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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

P.S. Although if we could mandate veils for man-buns (it's long hair, right?) I might be for it. (Just kidding!)

[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.

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?

Let's talk about modesty for a moment, how about that, pp. Have you ever seen a group of Amish people? In my mind, that is a group that values modesty by virtually any definition. They wear plain clothes, in limited colors, with no jewelry. They do not drive flashy vehicles or do anything to attract attention to themselves. Both the men AND the women are held to a standard that makes them readily identifiable to the outside secular world. I do not see anything like this in most Muslim communities. Women in hijab are often accompanied by men wearing Western clothes, including shorts, they can be wearing flashy clothes, flashy jewelry, flashy makeup, driving flashy vehicles. When I lived in Egypt there was even the phenomenon of wearing flesh-colored tight tops, covered by tank tops, so that from far away, you could barely tell that someone was not just wearing a tank top. Other than covering hair, I rarely see Muslims that I would identify as modest. I think limiting "modesty" to merely covering skin is a lot of the reason there is so much pushback on this thread to the idea of hijabs. We may live in a society that does not really value modesty, but we have all seen modesty and hijabs are not a good example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To be fair, there has also been plenty of "women who don't wear hajibs are promiscuous, cause STDs and live loose sexual lives" posts along with a few "atheletic women who dress in clothing appropriate for their sports (shorts, swimsuits, etc) are doing so to tempt men with and to sexualize their bare legs" posts throught at least the latter part of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Lots of men wear their hair long. That's a "generality", not an exception.

What is your/the Islamic position on male ponytails, man buns, John Lennon circa 1969, and the Declaration signers of 1776 (powder, wax, wigs)?

Should these long-haired men veil/have veiled? Or are you going to argue that none of them were actually "beautifying" their hair? As if all those wigs/powder/black velvet queue ribbons worn by our nation's founders had nothing to do with vanity. I'm not seeing a timeless/universal truth to your statement that women are more likely than men to beautify their hair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Let's talk about modesty for a moment, how about that, pp. Have you ever seen a group of Amish people? In my mind, that is a group that values modesty by virtually any definition. They wear plain clothes, in limited colors, with no jewelry. They do not drive flashy vehicles or do anything to attract attention to themselves. Both the men AND the women are held to a standard that makes them readily identifiable to the outside secular world. I do not see anything like this in most Muslim communities. Women in hijab are often accompanied by men wearing Western clothes, including shorts, they can be wearing flashy clothes, flashy jewelry, flashy makeup, driving flashy vehicles. When I lived in Egypt there was even the phenomenon of wearing flesh-colored tight tops, covered by tank tops, so that from far away, you could barely tell that someone was not just wearing a tank top. Other than covering hair, I rarely see Muslims that I would identify as modest. I think limiting "modesty" to merely covering skin is a lot of the reason there is so much pushback on this thread to the idea of hijabs. We may live in a society that does not really value modesty, but we have all seen modesty and hijabs are not a good example.

Thanks, PP. The sight of skinny jeans and eye liner under a hijab at any mall in the area is fairly confusing. I think it's important to distinguish between the idea and the practice of the idea; clearly many of these women haven't internalized the idea of modesty, and that's not Islam's fault. However, it's possible to conclude that hijab, by itself, doesn't guarantee modesty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Let's talk about modesty for a moment, how about that, pp. Have you ever seen a group of Amish people? In my mind, that is a group that values modesty by virtually any definition. They wear plain clothes, in limited colors, with no jewelry. They do not drive flashy vehicles or do anything to attract attention to themselves. Both the men AND the women are held to a standard that makes them readily identifiable to the outside secular world. I do not see anything like this in most Muslim communities. Women in hijab are often accompanied by men wearing Western clothes, including shorts, they can be wearing flashy clothes, flashy jewelry, flashy makeup, driving flashy vehicles. When I lived in Egypt there was even the phenomenon of wearing flesh-colored tight tops, covered by tank tops, so that from far away, you could barely tell that someone was not just wearing a tank top. Other than covering hair, I rarely see Muslims that I would identify as modest. I think limiting "modesty" to merely covering skin is a lot of the reason there is so much pushback on this thread to the idea of hijabs. We may live in a society that does not really value modesty, but we have all seen modesty and hijabs are not a good example.

I grew up near the Amish. They don't use buttons because buttons are "fancy." They wear solid colors (the Mennonites dress similarly but with small, quiet patterns). Not only do they not drive flashy cars, they don't drive any cars--they use horses and buggies. The buggies are pure black, so the state makes them use reflective triangles so you can see them on the side of the road (wear they generally drive) at night.

That's modesty, for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Let's talk about modesty for a moment, how about that, pp. Have you ever seen a group of Amish people? In my mind, that is a group that values modesty by virtually any definition. They wear plain clothes, in limited colors, with no jewelry. They do not drive flashy vehicles or do anything to attract attention to themselves. Both the men AND the women are held to a standard that makes them readily identifiable to the outside secular world. I do not see anything like this in most Muslim communities. Women in hijab are often accompanied by men wearing Western clothes, including shorts, they can be wearing flashy clothes, flashy jewelry, flashy makeup, driving flashy vehicles. When I lived in Egypt there was even the phenomenon of wearing flesh-colored tight tops, covered by tank tops, so that from far away, you could barely tell that someone was not just wearing a tank top. Other than covering hair, I rarely see Muslims that I would identify as modest. I think limiting "modesty" to merely covering skin is a lot of the reason there is so much pushback on this thread to the idea of hijabs. We may live in a society that does not really value modesty, but we have all seen modesty and hijabs are not a good example.

I grew up near the Amish. They don't use buttons because buttons are "fancy." They wear solid colors (the Mennonites dress similarly but with small, quiet patterns). Not only do they not drive flashy cars, they don't drive any cars--they use horses and buggies. The buggies are pure black, so the state makes them use reflective triangles so you can see them on the side of the road (wear they generally drive) at night.

That's modesty, for sure.

I should add that Amish men always dress in formal but plain black cloth pants and white cotton shirts, which can look old-fashioned to our eyes. The men also wear broad-rimmed hats when out in public.

[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.

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.

Hair is not a gender marker? For thousands of years women have worn their hair much longer than men and it has always been a gender identifier.
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander" is typical western perspective. Problem is, it isn't in Islam. Islam says men and women ARE different. As such, there will be some differences in their rights and privileges they are afforded by God. A great many Muslim women accept this. Maybe you simply need to come to terms with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Hair is not a gender marker? For thousands of years women have worn their hair much longer than men and it has always been a gender identifier.
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander" is typical western perspective. Problem is, it isn't in Islam. Islam says men and women ARE different. As such, there will be some differences in their rights and privileges they are afforded by God. A great many Muslim women accept this. Maybe you simply need to come to terms with this.

Ugh. We've gone over this point. Just because men and women are biologically different does not justify placing onerous conditions on women or limiting their dress to such a degree that no one can see their hair, calves, etc. No one on this thread has established any sort of convincing argument that the hijab is somehow needed due to the differences between men and women.

But if that is what you say Islam is, I guess that is what Islam is. A religion that places rigid and unjustifiable limitations on women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Hair is not a gender marker? For thousands of years women have worn their hair much longer than men and it has always been a gender identifier.
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander" is typical western perspective. Problem is, it isn't in Islam. Islam says men and women ARE different. As such, there will be some differences in their rights and privileges they are afforded by God. A great many Muslim women accept this. Maybe you simply need to come to terms with this.

I think most of us have come to terms with hijab and will even defend your right to veil. However, we can still wonder and ask questions here about standards of modesty that ask women to enforce men's purity, and that don't also require modesty in other aspects of living such as cars, houses, jewelry, et cetera. These questions have been raised, but the answers here have been unsatisfactory (to many here, it would seem) and in fact your answers have digressed into Western women's athletic gear and STDs. That's why you're seeing pushback. I suppose you, too, will need to come to terms with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hair is not a gender marker? For thousands of years women have worn their hair much longer than men and it has always been a gender identifier.
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander" is typical western perspective. Problem is, it isn't in Islam. Islam says men and women ARE different. As such, there will be some differences in their rights and privileges they are afforded by God. A great many Muslim women accept this. Maybe you simply need to come to terms with this.

Ugh. We've gone over this point. Just because men and women are biologically different does not justify placing onerous conditions on women or limiting their dress to such a degree that no one can see their hair, calves, etc. No one on this thread has established any sort of convincing argument that the hijab is somehow needed due to the differences between men and women.

But if that is what you say Islam is, I guess that is what Islam is. A religion that places rigid and unjustifiable limitations on women.

Different PP here. Whether or not long hair is a biological marker (man buns, anyone?), I agree with PP that you have not established a justification for placing most of the burden of chastity on women.

As many here have said, the Quran does not spell out that women should cover their hair. Yet the requirement that men lower their gazes has apparently been deemed insufficient, even as women's hair has been turned into a supposed sexual weapon. These jumps in logic haven't been explained here.

[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.

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?

Let's talk about modesty for a moment, how about that, pp. Have you ever seen a group of Amish people? In my mind, that is a group that values modesty by virtually any definition. They wear plain clothes, in limited colors, with no jewelry. They do not drive flashy vehicles or do anything to attract attention to themselves. Both the men AND the women are held to a standard that makes them readily identifiable to the outside secular world. I do not see anything like this in most Muslim communities. Women in hijab are often accompanied by men wearing Western clothes, including shorts, they can be wearing flashy clothes, flashy jewelry, flashy makeup, driving flashy vehicles. When I lived in Egypt there was even the phenomenon of wearing flesh-colored tight tops, covered by tank tops, so that from far away, you could barely tell that someone was not just wearing a tank top. Other than covering hair, I rarely see Muslims that I would identify as modest. I think limiting "modesty" to merely covering skin is a lot of the reason there is so much pushback on this thread to the idea of hijabs. We may live in a society that does not really value modesty, but we have all seen modesty and hijabs are not a good example.

So because some men aren't abiding by islamic guidelines of modesty, muslim women should give up modesty too? Is that your contention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Lots of men wear their hair long. That's a "generality", not an exception.

What is your/the Islamic position on male ponytails, man buns, John Lennon circa 1969, and the Declaration signers of 1776 (powder, wax, wigs)?

Should these long-haired men veil/have veiled? Or are you going to argue that none of them were actually "beautifying" their hair? As if all those wigs/powder/black velvet queue ribbons worn by our nation's founders had nothing to do with vanity. I'm not seeing a timeless/universal truth to your statement that women are more likely than men to beautify their hair.

We are entering into stupidity here. Men generally wear their hair long? I think you are arguing now simply for the sake of arguing. I do not have time for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hair is not a gender marker? For thousands of years women have worn their hair much longer than men and it has always been a gender identifier.
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander" is typical western perspective. Problem is, it isn't in Islam. Islam says men and women ARE different. As such, there will be some differences in their rights and privileges they are afforded by God. A great many Muslim women accept this. Maybe you simply need to come to terms with this.

Ugh. We've gone over this point. Just because men and women are biologically different does not justify placing onerous conditions on women or limiting their dress to such a degree that no one can see their hair, calves, etc. No one on this thread has established any sort of convincing argument that the hijab is somehow needed due to the differences between men and women.

But if that is what you say Islam is, I guess that is what Islam is. A religion that places rigid and unjustifiable limitations on women.

No one in this thread has? But the majority of the billion Muslims have established exactly that. That is why we have a 40 page thread, no? You and your handful of islamophobes just can not accept the view of most Muslims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Lots of men wear their hair long. That's a "generality", not an exception.

What is your/the Islamic position on male ponytails, man buns, John Lennon circa 1969, and the Declaration signers of 1776 (powder, wax, wigs)?

Should these long-haired men veil/have veiled? Or are you going to argue that none of them were actually "beautifying" their hair? As if all those wigs/powder/black velvet queue ribbons worn by our nation's founders had nothing to do with vanity. I'm not seeing a timeless/universal truth to your statement that women are more likely than men to beautify their hair.

We are entering into stupidity here. Men generally wear their hair long? I think you are arguing now simply for the sake of arguing. I do not have time for that.

Sorry, but it's not stupid to question why long hair is sexual on women but not on men. Plenty of men wear their hair long, maybe not the majority of men, but enough men to make the different treatment of long hair among the sexes a legitimate issue.

In general, the fetishizing of women's hair (only) seems odd to us. Westerners don't automatically assume that a woman's hair is automatically or only a sexual signal. That's why you're seeing all these questions.