Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ISIS does not affect large populations of the 1.6 billion that call them self Muslim.

Didn't say that. There are millions of refugees from ISIS in Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. In refugee terms, the number is large.

Not to mention the estimated 6 to 8 million of terrorized civilians living in ISIS-controlled territory.

Anonymous wrote:ISIS does not affect large populations of the 1.6 billion that call them self Muslim.

Didn't say that. There are millions of refugees from ISIS in Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. In refugee terms, the number is large.

ISIS does not affect large populations of the 1.6 billion that call them self Muslim.

Anonymous wrote:What do you think of other types of religion? Do you think those followers are cuckoo for coco puffs?

Yes, when they become cult-like. Like the weird Mormon splinter sects (not mainstream Mormons). There are very small, however, so who cares? But as groups like ISIS show there are strong forces within the Muslim community which have been very successful in marketing their cultic brand of Islam, which is now seriously endangering the life and freedom of large populations.

Not at all. Muslims believe in Christian and Jewish faith and therefore respect all Christians and Jews. At least they are supposed to!

What do you think of other types of religion? Do you think those followers are cuckoo for coco puffs?

Right, but its their cultural influence. Until women start protesting in large numbers this will not change. Thankfully, most women are not forced to wear niqab.

Anonymous wrote:Niqab is not required. For the women who wear it, let them be. Some actually want to. For the men who say its required, its not and they are insisting for other unislamic reasons. Its nowhere in the Quran.

I agree. But see the article cited above shows the social pressuress put on women to dress Islamic, if not from their husbands, fathers, or brothers then from other women. And ISIS insistence that women wear the niqab really taints the whole thing.

Niqab is not required. For the women who wear it, let them be. Some actually want to. For the men who say its required, its not and they are insisting for other unislamic reasons. Its nowhere in the Quran.

Good piece on the insidious political agenda behind niqab and the general covering up of women. Also interesting that it is a headache in a number of Arab countries because niqub wearing people (often male) are using them for arms smuggling.

http://www.meforum.org/meq/pdfs/2777.pdf

View on how many women really feel about niqab, gloves, and ISIS from inside Mosul.

http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/violence-extremist-disappear.html

And the glove thing seems to be reverse engineering by present day fanatic Islamic "scholars" who are obsessed with female purity.

Mohammed specifically forbade women from wearing gloves during pilgrimage. So today's fanatics have taken this to mean that Islamic women back in the seventh century ordinarily wore gloves. Right--in a country where temperatures reach 130 degrees and where there was no air conditioning or fans until the second half of the last century.

A much more plausible explanation is that gloves were worn in some types of manual labor like weaving to protect the hands. Pilgrimage is a sacred time out from every day secular life and work and so dress associated specifically with work should not be worn.

These same scholars often insist that women wear thick socks so no part of her shows--this is by extension of the glove theory. Have these people any idea how impractical this is to a nomadic person living 24/7 in a sea of sand?

No it wasn't. It's culture.

To me, it's kind of ironic how one of the vaguest verses in the Quran have turned into one with the most passion around it:

And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their adornment except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful.

What's funny is that the Quran is exquisitely detailed when it needs to be (like in verses on inheritance) and just as exquisitely vague when it wants to be. The "scholarly consensus", whatever that means, is that "what is apparent" means hands and face. But remember that scholars are just a bunch of dudes who need a job. So somehow the very vague instructions of this verse turned into stone-clad "face and hands only! and better if they are covered too!" business.

There is a theory out there (I say a theory, because we don't have much actual non-partisan scholarship about pre-Islamic times, just the expected "jahiliya!" howls from highly interested parties) that during these times, women used to wear their scarves (to protect from the sun) pinned to the back of their heads and thrown over the back much like the wedding veil. In this fashion, the face, neck and bust are on proud display. When the commandment to "draw it around your chest" was revealed, the subsequent pinning of the garment under the chin (to cover the chest) resulted in the today's iconic hijab look. So there's an equally strong argument to be made that the verse actually just meant "cover your boobs", and the fact that many other things got covered was just a sartorial outcome based on how that particular garment was made, not on anything mandated.

And yes, in these times covering was the sign of wealth and status to show you don't need to work the fields. There is also some evidence that one of the four caliphs prohibited Muslim concubines (or was it prostitutes?) from covering to make it clear who was who.

Anonymous wrote:Anything that ordinarily does not need to be visible. Hands and feet are necessary to go about ordinary tasks. This is what I was told. Makes no sense to wear hijab but wear daisy duked.

The really zealous today make their women glove their hands in public. I am pretty sure this was not the case in any prior time in Islamic history.