Guest post: The veil holds Muslim women back
Shaukat Malik is a Muslim-American Certified Public Accountant from Potomac. He left his native Pakistan in 1972 and has been living in the United States since 1980.
Gamal al Banna, a brother of the founder of Egypt’s Ikhwan al Muslimun -- the Muslim Brotherhood -- says “the veil is not an Islamic tradition, but a pre-Islamic one, when Arab women covered their heads and left the upper parts of their chest uncovered.” He thinks the relevant Quranic verse commands women to cover their chests, not necessarily their heads.
Unfortantely, the Arab world has gone where the Saudi conservatives wanted it to go. Nasserism in Egypt was followed by veiled female students at Al Azhar University in Cairo demanding the imposition of Shariah, and soon there were youths belonging to Gamaa Islamiyya willing to thrash women who refused to veil themselves in public. When the Arabs came to Afghanistan in 1996 to fight for the Taliban, the call for “true Islam” was already a slogan that was heard loud and clear in Pakistan. Ironically, “true Islam” usually applies to women and had begun spreading with General Zia’s Hudood Ordinance, ordaining that women anchors and announcers on PTV cover their heads. But the ulema on the right of Zia wanted more. In fact they wanted nothing short of a “shuttlecock”, a brutally punitive covering that renders women half blind.
Pakistan was reluctant to take the veil because of the embarrassing fact that Fatima Jinnah, sister of the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and Begum Liaquat Ali Khan were national icons without the veil. But the order of the Taliban affected many parts of the country nonetheless. After a few incidents on The Mall in Lahore, religious seminarians found that it was no use threatening Pakistani women to take the veil if the government was not willing and the Constitution allowed a woman to become head of government and state. But the environment was scary enough to force Benazir Bhutto to start fingering beads in public and Hasina Wajid of Bangladesh to wear a pious head-band. The Taliban whipped unveiled women in Kabul, but could not do so in Mazar-e-Sharif. When foreign-inspired Islamists began beating up unveiled women in the Ferghana Valley in Central Asia, no one really took them seriously. Neither Bangladesh nor Indonesia could have dreamed 20 years ago that there would be violence against unveiled women. Funnily, today the Pattani Muslims of southern Thailand -- “revived” after their leader paid a visit to Saudi Arabia -- proudly display prescriptive photos of a complete head-to-foot covering for women in a climate that is sure to suffocate them to death.
Bengali Muslim women complain that Bangladesh is falling under the interpretation by Maulana Maududi of a Quranic edict of the strict veil that was actually meant only for the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and that too in a specific case. To impose the veil, a country needs theocratic rule, but theocracy doesn’t tend to last, as happened in Afghanistan. In Iran, where it survives, an imposed veil awaits the day of release. In Turkey, which punishes women who take the veil, at least one Islamic party went around illegally punishing unveiled women in cities where it had won the local elections. But today the Islamic party in government wants to join Europe where France disallows the veil as part of its cultural policy. If Turkey joins the European Union, the Shariah will go, together with the veil and an interfering army!
By choosing the veil as a battlefront, the clergy has made a fatal mistake in the Islamic world. This is a battle it can never win because no one agrees on the nature of the veil prescribed by Islam.
AP photo
To wear the Hijab is certainly NOT an Islamic obligation on women. It is an innovation of men suffering from a piety complex who are so weak spiritually that they just cannot trust themselves! The prophet had instructed Muslim women to use the extra cloth in their headscarves to cover their breasts. Nowhere was their any instruction to cover your face like Darth Vader.
Muslim men have cleverly exploited their interpretation of Sharia laws to limit a women’s role in Muslim countries. Laws of Hadood, the Islamic marriage contract, plus legalized polygamy, all lead to treating women as if they were living in Arabia 1,400 years ago, and had no idea about today’s world. A women believing in these interpretations will fall victim to these relgious predators and end up wearing a hijab, when all she needs to do is to dress modestly.
The hijab or burqa are not required by Islam. The only requirement is to dress modestly. Today in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East, Iran, Somalia, Afghanistan, Turkey and throughout the world, most Muslim women have no choice but to wear the hijab or burqa with only thier eyes showing due to cultural and Man-made traditions.
Now, covering one’s head as is done even amongst Orthodox Jews and women in India and Pakistan that still allows them to participate in all activities is not at issue here.
It is the total hijab and burqa as worn by many Muslim women in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere that clearly isolates them from society while also violating their rights. Essentially her divine right to breath normally and not be forced to inhale her own exhaled air, the right to work in the same environment as men, the right to run a business or pursue any profession she is qualified to pursue, the right to travel alone, the right to participate in a sport of her liking, or just exercise.
The object of the hijab and burqa is essentially to control women. This idea may have worked in medieval times. However, in today’s world, where contribution by both sexes is essential, it ends up violating a woman’s rights.
Morality of the self and cleanliness of conscience are far better than the morality of the hijab/veil/burqa. No goodness can come from pretence. Imposing the hijab on women is the ultimate proof that men suspect their mothers, daughters, wives and sisters of being potential traitors to them. How can Muslim men meet non-Muslim women who are not veiled and treat them respectfully, but not accord the same respectful treatment to Muslim women? This confirms the hypocrisy of Muslim male behavior reinforced by culture and selfish traditions.
I am reproducing for you translations by three renowned translators of verses in the Quran that make reference towards Hijab/covering one’s body.
These verses must be read and their meaning interpreted in the context of Arabia 1,400 years ago, when the holy prophet was alive. This was a time when girls were buried at birth and the outside world was very dangerous for a woman venturing out.
033.059
YUSUFALI: 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.
PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
24.060
YUSUFALI: Such elderly women as are past the prospect of marriage,-- there is no blame on them if they lay aside their (outer) garments, provided they make not a wanton display of their beauty: but it is best for them to be modest: and Allah is One Who sees and knows all things.
PICKTHAL: As for women past childbearing, who have no hope of marriage, it is no sin for them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show adornment. But to refrain is better for them. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
SHAKIR: And (as for) women advanced in years who do not hope for a marriage, it is no sin for them if they put off their clothes without displaying their ornaments; and if they restrain themselves it is better for them; and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
Verse 33. 59 of Surah Al-Ahzaab reads: "O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when outside): so that they should be known (as such) and not molested."
According to the Quran, the reason why Muslim women should wear an outer garment when going out of their homes is that they may be recognized as "Believing" women and differentiated from streetwalkers for whom sexual harassment is an occupational hazard. The purpose of this verse was not to confine women to their homes, but to make it safe for them to go about their daily business without attracting unsavory attention.
Verse 24.60 refers to Older Muslim women who are past the prospect of marriage are not required to wear "the outer garment." "Such elderly women as are past the prospect of marriage, there is no blame on them if they lay aside their (outer) garments, provided they make not wanton display of their beauty; but it is best for them to be modest; and Allah is One Who sees and knows all things."
The Quran does not suggest that women should be veiled or they should be kept apart from the world of men. On the contrary, the Quran is insistent on the full participation of women in society and in the religious practices. I think Western culture has embraced the essence of the message in the Quran by according equal status to women in all matters legal and social.
Muslim women remained in mixed company with men until the late sixth century A.H. (11th century A.D.). They received guests, held meetings and went to wars to help their brothers and husbands, and they defended their castles and bastions. It is ironical to note that a Muslim women’s counterpart in Europe had none of these rights. She was part of her husband’s estate to be passed on to his heirs on his death. Similarly a Hindu woman was also considered mortally tied to her husband and was burnt alive with him in the funeral fire on the pretext of religious tradition. This practice referred to as “Sati” was mainly practiced to usurp her property rights and thankfully was abolished by the British in the 19th century.
Muslim Women living in Western Countries
Partly as a reaction to racial profiling and prejudice in the western world, especially after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the resurgence of the Taliban and their own version of made-up Islam, and reinforced by referenda on minarets and public condemnation of Islam by leaders of democracies sworn to freedom of religion and free speech, some young men and women who were born in the West to Muslim families feel that they no longer wish to identify with the West, and that reaffirmation of their identity as Muslims requires the kind of visible sign that adoption of conservative clothing implies. For these women, the issue is not that they have to dress conservatively, but that they choose to. Some of these women will wear a total burqa with only their eyes showing. They indeed resemble the infamous throat-slitters seen on television murdering captives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Although, Western constitutions guarantee freedom of religion, displays of religiosity by wearing the Jewish yarmulke, or the Christian cross is not encouraged.
However, a full burqa will have the exact opposite effect on the majority population. Unlike Pakistan or India, where every woman is subjected to an “eye-exam”, in the West people are not really bothered, unless someone is wearing very little clothing. A Muslim woman by covering her head amd dressing up in loose fitting clothes will hardly be noticed and can go about her business.
Unfortunately, the hijab covering the face, with each breath visible with the movement of the area covering the mouth, bears a close resemblance to the Darth Vader character of the Star Wars films. It draws unwanted attention and ignites the hatred of bigots.
In the United States, under civil liberties guaranteed by the separation of church and state, wearing a hijab is a woman’s choice. But why stand out in a safe society?
You do not suddenly acquire good morals by putting on a hijab. Your environment and where you live and work more or less dictates how you dress. Muslim women in the West who wear a hijab, especially of the type worn by Darth Vader, are incorrectly and criminally identifying Islam with this crazy outfit. They are dragging Islam into the gutter of hatred. As if the throat-cutting Taliban and Lal Masjid-type mullahs have not done enough damage already. Videos of Muslim men shouting, “God is great and beheading innocent people, show them wearing the hijab mask where only their eyes are showing. What nonsense! Do we want to project Islam as a religion where the women must hide or is a source of evil that must be enclosed inside a garment, just because Muslim men are sexually out of control?
Muslim women living in Muslim countries
For years, most progressive Muslim scholars have accused traditional and literalist interpretations of the faith on this issue. They practically propagate that it is women who alone are responsible for the lack of moral probity and modesty in society, and not men’s obsession with sex.
There have been cases in various Muslim countries where men after assaulting or raping a woman said that they did so because "she was asking for it," meaning that not observing the veil amounted to an invitation to abuse. Such thinking unfortunately is not uncommon amongst many men in Muslim countries. While we busy ourselves in discussing the veil issue in western counties like France and secular Muslim republics like Turkey, bemoaning the discrimination faced by Muslim women there who observe the veil, we conveniently forget that in most Muslim countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and increasingly, Pakistan, women who believe that modest dressing can be demonstrated without observing hijab are coming under pressure.
Much of this pressure, of course, is coming from men -- most of whom blame an unveiled woman for their own sinful thoughts. Yet unveiled women also face a telling pressure from the ever-increasing numbers of veiled women. This begs the question: is it really liberation that a woman feels behind a veil, or is this liberation only about freeing oneself from the thought of ever daring to challenge male-dominated interpretations of exactly how a Muslim woman should dress and behave?
It is time Muslim women stood up for their rights and refuse to wear the burqa. We can make a start in Afghanistan by teaching Afghan men to allow their women to go out without the suffocating "tent burqa” they must wear when they go out.
Many women in the tent camps of Pakistan were forced to remain inside these canvas ovens during the military offensive in Swat during the summer of 2009. Many women suffered from serious skin rashes and poor lungs because of not being able to inhale fresh air and being forced to remain inside all day in their tent jail.
We must enlighten Muslim men to be more accepting of women in the marketplace and place of work and not just think of them as a sex objects persons who are inferior and must be subdued and shown their lower status. Cultural traditions rooted in illiteracy and folklore must be uprooted and replaced by reason and enlightenment. The clergy in Afghanistan and the frontier regions of Pakistan must be re-educated to teach them the correct status of women in the holy Quran and also what women have accomplished elsewhere in today’s world in almost every field of endeavor.
Female U.S. soldiers serving in Afghanistan can play a very important role in this regard by gaining access to Afghan households in villages where they are stationed and engaging and teaching the Afghan women about their rights. They should also engage the Afghan men by sharing with them their role as combat soldiers. If nothing else, it can be hoped that this will make the Afghan think.
In conclusion, in a free society we are free to wear what we like, as long as we are cognizant of its effect on society and what message we are giving.
Muslim women should focus more on their personal and intellectual development so they are better able to cope with today’s competitive world as opposed to isolating themselves behind the hijab shield.
Comments
All this is about to change for women in Muslim cultures, with the impending introduction of the new Thong Burka. Unfortunately, there is no Arabic word for Hubba-Hubba.
Posted by: Robert Littel | December 18, 2009 10:02 AM
It is a sad and terrible thing when men feel they cannot be "real men" unless they are in full control of every aspect of women's lives, even to the point of controlling how they dress ...something they would not tolerate women doing to them! Possibly this is because in their hearts men are afraid of other men and the power they have over them, and the only way to help them combat this sense of powerless is to control the opposite sex. But it is only UNMANLY men who control women. Until men deal with this contradiction within themselves, women will continue to be enslaved.
Posted by: Jancis M. Andrews | December 18, 2009 10:43 AM
"One way to defeat the Taliban is to get rid of the veil from Afghanistan & Pakistan and encourage women everywhere to claim their divine right as man's equal partner."
The veil worn my Afghan & some Pakistani women belonging to religious groups is a symbol of " Taliban power" and we must take this symbol away from the Taliban in Afghanistan by asking Female US soldiers to encourage Afghan women to come out of their "Tent Burkas" and join the civilized world.
The removal of the Burka will go a long way towards neutralizing Taliban Power. Afghan men and Madrassa clerics should be re-educated to allow these poor women to remove these horrible impediments to normal living.
We can test the resolve of Afghan men to voluntarily spend only one hour inside a "Shuttle cork Burka"
Trust me they will soon get the point.
Men must be desensitized and acclimatized to working and being around women in the work place and the Bazaars.
Our Female US soldiers and officers are a valuable source and should make every effort to emancipate Afghan women living in the villages they are guarding
Posted by: Darakhshanda | December 18, 2009 3:50 PM
Mr. Brown:
Please feel free to post on my new blog, the Wide Open Forum, at:
http://wideopenforum.blogspot.com/
Frank Krogmann
Posted by: Frank Krogmann | December 21, 2009 1:53 PM
"Partly as a reaction to racial profiling and prejudice in the western world, especially after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the resurgence of the Taliban and their own version of made-up Islam, and reinforced by referenda on minarets and public condemnation of Islam by leaders of democracies sworn to freedom of religion and free speech"
Huh? Islam is not a race and Muslims, including terrorist Muslims, cross all races so the author makes a grave error and falls into the "Muslims as victims" category.
The Taliban and al Qaeda follow the Quran and quote from it extensively. Those who claim Islam is a religion of peace are the ones following some made up version of Islam.
The minaret referendum happened less than a month ago so it is unlikely there would be any data on women donning hijab because of this. As for public condemnation by leaders of Western democracies - where? Show us some examples please. Not examples of criticism of terrorist acts, or specific Muslims who carried them out, but condemnations of Islam in its entirety.
Even if there were an example or two, unlikely, they are free to say as much and doing so is the essence of freedom of speech. Your points make no sense except to portray yourself as excusing the acts of your brethren, not to mention your approval of blasphemy laws and freedom of speech "except when it comes to Islam."
For that, this piece is almost entirely unbelievable. The full face covering comes in handy in your native Pakistan in one instance - that of acid attacks and failed honor killings that maim Muslim women.
Posted by: Telly | December 21, 2009 4:37 PM
Again we return to Yusuf Ali and Pikthal--as the final arbiters of the Prophet's most inexplicable words. Shaukat splits hairs about what a guy said centuries back about everything from sex to clothing, to prove that the burka is not what he wanted for Muslim women and this Shaukat thinks is counterpoint to the Taliban's autocracy. Many Muslim women embrace the burka voluntarily. They do it because they have been indoctrinated since childhood that this is the way the Prophet wanted them to submit themselves to modesty in dress and deportment--at least this what the controllers and the enforcers of Islam have told them--if you have worn the burka for ever it is hard to remove it suddenly and cast it aside. That it is terribly hot under the burka, that the burka is a prime reason for massive vitamin D deficiency in many Muslim women, that it is a grave impediment to docs who have to do physical exams on burka clad females-- all these problems have been considered and discussed in the past but Muslim women have still not emancipated themselves from the choke hold of the burka. Women too are to blame for their state in many Arab nations. Several willingly embrace restrictions and others cling to the despotic rules set up to control them because they know no better, they actually feel more secure following these rules or they are happy obeying what they think are the direct edicts handed down from Allah through the Prophet. That is why I object to Shaukat's blah blahs. He does not say that the whole Prophet business, that the visions, the epiphanies, Pikthal, Yusufali and all the rest of the fantasies are rubbish--like all religious Trojans, he resorts to kinder interpretations of the Prophet's words. His repartees to the Taliban, his verbal retaliations are always based on the Koran--a book like the bible full of myths--of no use this constricted view. Won't help the women a bit. It is when people cast off the religious yoke that they will be truly free. As long the Prophet must figure in Shaukat's rebuke to the Taliban Shaukat is still a man of the past--an antique pretending to be a modernist, an obedient servant to superstition pretending to be more enlightened than the Taliban--- the burka is a symbol of not just the extremism of the Taliban but it is also a symbol of the timidity and the genuflection to religion by men like Shaukat Malik.
Ravensafan Anon
Posted by: Anonymous | December 21, 2009 10:38 PM
I mostly agree with this but a clarification is needed here, in Turkey women are not required to cover their heads, in fact if they cover their heads they are not allowed to work in state offices and also cannot attend universities.
Posted by: selim | January 4, 2010 9:59 AM
Actually rape has little to do with sex. It is all about establishing power, dominance and control over someone that is made fearful and vulnerable. The unsolicited sex is a tool of humiliation. It is not an expression of sexual desire. That's why young men sometimes rape old women.
Why would any society give a man an excuse to rape a woman that she wasn't properly covered. Why would they not hold him accountable for his actions?
I would not feel like a respectable man if they didn't hold me responsible for my actions as if I were too mentally handicapped or too juvenile to be of sound mind to control myself.
Mohammed never said all women have to walk around wearing a tent with eye holes. And what about the men's modesty, why aren't they required to walk around in a tent with eyeholes?
Posted by: Lynn | January 9, 2010 9:33 PM
Lynn - Men are pigs no matter what culture they live in. Those laws against having sex with the dead (necrophilia, which some say is OK if you "dig" it) were not written to address the actions of women.
Sex, especially in western culture, is a commodity that is sold, traded and given away, with the supply generally controlled by women, so I think that a certain amount of rape has to be considered nothing more than theft by those without the currency (both fiscal and physical), that instead of leaving your house a ransacked shambles, leaves the victims emotionality a shambles.
Posted by: Robert Littel | January 11, 2010 11:19 AM
Lynn has made very important points.
For one thing, rape is very often an act of control and intimidation. I cannot say, however, that it is not at times a result of sexual desire accompanied by a sense of entitlement. Or is that a circular argument? Does entitlement imply control as well?
Women also have sexual desires. If men are supposed to be protected from "themselves" by having women covered, let us also protect women from themselves by having men covered so as not to tempt the women. I also agree with Lynn that it is really insulting to men to say they cannot control their desires without the temptation being blocked from their view.
In the end, we are indeed talking about cultural phenomena. The writer of the post itself does go some distance toward showing this historically and geographically. He also documents the extent to which control of women in general by men in general is at the root of this. Religion is simply the tool by which men justify this.
All patriarchal cultures have done this in one way or another. American women were once subject to institutionalization by their husbands and made to wear clothing that limited their abilities to compete in the world of paid employment with men. It also limited their social and recreational activities thus stunting their rights to be fully human.
Times do change, but I have had a lot of experience in which the (Hindu) male culture insisted that women in India be covered in restrictive ways. I know there are women who figured out how to play tennis or ride a bike while wearing a sari, but it is nonetheless an impediment in many instances to a woman fully taking part in society.
Clearly I do not want to single out Islam as the only oppressor of women. Many religions have traditionally been used to repress and control women. However, I believe it is unconscionable that anyone would continue to justify the burka or covering of the face. Finally, Roman Catholic nuns figured out how to get out from under that burden. Let us help to educate women that they can follow their pious beliefs without being made into second or third class citizens.
Personally, I think the head scarf itself is just as silly. It can be pretty hot on humid summer days in some places. As a fashion statement...like wearing a sari matching dot on your forehead in India or wearing pierced ears and noses in modern America...well then that is what choice is all about.
I seriously doubt any deity worth his or her "worship" cares about words and clothes as opposed to acts of human charity, peace, and humility.
Posted by: Linda Muralidharan | January 11, 2010 3:02 PM
Robert, I am not quite sure what you are driving at. On the surface, some of what you say abut sex being traded may be true. Surely, though, that applies elsewhere where girls and women are sold into marriage and the sex tarde.
As to who controls what, there is plenty of dysfunctional activity on both sides. When girls are raised to think their only hope of surviving in society is to find a husband of at least limited means, are they not being conditioned to think the only value they have to offer is sex?
Even in the US, these cultural norms have not totally died out.
For both males and females today who view sex as a commodity, are they not missing another possible solution? Are they not aware that developing some personal skills of empathy and sharing could put their sexual activity on a different footing? And are there not, in fact, many people who do look at sexual activity as a sharing experience and don't spend a lot of time worrying about the buying and selling or trading of it?
What particular solutions are suggested by looking at rape as theft as opposed to a violation of a person's rights to decide how to manage his or her own body? What value as opposed to confronting the dysfunctional needs for control and mismanagement of anger and rage?
Posted by: Linda Muralidharan | January 11, 2010 3:16 PM
Linda, I by no means meant that all relationships are sales of property with women controlling the supply. I just wanted to point out that not all violations of women are about power, some are about lack of viability of some males in a market driven by our hormone driven basic needs. In the West, the commercial aspect is basically so, from the dating rituals straight through to the ring and providing a safe platform for what women seem to want, despite the fact we really don't need all those children crowding up the world. Sometimes the price is just dinner and a movie, or a couple of drinks.
In Muslim societies, the "worth" of a bride is usually controlled by males, who then treat them as property. Here, a woman tries to "trade up" every chance she gets, even if it is only to give her child a chance at getting a noticable chin. Pretty women usually marry richer men, which is why we are all rooting for Brad in the "Luann" comic strip, even though his mother's concerns about the relationship follow the notion that he cannot pay the price she seems pretty enough to generate.
I am familiar with your stand regarding women's rights from your posts in the "Muslim Women's Blog" at the Albany TU and how hard it is for you to go through the attempt to reconcile the treatment of Muslim women within a clearly chauvinistic religious context presented by the archaic nature of that faith. Most religions present the same problem in varying degrees right down to a general perception that a girl should "hold out" for the right man and only let him enjoy the fruit after he has purchased the tree, which (for both) is like buying a car without a test drive, only more severe if things don't mesh well sexually. Catholics, once they have made a mistake by playing by the rules, are forbidden to rectify the error, which is one of the reasons why their churches are having going out of business sales. It is a complex problem that needs examination form both sides of the issue and considering all the variables. there is no one correct answer and much of what religion does only confuses the issue, greatly.
Posted by: Robert Littel | January 11, 2010 7:44 PM
Robert, I thank you for both your clarification and your turning me on to the existence of this blog.
You and I agree a lot. I certainly agree that both patriarchal cultures and religion complicate the problems of people everywhere achieving healthy functioning and personal autonomy.
As Western women gain more freedoms they nonetheless exhibit some of the faults that men have exhibited over time. One that is relevant here involves complicating dating relationships. Although far more women today will pay their way on a date, too many judge men by false standards....often viewing them as sex objects in the same objectionable way some men view women.
(I am not opposed to people having desires or noticing physical types that attract them, but the language these days often veres into that which could be called "objectifying".)
I have also had the experience in recent years of finding a man offended on a date when I offered to pay or hold the door open for him.
Luckily more of us are raising our children with more flexible and open ways of relating. And hopefully more of us are raising our children to have humane values without abject dependence on the mythological texts of old. I have learned from the texts of many religions and philosophies but do not find any of them have consistent answers except for the underlying principles usually found therein: work on one's own spritual growth, strive for humility, treat others with kindness and respect.
Posted by: Linda Muralidharan | January 12, 2010 1:10 PM
There is a danger in imposing our own cultural values on women of other cultures without really understanding what the head scarf means to them. Certainly here in Turkey, where women are by no means required to veil themselves -- indeed, veils are forbidden in certain public buildings and jobs -- the scarf and the veil mean very different things to different women.
I suggest you read more here.
Posted by: Jim Buie | January 16, 2010 7:48 PM
after reading this article and the many comments posted (some very anti islam, going as far as to say that Quran is based on Myths) i would like to bring the authors and everyone elses attention to some irrefutable facts.
1) Is it possible to comment on a book without reading it fully? any one in their senses would say no . So how silly is it to take a few lines from it and make judgments about one of the greatest and fastest growing religions of the world.
2) People who have spent time in learning and educating themselves and others with the teachings of Islam know that "Hijab" is not merely a type of dress or covering head and face. Hijab is a lot more Alhamdulillah and is not just recommended for women but also for men . In Surah Nur Allah says
"Say (O Muhammad) to the believing men: lower your gaze and protect your modesty that is more pure for you…
And Say (O Muhammad) to the believing women: lower your gaze and protect your modesty and do not openly reveal your beauty (apart from to your mahrams)…”
Hijab my friends starts from the lowering of gaze. It is not a way to control women Alhamdulillah. It is a way to fight the evil inside oneself and outside in the society. The first step is to practice hijab in the head. To create a mental barrier to fight vulgarity and all kinds of wrong ideas one might get by looking at someone of the opposite sex. The second step is consolidate hijba externaly by dressing up modestly and refraining from lewd behaviour.
Such practices endorse a healthy atmosphere of mutual respect and sense of security in the society.
covering the head is recommended for both men and women. Wether it is a sin to not cover is a matter between Allah and that person. I have seen muslim women wear the head scarve but at the same time wearing body fitted clothes underneath revealing their body contours and killing the entire purpose and logic of Hijab . Such people are giving a bad name to a wonderful islamic concept. On the other hand there may be women who dont wear the head scarve yet practice hijab in their head by lowering their gaze (refraining from checking out men) and dress up modestly to avoid unwanted attention from the opposite sex. I leave it for you to decide who is better. Surely Allah knows what is in the hearts of people.
Everythin recommended in the Quran makes absolute sense if one reads it with the intention of taking something good out of it. If you read it with the intention to find flaws in it then that is all you will find because we are only human and not flawless ourselves. A lot of things are beyond the comprehension of human brain and beyond the realm of human logic. If you believe in God (Allah) you will understand what this means.
Posted by: Omer Sher Fazal | February 3, 2010 5:32 AM
Omer Sher Fazal:
Are you suggesting that millions of men and women in the United states who do not cover their heads are walking around sexually excited and ready to pounce at any sight of flesh.
Men may be out of control in the Muslim world and hence the need for Animal like Harems as if they were monkeys or Lions but no such need in the USA.
People still go to work and everyone behaves.
Why are Muslim men so obsessed with sexual matters. Your gaze is automatically lowered when you are busy working. Are you promoting all men to become homosexual by not looking at women and ditto for women.
But then again what about Muslim men sharing their bed with up to four women.
Does the scarf over the head of an excited male make him impotent. What rubbish. Please explain yourself.
I reproduce for you the text you have posted.
What is your reference in the Quran.
2) People who have spent time in learning and educating themselves and others with the teachings of Islam know that "Hijab" is not merely a type of dress or covering head and face. Hijab is a lot more Alhamdulillah and is not just recommended for women but also for men . In Surah Nur Allah says
"Say (O Muhammad) to the believing men: lower your gaze and protect your modesty that is more pure for you…
And Say (O Muhammad) to the believing women: lower your gaze and protect your modesty and do not openly reveal your beauty (apart from to your mahrams)…”
Hijab my friends starts from the lowering of gaze. It is not a way to control women Alhamdulillah. It is a way to fight the evil inside oneself and outside in the society. The first step is to practice hijab in the head. To create a mental barrier to fight vulgarity and all kinds of wrong ideas one might get by looking at someone of the opposite sex. The second step is consolidate hijba externaly by dressing up modestly and refraining from lewd behaviour.
Such practices endorse a healthy atmosphere of mutual respect and sense of security in the society.
covering the head is recommended for both men and women. Wether it is a sin to not cover is a matter between Allah and that person. I have seen muslim women wear the head scarve but at the same time wearing body fitted clothes underneath revealing their body contours and killing the entire purpose and logic of Hijab . Such people are giving a bad name to a wonderful islamic concept. On the other hand there may be women who dont wear the head scarve yet practice hijab in their head by lowering their gaze (refraining from checking out men) and dress up modestly to avoid unwanted attention from the opposite sex. I leave it for you to decide who is better. Surely Allah knows what is in the hearts of people.
Please explain when is it OK to look at the opposite sex. What about working and traveling with female employees on overseas trips on business?
Posted by: concerned citizen | March 4, 2010 4:56 PM