Hijab does not improve men's "lust" or behavior- in fact, it does the opposite. By fetishizing every part of a woman's body and taking the responsibility for men's "gazing" out of the man's hands, it sets the stage for men to characterize women purely as sex objects, and act accordingly.

Anonymous wrote:PP, if your contention is that men sometimes lust, yes, they do, and probably no more in Muslim cultures than any other culture.

But as I said earlier, hijabi women are trying to prevent the sin of gazing, which is far less egregious than lusting. So it would follow that, yes, they are also trying to prevent lust.

The goal is to try to prevent the unfortunate and undesirable wanton sexual behaviors that are corrosive to society.

Both men and women are commanded by God in the Quran to "lower (their) gaze" but women wear hijab to prevent sin, their own as well as mens. Wearing the hijab reminds women, also, that they should control themselves.

Western society with it's linear equality ideology has deemed it shameful that a woman should have to take on the burden of covering herself to help maintain a moral society. Muslims feel no shame with this. What is the alternative? A society where men do lust openly and women do satisfy their lust, such as what we often have in western societies.

The Quran doesn't mention a woman needs to cover her hair, but if a woman chooses to embrace hijab for modesty reasons, more power to her.

I'm following this thread and the thread about New Year's Eve in Cologne. It seems you have happily taken on the responsibility for reducing men's lust and improve treatment of women, and it doesn't even work. If it demonstrably did work, we'd be much more receptive to your cultural practices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't read it that way at all. The Quran talks about overall modesty, and not simply in terms of covering breasts. It asks women (and women) to lower gazes. It asks to cover adornments/ornaments/beauty. This is quite different from western standards. So it certainly isn't limiting modesty to covering breasts. In fact, the spirit of the Quranic text seems to be broader than that when explaining modesty.

Now I can see that if a woman wears her hair like Leila Ahmed, short, cropped, uncombed, uncolored, greying, and easy to disregard, then perhaps it's not being used to draw attention. But otherwise, it just makes no sense that God would be okay with the use of hair to attract men.

Why do you keep saying that women wear their hair "to attract men"? That's simply not the case for most women in the US. I wear my hair shoulder-length and brush it to present a professional, put-together look at work and when I'm interacting with others at stores and so on. My hair doesn't tell people I'm looking to get picked up, or that I see my hair as something shameful that needs to be hidden--my hair sends the message that I'm confident and put-together.

Perhaps not for the married,middle aged mother of three, but for most women, particularly younger women and single women, hair is often used to beautify themselves.

PP, if your contention is that men sometimes lust, yes, they do, and probably no more in Muslim cultures than any other culture.

But as I said earlier, hijabi women are trying to prevent the sin of gazing, which is far less egregious than lusting. So it would follow that, yes, they are also trying to prevent lust.

The goal is to try to prevent the unfortunate and undesirable wanton sexual behaviors that are corrosive to society.

Both men and women are commanded by God in the Quran to "lower (their) gaze" but women wear hijab to prevent sin, their own as well as mens. Wearing the hijab reminds women, also, that they should control themselves.

Western society with it's linear equality ideology has deemed it shameful that a woman should have to take on the burden of covering herself to help maintain a moral society. Muslims feel no shame with this. What is the alternative? A society where men do lust openly and women do satisfy their lust, such as what we often have in western societies.

The Quran doesn't mention a woman needs to cover her hair, but if a woman chooses to embrace hijab for modesty reasons, more power to her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't read it that way at all. The Quran talks about overall modesty, and not simply in terms of covering breasts. It asks women (and women) to lower gazes. It asks to cover adornments/ornaments/beauty. This is quite different from western standards. So it certainly isn't limiting modesty to covering breasts. In fact, the spirit of the Quranic text seems to be broader than that when explaining modesty.

Now I can see that if a woman wears her hair like Leila Ahmed, short, cropped, uncombed, uncolored, greying, and easy to disregard, then perhaps it's not being used to draw attention. But otherwise, it just makes no sense that God would be okay with the use of hair to attract men.

Why do you keep saying that women wear their hair "to attract men"? That's simply not the case for most women in the US. I wear my hair shoulder-length and brush it to present a professional, put-together look at work and when I'm interacting with others at stores and so on. My hair doesn't tell people I'm looking to get picked up, or that I see my hair as something shameful that needs to be hidden--my hair sends the message that I'm confident and put-together.

PS. I do appreciate that you're transferring agency to women, as in *women* supposedly "use"their hair to attract men. However, the agency in this case is misplaced--to the extent most of us "use" our hair at all. it's to project an image of being well-groomed with minimum fuss.

You've identified the problem for Islam as being lust, specifically, men's lust (not women's lust apparently). The agency for the problem of lust belongs squarely with men. The solution also belongs squarely with Muslim men: exercise self-restraint!

So all-in-all, the formulation that goes "women use their hair to attract men" suffers from multiple logical fallacies.

Signed, another reader of the Quran who didn't see anything about covering hair there

Anonymous wrote:I just don't read it that way at all. The Quran talks about overall modesty, and not simply in terms of covering breasts. It asks women (and women) to lower gazes. It asks to cover adornments/ornaments/beauty. This is quite different from western standards. So it certainly isn't limiting modesty to covering breasts. In fact, the spirit of the Quranic text seems to be broader than that when explaining modesty.

Now I can see that if a woman wears her hair like Leila Ahmed, short, cropped, uncombed, uncolored, greying, and easy to disregard, then perhaps it's not being used to draw attention. But otherwise, it just makes no sense that God would be okay with the use of hair to attract men.

Why do you keep saying that women wear their hair "to attract men"? That's simply not the case for most women in the US. I wear my hair shoulder-length and brush it to present a professional, put-together look at work and when I'm interacting with others at stores and so on. My hair doesn't tell people I'm looking to get picked up, or that I see my hair as something shameful that needs to be hidden--my hair sends the message that I'm confident and put-together.

Anonymous wrote:*stilettos*

So if every woman is wearing tight jeans, midriff bearing shirts, lipstick, and mascara, it would be immodest to wear burqa because it makes the burqa wearing woman stand out.

Is that your contention?

But we end up with the same dilemma, because brightly colored lipstick isn't mentioned in the Quran, just like head covering wasn't. So what to do...

If your two options are dress like Jessica Simpson or wear a burqa, then I suggest moving to DC, where people used to complain that every single woman wore Ann Taylor suits, which are not immodest.

I went to high school with Jessica Simpson, BTW, and a few girls dressed like her, most didn't. She is not the norm in this country.

*stilettos*

So if every woman is wearing tight jeans, midriff bearing shirts, lipstick, and mascara, it would be immodest to wear burqa because it makes the burqa wearing woman stand out.

Is that your contention?

But we end up with the same dilemma, because brightly colored lipstick isn't mentioned in the Quran, just like head covering wasn't. So what to do...

Anonymous wrote:A Muslim should know not to flaunt beautiful hair much the same way they should know not to wear bright red glossy lipstick, wear mascara, or skin tight pants that accentuate their legs. Lipstick, mascara, and tight jeans are not mentioned, either in the Quran but I am certain there were some forms of makeup back then and clothing deemed more revealing.

So a Muslim woman wearing a khimr drawn over her breasts, but still tossing around her straightened, colored, styled hair is still not understanding or accepting the Quran's whole idea
of modesty. This is similar to todays Muslim woman who wears head covering but also skinny jeans and stillettos.

One needs to go beyond literal interpretation of the Quran and just use common sense.

Wearing kohl is fine, as is henna and rings. But wearing brightly colored makeup crosses the line.

Actually, I think wearing the same clothes as everyone else is more modest than wearing clothes that stand out, such as hijab or niqab, but that's just common sense.

A Muslim should know not to flaunt beautiful hair much the same way they should know not to wear bright red glossy lipstick, wear mascara, or skin tight pants that accentuate their legs. Lipstick, mascara, and tight jeans are not mentioned, either in the Quran but I am certain there were some forms of makeup back then and clothing deemed more revealing.

So a Muslim woman wearing a khimr drawn over her breasts, but still tossing around her straightened, colored, styled hair is still not understanding or accepting the Quran's whole idea
of modesty. This is similar to todays Muslim woman who wears head covering but also skinny jeans and stillettos.

One needs to go beyond literal interpretation of the Quran and just use common sense.

Anonymous wrote:I just don't read it that way at all. The Quran talks about overall modesty, and not simply in terms of covering breasts. It asks women (and women) to lower gazes. It asks to cover adornments/ornaments/beauty. This is quite different from western standards. So it certainly isn't limiting modesty to covering breasts. In fact, the spirit of the Quranic text seems to be broader than that when explaining modesty.

Now I can see that if a woman wears her hair like Leila Ahmed, short, cropped, uncombed, uncolored, greying, and easy to disregard, then perhaps it's not being used to draw attention. But otherwise, it just makes no sense that God would be okay with the use of hair to attract men.

Adornment is one way the word zeinat in the verse in question is translated. Zein means beautiful, and zeinat means beautiful things, and is referring to that which inherent to women, not extrinsic ornaments, which adornments connotes. So adornments is not exactly what is meant in the verse.

The verse explicitly allows women to display their beautiful things that are apparent. While this is expressed in a way that seems somewhat contorted today, in context it would mean those things women normally show. At the time, this did not generally include breasts, but women were known to show them in pre-Islamic Arabia, hence the command to cover them.

Otherwise women wore clothing that covered them from the waist down but the garment was not necessarily sewn and could open, which could cause thing not normally seen to be seen. In addition, women wore a khimar, a kind of large shawl that most women drew over their chests. It might have been used to cover their heads as I did today with my winter scarf or draped over their shoulders

How do we get from beautiful things to hair? It is not as though the word for hair were rare at the time. If it was so important to cover hair, the Quran would have mentioned it. The Quran itself says its meaning is clear. So why the stretch to make words mean much more than they were meant to? I in fact see very little in this verse distinguishing Islamic modesty from Western standards for modesty at the time.

Women (and men)

I just don't read it that way at all. The Quran talks about overall modesty, and not simply in terms of covering breasts. It asks women (and women) to lower gazes. It asks to cover adornments/ornaments/beauty. This is quite different from western standards. So it certainly isn't limiting modesty to covering breasts. In fact, the spirit of the Quranic text seems to be broader than that when explaining modesty.

Now I can see that if a woman wears her hair like Leila Ahmed, short, cropped, uncombed, uncolored, greying, and easy to disregard, then perhaps it's not being used to draw attention. But otherwise, it just makes no sense that God would be okay with the use of hair to attract men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What may have become offensive to some Muslims on this thread is some non-Muslims agreeing with the Muslim authors of the article in the OP that Islam does not call for women to wear a hijab. The Quranic verse used to justify the hijab as an Islamic requirement has been stretched way beyond its context with contorted translations of the Arabic.

There is simply no command in the Quran for women to cover their hair, but there is certainly one to cover their breasts.

The trend towards a very narrow view of Islam that hyperfocuses on sexuality instead of spirituality and good deeds, as it originally did, is very disturbing. For better or for worse the hijab has become a symbol of that unfortunate development.

That said, I would defend to the death the right of a woman in the U.S. to wear a hijab no matter how brainwashed or misguided or, indeed, however arrogant, tiresome, or unpleasant she may be.

Was the issue that the Quran does not mandate the hijab or was it that hijab is unimportant as part of modesty?

The Quran not only does not mandate the hijab, it has nothing to say about women covering their hair. The Quran does say something about modesty--covering the breasts--so that would seem an important element in Islamic modesty as, indeed, it is in Western modesty. The hijab, then, has nothing to do with Islamic modesty. That does not rule out local or regional cultural mores that may view head coverings as a form of modesty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am sorry for your family's experience. There is good and bad in every country and every religion. There are extremist views that have given birth to intolerance and its unfortunate that these views are confused for the religion itself.

When extremism becomes the majority, one can no longer pretend that's not the religion itself.

Last time I checked, more than half of the 1.5 billion Muslims in this world are not extremist, hostile, or violent!

If 49% of 1.5 billion Muslims are extremist, hostile, or violent, that's over 700 million that are. Not reassuring.

Source please.