Of course there is. You are saying she MUST be forced or brainswashed, and it means you are incapable of thinking of other options. You have no idea how she feels about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I started wearing the hijab few years ago, and I was happy and very much satisfied with my decision. I never felt the scarf would hinder anything in my life or make me a subject to discrimination...but lately with all what's going on in the world with ISIS and the heated media against Muslims makes me angry because my religion got hijacked. I have to admit that I'm becoming way more sensitive to my surrounding now...there are times I get dirty looks here and there or sometimes people assume that I'm dumb or less educated...it bothers me.

Those of you wearing the scarf, what are your thoughts? Have you had any bad experience lately?

Those of you who are non Muslims, what are your thoughts when you see a woman wearing the scarf? Are you scared of Muslims?

Just left Safeway in Herndon after another great friday night live. Beautiful night. Many families out in herndon, lots of people, wearing summer clothes. Everyone having fun and dressed in shorts and light clothes.

And then in Safeway, a couple walked in, the man in t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers, dressed casually. The woman covered in head to toe with a black sheet. She had a 1 inch slit for her eyes. Walking behind the man, following him into Safeway about 10:00 at night, shuffling behind him.

So my immediate reaction was to race over and unchain this poor soul that is forced to cover head to toe in the heat, while her husband wears what ever he wants. Anyone that does this must be brainwashed or forced. No one in their right mind would cover themself head to toe in a black sheet in summer. Especially when their partner is dressed in normal clothes. It makes no sense. No god would would tell all women to bundle themselves and then let all the men dress however they want. I sure hope my daughter NEVER marries into a religion like that.

Those were my thoughts.

That shows a terrible lack of imagination on your part.

Although a bunch of my relatives cover like this, and if a random white chick raced to them while they are going about their business and began to prattle about unchaining their souls and tugging on their covers, they'd punch you in the face.

sounds like you were brainwashed also.

There was no imagination involved. I could see very plainly that she was walking behind her husband , while he walked in sneakers and jeans. She was covered head to toe in a black sheet. Looking down, shuffling behind him.

No god or religion would treat one half of the population like this.

Muslim women, you are in America, you can drive, vote, and tell your husband to shove your niqab right up his ass. Especially in summer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I started wearing the hijab few years ago, and I was happy and very much satisfied with my decision. I never felt the scarf would hinder anything in my life or make me a subject to discrimination...but lately with all what's going on in the world with ISIS and the heated media against Muslims makes me angry because my religion got hijacked. I have to admit that I'm becoming way more sensitive to my surrounding now...there are times I get dirty looks here and there or sometimes people assume that I'm dumb or less educated...it bothers me.

Those of you wearing the scarf, what are your thoughts? Have you had any bad experience lately?

Those of you who are non Muslims, what are your thoughts when you see a woman wearing the scarf? Are you scared of Muslims?

Just left Safeway in Herndon after another great friday night live. Beautiful night. Many families out in herndon, lots of people, wearing summer clothes. Everyone having fun and dressed in shorts and light clothes.

And then in Safeway, a couple walked in, the man in t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers, dressed casually. The woman covered in head to toe with a black sheet. She had a 1 inch slit for her eyes. Walking behind the man, following him into Safeway about 10:00 at night, shuffling behind him.

So my immediate reaction was to race over and unchain this poor soul that is forced to cover head to toe in the heat, while her husband wears what ever he wants. Anyone that does this must be brainwashed or forced. No one in their right mind would cover themself head to toe in a black sheet in summer. Especially when their partner is dressed in normal clothes. It makes no sense. No god would would tell all women to bundle themselves and then let all the men dress however they want. I sure hope my daughter NEVER marries into a religion like that.

Those were my thoughts.

That shows a terrible lack of imagination on your part.

Although a bunch of my relatives cover like this, and if a random white chick raced to them while they are going about their business and began to prattle about unchaining their souls and tugging on their covers, they'd punch you in the face.

Anonymous wrote:
You're in the wrong here. What you're saying is completely contrary to the spirit of the Quran, which has always claimed to be easily accessible to anybody who reads it. The Quran was never supposed to require years of study, or a priestly class to interpret it. In fact, it represented in part a reaction to early Christian theology, which involved complicated concepts like the Trinity and a growing priestly class. The whole point of the Quran was supposed to be that anybody could read it and instantly understand God's word.

In any case, it doesn't take years of study to understand that "draw your veil across your chest" means exactly that. No, I haven't read the original Arabic, and I'm sure you'll tax me with that. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems really unlikely that "chest" and "hair" would be the same word in Arabic.

[Isn't necessary to clarify, because the Quran is supposed to be accessible to all readers. But if you've been to college, you know that nothing is ever read without the prof providing lots and lots of context and history. Despite your snide remarks, I'm sure you know that.]

What the Quran claims to be and what it is are two very different things. Have you read the Quran? Then you know it's anything but clear and simple. It's vague, it's boring, it's rambly, it's contradictory and frankly erroneous at times. It most certainly doesn't have the effect it's supposed to have - that anybody can read it and instantly understand god's word. (Although I can totally see your sophomore self saying what you said above with a look of great earnestness).

What I am asking you, no, telling you - is that it takes much more than Islam 101 and its handful of sources to be able to say with confidence what is and is not religiously required. It certainly takes a special kind of arrogance on behalf of a non-Muslim uninvolved with the history, community and culture to try and tell Muslims about the "true" nature of their religion. You don't have the credentials to decide what their religion does and does not require. Leave it to the natives.

Anonymous wrote:I started wearing the hijab few years ago, and I was happy and very much satisfied with my decision. I never felt the scarf would hinder anything in my life or make me a subject to discrimination...but lately with all what's going on in the world with ISIS and the heated media against Muslims makes me angry because my religion got hijacked. I have to admit that I'm becoming way more sensitive to my surrounding now...there are times I get dirty looks here and there or sometimes people assume that I'm dumb or less educated...it bothers me.

Those of you wearing the scarf, what are your thoughts? Have you had any bad experience lately?

Those of you who are non Muslims, what are your thoughts when you see a woman wearing the scarf? Are you scared of Muslims?

Just left Safeway in Herndon after another great friday night live. Beautiful night. Many families out in herndon, lots of people, wearing summer clothes. Everyone having fun and dressed in shorts and light clothes.

And then in Safeway, a couple walked in, the man in t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers, dressed casually. The woman covered in head to toe with a black sheet. She had a 1 inch slit for her eyes. Walking behind the man, following him into Safeway about 10:00 at night, shuffling behind him.

So my immediate reaction was to race over and unchain this poor soul that is forced to cover head to toe in the heat, while her husband wears what ever he wants. Anyone that does this must be brainwashed or forced. No one in their right mind would cover themself head to toe in a black sheet in summer. Especially when their partner is dressed in normal clothes. It makes no sense. No god would would tell all women to bundle themselves and then let all the men dress however they want. I sure hope my daughter NEVER marries into a religion like that.

Those were my thoughts.

PS, we read hadith too. And studied different schools and views on hadith. Including the old joke that Mohammed said, "take only the Quran from me."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "patriarchal".

In any case, how many times does it have to be repeated, that nobody here is telling anyone else what to believe? Sorry for the caps, but in your case it seems so necessary: NOBODY IS TELLING ANYBODY ELSE WHAT TO BELIEVE. OP asked for our opinions, and there seem to be a number of people here who have the *opinion* that despite your false analogy (see below), the hijab seems like a cultural rather than religious artifact, a regression to religious bean-counting, and whatever else various posters have said they "think".

Our opinion is for us to decide. The club members can take it or leave it. Everybody has their own opinion, and is welcome to air it, or at least that's what OP suggested.

You, however, are arrogant to tell *us*'what to think.

False analogy/bad logic: comparing two traditions that aren't in the holy book doesn't equal anything that is in the holy book. I wasn't the one who used the term "false analogy" and maybe "false equivalence" would be a better name for it. Either way, it's flawed rhetoric.

Go ahead and ask about my lobotomy now....

I think you like to feel prosecuted even when occasion doesn't call for it, but whatever. I will explain again, in shorter words.

You are free to believe whatever. You are free to call hijabs patriarchal, liberal, celestial, disgusting, call them spaghetti monsters for all I care. That's up to you. The distinction begins when you - presumably a non-Muslim - begin to say things like "it's not religiously required", when the sum total of your Islamic knowledge is that you "read the entire Quran when I was in college". To decide whether something is or is not a religious requirement needs quite a bit more knowledge than reading something once in college, and I am reasonably certain that no one non-Muslim on DCUM has studied the religious sources to the degree necessary for making pronouncements like these without sounding foolish. Bluntly speaking, you don't have enough knowledge to say whether it is or is not religiously required. When you try to tell Muslims what their religion does or does not require - THAT makes you sound patronizing and arrogant.

Otherwise, call the hijab a spacesuit, my little mufti, no one cares.

You're in the wrong here. What you're saying is completely contrary to the spirit of the Quran, which has always claimed to be easily accessible to anybody who reads it. The Quran was never supposed to require years of study, or a priestly class to interpret it. In fact, it represented in part a reaction to early Christian theology, which involved complicated concepts like the Trinity and a growing priestly class. The whole point of the Quran was supposed to be that anybody could read it and instantly understand God's word.

In any case, it doesn't take years of study to understand that "draw your veil across your chest" means exactly that. No, I haven't read the original Arabic, and I'm sure you'll tax me with that. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems really unlikely that "chest" and "hair" would be the same word in Arabic.

[Isn't necessary to clarify, because the Quran is supposed to be accessible to all readers. But if you've been to college, you know that nothing is ever read without the prof providing lots and lots of context and history. Despite your snide remarks, I'm sure you know that.]

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "patriarchal".

In any case, how many times does it have to be repeated, that nobody here is telling anyone else what to believe? Sorry for the caps, but in your case it seems so necessary: NOBODY IS TELLING ANYBODY ELSE WHAT TO BELIEVE. OP asked for our opinions, and there seem to be a number of people here who have the *opinion* that despite your false analogy (see below), the hijab seems like a cultural rather than religious artifact, a regression to religious bean-counting, and whatever else various posters have said they "think".

Our opinion is for us to decide. The club members can take it or leave it. Everybody has their own opinion, and is welcome to air it, or at least that's what OP suggested.

You, however, are arrogant to tell *us*'what to think.

False analogy/bad logic: comparing two traditions that aren't in the holy book doesn't equal anything that is in the holy book. I wasn't the one who used the term "false analogy" and maybe "false equivalence" would be a better name for it. Either way, it's flawed rhetoric.

Go ahead and ask about my lobotomy now....

I think you like to feel prosecuted even when occasion doesn't call for it, but whatever. I will explain again, in shorter words.

You are free to believe whatever. You are free to call hijabs patriarchal, liberal, celestial, disgusting, call them spaghetti monsters for all I care. That's up to you. The distinction begins when you - presumably a non-Muslim - begin to say things like "it's not religiously required", when the sum total of your Islamic knowledge is that you "read the entire Quran when I was in college". To decide whether something is or is not a religious requirement needs quite a bit more knowledge than reading something once in college, and I am reasonably certain that no one non-Muslim on DCUM has studied the religious sources to the degree necessary for making pronouncements like these without sounding foolish. Bluntly speaking, you don't have enough knowledge to say whether it is or is not religiously required. When you try to tell Muslims what their religion does or does not require - THAT makes you sound patronizing and arrogant.

Otherwise, call the hijab a spacesuit, my little mufti, no one cares.

You're referring to the turtle hijab? I can see your point, that it is newer than other forms of the veil, and for that reason it seems more like a political statement. But that's just my opinion, and the club is of course free to ignore opinions of anonymous moms on DCUM....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The analogy between prayer movements and the hijab are false.

Payer movements were quickly established following Muhammad's death and haven't changed since.

The hijab as we see it today, on the other hand, did not exist until the 1970's. The justification--given on many fundamentalist Islamic websites--is that it is in the verse of the Quran that says women should draw their shawls across their bosom, a term that now somehow is interpreted to include hair.

This is a confusing and ill-justified conflation of the verse with the traditional veil long worn in the Middle East, going back well before Islam. It simply covers the hair lightly and there is no obsessiveness about ensuring that no wisp of hair is seen, as is the case with today's hijab wearers.

I sympathize with censored PP's statements. It appears, that, she, like I, dislike the hijab because wearers most often believe it is dictated by the Quran but that is simply bad theology and, even worse, it reduces a serious religion with a history of sophisticated theology and scholarship to a series of petty dictates.

I dislike the hijab because I admire Islam.

You are wrong on both counts.

The analogy of prayer movements and hijab is not false because it shows that something can be NOT in the Quran and yet embraced by the majority. There is no requirement that this something must be ancient.

Secondly, the hijab justification is not that that women should draw their shawls across the bosoms but the hadith where Mohammed said nothing but face and hands can be shown if the woman reached puberty.

Different PP here. The fact that something is "embraced by the majority" does not necessarily elevate it to the status of "religious requirement". The majority of Muslims--and peoples of all faiths--do many things in their daily lives that haven't been elevated to religious requirements. I'm with PP in thinking the veil is a patriarchal hold-over from before Islam, and that this is a false analogy.

That is your prerogative, but it's really not up to the outsiders to tell the followers of a religion what is and is not a "religious requirement". THAT is patriarchal and arrogant. This matter is for the club members to decide, and you aren't on the list. As long as they accept it, it's on them.

And why exactly is this a false analogy?

When members of the ''club'' use the term religious requirement as excuses for not wanting to take off their hijab for a drivers license photo or take off their niqab when they are working in a store and then scream "Islamophobe" when they are asked to do so since it is not actually a theological requirement-- that extends to outside of the club.

So indeed a clear distinction should definitely be made in a secular society within a secular gov't.

Don't want to know our thoughts? (Which is odd, since that's the point of the entire thread) There are roughly 70 Muslim majority countries where no one will even bat an eye. In fact, many would not even allow you to take it off outside your home anyway.

No need to worry about judgments, opinions, whether it's your prerogative or whether it is not religious and the members of your club will be everywhere so you know they won't be "scared" of the OP. Though whether or not she would end up scared of them when the hijab enforcement police are walking next to her is another story.

If OP wants to wear it that's fine, she wondered if we are scared of her and no one here said they were. The opinions of many on here though are that the distinction for wearing this be clear since theologically it's not for religion. It's an Islamic political statement because that is how the hijab of today (which bears no resemblance to the headscarfs or veils of the past) came to be in the 70s in Iran. A purely political tactic.

When I see people wearing it, I see it as a political statement. Either the political statement of the wearer or the wearer's husband or parents.

Though I do think the other pp is correct in calling it a club. Many young Muslim women are turning towards the hijab because it does give them a sense of distinction as if in an exclusive club. They dress it up, match it to outfits, layer on the eye makeup. Much like other groups of kids that suddenly want to become part of something, like the hippies of the 60s or the goth look of the 90s.

Still has nothing to do with Islam.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The analogy between prayer movements and the hijab are false.

Payer movements were quickly established following Muhammad's death and haven't changed since.

The hijab as we see it today, on the other hand, did not exist until the 1970's. The justification--given on many fundamentalist Islamic websites--is that it is in the verse of the Quran that says women should draw their shawls across their bosom, a term that now somehow is interpreted to include hair.

This is a confusing and ill-justified conflation of the verse with the traditional veil long worn in the Middle East, going back well before Islam. It simply covers the hair lightly and there is no obsessiveness about ensuring that no wisp of hair is seen, as is the case with today's hijab wearers.

I sympathize with censored PP's statements. It appears, that, she, like I, dislike the hijab because wearers most often believe it is dictated by the Quran but that is simply bad theology and, even worse, it reduces a serious religion with a history of sophisticated theology and scholarship to a series of petty dictates.

I dislike the hijab because I admire Islam.

You are wrong on both counts.

The analogy of prayer movements and hijab is not false because it shows that something can be NOT in the Quran and yet embraced by the majority. There is no requirement that this something must be ancient.

Secondly, the hijab justification is not that that women should draw their shawls across the bosoms but the hadith where Mohammed said nothing but face and hands can be shown if the woman reached puberty.

Different PP here. The fact that something is "embraced by the majority" does not necessarily elevate it to the status of "religious requirement". The majority of Muslims--and peoples of all faiths--do many things in their daily lives that haven't been elevated to religious requirements. I'm with PP in thinking the veil is a patriarchal hold-over from before Islam, and that this is a false analogy.

That is your prerogative, but it's really not up to the outsiders to tell the followers of a religion what is and is not a "religious requirement". THAT is patriarchal and arrogant. This matter is for the club members to decide, and you aren't on the list. As long as they accept it, it's on them.

And why exactly is this a false analogy?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "patriarchal".

In any case, how many times does it have to be repeated, that nobody here is telling anyone else what to believe? Sorry for the caps, but in your case it seems so necessary: NOBODY IS TELLING ANYBODY ELSE WHAT TO BELIEVE. OP asked for our opinions, and there seem to be a number of people here who have the *opinion* that despite your false analogy (see below), the hijab seems like a cultural rather than religious artifact, a regression to religious bean-counting, and whatever else various posters have said they "think".

Our opinion is for us to decide. The club members can take it or leave it. Everybody has their own opinion, and is welcome to air it, or at least that's what OP suggested.

You, however, are arrogant to tell *us*'what to think.

False analogy/bad logic: comparing two traditions that aren't in the holy book doesn't equal anything that is in the holy book. I wasn't the one who used the term "false analogy" and maybe "false equivalence" would be a better name for it. Either way, it's flawed rhetoric.

Go ahead and ask about my lobotomy now....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The analogy between prayer movements and the hijab are false.

Payer movements were quickly established following Muhammad's death and haven't changed since.

The hijab as we see it today, on the other hand, did not exist until the 1970's. The justification--given on many fundamentalist Islamic websites--is that it is in the verse of the Quran that says women should draw their shawls across their bosom, a term that now somehow is interpreted to include hair.

This is a confusing and ill-justified conflation of the verse with the traditional veil long worn in the Middle East, going back well before Islam. It simply covers the hair lightly and there is no obsessiveness about ensuring that no wisp of hair is seen, as is the case with today's hijab wearers.

I sympathize with censored PP's statements. It appears, that, she, like I, dislike the hijab because wearers most often believe it is dictated by the Quran but that is simply bad theology and, even worse, it reduces a serious religion with a history of sophisticated theology and scholarship to a series of petty dictates.

I dislike the hijab because I admire Islam.

You are wrong on both counts.

The analogy of prayer movements and hijab is not false because it shows that something can be NOT in the Quran and yet embraced by the majority. There is no requirement that this something must be ancient.

Secondly, the hijab justification is not that that women should draw their shawls across the bosoms but the hadith where Mohammed said nothing but face and hands can be shown if the woman reached puberty.

Different PP here. The fact that something is "embraced by the majority" does not necessarily elevate it to the status of "religious requirement". The majority of Muslims--and peoples of all faiths--do many things in their daily lives that haven't been elevated to religious requirements. I'm with PP in thinking the veil is a patriarchal hold-over from before Islam, and that this is a false analogy.

That is your prerogative, but it's really not up to the outsiders to tell the followers of a religion what is and is not a "religious requirement". THAT is patriarchal and arrogant. This matter is for the club members to decide, and you aren't on the list. As long as they accept it, it's on them.

And why exactly is this a false analogy?

Just like a white hood means racism, hijab means oppression of women

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The analogy between prayer movements and the hijab are false.

Payer movements were quickly established following Muhammad's death and haven't changed since.

The hijab as we see it today, on the other hand, did not exist until the 1970's. The justification--given on many fundamentalist Islamic websites--is that it is in the verse of the Quran that says women should draw their shawls across their bosom, a term that now somehow is interpreted to include hair.

This is a confusing and ill-justified conflation of the verse with the traditional veil long worn in the Middle East, going back well before Islam. It simply covers the hair lightly and there is no obsessiveness about ensuring that no wisp of hair is seen, as is the case with today's hijab wearers.

I sympathize with censored PP's statements. It appears, that, she, like I, dislike the hijab because wearers most often believe it is dictated by the Quran but that is simply bad theology and, even worse, it reduces a serious religion with a history of sophisticated theology and scholarship to a series of petty dictates.

I dislike the hijab because I admire Islam.

You are wrong on both counts.

The analogy of prayer movements and hijab is not false because it shows that something can be NOT in the Quran and yet embraced by the majority. There is no requirement that this something must be ancient.

Secondly, the hijab justification is not that that women should draw their shawls across the bosoms but the hadith where Mohammed said nothing but face and hands can be shown if the woman reached puberty.

Different PP here. The fact that something is "embraced by the majority" does not necessarily elevate it to the status of "religious requirement". The majority of Muslims--and peoples of all faiths--do many things in their daily lives that haven't been elevated to religious requirements. I'm with PP in thinking the veil is a patriarchal hold-over from before Islam, and that this is a false analogy.