Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims

HIJAAB FOR WOMEN

Question:

Why does Islam degrade women by keeping them behind the veil?

Answer:

The status of women in Islam is often the target of attacks in the secular media. The ‘hijaab’ or the Islamic dress is cited by many as an example of the ‘subjugation’ of women under Islamic law. Before we analyze the reasoning behind the religiously mandated ‘hijaab’, let us first study the status of women in societies before the advent of Islam

1. In the past women were degraded and used as objects of lust

The following examples from history amply illustrate the fact that the status of women in earlier civilizations was very low to the extent that they were denied basic human dignity:

Babylonian Civilization:
The women were degraded and were denied all rights under the Babylonian law. If a man murdered a woman, instead of him being punished, his wife was put to death.

Greek Civilization:
Greek Civilization is considered the most glorious of all ancient civilizations. Under this very ‘glorious’ system, women were deprived of all rights and were looked down upon. In Greek mythology, an ‘imaginary woman’ called ‘Pandora’ is the root cause of misfortune of human beings. The Greeks considered women to be subhuman and inferior to men. Though chastity of women was precious, and women were held in high esteem, the Greeks were later overwhelmed by ego and sexual perversions. Prostitution became a regular practice amongst all classes of Greek society.

Roman Civilization:
When Roman Civilization was at the zenith of its ‘glory’, a man even had the right to take the life of his wife. Prostitution and nudity were common amongst the Romans.

Egyptian Civilization:
The Egyptian considered women evil and as a sign of a devil.

Pre-Islamic Arabia:
Before Islam spread in Arabia, the Arabs looked down upon women and very often when a female child was born, she was buried alive.

2. Islam uplifted women and gave them equality and expects them to maintain their status.

Islam uplifted the status of women and granted them their just rights 1400 years ago. Islam expects women to maintain their status.

Hijaab for men

People usually only discuss ‘hijaab’ in the context of women. However, in the Glorious Qur’an, Allah (swt) first mentions ‘hijaab’ for men before ‘hijaab’ for the women. The Qur’an mentions in Surah Noor:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do."
[Al-Qur’an 24:30]

The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.

Hijaab for women.

The next verse of Surah Noor, says:

" And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons..."
[Al-Qur’an 24:31]

3. Six criteria for Hijaab.

According to Qur’an and Sunnah there are basically six criteria for observing hijaab:

Extent:

The first criterion is the extent of the body that should be covered. This is different for men and women. The extent of covering obligatory on the male is to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees. For women, the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and the hands upto the wrist. If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body. Some scholars of Islam insist that the face and the hands are part of the obligatory extent of ‘hijaab’.

All the remaining five criteria are the same for men and women.

The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.

The clothes worn should not be transparent such that one can see through them.

The clothes worn should not be so glamorous as to attract the opposite sex.

The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.

The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers’ religions.

4. Hijaab includes conduct and behaviour among other things

Complete ‘hijaab’, besides the six criteria of clothing, also includes the moral conduct, behaviour, attitude and intention of the individual. A person only fulfilling the criteria of ‘hijaab’ of the clothes is observing ‘hijaab’ in a limited sense. ‘Hijaab’ of the clothes should be accompanied by ‘hijaab’ of the eyes, ‘hijaab’ of the heart, ‘hijaab’ of thought and ‘hijaab’ of intention. It also includes the way a person walks, the way a person talks, the way he behaves, etc.

5. Hijaab prevents molestation

The reason why Hijaab is prescribed for women is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following verses of Surah Al-Ahzab:

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
[Al-Qur’an 33:59]

The Qur’an says that Hijaab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested.

6. Example of twin sisters

Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street. One of them is attired in the Islamic hijaab i.e. the complete body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists. The other sister is wearing western clothes, a mini skirt or shorts. Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijaab or the girl wearing the skirt or the mini? Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the skirt or the mini. Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation. The Qur’an rightly says that hijaab prevents women from being molested.

7. Capital punishment for the rapists

Under the Islamic shariah, a man convicted of having raped a woman, is given capital punishment. Many are astonished at this ‘harsh’ sentence. Some even say that Islam is a ruthless, barbaric religion! I have asked a simple question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose, God forbid, someone rapes your wife, your mother or your sister. You are made the judge and the rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All of them said they would put him to death. Some went to the extent of saying they would torture him to death. To them I ask, if someone rapes your wife or your mother you want to put him to death. But if the same crime is committed on somebody else’s wife or daughter you say capital punishment is barbaric. Why should there be double standards?

8. Western society falsely claims to have uplifted women

Western talk of women’s liberalization is nothing but a disguised form of exploitation of her body, degradation of her soul, and deprivation of her honour. Western society claims to have ‘uplifted’ women. On the contrary it has actually degraded them to the status of concubines, mistresses and society butterflies who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers, hidden behind the colourful screen of ‘art’ and ‘culture’.

9. USA has one of the highest rates of rape

United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. It also has one of the highest rates of rape in any country in the world. According to a FBI report, in the year 1990, every day on an average 1756 cases of rape were committed in U.S.A alone. Later another report said that on an average everyday 1900 cases of rapes are committed in USA. The year was not mentioned. May be it was 1992 or 1993. May be the Americans got ‘bolder’ in the following years.

Consider a scenario where the Islamic hijaab is followed in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic hijaab, that is the complete body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrist. After this if any man commits rape he is given capital punishment. I ask you, in such a scenario, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same, or will it decrease?

10. Implementation of Islamic Shariah will reduce the rate of rapes

Naturally as soon as Islamic Shariah is implemented positive results will be inevitable. If Islamic Shariah is implemented in any part of the world, whether it is America or Europe, society will breathe easier. Hijaab does not degrade a woman but uplifts a woman and protects her modesty and chastity.

our hypocritical "concern" is only a thin veneer to attempt to mask your own islam bashing-
you confuse religion withthe cultural acts of people-

its not islamic- fgm- honor killings-
no muslim with any reason or knowledge of their religion suppots such barbaric acts.

islam is a religion that calls for equity and justice.

yes, anonymous/casual observer- there is injustice in the world

people do strange things-
aghori indians have sex with corpses and are cannibals, but no one thinks this is what hindus endorse, even though aghoris claim to be hindu.

i invite you to learn more about the religion of peace-
one doesnt have to renounce islam to renounce such horrific traditions by some cultures-
and not only muslims indulge in these practices-

if youre speaking up against female genital mutilation, speak for ALL the women affected, not just the muslims. but the christians too, as they also indulge in this terrible desecration of women.

"your muslim-bashing for the sake of getting your yayas out.'

Victoria what you call "muslim-bashing" is concern for victims of FGM, oppression of Muslim women, honour killings, and Muslim against Muslim violence. It is support of Muslims who often have no voice. You are dedicated to Islamic propaganda that pretends there is no problem with Islam. You are the one doing the bashing and trying to stifle free speech.

I commend the Muslims, ex-Muslims and others here who have found their voices and are speaking against Islamic atrocities.

friends, actually the issue here is hijab.

there are lots of places on these boards that i speak about issues relevant to muslims, vioence etc.

if anon was brave enough to have an identity- i wouldnt make any slur-
but people who hide dont deserve the respect that people who stand behind their statements get.

go to the islam and violence question-
ive practically written a book on the topic-

to keep repeating off topic- whats already been said would be- redundant.
peace kids have fun with your muslim-bashing for the sake of getting your yayas out.

Victoria MUST resort to CAPS and slurs because she cannot address the real issue. Muslim violence against other Muslims.

Anon wins because power comes with truth.

victoria, as the new year begins- weep for your coreligionists who are being killed by their own. and as the muslim against muslim hatred and violence escalates -remember my words..

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=IS+PANDEMIC+IN&ei=UTF-8

I JUST GOOGLED 'IS PANDEMIC IN'

ITS ALL ABOUT EPIDEMIC DISEASES AROUND THE WORLD

(as i stated, the usage of pandemic as a noun refers to disease around the world)

you actually GIVE me the information to prove your stupidity
YOU REALLY TRULY ARE A MORON

wait, youre a moronic idiot

(hint, thats a redundancy too)

redundancy
1. the state of being redundant.
2. SUPERFLUOUS REPTITION or overlapping, esp. of words.
3. a redundant thing, part, or amount; superfluity.
4. the provision of additional or DUPLICATE systems, equipment, etc., that function in case an operating part or system fails, as in a spacecraft.
5. Linguistics. a. the INCLUSION OF MORE INFORMATION THAN IS NECESSARY for communication, as in those cars, where both words are marked for plurality.
b. the additional, predictable information so included.
c. the degree of predictability thereby created.

American Heritage Dictionary adj.
Widespread; general.
Medicine Epidemic over a wide geographic area and affecting a large proportion of the population: pandemic influenza.

n. A pandemic disease.

global

adjective
1. involving the entire earth; not limited or provincial in scope; "global war"; "global monetary policy"; "neither national nor continental but planetary"; "a world crisis"; "of worldwide significance"

YOURE AN IDIOT

"first- global pandemic is a redundancy"

really? google "is pandemic in"

"second- pandemic is an adjective- not a noun"

really? google- "the pandemic is"

careful victoria, you have become a serial liar.

lets start again-

"muslims try to kill other muslims. victoria- "allahu akbar" has lost control".

"another day. more examples."

"muslims are killing muslims in a global pandemic and you are in denial."

instead of your weak attempts to defend the indefensible, you should take a moment to weep for the people you have chosen to identify as your own.

Another Muslim killed by Muslim extremists-

"Ever since her return to Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto had been a target of opportunity for Muslim extremists belonging to Al Qaeda, Taliban and assorted group of Muslim extremists. Being an educated and liberal-minded woman, she was most hated by these Muslim extremists and they declared a war against her even before her arrival. For them, a woman as head of government is totally unacceptable.

But the murder of Benazir Bhutto is only symptomatic of larger mass murders carried out by extremists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other Muslim countries. In Pakistan, al-Qaeda and its Taliban surrogates have been carrying out regular suicide bombings, killing ordinary Pakistanis in the name of Islam. Only a week before Bhutto's assassination, they carries out a bloody suicide bombing during Eid-ul-Azha in a mosque, killing and injuring scores of ordinary Pakistanis.

Considering that ordinary Muslims are being killed by these terrorist groups, it is surprising that the Taliban and al-Qaeda remain highly popular in many parts of Pakistan. This may be case of a larger what is called Stockholm Syndrome in which the victims feel sympathetic towards their tormentors and believe in a scapegoat provided by their oppressors.

The Taliban and al-Qaeda are killing fellow Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan (and Iraq) while blaming it on the Americans. As Daily Times columnist Khaled Ahmed wrote: "In Sudan and Somalia, Muslims are killing Muslims. In Afghanistan Muslims killed Muslims in the civil war before the world moved in with daisy-cutters with a UN legal cover. In Pakistan, Muslims kill Muslims then blame it on India ... Muslims have learnt to kill [Muslims] in many ways. When convenient, they blame it on America and India."

With such a ready-made scapegoat available, it is not surprising that the Taliban and al- Qaeda can carry out mass murders of fellow Muslims and still retain their popularity. In Iraq, the Sunni extremists have been systematically slaughtering their fellow Shiite Muslims. They have bombed Shia mosques filled with worshippers. They have bombed Shiite schools and hospitals, killing women and children. In 2006, they destroyed the Golden Mosque at Samarra, one of holiest Shiite shrines -- all the while blaming the Americans.

In Palestine, Hamas, which won the election, has been brutalising its rival Fatah while blaming the Israelis for their misfortune. During recent fighting for Gaza, Hamas was accused by Human Rights Watch of "violations international humanitarian law, in some cases amounting to war crimes." According to Human Rights Watch: "Hamas military forces captured 28-year-old Muhammad Swairki, a cook for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's presidential guards, and executed him by throwing him to his death, with his hands and legs tied, from a 15-story aparment building in the Gaza City."

The unspeakable brutality of Hamas toward fellow Palestinians stands in stark contrast with the moderation it has shown to kidnapped BBC journalist Allan Johnston by arranging his release. Why Hamas showed no mercy to Muhammad Swairki, a poor Palestinian cook? The answer may be that Hamas has no sympathy with a fellow Palestinian who doesn't share its vision.

In Iran, the ruling Shiite mullahs are regularly slaughtering fellow Iranians who don't share their vision of Shia Islam. Iranian writer Azar Nafisi tells us about the brutality of Shiite mullahs in her book Reading Lolita in Tehran. Her story of Iran is a struggle for survival in a country where Shia mullahs regularly "hang people in the streets," -- a country where educated women are viewed as enemies of the state. If Benazir were an Iranian leader, she would have met the same fate in the hands on extremist Muslims.

This leads us to the question: Can democracy function in a country like Pakistan where extremist Muslims are carrying out mass murder of fellow Muslims who don't share their vision of a mythical pure Islamic society? The answer may be a qualified no. Unless Pakistanis can find a way to stand up against the Taliban, al-Qaeda and their fanatical acolytes, and not provide them with moral support, democracy will not be able to function.

Look at how Hamas, which won the election, is brutalising fellow Palestinians who support the rival Fatah. Democracy cannot function if the people are filled with hatred and extremists can continue to systematically murder those they consider as heretics and deserve to be killed.

Benazir Bhutto is only one, albeit the most famous, of many victims of al-Qaeda and the Taliban who have turned Pakistan into a veritable Terroristan. Unless they are contained, election will not bring any change."

mr mahfouz-

i am more and more seriously questioning your claim that you were ever outside of texas- let alone a muslim country-


NIQAB is the FACE VEIL-
AND THE FACE VEIL ONLY!
brought and started by the byzantines to persia-
with no religious association whatsoever-

that came later-

you are talking about BURQA

anon-
first- global pandemic is a redundancy
second- pandemic is an adjective- not a noun

it could be, in a pandemic reaction, pandemic fear-

the only time it is used as a noun (as you have) is in reference to an actual epidemic disease worldwide

despite your skills as a writer-

all youve shown is that you can look at the frontpage of yahoo-
paste a story-

and that a muslim boy scout rescued a muslim president in a muslim country from a mulsim would-be politial assassin

i think your usage is somewhat overstated, and off topic

fyi- that was an UNDERstatement on my part

no, im not denying the heroic actions of that boy scout

Re: Niqab
Niqab is the type of shroud that the wives of the Prophet were made to wear in public. It covers the whole body except for a slit for the eyes. Some Muslim women wear this niqab in imitation of the "Mothers of the believers". It was recently banned in Jordan,Syria and Afghanistan because it was determined that most of those who wore it were either prostitutes or male suicide bombers.

muslims are killing muslims in a global pandemic and you are in denial.

you got this from your yahoo frontpage?
wow-

what dedicated research-

so what exactly is your point?

a MUSLIM BOY SCOUT stopped a would be MUSLIM assassin against a MUSLIM president in a MUSLIM country!

WOW!
and your point is?

"The young man who tried to stab President Gayoom believes "the President is against Islam," a neighbour told Minivan News today."

that the neighbor if the would be assassin says he "believes the president is against islam"?

are you mental?

or are you so unbelievably arrogant, that you somehow imagined since the rescuer is a boy scout, he must be an american or something?

a good muslim stopped a bad muslim from doing something wrong

well, that IS conclusive proof of the...what?

"muslims try to kill other muslims. victoria- "allahu akbar" has lost control".

"another day. more examples."

victoria asks

"how old is that story? and what does it have to do with islam?"

out of touch with reality, islamic propagandist-

if you don't know a topic and only want to defend islam as flawless. please keep posting. readers here need to see how blind to truth you are.

This AP article was posted 6 hours ago.

"Gayoom survived an assassination attempt Tuesday January 8, 2008, when a teenage boy grabbed the knife of an attacker who jumped out of a crowed of people greeting the president, an official said."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2IuVgHukJ_GWOTg73MBEIA4tiOQD8U1QIK00

"The young man who tried to stab President Gayoom believes "the President is against Islam," a neighbour told Minivan News today.

The attacker shouted "Allahu Akbar" [God is great] as he tried to stab the President, according to the boy who intercepted him.

Police confirmed they have arrested the suspect, Mohamed Murushid, but would not give any motive for the attempt on the President's life.

Murushid, 20, tried to stab Gayoom as he greeted locals on a visit to Haa Alif Hoarafushi this morning.

Murushid, from Hoarafushi, brought out a knife hidden in a national flag, but local scout Mohamed Jaisham, 15, intervened."

http://www.minivannews.com/news/news.php?id=4000

another example of another person with no knowledge whatsoever of the topic, an agenda-
and no point to make of relevance

maldives?
gayoom?
isnt there an opposition party there wo are trying to form a democracy but being oppressed by the president?

how old is that story? and what does it have to do with islam?

there ispolitical unrest in maldives because the president wont allow the opposing democratic unity party to congregate-

is this a story of political oppression?

how out of context, old, and irrelevant is this?

"not all arabs are muslims,
not all muslims are arabs."

muslims try to kill other muslims. victoria- "allahu akbar" has lost control".

another day. more examples.

"A quick-thinking boy scout has thwarted an assassination bid against the president of the Maldives.

Officials said Mohamed Murshid, 20, tried to plunge a knife into President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom's stomach, but Asia's longest serving president was unhurt thanks to Mahamed Jaisham, 15, who wrestled with the attacker before he was detained.

Mr Murshid, who had no previous criminal record - had hidden the knife wrapped in a national flag, the president's spokesman Mohamed Hussain Shareef said.

"He was an idling youth,'' he said.

Mohamed's hand was injured, and he was being treated in the island's health centre.

Mr Gayoom said in a nationwide address after the attack that he had survived "thanks to Mohamed Jaisham and Allah.''

The attack took place on Hoarafushi in the north of the Maldives, a chain of 1192 coral and white sand islands off the southern tip of India.

Assistant Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz said investigators were trying to establish a motive for the attack.

"It's still at a very, very early stage. We are questioning him. Investigations are still going on. It is too early to say if he has links to any Islamic militant groups,'' he said.

The Maldives, a top destination for well-heeled tourists and honeymooners, has been tense since a September bomb attack in the capital Male injured 12 foreign tourists.

Authorities blamed the bombing on Islamic extremists seeking to wreck the country's vital tourism industry, which accounts for a third of the nation's economy.

Three men convicted of carrying out the bombing - the holiday archipelago's first ever terror attack - were last month each jailed for 15 years.

Police are also looking out for foreign militant groups after press reports said some of the suspects had links to a Muslim separatist group fighting Indian rule over part of the Himalayan region of Kashmir.

Mr Gayoom, who has ruled the islands since 1978, responded to the bombing by ordering a tough crackdown on what he considers to be Islamic extremism.

The measures include bans on women wearing the full veil and foreign preachers, as well as unlicensed Muslim prayer groups.

In a recent interview Mr Gayoom said the bomb attack targeting foreign tourists followed by violent clashes with police and security forces had alerted the country to the "very serious threat of extremism''. "

anonymous- there have been no disagreements of even the mildest kind here-

mr mahfouz is a christian who hates islam with a frothing at the mouth delirium.

not all arabs are muslims,
not all muslims are arabs.

now america has somehow provoked muslims to kill each other-

in truly epidemic proportions- iraq, darfur, pakistan, palestine, even killing their own daughters in honor killings..

wtf are you saying?

Anonymous says its 21st century and muslims kill each other....

America, which prides itself for values like freedom, democracy and human rights, has killed largest number of innocent people around the world after Second World War. Such behaviour naturally breeds terrorism in certain sections of population. Terrorism can never be fought with terrorism. This violence torn world needs more peace than ever before. America talks of freedom and democracy but freedom and democracy can flourish only if there is peace and justice in the whole world.

*****************************************

one finds in the Qur’an full support for sexual equality in several verses. The Qur’an was certainly mindful of what was just in that era when it was revealed and what ought to be just in the transcendental sense. When the Prophet permitted a Muslim wife retaliation against her husband as a measure of justice, the Qur’an overruled him and permitted a measure of conditional male domination, though conditionality of justice was stipulated (see the verse 4:34). It would have been thought to be unjust if the Qur’an had permitted wife to retaliate against her husband and it would not have found acceptability in that society.

However, the Qur’an also did not intend to eternalise the then acceptable notion of justice. The dynamics of ‘is’ and ‘ought’ or interaction between history and eternity informs the whole spirit of Qur’an. Unfortunately the orthodox miss this very spirit while reading the Qur’an form their own perspective. The verse 33:35 is much more fundamental in this respect as it clearly accords women equality with men in all respects. While 4:34 is informed by the spirit of that era, the verse 33:34 deals with the eternal dimension. The orthodox, however, do not wish to go beyond the divine injunction expressed in 4:34. They have frozen their minds in the classical age of Islam. What was temporal has become permanent for them and what is permanent is just brushed aside as of no consequence.

The Qur’an must be re-read and re-interpreted in today’s context as the classical jurists read and interpreted it in their own context. No reformation is possible without such re-reading and re-interpreting the Qur’anic verses. The real intention of the Qur’an - that of sexual equality - comes through several verses. Those verses need to be re-emphasised. The verse 2:228 (“And women have rights similar to those against them in a just manner”) is quite definitive in this respect. It hardly needs any comment. Maulana Muhammad Ali, a noted Pakistani commentator says commenting on the above verse, “The rights of women against their husbands are here stated to be similar to those which the husbands have against their wives. The statement must, no doubt, have caused a stir in a society which never recognised any rights for the woman. The change in this respect was really was a revolutionising one, for the Arabs hitherto regarded women as mere chattels. Women were given a position equal in all respects to that of men, for they were declared to have rights similar to those which were exercised against them. This declaration brought about a revolution not only in Arabia but in the whole world, for the equality of rights of women with those of men was never previously recognized by any nation or any reformer. The woman could no longer be discarded at the will of her `lord’, but she could either claim equality as a wife or demand a divorce.” (Maulana Muhammad Ali, 1973,Pp-97).

However, much of this spirit of justice and equality was lost when the Islamic doctors legislated under the influence of their own social ethos. The Qur’anic categorical imperatives were ignored, as pointed out before, in favour of those verses which were of the nature of concession to the age.

Also, normatively speaking the Qur’an has conceded all rights to women which were available earlier only to men. She could exercise her right to divorce her husband as men could divorce her at will. The Prophet permitted a woman called Jamila to divorce her husband - against his will and without consultingg him - just because she did not approve of his looks. While the verse 2:229 permits her to liberate herself from an unsatisfactory marriage by suitable compensation to husband (i.e. returning the dower amount) the verse 4:35 gives her right to appoint an arbiter of her own to settle the marital dispute or agree to divorce. Also, the Qur’an requires of men to keep their wives in goodly manner and to leave them, if necessary, in a benevolent manner. And the verse 4:19 lays down that women could not be inherited or taken as wives against their will. men are also exhorted in this verse not to take a portion of what they have given to their wives and to treat them kindly. It was also emphasised in 9:71 that believing men and believing women are each others friends and they (both men and women) enjoin good and forbid evil. Thus both enjoy equal obligations and from this verse jurists like Abu Hanifa have concluded that a woman can become Qadi i.e.judge as it is her obligation also to enjoin good and forbid evil.

It is argued from the verse 4:11 that a daughter inherits half that of son and hence man is superior. Some modernists also argue on the basis of this verse that it is injustice to a daughter as she has been given half that of son and hence it is bias against female sex. It is simply not true. From one perspective one can say it was a cautious reform in favour of daughters. In pre-Islamic society daughters did not inherit at all and now they were given right to inherit half that of son. From another perspective it could be argued that it was not bias against daughter that they were given half that of son but daughters were duly compensated by mehr (dower amount at the time of marriage) whereas sons had to loose out by paying dower to their wives. And the wives do not have to spend anything by way of maintenance as it is enjoined upon the husbands to maintain their wives. Also, a woman inherited as wife and mother too. Moreover she did not contribute to family wealth in those days by way of earning but now she does and her portion could be increased in view of the changed conditions. Thus the Qur’an has done no injustice to her in matters of inheritance also.

Another question is of hijab (veil). There is no injunction in the Qur’an that she veil her face. The verse 24:31 only lays down that women should not display their adornment and fineries publicly and that they should cover their breasts (tribal women in those days used to leave their breasts uncovered) and that they should not strike heir feet with anklets in public so as to draw attention to their adornments. In this verse both men and women have been asked to lower their gaze (4:30-31) and to restrain their sexual passions. As for what constitutes adornment and what should be displayed and what should be not, there are sharp differences of opinion. These differences are human and every commentator has his views. But Tabari, the noted classical commentator has summarised the views of many eminent jurists in his Jami‘ al-Bayan. According to him adornment means 1) adornment of dress or the clothes that a woman wears; in other words, she is not required to cover the clothes she wears; 2) it means the adornment which the woman is not required to cover, such as collyrium, rings, bracelets and her face; 3) the exception (illa ma zahara minha) relates to a woman’s clothing and her face.

These were opinions of the theologians of those days. Today the sensibilities in this respect are very different and the scope of the exception can be made much wider subject to - and that is real intention behind it - to restrain sexual passion and protect ones chastity. To prevent extra-marital sex is the responsibility of both men and women and not of women alone, as per the Qur’an. Also, both should avoid wearing sexually stimulating dress. They should wear dignified dress. Covering of face by women is not required in the Qur’an at all. It was cultural practice of some post-Islamic societies.On the contrary they could earn and what they earned was theirs alone as per 4:32 (And for women is the benefit of what they earn). The cultural practices like confining women to home were sought to be legitimised later by inventing suitable ahadith or by far fetched interpretations of the Qur’an.

In conclusion it should be said that if one goes by those verses of the Qur’an which belong to the normative category or which are of the nature of laying down principles and givers of value, men and women should enjoy equal rights in every respect. It would be necessary to re-read and re-interpret many verses which were used for centuries to subjugate women in Muslim societies. This subjugation was more cultural and patriarchal than Islamic or Qur’anic. The whole corpus juris of Islam relating to women needs to be seriously re-thought on the basis of Qur’an.

It's fun to see all the different comments by Muslims about other Muslims. Kind of shows there isn't a monolithic Muslim movement, only branches, sects and splinter groups...like Christians! When I hear a Muslim call another Muslim out for their "wrong" interpretation of the holy writings and told they are worse than the nonbelievers because they distort Islam...makes me happy to know they are going through the same schisms and arguments the Christian churches have gone through on their way to being a part of modern civilization. Unfortunately, it's the 21st Century and Muslims are STILL killing each other over religious differences. Disagree with each other, but put away the bombs, swords and guns. If Islam is supposed to be so peaceful, how about a month long period of peace by Islamic extremists to show that it can be done? Like Ramadan, but without using it as an excuse to kill your enemies when they let down their guard for the holy period.

Just to clarify for anyone whom Ibrahim may have caused doubt in regarding Female Circumcision and FGM.

The majority of Muslim countries (except in parts of sub-Saharan Africa) do not practice Female circumcision. It is considered to be a pre-Islamic custom and is not exclusive to Islam, but is indicative of certain regions. People indigenous to all parts of the world, of all beliefs and religions still practice it, including Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and Animists living in Asia, Africa, and even Mexico.

According to Sayed Sistani (a Shi'a Grand Scholar):

Q: in Holland there was uproar over the circumcision of women. There are some Somalians who circumcise their woman, but the Government prohibited them. These Somalians claim that this practice stems from a hadeeth that the family of the Prophet pbuh used to practice female circumcision. What is the veracity of this hadeeth and what is the ruling for female circumcision.

A:There is no evidence of this in hadeeth (traditions) about the family of the Prophet, and we do not find its recommendation narrated in hadeeth considered authentic. What has been narrated in authentic hadeeths is, circumcision of the male is sunnah and 'lessening' for female is not of the sunnah.

Q: What is the ruling for circumcising of the female and is it wajib (required) or mustahab (recommended)
A: It is not wajib and it is impermissible to do after she reaches puberty.

According to: Shaykh Faraz Rabbani (SunniPath Academy Teacher)

Q: I have a Question regarding female circumcision in Hanafi fiqh. I've heard from several sources that this is wajib according to Shafi'i fiqh, while according to Hanafi fiqh the decision lies in the hands of the husband. Can you shed some light on this and give the legal proofs for this ruling?!

A: Walaikum assalam,

That which is wajib in the Shafi`i texts is merely slight 'trimming' of the tip of the clitoral hood - prepuce. It is neither excision nor FGM, nor anything else harmful to the woman or her ability to derive sexual pleasure. This is what the Hanafis considered a 'token' for the husband. It is not recommended per se.

As for excision, FGM, or other harmful practices, which have become culturally widespread, none of these are in any way permitted. This is why the scholars generally say that the proper practice is almost a lost art.

And Allah alone gives success.

Wassalam,
Faraz Rabbani

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1702&CATE=89

Ibrahim Mahfouz - Please stop posting. You and your fake Sunnah's are hurting Muslims more than anything and causing fitnah.

Hejab is prescribed in the Qur'an for both Women AND MEN.

FGM is illegal in Islam.

and a quick trip thru algeria and youre next door in tunisia (where the author lived 35 years ago for a bit)

where the government as forbidden wome to wear the hijab in government buildings!
(simialr to what happened in turkey last decades)

barring women from involvement in public offices!
(just ask merve kavakci)
she also has written on this blog- why didnt they ask her?
she was barred from the parliament for wearing hijab!!!!!!!!!!! and kicked out of turkey!!!!!!!

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/muslims_speak_out/2007/07/merve_kavaki.html

Muslim Observer, Commentary, Yvonne Ridley, Posted: Jul 23, 2007

Why do journalists choose to ignore the Amnesty International report which outlines in clinical detail how the Tunisian authorities have increased their “harassment of women who wear the hijab”?

I have a bee in my bonnet or hijab to be more precise.

On an almost daily basis there are horrific stories pouring out of Tunisia about how the state police are ripping off the hijabs of women living there.

Some of these women, who are merely fulfilling their religious obligation to wear a hijab, have been assaulted, sexually abused and even locked up in prison by the authorities.

Unbelievable when you consider western tourists are topless sunbathing on the coastal resorts, soaking up the Tunisian sun.

So it is okay to get your kit off if you are a western tourist who pays handsomely for sun, sand, sex and sangria but try wearing a hijab and see what happens in this so-called liberal, Muslim country.

she dopesnt even seem to be aware that the reactions of the moroccan women are a symbol ALSO of unity and right to express theirreligious identity which is being suppressed next door in tunisia to please the western americans!!!!

so, you can see- it is increasingly senseless to be misrepresented by an observer who simply doesnt know- when there are women right here on these blogs with so very mnuch experience!

and you can go to turkey right now and see plenty of girls both with, and without hijab!!!!!

google this author mike-

she writes she lived in marrakech in the 80s and 90s-
she was there 7 years.
she was collecting stories for her books.

SHE decided on her own,in 1997 when she went for a visit that the girls were havng an identity crisis-
and then wrote 4 paragraphs about her own identity crisis and projected it right onto the girls -

she had all those years before to investigate the meaning of hijab for moroocan women-
she could have asked any time -while she was finding stories!
when the women were NOT (according to her) having identity crises-

actually, all we have here is a woman who lived in marakech- Not all of morroco-
for a short period of time when she didnt bother to find out about the local csutoms-

but many years alter feels qualified to write about a subject she never understood to begin with-

moroccan women have been wearing hijab for centuries-

their liberation movement,much like in america- started in the 1970s.

and women dont wear a jheelaba anywhere
its a jheelab (actually jilbab)

i just googled jheelaba and jheelbab-
there was nothing-
but jilbab turns pages and pages of links
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=jilbab&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

i know, i have some of them in my bookmark-
i actually wear jilbab too-

most of the article centers around her own confusion on being a good/girl bad/girl in the catholic church

why is she writing about a subject with no research, just opinions? (and culturally inaccurate ones at that)

when there are better qualified women on the staff here- who actually know?

its more misleading than anything- and makes people have misinformation (like you think moroccan women wore scarves before and just now adopted hijab)

its just kind of goofy

Victoria,
The point was surely that the head covering worn by most Moroccan women until recently resembled the headscarf that the author wore. And that Moroccan women have now changed from a "headscarf" to the hijab. Also, you don't have to go round asking when it's obvious they are undergoing a struggle about their faith and identity.

islam is a cult that demands death or submission to it. why does anyone care if you wear a scarf.

well, im an american, and also wear hijab.

and the author apparently, even though she traveled in morocco- didnt wear hijab, and never experienced it- still for some odd reason feels complelled to give her projected ideas on something she observed without understanding.

she didnt understand even the defintion of what hijab is- confused it with scarves- made judgements based on her own biases-
and it seems in 7 years she could have managed to ask one woman somewhere WHY she wore hijab!

of more than 70 posts here, most of the loudest posters also are completely clueless about it.

if she spoke intelligently on the subject, or added any info- it would be relevant.

but how is her obvious misconception about the subject even relevant, or an opinion sought?

only to be further joined in by a choir of others who have no idea! but only bizarre projections of what they imagine.

if only she, and the commentators here would listen for once before they talk without knowledge.
there are 2 women who are panelists here- ad could speak eloquently about hijab.
and wear hijab- are neither oppressed, silenced or faceless, and have their photos on this board.

why a wouldnt they be asked about this , instead of this strange biased article?
(how could someone live for 7 years with a people, and never ASK the people around them why they do what they do?)

Spare Me: "Two words : ugly american"

Response: Two words: truculent foreigner.

Ever notice how when an American writer has a different opinion than another nationality, they are being the "ugly american?" Guess that doesn't apply to other nationalities when they speak about things they know nothing about. You know, kind of like their opinions about how Americans think or the attitudes of Americans towards other peoples. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion based on their own experiences. If you disagree on the facts, fine. But don't presume to use a phrase like "ugly american" as a catch-all for your disagreement...."truculent foreigner."

Islam institutionalized Female Genital Mutilation as explained below:
Clitoridectomyis full or partial amputation of
the clitoris. Twenty seven percent of the female circumcisions are of this type. It is called the “Sunna” or “tradition of the Prophet Mohammed” circumcision. Another variation of the Sunna circumcision is the “Intermediate” where the amputation includes besides the clitoris, a portion or all of the inner vaginal lips. Some form or the other of female circumcision was practiced by people of North Africa long before Islam, but was institutionalized by Islam. There is an accepted dictum assigned to the prophet Mohammed that says “(circumcision) is the merit for girls”. A version of Hadith; Muslim tradition, relates words attributed to the prophet addressing Um Attiyyah, the circumciser: “Circumcise girls but do not exaggerate {in circumcision} as {the way of performing the circumcision} is best liked by the husband and makes {the wife’s} face radiant in the best possible way”.

I am "surprised, alarmed even" to read that you have lived in both Tunisia and Morocco and have the audacity, to write this. I'm american and I find this offensive. You were shocked by hijab in a muslim country? And why, if these girls are wearing it as you say with clothes of their choosing does hijab automatically equal some kind of oppression? This is what you're implying, that it's impossible to carry any muslim cache without it being something from the dark ages.

I'd suspect if the girls were bible toting christians nothing would warrant comment. For the women I know who have chosen hijab (and yes, you can still CHOOSE hijab) it was a decision they made after thought, not in some kind of weird Tiger Beat, oh I love Audrey Hepburn phase like you are comparing it to. Nor is it at all similar to catholic girls scarves. Two words : ugly american.

Correction:
In my post of Jan.6 about the roots of the veil in Islam I stated that Omar was one of the Prophet's sons in law. He, instead, was one of the prophet's fathers in law.

"...Moroccan women combine the hijab with figure-revealing blue or black jeans, elaborate glittering belts, modern sexy tops and designer sunglasses. Equally striking is the glossy-magazine-style make-up, heavy on the lipstick and black kohl eye-liner."

Modesty? What a crock.

Modest hijab = just another Islamic oxymoron designed to obscure and deflect form the real propose.

The real purpose of the hijab is to be a religious and political symbol. We all know this except those who are asleep.

If these symbols were not important, then why not let a Christian woman with a gold cross on walk around the streets of Mecca. Let the Christian woman say it is just an expression of her modesty while sporting a tight pair of jeans and sexy makeup and let's see what happens. Islamic authorities would not be fooled by the rhetoric.

A modest person does not cause controversy or push their religion in the face of others. That is arrogance and that is what an Islamic woman demonstrates when she conspicuously wears the hijab in a predominately Western, Christian society. It is arrogance on display, not modesty.

Islam has over the years developed all these clever terms and side discussions to cover up the true purpose. In Morocco, the hijab is probably worn with sexy jeans because Daddy might kill you or some guy seeing you walk by may feel obligated to otherwise stand up for the honor of Islam. That hijab with sexy jeans is there as a protective shield. It says, "I still respect Daddy and the males who dominate our society and I want to live another day. I have not crossed the line."

It seems that the hijab has become the last line of defense for Islam in an increasingly Westernized world. It is a symbol that sums up everything. You know, a symbol like the star of David that Hitler forced the Jews to wear.

BTW - Honor killing = Islamic oxymoron designed to obscure the act of child sacrifice to an idol called Allah. Just another stone age practice.

will really like 2 contribute to the debete.i happen to belong to the protestant faith bt with due respect we dont need giorgio armani hijabs to knopw they should be relegated to the gallows.just last week a muslim taxi driver killed her daughter becoz she had decided to do away with it.dont we respect the sanctity of life?we live in the 21st century and proff women should be allowed to look modern.it wont compromise their morals abit.in modern religions women are allowed to wear headscarfs only in church.they should follow this.dont they have a choice?parting shot;if u find 2 women drowning one with hijab n ano with no hijab who will u save?al save the one with hijab and tell her 2 remove it to set a precedent.it aint fair to shout abt affirmative action and women are not taking the lead.take a cue from fatuma hirsi ali

The veil is an excuse for not washing the hair. People who have fleas should not be allowed to cover an itchy head with a covering. In Libya during the 1969 Revolution such filthy people were "ripped off" of their veils and forced to wear a state-issued uniform. Flea powder and anti-tick shampoo was given out as their "benefits."

However the Libyans follow other Islamic dicates.

J. Ringo,

Reference supporting your claim that OT Jewish men were veils????

There is nothing to be torn between. Just read “Mental Bondage in the Name of God” by Aidid Safar.

Only sex-starved Muslims lurch at women with uncovered hair. Is the hair that erotic? Some human civilizations go around naked but you don’t hear of rape in that community. Tsk! Tsk!

Aidid Safar's work is a must read. More at my website, "My No Brainer", where you can read his work plus where to get the full copy.

The first honor killing in the Bible was done by Jacob's (aka Israel) sons because Shechem had sex with their sister (Genesis chapter 34). They wanted to get married by her brothers kiled Sechem, his father Hamor, kidnapped their sister, plundered the city, and kidnapped the children and women.

The Israelites/Hebrews/Jewish women wore veils. Even Moses wore one. It was a Semite custom. It probably started out as a simple way to keep women from getting sun-burned in the desert and to keep sand off of their faces. Later on the religious nuts made it part of their primitive religions and now the women who wear it should start evolving it as part of their skins.

Speaking of religions, who knows why people believe what they believe? Everything is a jumble of countless myths and superstitions. It's been my observation that most people are ignorant about their religion and think that they know what it's about when in fact they don't have a clue.

UmmSultan,

You noted:

"And lastly Islam is not a flawed religion everything in the Quran and Hadith are perfect."

Hmmm, not so if one looks at the history of it all.

A synopsis of the flaws in the founders and foundations of the major religions for those that have not seen them before or did not take the time to look:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

Those who may not have seen what Islmic modesty for women means requiring khimars, take a look and buy some for your daughters ... she will be wearing them soon enough ... seriously, no kidding.

http://www.alhadeeqah.com/

Below is the historical root for the "veil" in Islam:
In the book Sahih Bukhari on the chapter of "Ablution' and the topic of 'Defecating Women", it states that the wives of the Prophet used to go out at night to defecate in a clearing just outside the neighborhood. Omar ibn Khattab, one of the Prophet’s sons in law and friend, advised the Prophet to veil his wives so they would not be recognized, but the Prophet resisted. Until one dark night Omar recognized Sauda bint Zum‘a, one of the Prophet’s wives who happened to be very tall. He called out her name and she answered. It was only then that the Prophet agreed to veil his wives.

I find it shocking that you've lived in North Africa for 10 years and have written a book about Morocco yet you do not know what a hijab is. The 'headscarf' you mention as being a somewhat more liberal alternative to the hijab is a hijab -- the different styles of wearing it may reflect differences in levels of religious observance or geographic or ethnic origin, buy they are one and the same thing. Both are called 'hijab' in casual conversation, while the proper Islamic name for both garments is 'khimar'.

I find it shocking that you've lived in North Africa for 10 years and have written a book about Morocco yet you do not know what a hijab is. The 'headscarf' you mention as being a somewhat more liberal alternative to the hijab is a hijab -- the different styles of wearing it may reflect differences in levels of religious observance or geographic or ethnic origin, buy they are one and the same thing. Both are called 'hijab' in casual conversation, while the proper Islamic name for both garments is 'khimar'.

Secular Humanist: "what should we do?"

You may do what ever you like to. It is obvious that with declining birth rates, no consensus on what the problem is, and utterly beset with useful idiots that are incapable of seeing Islam as anything other than like any other "reformable" religion, "You" are incapable of doing anything.

You can see from the responses here that the Kafirs in the west are incapable of recognizing that they are being flipped with the hijab, and that the young muslim women are being misled and brain washed. No one wants to stand up for the right to tell those young girls born and being raised in the west the plain and simple truth about the misogynous ideology of Islam. Tell the truth, and the dialog is to ended by cries of Islam phobia instead any real answers.

Of course the women should be free to wear the hijab, but then the Kafirs should be free to react the way would when someone calls their mothers, sisters and daughters who*es.

I find it shocking that you've lived in North Africa for 10 years and have written a book about Morocco yet you do not know what a hijab is. The 'headscarf' you mention as being a somewhat more liberal alternative to the hijab is a hijab -- the different styles of wearing it may reflect differences in levels of religious observance or geographic or ethnic origin, buy they are one and the same thing. Both are called 'hijab' in casual conversation, while the proper Islamic name for both garments is 'khimar'.

Affirmative.
Muslim girls are also females.

Religion is the most dangerous thing in this world.

Posted on January 6, 2008 18:51

A. Kafir & Ibrahim Mahfouz:

You and others have said that the wearing of the hijab in the West is a direct political statement, rejecting Western ways and thoughts. If they don't like the West so much, why don't they move to a place where their morals and cultural thoughts are the same? Through their words and deedsw, the only conclusion I can come to is that they are part of the "Islamization" movement against the West.

Most Muslims in the West claim they don't want to impose their religious beliefs on the established government and culture of the countries they move to, yet there are others within their insular communities who have bluntly stated they would do whatever they could to establish sharia law and an Islamic way of life in their adopted countries.

I ask any Muslim living in the West, especially in Britain, France, Germany, the U.S., what should we think when we see the looks our women are given? What should we believe when we hear these threats and insults directed at our countries, culture, and especially our women and children? What should we do in the face of a religion and cultural identity that makes it very clear they would rather see us put to the sword than allow respect between peoples? In the wake of everything that has been directed specifically at the Western world thru blood, fire and death...what should we do?

Stop violence in the name of all religions!

Asim said:
"Hijab is a statement of modesty".I disagree. Hijab worn by Muslim women in predominantly Muslim countries is a political statement directed against the ruling secular elite which says "We do not want your system of government". Hijab worn in the West is a statement that says to the people of the West "We reject everything about you". That is how the West understands it and that is why they are offended by it.

It is not their DNA. Their DNA is no different than anyone else's. We are all from the same "tribe" whether we like it or not.

They oggle for the same reason that men had ankle fetish when women had to wear long dresses. Have any teenage male live in a sexually segregated society and you will have two consequences: 1) a dominance/submission form of homosexual sex, and 2) pathological oggling at women.

The non-muslim women are treated with utter disdain and considered, called and treated as women of loose morals and easy "lays". And unfortunately it is not a generalization.

Why are the muslims the biggest hypocrites of all mankind. They preach all this hijab stuff and then they are the first ones who oggle at any women who passes in front of them. They can actually undress a women with their eyes. I think they are born perverts and for that the women have to be covered.
So dont blame them blame their DNA.

Epicurus,

What you say is correct. Your analogies are a little off, however.

A person is free to flip their middle finger, or give any other obscene gesture as well. Make no mistake about it that a lot of the time the hijab is being used as a political symbol and the kafirs are being told off.

The discussion is alive because the symbol is ambiguous. A muslim girl does not have to physically forced into it, but open discussion about it is prohibited.

And no one is saying to the muslim girls that they have to take the hijab off. Of course it is their choice to wear it, just it is my choice to be offended by it as a kafir because I recognize it for the offensive and insulting meaning for the non-muslims it represents.

People are free to say F**k off just as others are free to understand what that means and interpret what that communication represents for you and yours. Hijab as a symbol does say something about what the muslims think of the non-muslims ... always has from day one.

gee jerry- at first i thought you meant to say women and gay men are slaves to fashion.

but of course there are no gay men in iran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dgsZYA1mPY

I have seen too many people use their understanding of their particular religion as a weapon to be used against others. Christians, Muslims, Jews, various old-world religions....all have and continue to use the threat of "the other" as justification for their ill-tempered and prejudicial behavior. Is it the WOMAN'S understanding of her faith to wear her covering? then leave her to it. If she is forced to wear it out of fear of punishment by her religious or cultural kin-folk, then at least here in the West, she should be strongly defended. Wear it or not...her choice.

The majority of modern religions seem to have a genuine and loving desire to give their followers guidelines and assistance for this life and beyond. Too many of these "true believers" take that a step further and proclaim that anyone who doesn't think or act like them are the direct opposite of their beliefs, making them evil and deserving of death, shunning, punishment, or conversion (take your pick). Xenophobia is a strong motivator for the basis of a lot of religious guidelines and actions; these then drive secular actions against the perceived "other" and their own people, to "protect them" or force them to be "protected." From Abraham, to Mohammed, to Torquemada, to Marx, to modern fundamentalism in all religions...we are just being told what to do because it's "for our own good." For my own good? Bite me.

From one man to all other men (who dominate religious hierarchy)...back off and let the women make up their own minds. Their choice should be honored. If I excuse myself to pass by a woman wearing a hijab in the stores of Tampa, I smile and nod a "pardon me" greeting as I walk past. I am being respectful and treat her as I would any other woman I pass by. Whether she is covered or not, that is her choice and she deserves respect. I am not religious in any way, but I respect those who cleave to their faith when they are being honest and respect those who don't agree with them.

Various interpretations, studies and practiced arguments give meaning and nuance to the words of your holy books and writings. If you want to believe in these words...fine. But don't try to ram them down my throat or tell others who have a different belief system how to act.

A Former Jesuit School Student

Women. Such sad sorry slaves to fashion and they
seem to be proud of that fact.

Arrest of Iranian girl for allowing some hair to show with her HIJAB on !!! April 2007 Tehran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zYKlSeIbrw

All in all it's just another brick in the wall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnyy0PuEMtk

This insightful, honest essay stunned me by not indulging the invidious conceit of Abrahamic religions and their demands to be credited for guarding women, because they deny them expression in the temple, the pulpit, and the street. Nonreligious people everywhere appreciate and endorse the genuine value and need for modest dress according to culture and occasion while allowing women equal visibility. Why would God/Allah as an intelligent designer make women only to regret their powerful appearance?

In its various styles,Hijab is no more than a statement of modesty:there is absloutely no conflict whatsoever between a Muslim women being stylish,elegant,beautiful and modest at once.

Dress is only part of Modesty-modest beahvior is the point.

While it was interesting reading the discussion between posters I wanted to make clear a **FACT**

FGM (female genital mutilation) is a cultural practice (mostly done in rural north east africa and also in the horn of africa) done by BOTH Christians AND Muslims.

So how can it be "Islamic" if Coptic Christians in rural Egypt/ Sudan/ Ethiopia are doing it as well??

So please be informed about the issues with respect to this -- also "rural" usually equates to lower social class/ educational levels.

A second point is that, although in my reading of the Quran it does NOT proscribe the "hijab" as method to dress, it DOES instruct us to be modest as per the interpretations that make sense to me.

The fact that we have a worldwide phenomenon of hijab wearing is more of a reflection of desiring an identity in the face of cultural invasion of "the foreign" through media and the like; bad economic circumstances that make people desire to turn to religion etc. -- its actually very complex as i see it and there is not enough time I have to discuss it.

A last point is that we need to learn to simply be able to live with one another without IMPOSING ANYTHING of each others ideas and values onto one another -- we can exchange them (ie "advertise" our positions/ convictions), like them, dislike them, let them modify how we see our own and either accept or reject them -- and let the "free market" of ideas take their own course -- Allah (God, Deu, Adonai) - all simply names we use to identify our Creator - is THE judge. NO ONE is in a position to judge ANYONE regardless of how they chose to live - hijab/ no hijab, religionist/ atheist, the issues are too many to mention.

But the "good girl/ bad girl" argument I find to be very misplaced in the context of hijab as it (gb/bg) refers to a cultural and psychosocial context whose meaning is completely inapplicable to reasons why muslim women may: 1) choose to interpret/ understand religious teachings as to how they should dress and 2) their choice as to what course of action they want to take in their own personal lives.

In the end whether or not you choose to believe in in the Lord God is NOT my or anyone else's business. And how we each choose to live our lives is NO ONE'S business but ourselves since we are free minded, capably thinking individuals. We will all come to our own personal conclusions and should accept that others will choose differently.

In the mean time while we are molding our own convictions - settled/ comfortable with or not - there is a hell of a lot of work to do that we can all come together on that will help humanity at large. There are hungry to feed, those needing shelter, aid to the poor etc and lets put aside our personal life convictions and do the good works that are so badly needed.

Peace,
mam

Political statement?
The fact that some Islamists, especially in Egypt, pay large sums of cash to highly visible characters such as movie actresses, belly dancers and TV anchorwomen to wear the hijab makes me wonder if those people are not simply using women to make a political statement. The Egyptian actress Suad Husni while receiving medical treatment in England just before her demise was approached by those people who offered to pay for her medical expenses if she wore the Hijab. Being a woman of integrity she refused, according to one of her sisters.

"This is an amazing image."

bnewberry- i agree. it more compelling than the comments. i keep coming back to it.

"it is strangely dehumanizing"

victoria- its not the image that deprives human spirit. its not the hijab. its the symbol of oppression leaving them faceless, voiceless..

it resonates.

It's important in America to provide safe havens for those daughters and wives who disobey the strictures of Islam.

Muslims who immigrate must accept that if the women in their families wish to take a path away from the traditional restrictions, the community (shelters), legal system and govt will protect them.

Many Muslims assert that Muslim women choose these traditional restrictions. Okay - but let's protect those that resist. Let the dissenters thrive. That is the true price of immigration.

Good girl/bad girl paradigm shows how stuck this woman is. These women would like to turn your daughters into the slave of their sons. Reject the traitors to our sex.

The real downhill trend started when the Roman Catholic Church allowed women to go to Sunday Mass with their heads uncovered, then with shorter and shorter dresses and now as we all know "anything goes".

Being morally and ethically upright is not an exclusively Muslim thing.

And just because some women in Morocco dress to kill whule wearing the hijab does not mean squat when you consider there are millions of Muslim girls and women who dress modestly the world over.

Ahh, PaganPlace aka the Pagan Infallible "Pope" who knows all the Christians who abuse women but has no knowledge of any Pagan guilty of said abuse. The wonder of it all!!!!!!!!

Maybe the "Pope" knows if there are dress restrictions for the followers of Hoodoo and/or Voodoo???

why are no many non muslim concerned with Islam be concerned about your own religion. not ours. Step aside Islam is here to stay. And please educate yourself before you talk about what you do not know.. Honor killings are not Islam. they are culutural people of other religions do these as well. Also the Quran did not say what you say about the Hijab. Reread this verse. And lastly Islam is not a flawed religion everything in the Quran and Hadith are perfect. People are not. Can you say the same about your books?

why are no many non muslim concerned with Islam be concerned about your own religion. not ours. Step aside Islam is here to stay. And please educate yourself before you talk about what you do not know.. Honor killings are not Islam. they are culutural people of other religions do these as well. Also the Quran did not say what you say about the Hijab. Reread this verse. And lastly Islam is not a flawed religion everything in the Quran and Hadith are perfect. People are not. Can you say the same about your books?

This is an amazing image. I am an artist and would love to see the images... Where are the pictures?

This is an amazing image. I am an artist and would love to see the images... Where are the pictures?

If they arent murdered by their families like the two in dallas for showing"western decedance
"

Eliminate the fashion nonsense and the choice is very basic: Do islamic women choose to live in the modern era or the medieval one? Of course, they ultimately have little choice since they are the intimate victims of the violent, racist, indefensible men's club called islam.

Btw, Not that Western/American women take any advantage of being hijab/veil free as far as chosing their partner.

Even in this society, it is the men approaching/pursuing women and unfortunately women have chosen to act like a piece of meat.

Isn't hijab/veil forced upon women in many Islamic nations? It is one thing to wear it for fashion but absolutely despicable if it is a law only for women.

How do women chose men if they can not even look up at smile at a potential partner? Makes them a piece of meat, in my opinion.

Is this Americanised Islam? Make it up and hope no one questions it?

"muslims dont believe that we are born in original sin, (as in christianity)that woman is the cause of the fall, and believe in the naturalness and fullness of sexual expression as our right as human beings.

we actually have the right to sexual gratifcation!
an idea that i think would be anathema to many other beliefs-
there is no celibacy, nuns or monks-
that is something considered UNnatural!"

Three letters- FGM

If you don't know a woman who was mutilated as a child- you don't know many Muslim women.

The importance given to virginity and an intact hymen in Muslim societies is the reason why female genital mutilation still remains a very widespread practice. Behind FGM lies the belief that, by removing a girls' clitoris, sexual desire is minimized. This insures a female who has reached the dangerous age of puberty and adolescence will maintain her virginity, and therefore her "honor". Chastity was imposed on male attendants to female concubines by castration turning them into inoffensive eunuchs. Similarly female genital mutilation is meant to force the chastity of young girls by reducing their desire for sexual intercourse.

And we are not in it together!

We define our selves and you define your selves

VERY CLEARLY & DIFFERENTLY!

No body can call it same or in together!!

What you believe, that becomes your destiny!

One should choose wisely!!

If I can celebrate with the modern Nordic types, Concerned, I have a notion you could not worry about that. Go figure.

Hmmm, the pagan Vikings old and not so old made rape into a sport.

Well, Moody, and Victoria, the initial point here before it got all polarized, was in fact that if Muslims want their customs to be respected, in your own context, you must also respect the fact that non-Muslims are not 'bad girls' or 'loose women' for not obeying those particular dictates: it is in fact seen as highly disrespectful by Western women to imply that our own ways have anything to do with Kuranic ideas about womens' rights being somehow dependent on how a man interprets a piece of cloth.

Forget about it.

That's what certain Muslims say about others. And it is in fact degrading, and where Muslims and other theocrats have power, coercive, just as it was when Western society had 'modesty' tabooes and women were ...and within my lifetime, at least *are* abused cause some man felt entitled to do bad things and say it was justified cause they could say 'She was asking for it, dressed like that.'

If you can't have respect for and restraint for me stark naked, exactly where is the respect? A piece of cloth?

Someone can take that away.

One thing people who accuse Wiccans of on the basis of the actually pretty rare occasions where we celebrate nude, is 'licentiousness.'

It's actually quite the opposite. It's actually not a big deal anymore because... it's not a big deal anymore.

Human respect does not come from a piece of fabric, though. As soon as you start thinking that way, you start putting barriers between yourself and the Gods.... Or God, if you will.

People get all wound up in these little things and rituals and customs ..and forget what they were ostensibly *for.* Turn the very 'holy' things into justifications for horrible, horrible bad behavior.

There's no line you can draw with a piece of fabric, whatever the square footage or whatever you write on it.

Never mind start calling people names like it means something.

Fact is, we're all in this together, however we dress, and respect for each other cannot be dependent on these definitions.

Call me a 'bad girl' ...cause if what people call 'modesty' is supposed to be the limit of human virtue, I aim to misbehave.

Victoria,
Walakum-a-salam & thank you for the appreciation!

Yes English is my second language.
You are right, I can correct my spell mistakes before posting but only perfer to FOCUS what is in my mind rather than spell corrections.

And since I'm at the moment in electronic communication job, where I'm allowed to utilize my on job spare time, which is continuously not enough to make all corrections.

i believe moody speaks and writes in english as a second or third language, yes?

so we can be a lttle forgiving of speeling errors-
they dont reflect on intelligence-

my keyboard sticks, im an exceelent speller- and sometimes have to go back and rewrite-

ive left the errors in here as they occurred, ususallt i have to go back and fix them-

i think its kind of funny defending someone elses spelling when my own sticky keys causes so many mistakes-

im monolingual- so i admire any who are multilingual as its a skill i dont possess

i think its also equally amusing that it is the word cleavage that he misspelled-

it kind of points to his inexperience with it

asalaamu alikum moody-

moody borught up an excellent point which goes completely unnoticed in these kinds of discussions-

modesty is a criterion for women AND men-

men have their own modest dress codes in islam and behavior

it is not a situation where the women have the load of responsibility while the men can do whatever they want!

not at all!

its a mutually shared and experienced respect for each other

hi soja-

a little deeper into the veil-

in paul women are exhorted to cover their heads when they pray, and both the old and new testament say a womans hair is her glory and beauty-

thats why pre-vaticanII women used to wear veils in church- however many different nationalities did it all the time (polish, italian etc)
and it was a scarf tied under the chin, or behind the head under the hair-

the tiny triangles are kind of a late mid20th century thing- the ones before were sort of like the spanish mantilla-

people seem to be very confused about the aspect of modesty- or perceived modesty with veils

with nuns its both modesty, but also a renunciation of their vanity (beauty/hair)

with muslim women it is also modesty and covering their beauty/hair

but the major, and really primary reason- whic no one ever seems to understand or comment on-

that nuns and muslim women and orthodox jewish womne share in the covering of their hair- isnt because men are subjugating them, they are oppressed or any of the johnny come lately theories imposed on us from the outside and superficial perspective

it is simply and most importantly
SUBMISSION TO THE GOD

a public and social declaration of ones respect, submission to the will of and obedience to the god-

there is no such thing as a hijab that is worn as a fashion statment-
a hijab , in accordance with the sunnah of the Prophet(pbuh) is worn covering the hair- some women wear it like a turban in north africa (very chic- like i expressed above) south asian women wear it very loosely about the head-

so your statement-*************
"A hijab that is no more than a fashionable scarf and serves as accessory to sexy clothes seems somewhat of a contradiction and serves no purpose whatsoever."****************

if the only reason women wore them was for modesty-
yes, there would be a contradiction

but as it is a secondary reason- it serves the greater purpose of a woman who is declaring her submission and obedience (even if not fully obedient in every way or modest) to the god.

so it serves a very real and substantial purpose, even if the young women are experimenting with western sexy clothes-

even if there is a dichotomy in their spiritual being and their physical vanity-
still- it is to be respected for what it is-

funny though- people always focus on the outward and superficial aspect of hijab-
its relevance and message to society regarding sexuality-

and (maybe through not being aware) neglect the overriding and deeper reasons behind it.

also, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever inislam that indicates women should wear bland, neutral or dark colors.

this is a purely and completely cultural and traditional practice-

even the strictest of mullahs, when confronted with the statement from the qu'ran that ALLAH loves beauty- are hesitant to disagree with that.

but the author here is not a muslim, wasnt raised with muslims, and simply visited morocco for 7 years collecting stories

and she seems to be commenting form her own very specific background observing a cultural phenomena that was unexpected to her, because se had visited before and saw a more traditional dress

in the larger context- moroccan women took to the streets without veil without modesty and descended en masse and protested their treatment in the harem based society in the 1970s.

so they are going through their own social evolution-
the pendulum swings to both extremes and then eventually settles in the center-

as she also indicated surprise at the amount of young educated women who have stared wearing hijab, when they didnt before.

actually, i think the good girl bad girl dichotomy she imagines is splitting these young girls i two is a complete projection of her own christian concept of women-

muslims dont believe that we are born in original sin, (as in christianity)that woman is the cause of the fall, and believe in the naturalness and fullness of sexual expression as our right as human beings.

we actually have the right to sexual gratifcation!
an idea that i think would be anathema to many other beliefs-
there is no celibacy, nuns or monks-
that is something considered UNnatural!

if you are interested in moroccan women and their struggle with the veil and their liberation movement in the 1970s-
i highly recommend fatima mernissi's 'beyond the veil' and 'the forgotten queen in islam'

but a warning- please stay away from western women who critique her books- or websites on such

just read the womans words herself- ijust waded through a couple of critiques and they were so off base it made me wonder if wed read the same book-

peace

Paganplace,

I don't meant any personal comment. I was only trying to explain the muslim mind set, believe and practical way of living in this temporary life. I respect you as a brave and couragious women. Brave enough to share your tromatic life experience. Which we muslims wish never happen to any women on the face of this earth as what we believe.

Hijab and modesty apply for both Muslim men and women.

Muslim Women Hijab is indeed different in concept and every way from Christian Nuns or other veils.

It is not compulsory in front of her familiy members, father, brother, sister , husband and most of the first cousins, house maids, keepers etc.

By the way, it's very possible to get over that. If you can't, maybe your God can, who knows.

Can we play nice, now?

"So you pay here and here after for your FREE will choosing IRRESPONSIBLE actions like showing clievage KNOWING THE VERY NATURE OF LIFE"

Are you seriously trying to prohibit, based on the authority of a book, a word you can't *spell?*

Gods.

The nature of life, child, is that if I wear certain bras, I have cleavage.

I think that if this causes an authoritarian crisis in you, it's not me or the universe or life that has a problem. Let's see, here... what's that leave.

Wait for it....

Also, just cause I feel it's necessary:

Before you hit the paste button *again* ...Try reading the damn topic. This is really getting old.

Enough.

Dear Ms Windo

Since I am a Catholic who wore the veil as a child I can offer a minor correction in your portrayal of the veil.

1. It was worn ONLY during Mass.

2. It was a small triangular or rectangular piece of lace that merely covered the head and was knotted like a scarf below the chin.

The veils worn by nuns are a different story. It is worn at all times in public and is a sign of their calling and the celibacy and chastity that goes with it.

The Hijab worn by Muslim women I understand serves the same purpose of the veils worn by Catholic nuns and not the veils worn during Mass by lay Catholics.

Nuns of course are not expected to make their veils and modest clothing a fashion statement or it would defeat the purpose of wearing it. A hijab that is no more than a fashionable scarf and serves as accessory to sexy clothes seems somewhat of a contradiction and serves no purpose whatsoever.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Your PERSONALITY as an individual and as a nation is defined by

"your daily day in and day out ACTIONS reflecting what you ACTUALLY believe in."

-and NOT by the knowledge YOU have OR what you believe in your mind ONLY?

OR any odd events happening in the world due to political reasons.

As Allah The God says in EVERY KNOWN religious scripture that you pay (rewarded) for every decision and every action you take, every word you speak!!!!!!

So you pay here and here after for your FREE will choosing IRRESPONSIBLE actions like showing clievage KNOWING THE VERY NATURE OF LIFE.

OR

Choosing the rational sensible modest guided way of life, leaving NO ROOM FOR
IRRESPONSIBLE REACTIONS
which could negatively effect your natural peaceful life.

It DOESN'T PROHOBIT any kind of NATURAL feelings or practices of life, in life. Only defines the LAWS of each other RIGHTS, upon each other and towards our Creator.

WE HUMANS ARE GIVEN THE FREE WILL TO CHOOSE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG.

But we mostly forget or refuse to believe that,

WE ARE ALSO MADE TO PAY (REWARDED) FOR IT **AGAINST OUR ACTIONS** & NOT AGAINST ONLY WHAT WE BELIEVE or understands IN OUR MINDS ONLY!

Given that you have a well-known history here of making *completely* ignorant blanket accusations about Pagan people about which you have proved utterly unable to produce a *shred* of corroboration , Concerned,

And, given that a) No one cares what you think, and b) the above refers to trying to bridge a cultural perceptual divide in a spirit of mutual respect rather than merely address Christians freaking out whenever a Muslim or Pagan opens their mouth...

Well, kindly stifle your imaginings.

Tim raised the proposition amid the rather nuanced conversation regarding the implications of cultural attitudes toward and about female attire, that: 'Muslims are bad cause I accuse them of doing all the things I won't admit Christians do.'

Much like yourself, Concerned.

If you want to imply Pagans abuse and repress women, though, you're going to have to do better than when I last called you on some random crap you said about us and couldn't back up.

For starters, admit you have *no Mother-loving idea* who or what you've been trying to defame for some eight months, now.*

Ummm... What?

Do you have an allegation to make, sir?

And some very Pagan abuse too!!!!!

But then again Pagan May poles don't represent a religion whose founder demanded and whose followers continue to demand death to all Pagans, Jews, Christians and atheists.

And some very Pagan abuse too!!!!!

But then again Pagan May poles don't represent a religion whose founder demanded and whose followers continue to demand death to all Pagans, Jews, Christians and atheists.

Anyway, let's put it this way, Tim, ...if you wanna be a big man about religious-based abuse of women, there's really no need to go looking for Muslims. There's probably some very Christian abuse going on right on your block, right now.

Big guy.

Let's put it this way, Tim: Do you really think the Muslim-American woman in your nightmare scenario is going to dare leave an abusive situation that in America she is *not supposed to have to put up with*
...if your Islamphobia only reinforces the idea that the outside world is even worse for her?

It really doesn't take Islam for this to happen, ...I believe the statistics on domestic abuse run to the every thirty seconds in this 'Christian nation.'

And I'll tell you this, I've met plenty of Christian (And Mormon) women who felt they had to 'defy God' to get out of bad situations.

Torture may not give reliable intel, but it *does* mess with the head. Guaranteed.

If you want people to deny their ethnic traditions just to have succor (and their human rights) in this America, ...then you miss the point entirely, Tim.

As Muslim people come to America, they are just going to have to accept that the state will not enforce any abridgement of womens' human rights... they have the right to be Muslim, and I welcome this. But being Muslim does not make them above the law, any more than being Christian makes Bush above the law.

In America, they have the right to walk away from the hijab.

They also have the right to *wear* the hijab.

Anyone who says different has to go through this queer Pagan chick.

But, true, Muslim as well as Christian men who feel they have a religious right to abuse women like they are above American law also got another thing coming.

Funny thing is, most American Muslims I know can cope.

Who knew.

How bout you?

Or am I a 'degenerate and pernicious Papist' for being Irish? Or maybe a 'baby-eating-devil-worshipping-tree-hugging Commie Pagan subverting the Christian observance of Pagan customs in the name of consumerism?'

It's hard to keep track.

Could be that the 'melting pot' isn't about homogeneity.

Or at least, no place for those who can't stand the heat of being what goes in.

Capiche?

Err, Tim?

For one thing, ...Where on the Lady's green mantle did you get the 'Pattonplace' bit of schoolyard wordplay... for another... I was trying to open a serious discussion about cross-cultural perceptions of female dress, not once again deal with Christianist spam.

It's not plausible you could have failed to notice after all this time that I'm in no way behind *your* theocracy, never mind Muslim ones.

I was, in fact saying that it's very nasty for Muslim people to presume that Western women are 'loose' or 'bad girls' for ...simply dressing how we dress.

While you may get in a Christian supremacist twist about how Muslim men treat Muslim women, I have to say that I've picked up a lot more wreckage of Christians who thought pretty much the same thing. Never mind what I was subjected to personally.

That's the reality of things. In America we are supposed to have at least the theoretical right to get out of abusive situations, but any beat cop will tell you this is not the usual outcome of 'domestic disturbance' calls.

Christian religious voices will in fact try to reinforce the idea that women and children should be beaten and subjugated, and in fact, periodically, people go over the edge trying to reconcile Christian dogma and their own sense of entitlement with the simple humaity of those they abuse.

While this is often institutionalized in Muslim nations, in America, ...it's institutionalized by Biblical religions of all stripes.

I've said it before, but I see little difference, except we have a secular government one can theoretically go to, instead of a theocratic one which will necessarily reinforce it.

Then again, I've been worked over by police here cause of my Pagan religion, and they were sure they were doing the right thing. I've been raped and afraid to go to the police here in America, in fact.

I frankly don't care what *brand* of religious oppression someone considers the only true order of the universe... I care that in America, we respect personal boundaries and civil rights.

I don't *care* what you think of Islam, you don't tell women to expose themselves to you ...even their hair, any more than you tell me not to show cleavage or be a 'harlot.'

The *point* is that *this is America and we don't work that way.*

Dig?

Why are my posts not being allowed? No links, No external text, and still they are being held for approval? Why?

Pattonplace, was there a Western Christian man forcing Amina and Sarah Said to expose themselves? Were they being forced in anyway to make their Eastern Islamic Daddy so mad that he felt his honor had been betrayed and his daughters had to be killed? Did you read the article or do you know something that is not in the article? What the article says is that the mother had a lot of influence and was even trying to divorce the father. You know here in America, women have probably more power in the family and in the courts than men do. In an Islamic culture Daddy controls. Amina and Sarah and their mother were American women expressing their freedom and this resulted in an Islamic style honor killing on American soil. There were no Western Christian men forcing anyone to do anything. What we had was was Western Christian freedom and respect for women being objected to by an Eastern Muslim man that ended up in the murder of two beautiful intelligent young women. What a waste ... wake up Pattonplace.

The hijab: simply a minor flaw in a severely flawed religion.

"They don't assimilate, they bring their wretched culture and establish it in our nation."

They were saying the same thing about the Irish, not too long ago, Tim.

While I definitely tend to look with alarm at the treatment of women in Muslim nations, here in America, I think it's really pretty counterproductive for Western Christian men to be effectively telling Muslim-American women to expose themselves. (even if it's about xenophobia, not sexualization.)

I know what *I'd* say to that.

Dress like you are suppose to or be killed by your Daddy and then have it refereed to as an "honor killing." Only Islam could come up with such an oxymoron as "honor killing." See link for what happens to those who don't comply.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320487,00.html

Honor killings have arrived to America as Muslim immigrate to our nation. They don't assimilate, they bring their wretched culture and establish it in our nation. The melting pot is dead when Islam arrives as we will soon have an Islamic culture within our culture and everything that goes with it -- including the hijab and the idea of martyrdom and honor killings. Great, just great, can't wait --- what a contribution they will make to our nation and the world.

PaganPlace,

Good analysis. Some historical perspective as well. The modern "hijab" did not exist in the Islamic world. It is a compromise between what the Quran demands, which is a full body shroud with only one eye showing, and the refusal of modern women to wear that type of shroud. The modern Hijab did not exist in any muslim society in the past. It is fairly new invention, a fashion statement, if you like between the traditional Jijab and a head scarf. Not showing of the hair is merely a fetish and nothing more. The political statement of the Hijab is more menacing, and it is in that context that the islamist use it to demean the kafir women.

I think it's pretty obvious that women in the East and West can have very different ideas of what exposure of skin means. In the modern West, there is the idea that being forced to dress modestly is connected to the old notion that women are property, inherently-sinful, and that men are entitled to whatever they see. ...in fact, there's sort of the subtext in the nearest equivalent to the hijab in Catholicism, that women should cover their heads *in shame* in church, something that's fallen out of favor in modern times for the very reason.

The modern idea here is that women deserve respect and men should show respect, regardless of attire, instead of fetishizing exposed skin, ...we know that, almost laughably, when women had to wear near-floor-length skirts, men fetishized *ankles...*

Also that when we had our own pretty strict tabooes about hemlines and the like, men who *did* do rape and disrespect women could blame the victims based on an idea they weren't quite dressed modestly.

My own religion believes in a positive sexuality, and has no scriptural nudity-shame that to us actually *oversexualizes* the human body by pushing it into that realm of the sinful and shameful, (As with much of the West, seeing the female form no longer *means* 'Sex!') ...but I happen to dress quite modestly, (partly because I'm very sun-sensitive, and partly cause I just like to most of the time) ...and that's OK, too.

Being forced to do the same would be another matter.

When looking across the divide of culture and custom, here, I think it's important to *not* presume that modest Islamic dress *must* mean 'You're repressed and subjugated,' ...but also that Western dress does *not* mean 'Bad Girl.'

There are certainly ways in the West to dress like a 'Bad Girl' but in our 'language,' this doesn't necessarily have to do with a simple matter of how much skin is shown.

We can simultaneously be alarmed at too-young girls being pressured to emulate trashy women shaking it in hip-hop videos and, frankly, tell the difference between, say, 'above the knee' and "Bad girl."

I think it's important, between cultures, not to *assume* a particular context, and this works both ways.

Certainly, to the West, it's hard to see Muslim womens' dress as a particular religious devotion in cases where no other options are actually allowed... even if the pressure comes in the form of presuming that Western women are being 'bad girls.'

Certainly, many of us find *that* implication degrading, and often, in fact, sexually-exploitive.

In the interest of cross-cultural understanding, I'd say to Muslim writers here not to leap to the conclusion that *Western* women see how we dress in terms of sex and 'sin' and all that.

We consider enforced modesty degrading because it is based on the *presumption* that our bodies are not our own and that, somehow rightfully, only fabric is between us and degrading treatment.

Now, when some Muslim men (and women) seem to say, 'Look at all these Western *ahems*' we see *that* as disrespectful to women.

In the interest of actual interfaith understanding, I think it's important to recognize that fact: we no more exist on 'your' terms than you should be expected to exist on 'ours.'

whats with this weird picture of mannequins?

theres plenty of real women in hijab to depict-

it is strangely dehumanizing

Young Muslim women are at a disadvantage ... seeking identity, wanting to stand by their "men", wanting to be good, etc. but unfortunately they are not told the truth about what that identity has meant for women in the past.

The poem by a Man speaks on behalf of the girls. He addresses the Kafir men with the assumption that the kafir men want to see the body of the young muslim woman. The Man is unable to break beyond the Muslim emphasis of reducing the woman to the thing that has to be covered up in a shroud, a burqha, a niqab, etc. The pretty scarfs, the fashionable head covering, is the cry of the young muslim women that they will not be reduced to the thing that their Islam reduces them to invariably.

The young muslim women need to learn that Allah does allow the young girls (even before they have reached puberty) to be married. They do need to learn that they are "worth" about half as much as their brothers when it comes to finance or law, inheritance or testimony. The young women need to know that the laws are arrayed against them when it comes to divorce or independence.

But there are very few honest voices that are telling them that but they are being seduced to going back to the good old days of the full blown purdah system. Let us hope they find out before it is too late.

thanks for the link nasamat-

i particularly loved your learn arabic page- what a brilliant idea (the colors)

an interesting thing about hijab, beyond morocco-
is how one can identify where a woman comes from by how she wears it-

i think the north african wrap around style is actually quite chic myself.
peace

Hi Mrs. Pamela Windo

I was one of those who attended your first presentation of your book,"Zohra's Ladder: And Other Moroccan Tales" at the BC Rabat. I'm the one who gave you a copy of my book, "The Poet", if you remember. I am afraid to say that what you referred to when you said, "I’ve just been on one of those trips and was surprised, alarmed even, to see how many more women are now wearing headscarves, most noticeably in the modern cities of Casablanca and Rabat. Not older women, but young ones; the same age group as the young women who had so exuberantly discarded them a decade before." dates back to the Summer of 1990, when the USA threatened to invade Iraq over the latter's invasion of Kuwait. It all started at university campuses where beautiful female students started wearing the hijab. May I just add the following poem, which has been read by thousands so far:

I love your veil

What’s all this tale about the veil?
Fred and Gail shout and hail
Straw as hero
For his hail of fire on Aïsha’s attire.
Did Straw want Aïsha to show
Herself from head to toe?
Let Gail wear a mini-skirt
For her flirt.
And let Aïsha wear on her face
Or on her hair
Whatever piece
That would bring her peace
Vis-à-vis God and vis-à-vis Man.
Oh, man!
Why d’you wish her to disclose
Her beautiful eyes and nice nose
Or her lips or her hips
If that belongs to her?
Come on, Sir!
That body you want her to show
Is a diamond dearer than the glow
Of the face of Marilyn Monroe!

Best wishes
Mohamed, Morocco

http://arabicwithlagouader.blogspot.com/