that hijab=protection from STDs, but these are facts that need to be dealt with together with the prevalence of temporary marriage and continuance of prostitution as a commonplace in the Iran.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: ... What vested goal and interest do they have to imply women, who do choose to wear hijab, are gullible, oppressed, and naive? The goal is in shaming hijabi women until they adopt a more western style of clothing. The interest is in diluting the faith and practice of Islam. ...

That you make such a ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim completely undercuts anything else you might say. Literally no one has said that.

In fact some have said the opposite: the hijab dilutes the faith and practice of Islam by reducing it all down to being simply some standard of modesty rather than a faith with a large spiritual dimension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: the STDs.

STDs are epidemic in Iran despite the chador mandate.

Iran's fertility rate has declined far faster than any other country. As of 2012, the birth rate for women stood at 1.6, below replacement. It has a lifetime infertility rate of between 22%and 25%, the highest in the world.

The tentative conclusion is that the decline in birth rates is due to STD-induced infertility. The government has made IVF available very cheaply as a counter measure.

You will notice that the onset of the decline in birth rates lagged by two years or so the Iranian Revolution. Can we conclude that the chador and other government mandated coverings are associated with a rise, rather than a decrease, in STDs? In any case, there appears to be no substance to the hijab as protection from STDs argument.

http://www.meforum.org/5000/strategic-implications-iran-std

That's completely ridiculous - to presume that the decline in fertility is attributed to STDs. Iran always had a very healthy attitude to birth control - to the point where the ayatollah himself opined and suggested that birth control is a good and reasonable thing to do, and that two to three children is what normal families should have and no more. Iran never allowed a religiously inspired prejudice against birth control to emerge, and it has also put its state-managed healthcare system behind this decision.

A more likely conclusion (this, too, is a guess) that in Iran, like everywhere, couples are marrying later and having fewer children. Or that the economy isn't doing well so people aren't hot to procreate.

You have ignored that Iran has the highest lifetime infertility rate in the world. This is the opposite problem of birth control. It means that a quarter of couples who want children are unable to conceive. And a very, very common cause of infertility is STDs that have gone untreated or were inadequately treated.

You also ignored information in the article stating that the incidence of chlamydia in Iran has been gauged at 12.6% on one survey and 21.25% on another survey. The incidence in the US is 0.6%. This very high rate in Iran is likely a major contributor to the high infertility rate there as this infection frequently is unrecognized and goes untreated and is a known cause of infertility.

Finally, you ignored the implosion in Iran's birth rate, which is highly unusual. Typically, the trend goes down gradually as women become literate, stay in school longer rather than getting married early, and become more educated with regard to birth control options.

As the article states: "Iran's fertility decline from about seven children per female in 1979 to just 1.6 in 2012 remains a conundrum to demographers. Never before in recorded history has the birth rate of a big country fallen so fast and so far. Iran's population is aging faster than that of any other country in the world."

A decline like this needs an explanation and the easy ones you give are the ones that explain a normal decline in birth rate but not a precipitous one. Other factors need to be explored--thus the article posits that high rates of STDs like chlamydia that lead to infertility if not properly recognized and treated are a cause.

This may not match with your theory that hijab=protection from STDs, but these are facts that need to be dealt with together with the prevalence of temporary marriage and continuance of prostitution as a commonplace in the Iran.

It actually isn't MY theory - I'm a completely different poster - but I guess you are in the habit of assuming things to fit your narrative, aren't you.

First, let us agree that ME Forum isn't an impartial outlet. It and its donors delights in having bad things to say about Iran. And that's OK, that's the reality of the think tank landscape where ideas are marketed, bought and underwritten. To wit, it editorializes that "directly or indirectly, Iran's childlessness stems from a deep and intractable national anomie, a loss of personal sense of purpose in a country whose theocratic elite has no more support at the grass roots than did the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1980s." Who could possibly KNOW such a thing? It can stem from an anomie. It can stem from little green men stealing sperm. It can stem from no money. But no, we need to use a clever word like anomie so we'll come up with a reason to do that.

Temporary marriage is a good thing. It is the nearest thing Middle East has to sexual freedom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I am a Muslim woman who doesn't wear hijab, either. I respect a Muslim woman's choice. Hijab is truly a decision between a woman and her Creator.

However, it is important that other parties, many of them non Muslim, many of them who loathe Islam, particularly in these times when Islamophobia is rampant, many of them who hate any aspect of Islamic life that strongly and observably diverges from western lifestyle, not scrutinize or ridicule our personal choice.

What vested goal and interest do they have to imply women, who do choose to wear hijab, are gullible, oppressed, and naive? The goal is in shaming hijabi women until they adopt a more western style of clothing. The interest is in diluting the faith and practice of Islam.

Now, it may be true that some Muslim countries require hijab for women. It may also be true that some women in such countries do not wish to wear hijab. I agree, hijab should not be forced upon any woman. After all, the Quran says clearyl, "Let there be no compulsion in religion."

That said, some rules and necessary for the governance of a moral society. The vast majority of Muslims do not want a society where individuals are free to dress any way they like even if that means wearing tiny shorts, bikinis, or short skirts. The vast majority of Muslims also do not desire a society where there is free and unfettered sexual expression between unmarried people. The vast majority of Muslims do not want a society that says porn should be legal. Muslims do not want these and these views are in accordance with Islam.

Modesty in dress and behavior is an important part of Islam. It is absolutely connected to piety, because it is hard to achieve piety when one absolutely has no modesty. Hijab is not clearly mentioned in the Quran, however. As such, it should be left up to the individual. However, if the woman is styling her hair so as to make it attractive, particularly to men, this is contrary to Islam's expectation of modesty.

I, too, have traveled to Muslim countries over my lifetime. I've been to moderate Muslim countries, such as Jordan, as well as very strict Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia. I recall being leered at once in Saudi Arabia also. What causes these Muslim men to leer? Is the religion of Islam to blame? Or is the culture to blame? It's the culture. It is never the religion. Remember that Arab society still has many remnants of pre-Islamic tribal culture that have been mixed with their practice of Islam and also confused with it.

Are Muslim countries the only place where men have stared or leered at me? Of course not. I have been gawked at, approached, and harassed in this country all through my teens, twenties, and thirties. I'm in my forties now and relieved that it's no longer an issue for me.

Probably the worst gawking and harassment I've ever endured was in non Muslim, South Asian countries as I went shopping with my family. I was told it was because I clearly looked and dressed like a foreigner. I tried to fit in by wearing the same style of clothing the women wore there, but people there could tell I looked American.

The point is -- to say that hijab should be a reminder to men (and women) to avoid the sin of gazing does not mean that it's absence should invite disrespectful treatment. Of course men should exercise self control also.

Thank you for the thoughtful explanation. It's clear you've given the veil a lot of thought and feel passionately about other women's right to wear it. As do I!

We disagree, however, on the cultural message it sends.

I continue to wonder that placing the onus for chastity on woman (men don't veil, just lower their eyes) effectively absolved men from responsibility, and that's why they don't bother try to control the leering. These attitudes, whether or not they're cultural, seem underscored by women's lesser legal rights in the areas of inheritance, divorce, and witness testimony. Some will argue that these rights aren't "lesser" when viewed in the context of "equal but different responsibilities" for the house as contrasted to men's responsibility for bringing in income. But don't you think the impact is the same, to cause some men to think that women don't have a rightful place in the working and outside worlds?

When you say above that I style my hair "attractively" to "attract men," is that cultural? There are so many other possible assumptions you could have made--that I want to look professional, that I do it for other women or for myself--so that your assumption that I do it for random men on the metro or at work is offensive. It's a step from saying uncovered women have STDs, as an earlier Muslim poster said, but it's on the continuum. Given that we seem to agree that the veil is not always necessary, is this a cultural bias you share?

The Quran's mandate to lower one's gaze applied to both men and women. Since there is also a mandate to cover adornments, ornaments, and beauty, the hijab helps women to meet this requirement. Hair may indeed be worn to impress bosses or colleagues or peers, or it may be used to seduce. The point is that it not be used to make any impression or point because it distracts us and others from God and encourages a focus on egotistical interests. It needn't be used to seduce, but in many cases it has been. It suffices that it is often used in ways that take us farther away from God. This is often true with many physical aspects of our body. A very athletic woman who desires to wear shorts to show off her athletic legs, only to be admired by her workout group is still placing importance on egotistical interests based on appearance or beauty. This is still not modesty.

Islam never purported to advance linear equality between men and women. Islam advances justice between men and women to promote a moral society. Men ARE different from women. As such, their rights and responsibilities will differ. Western society deems this shameful because it can only see justice as based on linear equality. One can not evaluate Islamic guidelines and law on western ideology; they are based on entirely different principles.

[Anonymous]

ME Forum would not be my favorite source but the article puts together the statistics with links to the sources, which are good. The statistics tell a story that refutes the position put forward by an earlier PP that no hijab in the West = high rates of STDs relative to hijab countries.

This is simply not true. I find it interesting that you and PP have sidestepped completely these stats in your responses. I am not assuming things to fit my narrative--I am offering data that throws into doubt the narrative put forward by a hijab promoter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The Quran's mandate to lower one's gaze applied to both men and women. Since there is also a mandate to cover adornments, ornaments, and beauty, the hijab helps women to meet this requirement. Hair may indeed be worn to impress bosses or colleagues or peers, or it may be used to seduce. The point is that it not be used to make any impression or point because it distracts us and others from God and encourages a focus on egotistical interests. It needn't be used to seduce, but in many cases it has been. It suffices that it is often used in ways that take us farther away from God. This is often true with many physical aspects of our body. A very athletic woman who desires to wear shorts to show off her athletic legs, only to be admired by her workout group is still placing importance on egotistical interests based on appearance or beauty. This is still not modesty.

Islam never purported to advance linear equality between men and women. Islam advances justice between men and women to promote a moral society. Men ARE different from women. As such, their rights and responsibilities will differ. Western society deems this shameful because it can only see justice as based on linear equality. One can not evaluate Islamic guidelines and law on western ideology; they are based on entirely different principles.

You again wrongly assume the worst motives, in this case about our woman athlete, and your assumptions again lead to restricting women's choices relative to men's. An athletic woman isn't necessarily "egotistical" to wear shorts. No, she wears shorts because sweats are too hot for summer running, because trailing sportswear would be caught in a bicycle or other machinery, or because you can't swim well in a burquini. Or--and this is important--she simply wants to feel the sun on her skin, get her vitamin D, and enjoy the warm rays of sun.

Others have pointed out the inequity: men are free to wear shorts. Most of us have seen the covered woman walking with the guy in shorts and the open short. Male soccer players wear shorts--but in some Islamic countries the women aren't allowed to watch them play. You can keep explaining about both sexes lowering their gazes. But hijab =/= gaze. And the hijab IS applied unequally.

I can think of so many worse "egotistical interests" than a woman's hair, and hair seems low on the list. Sports cars, McMansions, the bride's flashy gold jewelry at Muslim weddings, anything really showy. None of this is haram so long as the prescribed percentage is given to charity.

Finally, the rules promote an *Islamic* idea of morals. Many of us prioritize other moral values above a woman's purity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The Quran's mandate to lower one's gaze applied to both men and women. Since there is also a mandate to cover adornments, ornaments, and beauty, the hijab helps women to meet this requirement. Hair may indeed be worn to impress bosses or colleagues or peers, or it may be used to seduce. The point is that it not be used to make any impression or point because it distracts us and others from God and encourages a focus on egotistical interests. It needn't be used to seduce, but in many cases it has been. It suffices that it is often used in ways that take us farther away from God. This is often true with many physical aspects of our body. A very athletic woman who desires to wear shorts to show off her athletic legs, only to be admired by her workout group is still placing importance on egotistical interests based on appearance or beauty. This is still not modesty.

Islam never purported to advance linear equality between men and women. Islam advances justice between men and women to promote a moral society. Men ARE different from women. As such, their rights and responsibilities will differ. Western society deems this shameful because it can only see justice as based on linear equality. One can not evaluate Islamic guidelines and law on western ideology; they are based on entirely different principles.

I don't understand why a woman's hair is "distracting" but a man's hair is not. What if she cuts it short like a man?

Men often cut their hair in "distracting" fashions. You will tell me that many men get a standard cut. And I will answer that many men don't get the standard cut (my son even cares about where he gets his standard cut). Going further, isn't any type of men's cut about vanity, and the least "egotistical" route would be for men to grow their hair out and forswear combs? Where do you draw the line? You can't. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander: if all women have to cover because some women style their hair, then all men should have to cover too, following the same principles of prevention.

One could argue that, back in Arabia in 700AD, men wore turbans, thereby preventing men's hair from "distracting" anybody. But following those lines of argument, things got easier for men and harder for women.

What about the rest of that verse in the Quran, which says not to show adornments "except that which normally show"? Doesn't hair normally show? Whose standards of hair are the reference point here? Back in 700AD, many women didn't veil, particularly women doing manual labor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Quran's mandate to lower one's gaze applied to both men and women. Since there is also a mandate to cover adornments, ornaments, and beauty, the hijab helps women to meet this requirement. Hair may indeed be worn to impress bosses or colleagues or peers, or it may be used to seduce. The point is that it not be used to make any impression or point because it distracts us and others from God and encourages a focus on egotistical interests. It needn't be used to seduce, but in many cases it has been. It suffices that it is often used in ways that take us farther away from God. This is often true with many physical aspects of our body. A very athletic woman who desires to wear shorts to show off her athletic legs, only to be admired by her workout group is still placing importance on egotistical interests based on appearance or beauty. This is still not modesty.

Islam never purported to advance linear equality between men and women. Islam advances justice between men and women to promote a moral society. Men ARE different from women. As such, their rights and responsibilities will differ. Western society deems this shameful because it can only see justice as based on linear equality. One can not evaluate Islamic guidelines and law on western ideology; they are based on entirely different principles.

I don't understand why a woman's hair is "distracting" but a man's hair is not. What if she cuts it short like a man?

Men often cut their hair in "distracting" fashions. You will tell me that many men get a standard cut. And I will answer that many men don't get the standard cut (my son even cares about where he gets his standard cut). Going further, isn't any type of men's cut about vanity, and the least "egotistical" route would be for men to grow their hair out and forswear combs? Where do you draw the line? You can't. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander: if all women have to cover because some women style their hair, then all men should have to cover too, following the same principles of prevention.

One could argue that, back in Arabia in 700AD, men wore turbans, thereby preventing men's hair from "distracting" anybody. But following those lines of argument, things got easier for men and harder for women.

What about the rest of that verse in the Quran, which says not to show adornments "except that which normally show"? Doesn't hair normally show? Whose standards of hair are the reference point here? Back in 700AD, many women didn't veil, particularly women doing manual labor.

She already told you Islam doesn't shoot for pound-for-pound equality between the sexes. Why are you getting hung up on goose and gander? The rules and expectations for women and men in Islam are different. That's how it is. Btw, your line about men growing hair out is ridiculous.