In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.

Pp, it's your prerogative to agree with whatever you see fit, this doesn't validate your point or invalidate mine at any level. It is your prerogative to believe that KSA with a population of 28+Million is representative of the culture and Islam of 1.6Billion of Muslim even though no country practices Islam the way the Saudis do, if it is your idea that the way Islam is practiced in the Gulf countries is representative of the way 1.6Billion live their Islam even though Arabs only represent 20% of Muslims, so be it. After all, following your logic, Nigeria is the perfect example of a Christian country and we will base or judgment of Christianity from Nigerians because, hey that's a country with 80million Christians , more than the 20+million Saudis who supposedly represent Islam.People choose to believe whatever they believe daily, and some live in a very small world. But for the rest of us, we will continue to believe and understand that many of the countries that are commonly called "Islamic countries", which in reality are merely "Muslim-majority countries" practice an amalgam of Islamic practices and pre-Islamic/non-Islamic practices. More than 10 centuries ago, when Islam became the predominant religion of the part of the world that today is Muslim-majority, those countries already had very distinct and very patriarchal cultures, as many remain patriarchal today. After embracing the religion of Islam, many of these cultures, abandoned some of the pre-Islamic cultures and traditions, but they hang on to many others. Just as every action of every Christian is not necessarily based on Christianity, every action of every Muslim is not necessarily based on Islam. On that note, I'm out, very busy day waiting for me, ma salaama!

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

I understand social pressure quite well and I am telling you one more time that it is a fallacy that Muslim women who live in Muslim Countries cover due to social pressure. Seriously? Saying this is as ridiculous as saying non muslim western women are forced to wear a dress due to social pressures. I will repeat it once again, I have never felt any pressure to cover my head while living/visiting any muslim country, my mother, siblings, cousins, aunts, ect do not wear a hijab/niqab, not one of them ever felt pressured to wear one, not one of them were shamed for their lack of hijab/niqab in Muslim countries. And saying that whether this has anything to do with religion is irrelevant is intellectually dishonest. You are not in the culture forum, this is the Religion section. Talking about Muslims and equating the actions of a few Muslims you know, or the life of your in-laws in Saudi at that as the reality of Muslim Women is misleading at best, and dishonest at worse. I am not saying that somewhere, somehow, there isn't a Muslim woman forced to wear a burqa or being " pressured" to wear a hijab, but there is a difference between those women's plights and your attempt to generalize other cultures into very belittling and untrue stereotypes.

You know, you repeating things doesn't make them stronger. Stereotyping works both ways - a Muslim woman happy to cover and a Muslim woman pressured to cover are both cliches that do not do justice to the full diversity that exists in the world. What makes you think that your experiences are somehow more legitimate than experiences of my Saudi inlaws? You are both but one person. They don't describe the world of Muslim women, but neither do you or your mother. Your happiness with your hijab and some other woman's resentment of it are both equally legitimate stories. Neither of you defines Muslim womenfolk.

What does this have to do with what forum we are in?

I think what's intellectually dishonest is your refusal to admit that social pressure to cover exists just because "you" personally never experienced it. Clearly, if you never felt something, it must not exist. Go take a flight on any airline out of any hub in the Gulf - Kuwait, KSA, Qatar, you name it. Count how many covered women enter the aircraft, and how many are still covered when they exit the plane. Many will still be covered. But many would also begin a well-studied trot to the bathroom as soon as the plane gains cruising altitude, and emerge in full battleface makeup and sexy outfits.

And just to bring it back to the point at hand - there is no movement to allow men to wear gold or silk because men are already free to wear gold and silk despite religious prohibitions since there are no social costs imposed for doing so. Argue with that, if you can.

OMG, do you take the time to actually read what is written? I never said social pressure didn't exist. Social Pressure is obviously present in every society, but your idea that it is the norm for women to cover in muslim countries is false. My family and friends in the Gulf do not cover for societal reasons/pressures, I actually do not know a single person who covers because they are "pressured" to do so, and yes I have lived in a 90+% Muslim country. The fact that you know some Muslim women who do this doesn't make it the Norm. I have never denied that this exists, just like some women are forced to wear a hijab in muslim countries, some women are also forced to prostitute themselves in non muslim countries, these things exist and happen everywhere. Your narrative that this is somehow the norm is false and misleading. As far the experience of your Saudi IN-Laws, of course they are not representative of Islam. I do not consider Saudi Arabia the beacon of Islamic enlightenment and actually not many Muslims do. You couldn't pay me enough to move to KSA! And your best example is that of women who take off their hijab when their plane lands on American soil and wear provocative outfits to embrace american liberation, lol. I guess western women that I see wearing an abaya and a headscarf as soon as the plane lands in Kuwait were all pressured by American society to wear miniskirts and stilettos and felt liberated to finally put on an abaya, a headscarf and relax funny enough, the only people I see who pressure themselves this way are non-muslims, recent converts, married to ME men who try to "fit in" thinking they will be "accepted" by dressing the part.

There is no movement to allow men to wear gold and silk because the narrative has always been to present Islam as the religion that oppresses women. What social costs are women facing who choose to wear their hijab/burqas freely in the west? There are people lobbying constantly against their right to wear their hijabs/burqas as they see fit because it is somehow against the values of freedom and liberty. Anyhow, this is my last post on this, no point in repeating the same thing over and over.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, in terms of modesty, no--I don't make that distinction. I dress equally modestly in public as I do at home.

There is of course locale specifc dress that would be attention grabbing in other contexts. Fore example, I wear a bathing suit at the beach or pool but not otherwise.

My family does get subject to my unmade face and untidy hair, however, when I am home sick--wearing a nightgown and, of course, a bathrobe if I am not in bed.

I don't believe you would feel equally mortified exposing your breasts to your husband and your boss, sorry.

Ha! obviously we are not talking about what goes on in the bedroom, but rather how one goes about one's daily business in the house. I wouldn't bear my breasts to my kids or other family members either!

But in Islam it is perfectly fine to wear the most provocative outfit of a miniskirt and crop top or whatever else in the house around one's male relatives as long as one bundles up in public. Personally, I have seen this.

But, I think, for most Americans (not trying to speak for everyone, just my observation), there is a very small gap in the modesty of dress worn publicly and in private and the wide gap one sees in Islam is confusing. For us, modesty in the house and in public are pretty much the same thing. Not so in Islam.

Bull- just because you have personally seen Muslims wear provocative things in private doesn't make it am Islamic Ruling. Modesty is the Character of Islam, we are told to be modest in character and action, whether in private or public. Yes women don't have to cover their hair, and awrah when male relatives are around, doesn't mean the Islamic guidance is go naked and dance like a freed monkey around your relatives. We still dress appropriately in private, we just have mire leeway as to what we can show. Heck, I have a friend who never takes her hijab off even when it's just the 2 of us, I've never seen her hair. And another friend was telling me recently that she never saw her MIL's hair and that her husband actually never saw his own mother's hair and we were laughing about it , like WTH, really the woman never takes her hijab off.

Obviously, there is no official ruling saying dress provocatively at home. But, equally, there is no ruling saying you cannot dress provocatively at home, and often that is done. Even you admit women take off their hijab--worn for purposes of modesty--at home. My point was that for many Americans, modesty is modesty and the difference is very small between public and private places.

And there is no official ruling saying you can't dance naked. Obviously, it is not the norm to dress provocatively just because one is at home. And the fact that you think it is shows your lack of knowledge of Islamic adaab. If anything, it is always emphasized how people need to dress appropriately , and respectfully, this applies in and outside of the home. Modesty is not limited to being in public. Now there are different ways to dress whether you're in public or not even for AMERICANS , and if you call that modesty or not is irrelevant. There is a reason why you can walk in your jammies at home with your family around but won't show up at work wearing your color coordinated jammies because you think they are cute. Whether you like it or not, we all follow a dress code, whether it is by society standards, God's, or not.

Jammies are every bit as modest as a business suit, if not more so. Yes, there is socially accepted attire--but that is quite different from modest attire in terms of what is covered up.

As I said this is of no particular significance to me, but I am wondering why you are so defensive about the observation that there is a very large gap in standards of modesty for home and public in Islam, while there is a relatively small one in the West.

Because it is false. The large gap you are talking about only exists in your head, never did I think, jeez I'm home now, let me walk around in my bikini and stilettos around my brother and dad because I can. Really, we don't have these thoughts, the women who cover that I know do take off their hijabs when they are around other women/family, but that's it, they don't automatically switch from a hijab to a provocative outfit just because they are home. And to say that the religion embraces this, is utterly false.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

True. Gold and silk have been forbidden to men in this life, only women can wear them, but I have yet to hear about the men lobby crying injustice in dress codes and marching for the right of men to wear silk and gold. Somehow it's all about the injustice of the Muslim women and their headscarves

That's because no one controls the way men dress.

Let's break it down in a simpler example.

Option 1. You're a man in Jeddah. You walk along the Corniche sporting a gold necklace. What do you think will happen to you?

Option 2. You're a woman in Jeddah. You walk along the Corniche sporting a pair of tight jeans and a clingy top. No headscarf, no outer coat. What do you think will happen to you?

Stop mixing Islam with the Muslims. What Saudi Arabia does had nothing to do with Islam. I don't think anyone is puting a gun on the head of the women wearing a niqab in Tysons Corner

You didn't ask a religious question ("why are there no men's rights group asking to make gold and silk available to men?") You asked a question that has to do with social structures underlying the enforcement of these commandments. I gave you a perfectly logical answer - because society does not supervise and judge the way men dress the way it does women. There are no demonstration for the men's rights to wear gold and silk because while prohibited from wearing them religiously (according to non-scriptural sources), men aren't prohibited from wearing them socially. No one demonstrates for rights that are already available.

And your argument is flawed since wearing a hijab is the law in how many countries again? In the majority of Muslim countries, nobody supervises what women wear. Really, women choose and like to dress this way, why is it so hard for you to accept?

You are confusing laws with social mores. It actually isn't the law to cover in most countries on the planet, KSA excepting. Social pressure is different from laws. There is, for instance, no laws requiring you to be slender, but social pressure to remain slender does exist, and there are social costs to gaining weight. There is no law against garish makeup, but social pressure to keep it down, and social costs for not toning it down.

You asked, sarcastically, why no one demonstrates for the rights of men to wear gold and silk. I responded, quite logically, "because most men are socially free to wear gold and silk, regardless of religious prohibition", the way women socially aren't free to not cover.

It actually isn't hard for me to accept that women cover voluntarily since 90% of my Saudi inlaws cover everywhere. The fact that many women cover voluntarily does not at all negate the fact that there is in fact social pressure to cover in many Muslim-majority countries, and that there are social costs for women who don't cover. I am actually completely indifferent to the issue of covering vs. not covering, I've covered my face when it was socially profitable to do so, and I think it's stupid and immoral to require women to uncover. But none of that negates the fact that there is in fact social pressure to cover, and social costs are imposed on women who do not. The degree of these costs varies from country to country. Whether or not this has anything to do with religion is irrelevant.

I understand social pressure quite well and I am telling you one more time that it is a fallacy that Muslim women who live in Muslim Countries cover due to social pressure. Seriously? Saying this is as ridiculous as saying non muslim western women are forced to wear a dress due to social pressures. I will repeat it once again, I have never felt any pressure to cover my head while living/visiting any muslim country, my mother, siblings, cousins, aunts, ect do not wear a hijab/niqab, not one of them ever felt pressured to wear one, not one of them were shamed for their lack of hijab/niqab in Muslim countries. And saying that whether this has anything to do with religion is irrelevant is intellectually dishonest. You are not in the culture forum, this is the Religion section. Talking about Muslims and equating the actions of a few Muslims you know, or the life of your in-laws in Saudi at that as the reality of Muslim Women is misleading at best, and dishonest at worse. I am not saying that somewhere, somehow, there isn't a Muslim woman forced to wear a burqa or being " pressured" to wear a hijab, but there is a difference between those women's plights and your attempt to generalize other cultures into very belittling and untrue stereotypes.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

True. Gold and silk have been forbidden to men in this life, only women can wear them, but I have yet to hear about the men lobby crying injustice in dress codes and marching for the right of men to wear silk and gold. Somehow it's all about the injustice of the Muslim women and their headscarves

That's because no one controls the way men dress.

Let's break it down in a simpler example.

Option 1. You're a man in Jeddah. You walk along the Corniche sporting a gold necklace. What do you think will happen to you?

Option 2. You're a woman in Jeddah. You walk along the Corniche sporting a pair of tight jeans and a clingy top. No headscarf, no outer coat. What do you think will happen to you?

Stop mixing Islam with the Muslims. What Saudi Arabia does had nothing to do with Islam. I don't think anyone is puting a gun on the head of the women wearing a niqab in Tysons Corner

Not the pp, but should we also separate Christians from Christianity, the Jewish from Judaism, Sikhs from Sikhism, and so on? Because that just sounds to me like no one is truly part of their said religion so what's the point of religion? Are you not Muslim? Is the OP that started this thread as " I'm Muslim. Ask me anything!" not Muslim.


Do most all Muslims in the world believe that Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with Islam. Did they think that while their communities were getting funds from Saudi Arabia for their mosques and madrassas?

If you don't understand that a religion is based on its teachings, its scripture and not what its followers do, for the simple fact that human beings can deviate and more often time than not, do deviate from scripture, this discussion is pointless.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

True. Gold and silk have been forbidden to men in this life, only women can wear them, but I have yet to hear about the men lobby crying injustice in dress codes and marching for the right of men to wear silk and gold. Somehow it's all about the injustice of the Muslim women and their headscarves

That's because no one controls the way men dress.

Let's break it down in a simpler example.

Option 1. You're a man in Jeddah. You walk along the Corniche sporting a gold necklace. What do you think will happen to you?

Option 2. You're a woman in Jeddah. You walk along the Corniche sporting a pair of tight jeans and a clingy top. No headscarf, no outer coat. What do you think will happen to you?

Stop mixing Islam with the Muslims. What Saudi Arabia does had nothing to do with Islam. I don't think anyone is puting a gun on the head of the women wearing a niqab in Tysons Corner

You didn't ask a religious question ("why are there no men's rights group asking to make gold and silk available to men?") You asked a question that has to do with social structures underlying the enforcement of these commandments. I gave you a perfectly logical answer - because society does not supervise and judge the way men dress the way it does women. There are no demonstration for the men's rights to wear gold and silk because while prohibited from wearing them religiously (according to non-scriptural sources), men aren't prohibited from wearing them socially. No one demonstrates for rights that are already available.

And your argument is flawed since wearing a hijab is the law in how many countries again? In the majority of Muslim countries, nobody supervises what women wear. Really, women choose and like to dress this way, why is it so hard for you to accept?

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, in terms of modesty, no--I don't make that distinction. I dress equally modestly in public as I do at home.

There is of course locale specifc dress that would be attention grabbing in other contexts. Fore example, I wear a bathing suit at the beach or pool but not otherwise.

My family does get subject to my unmade face and untidy hair, however, when I am home sick--wearing a nightgown and, of course, a bathrobe if I am not in bed.

I don't believe you would feel equally mortified exposing your breasts to your husband and your boss, sorry.

Ha! obviously we are not talking about what goes on in the bedroom, but rather how one goes about one's daily business in the house. I wouldn't bear my breasts to my kids or other family members either!

But in Islam it is perfectly fine to wear the most provocative outfit of a miniskirt and crop top or whatever else in the house around one's male relatives as long as one bundles up in public. Personally, I have seen this.

But, I think, for most Americans (not trying to speak for everyone, just my observation), there is a very small gap in the modesty of dress worn publicly and in private and the wide gap one sees in Islam is confusing. For us, modesty in the house and in public are pretty much the same thing. Not so in Islam.

Bull- just because you have personally seen Muslims wear provocative things in private doesn't make it am Islamic Ruling. Modesty is the Character of Islam, we are told to be modest in character and action, whether in private or public. Yes women don't have to cover their hair, and awrah when male relatives are around, doesn't mean the Islamic guidance is go naked and dance like a freed monkey around your relatives. We still dress appropriately in private, we just have mire leeway as to what we can show. Heck, I have a friend who never takes her hijab off even when it's just the 2 of us, I've never seen her hair. And another friend was telling me recently that she never saw her MIL's hair and that her husband actually never saw his own mother's hair and we were laughing about it , like WTH, really the woman never takes her hijab off.

Obviously, there is no official ruling saying dress provocatively at home. But, equally, there is no ruling saying you cannot dress provocatively at home, and often that is done. Even you admit women take off their hijab--worn for purposes of modesty--at home. My point was that for many Americans, modesty is modesty and the difference is very small between public and private places.

And there is no official ruling saying you can't dance naked. Obviously, it is not the norm to dress provocatively just because one is at home. And the fact that you think it is shows your lack of knowledge of Islamic adaab. If anything, it is always emphasized how people need to dress appropriately , and respectfully, this applies in and outside of the home. Modesty is not limited to being in public. Now there are different ways to dress whether you're in public or not even for AMERICANS , and if you call that modesty or not is irrelevant. There is a reason why you can walk in your jammies at home with your family around but won't show up at work wearing your color coordinated jammies because you think they are cute. Whether you like it or not, we all follow a dress code, whether it is by society standards, God's, or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

True. Gold and silk have been forbidden to men in this life, only women can wear them, but I have yet to hear about the men lobby crying injustice in dress codes and marching for the right of men to wear silk and gold. Somehow it's all about the injustice of the Muslim women and their headscarves

That's because no one controls the way men dress.

Let's break it down in a simpler example.

Option 1. You're a man in Jeddah. You walk along the Corniche sporting a gold necklace. What do you think will happen to you?

Option 2. You're a woman in Jeddah. You walk along the Corniche sporting a pair of tight jeans and a clingy top. No headscarf, no outer coat. What do you think will happen to you?

Stop mixing Islam with the Muslims. What Saudi Arabia does had nothing to do with Islam. I don't think anyone is puting a gun on the head of the women wearing a niqab in Tysons Corner

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, in terms of modesty, no--I don't make that distinction. I dress equally modestly in public as I do at home.

There is of course locale specifc dress that would be attention grabbing in other contexts. Fore example, I wear a bathing suit at the beach or pool but not otherwise.

My family does get subject to my unmade face and untidy hair, however, when I am home sick--wearing a nightgown and, of course, a bathrobe if I am not in bed.

I don't believe you would feel equally mortified exposing your breasts to your husband and your boss, sorry.

Ha! obviously we are not talking about what goes on in the bedroom, but rather how one goes about one's daily business in the house. I wouldn't bear my breasts to my kids or other family members either!

But in Islam it is perfectly fine to wear the most provocative outfit of a miniskirt and crop top or whatever else in the house around one's male relatives as long as one bundles up in public. Personally, I have seen this.

But, I think, for most Americans (not trying to speak for everyone, just my observation), there is a very small gap in the modesty of dress worn publicly and in private and the wide gap one sees in Islam is confusing. For us, modesty in the house and in public are pretty much the same thing. Not so in Islam.

Bull- just because you have personally seen Muslims wear provocative things in private doesn't make it am Islamic Ruling. Modesty is the Character of Islam, we are told to be modest in character and action, whether in private or public. Yes women don't have to cover their hair, and awrah when male relatives are around, doesn't mean the Islamic guidance is go naked and dance like a freed monkey around your relatives. We still dress appropriately in private, we just have mire leeway as to what we can show. Heck, I have a friend who never takes her hijab off even when it's just the 2 of us, I've never seen her hair. And another friend was telling me recently that she never saw her MIL's hair and that her husband actually never saw his own mother's hair and we were laughing about it , like WTH, really the woman never takes her hijab off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:And for men, it's not just about lowering the gaze, like i said they also have a dress code. Yes, they do not have to wear a scarf, because obviously the male and female bodies are different and males/females react differently to it. The porn industry doesn't exist because men get aroused by intelligence and emotional connection ,and there is a reason advertisers use slender young attractive females on ads and not fat frumpy women, really! Moving on....

Quran: "O children of Adam, We have bestowed upon you clothing to conceal your private parts and as adornment. But the clothing of righteousness - that is best. That is from the signs of Allah that perhaps they will remember"-[7:26]

Now as far as the man's dress code, for the man, the 'awrah is defined as the area between the navel and the knees. ( Awrah is an islamic term that denotes the intimate parts of a man/woman). Men & women have different awrahs. Within the definition of 'awrah for men and women, all the four basic requirements are essentially the same:

1. Man should fully cover his awrah.
2. Men's clothes should be loose enough so as not
to describe what he is covering (his awrah).
3. They should be thick enough so as not to describe the color of the skin or the parts
required to be covered.
4. They should not be designed in a way to attract
attention. The basic rule of modesty and avoiding "show off" applies to all believers’ men and women. Source: http://www.icmtn.org/forms/women_dress.pdf

But the burqas and niqabs DO attract attention.

Also, as far as modesty goes, the definition of it goes beyond dress code. It's the way a person projects themselves in total. The very flashy lifestyle of the oil rich Muslim dominant countries in the M.E.-where this sort of dress is so important- as well as those that live or visit here from there completely negates the so-called modesty of their burqa. The burqa with the $5000 purse while driving in the 100K G-wagon doesn't exude modest, nor do the men in their loose attire with the thick gold chains and watches while they ride in the back of their Rolls with their driver after their servant carries their things.

Observant Muslim men do not wear gold or silk.

True. Gold and silk have been forbidden to men in this life, only women can wear them, but I have yet to hear about the men lobby crying injustice in dress codes and marching for the right of men to wear silk and gold. Somehow it's all about the injustice of the Muslim women and their headscarves

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Both are also asked to lower their gaze. .’

Well, lowering one's gaze could be to catch a look at something showing.

You know that's not the intention. Women are asked to dress modestly, men are asked not to stare.

If the man's gaze is lowered, plus covering the private parts, shouldn't that be enough? Why does the woman have to cover her hair, too, if men aren't supposed to be looking at it anyway?

It's a system of checks and balances where everyone does their part - women by dressing modestly and men by not ogling. This is the core principle, I'm not talking about the ugliness into which it translated today.

Both are actually asked to lower their gaze. The requirements for modest dress differ between the sexes due to fundamental biological distinctions and causes of arousal. I would also like to clarify that women do not cover their hair for men, the ones who do cover, do it because they believe it is a command from their lord and a sign of modesty, kinda like how the catholic nuns still cover their hair to this day. The attitude that hijab and Islamic dress codes exist to protect men are an utter and total fallacy.  

You might say that but this philosophy is very firmly entrenched in the Muslim discourse today.

It should also be noted that the exact form of hijab (open face/hands, everything else covered) is a construct of human and primarily male scholars, not what the lord commanded, even if you take the Quran to be a direct word of god.