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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

She's not a hijab promoter. She is telling you why it works for some people. You are tying yourself in knots trying to get her to admit that it shouldn't work for anyone. I don't get why it is so momentously difficult for you to accept that people value different things and think differently from you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She's not a hijab promoter. She is telling you why it works for some people. You are tying yourself in knots trying to get her to admit that it shouldn't work for anyone. I don't get why it is so momentously difficult for you to accept that people value different things and think differently from you.

Tying in knots = accidental pun. The truth is that this thread is full of people trying to convince others that the hijab is neither widely imposed against women who don't want it nor a repressive tool. That's a hard sell.

Think it'll work? Don't count on it.

[Anonymous]

16:05 here: sorry I forgot to mention that I'm a different poster from the "you" PP accused of tying him/herself in knots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She's not a hijab promoter. She is telling you why it works for some people. You are tying yourself in knots trying to get her to admit that it shouldn't work for anyone. I don't get why it is so momentously difficult for you to accept that people value different things and think differently from you.

Tying in knots = accidental pun. The truth is that this thread is full of people trying to convince others that the hijab is neither widely imposed against women who don't want it nor a repressive tool. That's a hard sell.

Think it'll work? Don't count on it.

I think this thread is full of people who had their opinions cast in stone before they started it. No one is here to enlighten or to learn. On either side of the argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why is the idea of men doing nothing to their hair--no cuts, no combs--any more ridiculous than the idea that all women should cover their hair because (equally ridiculous) all women--or maybe just one woman somewhere--are "using" their hair for the sole purpose of "attracting men" and as an outlet for their "egotism?" PP argued that the issue is egotism/promiscuity. It seems ridiculous that men are exempt from the twin evils of promiscuity and egotism. So it seems equally ridiculous that men should not face purity requirements similar to those faced by women. You may think the veil is not ridiculous because the goose and gander have different rules--but to outsiders it does, in fact, seem ridiculous. And that's the whole point of this thread, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She's not a hijab promoter. She is telling you why it works for some people. You are tying yourself in knots trying to get her to admit that it shouldn't work for anyone. I don't get why it is so momentously difficult for you to accept that people value different things and think differently from you.

PP hijab promoter said that hijabs prevent STDs. I presented stats showing that is not the case given Iran has the highest rate of chlamydia in the world. How is that tying myself into knots?

All the PPs responding to my posts setting forth this fact have not addressed it; they simply have attacked me for presenting data contrary to their rather silly STD-based argument in favor of hijabs.

Defensive much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She's not a hijab promoter. She is telling you why it works for some people. You are tying yourself in knots trying to get her to admit that it shouldn't work for anyone. I don't get why it is so momentously difficult for you to accept that people value different things and think differently from you.

Tying in knots = accidental pun. The truth is that this thread is full of people trying to convince others that the hijab is neither widely imposed against women who don't want it nor a repressive tool. That's a hard sell.

Think it'll work? Don't count on it.

I think this thread is full of people who had their opinions cast in stone before they started it. No one is here to enlighten or to learn. On either side of the argument.

Well that's true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She's not a hijab promoter. She is telling you why it works for some people. You are tying yourself in knots trying to get her to admit that it shouldn't work for anyone. I don't get why it is so momentously difficult for you to accept that people value different things and think differently from you.

Tying in knots = accidental pun. The truth is that this thread is full of people trying to convince others that the hijab is neither widely imposed against women who don't want it nor a repressive tool. That's a hard sell.

Think it'll work? Don't count on it.

I think this thread is full of people who had their opinions cast in stone before they started it. No one is here to enlighten or to learn. On either side of the argument.

Well that's true.

I think certain people here loathe any criticism of Islamic practices no matter how respectful. I have learned a lot from this thread that I did not know. A lot of educated people have posted very thoughtful posts on this thread, just because you don't like their conclusions does not mean everyone's opinion was "cast in stone."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She's not a hijab promoter. She is telling you why it works for some people. You are tying yourself in knots trying to get her to admit that it shouldn't work for anyone. I don't get why it is so momentously difficult for you to accept that people value different things and think differently from you.

Tying in knots = accidental pun. The truth is that this thread is full of people trying to convince others that the hijab is neither widely imposed against women who don't want it nor a repressive tool. That's a hard sell.

Think it'll work? Don't count on it.

I think this thread is full of people who had their opinions cast in stone before they started it. No one is here to enlighten or to learn. On either side of the argument.

Well that's true.

I think certain people here loathe any criticism of Islamic practices no matter how respectful. I have learned a lot from this thread that I did not know. A lot of educated people have posted very thoughtful posts on this thread, just because you don't like their conclusions does not mean everyone's opinion was "cast in stone."

Yes it does. When you strip away the bullshit, the conversation went like this:

"Hijabis are oppressed, gullible, brainwashed and I have no respect for them."

"No we aren't."

"Yes you are, you are, I don't care what you say."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why is the idea of men doing nothing to their hair--no cuts, no combs--any more ridiculous than the idea that all women should cover their hair because (equally ridiculous) all women--or maybe just one woman somewhere--are "using" their hair for the sole purpose of "attracting men" and as an outlet for their "egotism?" PP argued that the issue is egotism/promiscuity. It seems ridiculous that men are exempt from the twin evils of promiscuity and egotism. So it seems equally ridiculous that men should not face purity requirements similar to those faced by women. You may think the veil is not ridiculous because the goose and gander have different rules--but to outsiders it does, in fact, seem ridiculous. And that's the whole point of this thread, I guess.

Well OK. Does it seem ridiculous to you that at any beach, men are expected to cover from the waist down, and women are expected to cover chest AND from the waist down? No? Then you ARE capable of understanding that women and men might have different dress codes. The requirement to cover applies to both sexes but is operationalized differently.

Men are not exempt from anything. Men, like women, are expected to be modest. Men, like women, are not supposed to stare. Men, like women, are expected to stay pure. Men, like women, are supposed to not have sex with people they aren't married to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Well OK. Does it seem ridiculous to you that at any beach, men are expected to cover from the waist down, and women are expected to cover chest AND from the waist down? No? Then you ARE capable of understanding that women and men might have different dress codes. The requirement to cover applies to both sexes but is operationalized differently.

Men are not exempt from anything. Men, like women, are expected to be modest. Men, like women, are not supposed to stare. Men, like women, are expected to stay pure. Men, like women, are supposed to not have sex with people they aren't married to.

At the beach, people cover their "private" parts, or parts of their body that are typically deemed sexual. For women this includes the chest but not men. However, the hijab apparently sexualizes hair, the problems with which people on this thread have discussed at length.

Again, there is theory and then there is practice. In theory, men are supposed to be modest, but in practice, men in Muslim countries get to wear whatever the hell they want unmolested, whereas women do not. Women are pressured to cover up and then are antagonized anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She's not a hijab promoter. She is telling you why it works for some people. You are tying yourself in knots trying to get her to admit that it shouldn't work for anyone. I don't get why it is so momentously difficult for you to accept that people value different things and think differently from you.

Tying in knots = accidental pun. The truth is that this thread is full of people trying to convince others that the hijab is neither widely imposed against women who don't want it nor a repressive tool. That's a hard sell.

Think it'll work? Don't count on it.

I think this thread is full of people who had their opinions cast in stone before they started it. No one is here to enlighten or to learn. On either side of the argument.

Well that's true.

I think certain people here loathe any criticism of Islamic practices no matter how respectful. I have learned a lot from this thread that I did not know. A lot of educated people have posted very thoughtful posts on this thread, just because you don't like their conclusions does not mean everyone's opinion was "cast in stone."

Yes it does. When you strip away the bullshit, the conversation went like this:

"Hijabis are oppressed, gullible, brainwashed and I have no respect for them."

"No we aren't."

"Yes you are, you are, I don't care what you say."

There has been some of that, yes. There has also been some respectful dialogue on both sides, and I have enjoyed hearing the viewpoints on both sides. In America, the arguments start to sound a lot like the SAHM v. WOHM wars, with women making decisions that others disagree with, and all ultimately deciding that we should be making the best decisions for ourselves and our families that we can. We want to make sure that there is no coercion in this country, and sometimes that can become overly aggressive. As for women in other countries, our discussion here is unlikely to affect anywhere else, but I have learned a lot.

[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.

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.

First of all, no, men do not have the freedom to wear anything they like. They can not walk around the beach in Speedos, for example. They also can not wear shorts above the knee. Yes, there is some in equity in coverage of the body parts between men and women. Islam sees this as necessary because women have more private areas and also because of the biochemical differences between them. Most Muslims aren't ashamed of this. They recognize the differences and accept the differences in dress code. NonMuslims would like Muslims to feel shame about their acceptance of such inequality, but most do not. Thankfully.

That said, the Quran does not mandate the covering of hair, but speaks in very broad terms about modesty and covering up beauty. Sure, one woman's hair may be worn for beauty and another for practicality (hair in ponytail, no hijab because it's 90 degrees outside and she can't stand the coverage in such warm temperatures). The point is that in Islam, the intent of solely the man or the woman is not what prevails. What is deemed best for society is. And hair is OFTEN viewed, EITHER by the woman or the man as a thing of beauty.

Of course Islam would indeed promote islamic moral for Muslims. Whose morals should they otherwise promote for Muslims, western morals?

[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.

Who knows, but maybe it stems from the fact that women wear their hair long and do more to beautify their hair than men do. Generally speaking. Lets not bring up every woman who doesn't fit this generality or every man who doesn't either. We are speaking in general terms. Why are women's breasts required to be covered up but not mens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who knows, but maybe it stems from the fact that women wear their hair long and do more to beautify their hair than men do. Generally speaking. Lets not bring up every woman who doesn't fit this generality or every man who doesn't either. We are speaking in general terms. Why are women's breasts required to be covered up but not mens?

Almost every man understands that his hair sends a message. That message might be "company man" or "I'm cool" or "I'm edgy" or "my grey-haired ponytail identifies me as a cool but aging dude" or even my man-bun and beard identify me as a hipster with all the hipster values you know that entails." Please!

Show me a man who doesn't care how his hair looks, whether conservative or hipster man-bun, and that's a rare bird indeed. You talk about "using" hair as manifestations of egotism or even to attract members of the other sex, but men are equally guilty.

Breasts are reproductive and they are also clear gender markers.