Anonymous wrote:

You confuse exposure with liberation. The things that you "ought" to be happy about is that women in these photos are working or studying or reading. Not that they are wearing the outfits that meet your approval. It's not your business how they decide to dress. What if there was a photo of a niqabi surgeon, would she not be evolved enough for you? You don't own other women's bodies.

No. But, please note the bolded. The women in those pictures had the option of "not covering". They no longer have that option. So, WHO is choosing HOW THEY DECIDE TO DRESS? It may not be "my business", but I think it should be theirs. You, obviously, disagree that it is their business.

Please tell me why Iranian women who live in the US do not cover--yet must cover when they go home to visit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You confuse exposure with liberation. The things that you "ought" to be happy about is that women in these photos are working or studying or reading. Not that they are wearing the outfits that meet your approval. It's not your business how they decide to dress. What if there was a photo of a niqabi surgeon, would she not be evolved enough for you? You don't own other women's bodies.

I think the liberation=exposure=promiscuity equation is a red herring.

The liberation in question is also from what hijab symbolizes--that a woman has value only if she's pure and virginal.

There's also liberation in having choices in how to dress, whether they're surgeons on SAHMs. In a culture where only the most brazen women show their limbs, however, then men will interpret this as advertising sex, and the choice goes away.

That said, I agree with you somewhat. Having worked in developing countries, I've seen the studies and surveys that show that feminism is down the list of women's priorities. First come food, water, housing, education for their children. Things like the right to vote or to choose how to dress are usually way down the list.

You confuse exposure with liberation. The things that you "ought" to be happy about is that women in these photos are working or studying or reading. Not that they are wearing the outfits that meet your approval. It's not your business how they decide to dress. What if there was a photo of a niqabi surgeon, would she not be evolved enough for you? You don't own other women's bodies.

Anonymous wrote:You confuse exposure with liberation. The things that you "ought" to be happy about is that women in these photos are working or studying or reading. Not that they are wearing the outfits that meet your approval. It's not your business how they decide to dress. What if there was a photo of a niqabi surgeon, would she not be evolved enough for you? You don't own other women's bodies.

Anonymous wrote:You confuse exposure with liberation. The things that you "ought" to be happy about is that women in these photos are working or studying or reading. Not that they are wearing the outfits that meet your approval. It's not your business how they decide to dress. What if there was a photo of a niqabi surgeon, would she not be evolved enough for you? You don't own other women's bodies.

Anonymous wrote:You confuse exposure with liberation. The things that you "ought" to be happy about is that women in these photos are working or studying or reading. Not that they are wearing the outfits that meet your approval. It's not your business how they decide to dress. What if there was a photo of a niqabi surgeon, would she not be evolved enough for you? You don't own other women's bodies.

Anonymous wrote:You confuse exposure with liberation. The things that you "ought" to be happy about is that women in these photos are working or studying or reading. Not that they are wearing the outfits that meet your approval. It's not your business how they decide to dress. What if there was a photo of a niqabi surgeon, would she not be evolved enough for you? You don't own other women's bodies.

Anonymous wrote:You confuse exposure with liberation. The things that you "ought" to be happy about is that women in these photos are working or studying or reading. Not that they are wearing the outfits that meet your approval. It's not your business how they decide to dress. What if there was a photo of a niqabi surgeon, would she not be evolved enough for you? You don't own other women's bodies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not really seeing Islamaphobia on this thread except perhaps the remarks about Aisha and Khadija, and those appear to have been made by a Muslim.

Everyone else is sticking to the story that 1) the Quran does not require the hijab and 2) women who wear it have been brainwashed (or forced) into doing so, and 3) the hijab is used as an instrument to suppress women, often as an element of political Islam.

There are plenty of Muslims who hold these views, two of whom are the authors of the article OP posted. And it can be argued that those expressing these views are actually Islamophiles who are chagrined at the way Islam has been distorted to make the hijab in essence the sixth pillar of Islam.

But there are plenty - lots and lots - who don't. The posts that drove this thread intimate that women who wear a headscarf voluntarily are either brainwashed, or non-existent. Nothing surprising. People aren't typically able to imagine that others could want to do things that they themselves don't want to do.

I WILL tell you that most Muslim women aren't enthused at the thought of non-Muslim ladies wanting to liberate them. They find it paternalistic and ignorant.

Where did ANYONE on this thread say they wanted to liberate Muslim women? I would like them to liberate THEMSELVES, like they did decades ago.

Behold, women from Afghanistan:



Iraqi girls, in the 1970s:



Iran, 1970s:



Full slideshow: http://www.albawaba.com/slideshow/retro-mini-fashion-middle-east--514288

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not really seeing Islamaphobia on this thread except perhaps the remarks about Aisha and Khadija, and those appear to have been made by a Muslim.

Everyone else is sticking to the story that 1) the Quran does not require the hijab and 2) women who wear it have been brainwashed (or forced) into doing so, and 3) the hijab is used as an instrument to suppress women, often as an element of political Islam.

There are plenty of Muslims who hold these views, two of whom are the authors of the article OP posted. And it can be argued that those expressing these views are actually Islamophiles who are chagrined at the way Islam has been distorted to make the hijab in essence the sixth pillar of Islam.

But there are plenty - lots and lots - who don't. The posts that drove this thread intimate that women who wear a headscarf voluntarily are either brainwashed, or non-existent. Nothing surprising. People aren't typically able to imagine that others could want to do things that they themselves don't want to do.

I WILL tell you that most Muslim women aren't enthused at the thought of non-Muslim ladies wanting to liberate them. They find it paternalistic and ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not really seeing Islamaphobia on this thread except perhaps the remarks about Aisha and Khadija, and those appear to have been made by a Muslim.

Everyone else is sticking to the story that 1) the Quran does not require the hijab and 2) women who wear it have been brainwashed (or forced) into doing so, and 3) the hijab is used as an instrument to suppress women, often as an element of political Islam.

There are plenty of Muslims who hold these views, two of whom are the authors of the article OP posted. And it can be argued that those expressing these views are actually Islamophiles who are chagrined at the way Islam has been distorted to make the hijab in essence the sixth pillar of Islam.

But there are plenty - lots and lots - who don't. The posts that drove this thread intimate that women who wear a headscarf voluntarily are either brainwashed, or non-existent. Nothing surprising. People aren't typically able to imagine that others could want to do things that they themselves don't want to do.

I WILL tell you that most Muslim women aren't enthused at the thought of non-Muslim ladies wanting to liberate them. They find it paternalistic and ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not really seeing Islamaphobia on this thread except perhaps the remarks about Aisha and Khadija, and those appear to have been made by a Muslim.

Everyone else is sticking to the story that 1) the Quran does not require the hijab and 2) women who wear it have been brainwashed (or forced) into doing so, and 3) the hijab is used as an instrument to suppress women, often as an element of political Islam.

There are plenty of Muslims who hold these views, two of whom are the authors of the article OP posted. And it can be argued that those expressing these views are actually Islamophiles who are chagrined at the way Islam has been distorted to make the hijab in essence the sixth pillar of Islam.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS: I don't reject the alliance theory. All I'm saying it it's a theory, we don't know for sure. You should be comfortable admitting that, too, instead of stating it as if it were a fact.

Fine, but you've been asked to give us credible alternative theories. Just one credible alternative theory will do.

In Aisha's case, if you want to go with "it's a guy thing and all the boys were doing it" then it would be harder to argue against than your silly contention that six-year-old understood the riches she'd enjoy later in life. But the "guy thing" theory doesn't reflect well on your prophet. I suggest you come up with something better.

My prophet?

What makes you think I'm Muslim?

Your habit of assuming things about people to fit your stories?

You're arguing with 3-4 people here.

Granted it's hard to tell who's who here. But there's definitely a poster on tonight doing Muslim apologetics. That's you, if you're the poster referring to "Muslims and their wives" and writing "who cares, she made out like a bandit" about Aisha. You're also assuming a stance towards women's roles and rights--again, the wives of Muslim philanthropists and scientists, as well as Aisha's rights--that most non-Muslims would be uncomfortable with. Or at least would know better than to post that here.

I'll play along and rephrase. "The 'guy' theory doesn't reflect well on Islam's prophet." Happy now? OK, how about finally rising to the challenge of offering better theories, instead of looking for new ways to pick pointless fights?

OK. You seem earnest. I'll give you an earnest answer.

The poster who decided I really mean "Muslim men philanthropists and scientists and their wives who are wholly separate from the men" when I clearly meant "the community of Muslims and its members who happen to be female" is really, really determined to find misogyny. It's not worth my time to argue with her because she's totally convinced she knows what I meant. What that comment "really" meant was that the public perception of hijabs is driven by the perception of the Muslims en masse and not by the act of covering. If the Muslim community "in general" was famous for great things, its female members would enjoy admiration and respect whatever they wear, and if their clothing readily identifies them as members of that community, then readily so. Right now, the Muslim community doesn't have a great reputation. So its female members identifiable by their clothes fully share the burden of that not-so-great reputation of the community to which they belong.

As for the prophet and "better theories", I don't really know understand what your question is.

So I was the PP who jumped on you for the term "Muslims and their women." In English that is a very peculiar way to say "the community of Muslims and its members who happen to be female" because the way to say that is simply "Muslims." "Muslims and their women" is a sexist phrase in English.

I think perhaps (and note the perhaps before you start accusing me of putting words in your mouth) you were making a point that harkens back to your comment about nuns and their crazy get ups (or some other words along those lines you used to describe them). Namely, that nuns in general are thought to be forces for good so those wearing a habit are generally viewed positively. Thus, your argument is that if Muslims in general were viewed as being forces for good, then those wearing a hijab would be viewed positively.

That argument, however, is mistaken. No women is forced to wear a habit or the veil often worn with it. Women are free to enter a convent or not, she may rule out a convent that requires a veil or a habit that looks different from street clothes, and in any case the habit is a not a signifier of a woman who more scrupulously follows the commands of God than other women but rather of the profession she has chosen to enter.

The fact that women are forced to wear the hijab in many places by the law or by their families usually on the premise that it protect "purity" meant in a sexual sense, that women wearing it believe in doing so they are obeying requirements set down by God, and that the rise of the hijab in various countries almost exactly tracks the erosion of women's rights in those countries causes the hijab to viewed negatively.

No matter how much esteem Muslims might gain for various accomplishments it will not cause non-Musims to embrace the hijab as a signifier of a member of that accomplished community. It will remain viewed as a tool for restraining women.