Hijab

Jannah

Is it really compulsory? The qur'an states:

“O you Children of Adam! We have bestowed on you raiment to cover your shame as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness, that is the best. Such are among the Signs of Allah, that they may receive admonition.” (Quran 7:26)

“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 therof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, or their brothers' sons or their sisters' sons, or their women or the servants whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers, turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.” (Quran 24:31).

“O Prophet, tell your wives and your 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 recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.” (Quran 33:59)

Yet none of these extracts mention anything about covering their heads, only their chests. However, I agree that modest dress is important and that this is not done for the cause of "male oppression" or the like, but for the sake of modesty.

But is 'modesty' dictated by the country one is in? Like exposing one's arms would be considered still modest in Europe, but not in the Middle East?

What are your views on hijab? Or even the more controvertial burqa or niqab?

(personally I find both burqua and niqab dehumanising and unnecessary, but I still think women should have the right to wear them)

Any thoughts?

irishconvert

Have a look at this link which I think explains it correctly:

http://www.islam101.com/women/hijabfaq.html

In my opinion it is down to a woman whether she wears a hijab, burqa or niqab, or none of these. It's the same for men who are supposed to wear a beard. You will find many Muslim men who do not.

Jannah

What I find is that people assume you're not a 'real' muslim without the hijab- even non-muslims are always demanding "where's your veil??" is ridiculious- in a secular society we should be allowed to not wear it and still have our beliefs respected

Hero Of College

Jannah wrote: »

What I find is that people assume you're not a 'real' muslim without the hijab- even non-muslims are always demanding "where's your veil??" is ridiculious- in a secular society we should be allowed to not wear it and still have our beliefs respected

Its possible that you could run the risk of rape, with that attitude. Didn't an "Australian" "Cleric" say that uncovered women are like uncovered meat?? If the cat eats the meat, who is to blame? The cat or the meat? I think he said this in response to the race rapes in Australia. The victims there were not Muslims, so if a non-Muslim is punished for not wearing the veil, then surely the Muslim runs an even greater risk?

DinoBot

Jannah wrote: »

What I find is that people assume you're not a 'real' muslim without the hijab- even non-muslims are always demanding "where's your veil??" is ridiculious- in a secular society we should be allowed to not wear it and still have our beliefs respected

In Islam there is NO concept of separation of faith and state. Does your faith not call for the wearing of the veil ? The freedom of not wearing it comes from secular laws not Islamic law.

wes

DinoBot wrote: »

In Islam there is NO concept of separation of faith and state.

Depends on your interpretation more than anything else.

DinoBot wrote: »

Does your faith not call for the wearing of the veil ? The freedom of not wearing it comes from secular laws not Islamic law.

Again, depends on interpretation. Some say it must be worn, others say its up to the Woman and others say there talking about modesty (which applies to both sexes.).

DinoBot

wes wrote: »

Depends on your interpretation more than anything else.

Can you point to a single scholar who calls for a separation of state and faith ? In all my years Ive never even heard of the topic being discussed.

wes wrote: »

Again, depends on interpretation. Some say it must be worn, others say its up to the Woman and others say there talking about modesty (which applies to both sexes.).

Again, never came across it yet, any sources, Id like to read it.

wes

DinoBot wrote: »

Can you point to a single scholar who calls for a separation of state and faith ? In all my years Ive never even heard of the topic being discussed.

The Koran says there is no compulsion in religion. So thats good enough for me.

DinoBot wrote: »

Again, never came across it yet, any sources, Id like to read it.

Google is your friend. There are lots of scholars that say lots of different things. I am hardly going to trawl through that.

Anyway, I was talking about the average Muslim, as opposed to scholars. Those are the general opinions.

wes

Hero Of College wrote: »

Its possible that you could run the risk of rape, with that attitude. Didn't an "Australian" "Cleric" say that uncovered women are like uncovered meat?? If the cat eats the meat, who is to blame? The cat or the meat? I think he said this in response to the race rapes in Australia. The victims there were not Muslims, so if a non-Muslim is punished for not wearing the veil, then surely the Muslim runs an even greater risk?

From BBC.co.uk/news

Judge Hall said in sentencing he faced a moral dilemma as the fact they had sex within 45 minutes of meeting was an absolute crime.

But he said the girl had dressed provocatively and looked as though she was 16.

Hardly a opinion solely held by some nuttier Muslims. Does what the Judge said automatically represent the entire UK judiciary? Of course it doesn't.

Jannah

Hero Of College wrote: »

Its possible that you could run the risk of rape, with that attitude. Didn't an "Australian" "Cleric" say that uncovered women are like uncovered meat?? If the cat eats the meat, who is to blame? The cat or the meat? I think he said this in response to the race rapes in Australia. The victims there were not Muslims, so if a non-Muslim is punished for not wearing the veil, then surely the Muslim runs an even greater risk?

There's always going to be some fruit loops with extremist and ridiculious opinions, but the fact of the matter is that 99.99% of muslims are peaceful, friendly people who don't want to rain jihad down of a load of western asses and don't think that rape is called upon by not wearing a piece of cloth (because ultimately, thats all it really is) on their heads.

DinoBot

wes wrote: »

The Koran says there is no compulsion in religion. So thats good enough for me.



Google is your friend. There are lots of scholars that say lots of different things. I am hardly going to trawl through that.

Anyway, I was talking about the average Muslim, as opposed to scholars. Those are the general opinions.

Ah, I think I'll skip the google search, I normally read alot from abdul wahid hamid or Dr. Abdul Azim Islahi , I tend not to look at google too much to build up my knowledge

Splendour

Jannah wrote: »

Yet none of these extracts mention anything about covering their heads, only their chests. However, I agree that modest dress is important and that this is not done for the cause of "male oppression" or the like, but for the sake of modesty.

But is 'modesty' dictated by the country one is in? Like exposing one's arms would be considered still modest in Europe, but not in the Middle East?

What are your views on hijab? Or even the more controvertial burqa or niqab?

(personally I find both burqua and niqab dehumanising and unnecessary, but I still think women should have the right to wear them)

Any thoughts?

I think that a lot of fundamentalist Muslims are totally overboard with their rules and regulations as it is with alot of fundamentalist Christians. As you say in in another post Jannah,there are always fruit loops. I agree with you with regards to the burqua and niqab and tbh I find them rather scary!

However, I do agree with modest dress and wheras in alot of Islamic states they go overboard with dress code, I think we in the west have lost the plot with regards to dress code, although I certainly do not agree with Judge Hall's thinking either!

I personally don't have a problem with women choosing to wear any kind of covering.(Anyhow, what about the lads-I sometimes look at guys and think 'gosh he's afine thing!)The problem arises when a woman is forced to wear it rather than choose it for herself. I've just finished a book written by a 'fallen' Muslim who was spat at and threatened when she went out without any kind of a covering. She said she was seen as 'fair game' in the eyes of the Muslim men. Now that's dowright WRONG!!!

Schuhart

wes wrote: »

From BBC.co.uk/news

Hardly a opinion solely held by some nuttier Muslims. Does what the Judge said automatically represent the entire UK judiciary? Of course it doesn't.

Your key point, that comments by an Australian cleric don't automatically represent the whole of Islam and that such opinions are shared by many who are not Muslim, is valid. But the particular case you reference above seems to me to be different in nature.

The case of the Australian cleric was, as I recall, exactly what it said on the tin. He simply did say (taking the transcript of his sermon released at the time) that women who didn't wear a Hijab and stay out of sight were immodest and inviting rape. He said it in a context where it could only be taken as a reference to certain actual gang rape cases that had occured in Australia - hence the controversy.

The case you've referenced from the BBC seems to relate to a case of rape in the sense of someone having sex with a minor who cannot legally give consent, rather than rape in the sense of an assault. The defendant seems to be maintaining that he made an error and believed the girl to be above the age of consent.

Given that the girl was ten, that seems hard to accept on the face of it. However, this context (to my mind) puts a different complexion on the Judge's comments. The reference to provocative dress is the context of establishing if she looked to be old enough to give legal consent, rather than that she was inviting an assault.

The Judge might be right or wrong in his statement. But the issues raised by his case are of a different nature to the Australian case.

Hero Of College

wes wrote: »

From BBC.co.uk/news


Hardly a opinion solely held by some nuttier Muslims. Does what the Judge said automatically represent the entire UK judiciary? Of course it doesn't.

Its a poor comparison, and a poor answer therefore. the judge did not excuse culpability, he took note that the girl looked older than she was, there is no mention of an absence of consent, and all the judge allowed for were mitigating circumstances. There was a conviction and a custodial sentence was returned.

The looney in Oz was suggesting that the sentence was wrong and the victim was to blame.

There is a lack of congruency.

Hero Of College

Schuhart wrote: »

Your key point, that comments by an Australian cleric don't automatically represent the whole of Islam and that such opinions are shared by many who are not Muslim, is valid. But the particular case you reference above seems to me to be different in nature.

The case of the Australian cleric was, as I recall, exactly what it said on the tin. He simply did say (taking the transcript of his sermon released at the time) that women who didn't wear a Hijab and stay out of sight were immodest and inviting rape. He said it in a context where it could only be taken as a reference to certain actual gang rape cases that had occured in Australia - hence the controversy.

The case you've referenced from the BBC seems to relate to a case of rape in the sense of someone having sex with a minor who cannot legally give consent, rather than rape in the sense of an assault. The defendant seems to be maintaining that he made an error and believed the girl to be above the age of consent.

Given that the girl was ten, that seems hard to accept on the face of it. However, this context (to my mind) puts a different complexion on the Judge's comments. The reference to provocative dress is the context of establishing if she looked to be old enough to give legal consent, rather than that she was inviting an assault.

The Judge might be right or wrong in his statement. But the issues raised by his case are of a different nature to the Australian case.

Exactly. The Austrialian case was where Lebanese immigrants used force and where there was a total absence of anything tantamount to consent. Drugs and alcohol were also involved. The assaults were oral and vaginal and repeatedly so. The Cleric effectively said that the women had brought it upon themselves. The English case involved statutory offences, and the judge applied a custodial sentence, and suggested that the girls dress had lead the man to believe, as he argued, that the girl was older than she was. He didn't say that it she was a 10 year old running around nude that she would have been raped anyways. Nice try though Wes.....

Hero Of College

Jannah wrote: »

There's always going to be some fruit loops with extremist and ridiculious opinions, but the fact of the matter is that 99.99% of muslims are peaceful, friendly people who don't want to rain jihad down of a load of western asses and don't think that rape is called upon by not wearing a piece of cloth (because ultimately, thats all it really is) on their heads.

This may be off topic, but that "99.99%" figure you quote is off base, as suggested by repeated polls of a trustworthy origin. Most polls suggest that a high percentage of Muslims in the UK think that OBL is right. Now, you can dismiss the polls, but to suggest that 0.01% only of Muslims hold extremist views....would be naieve.:cool:

irishconvert

Hero Of College wrote: »

Most polls suggest that a high percentage of Muslims in the UK think that OBL is right.

By OBL I presume you mean Osama Bin Laden, right? Can you point me to these polls as I searched on Google and can't find them.

Hero Of College wrote: »

Now, you can dismiss the polls, but to suggest that 0.01% only of Muslims hold extremist views....would be naieve

What is your definition of an extremist view? Let's be clear what we are talking about here.

wes

Hero Of College wrote: »

Exactly. The Austrialian case was where Lebanese immigrants used force and where there was a total absence of anything tantamount to consent. Drugs and alcohol were also involved. The assaults were oral and vaginal and repeatedly so. The Cleric effectively said that the women had brought it upon themselves. The English case involved statutory offences, and the judge applied a custodial sentence, and suggested that the girls dress had lead the man to believe, as he argued, that the girl was older than she was. He didn't say that it she was a 10 year old running around nude that she would have been raped anyways. Nice try though Wes.....

The Judge was suggesting that the victim had culpability in the crime, hence why the perpetrator received the lesser sentence. I accept it was a bad example however.

Schuhart

wes wrote: »

The Judge was suggesting that the victim had culpability in the crime, hence why the perpetrator received the lesser sentence. I accept it was a bad example however.

I've just a quibble - I accept the key point is resolved. I don't see anything that suggests the victim is culpable in the Judge's comments as reported. What he seems to be suggesting is that perpetrators may be partly excused if it is credible to maintain that they made an honest error about a girl's age.

But I don't think anyone would blame an underage girl for actions that she cannot be regarded as being old enough to understand, and I don't see anything in the Judge's comments (as reported) that suggests he does. It would strike me that if a young girl is playing with things far too advanced for her age that the responsibility lies with her parents rather than with her.

In fairness to the Judge, reflecting on the facts as we know them, I think his actions in this case look consistent with someone honestly trying to get the balance of justice right in a very sensitive area where no-one will thank him for trying to be diligent. Maybe he got the balance wrong - and maybe there are facts involved in the case that we don't know. But that's just to repeat that the issues involved are quite different to the Australian case.

Hero Of College

irishconvert wrote: »

By OBL I presume you mean Osama Bin Laden, right? Can you point me to these polls as I searched on Google and can't find them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4744865.stm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml

I don't want to post links from sites which are banned at this Forum, so the above are 2 from the more "acceptable" websites.

What is your definition of an extremist view? Let's be clear what we are talking about here.[/quote]

Imposing Sharia Law....advocating violence against those who "insulted" the "prophet"......the adoption of hardcore Islamist beliefs....pretty soon these things will not be in the "extreme" but rather a norm.

Extremist? Uhhh.....try these dudes for size.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/06/london.cartoon.protests/

wes

Schuhart wrote: »

I've just a quibble - I accept the key point is resolved. I don't see anything that suggests the victim is culpable in the Judge's comments as reported. What he seems to be suggesting is that perpetrators may be partly excused if it is credible to maintain that they made an honest error about a girl's age.

But I don't think anyone would blame an underage girl for actions that she cannot be regarded as being old enough to understand, and I don't see anything in the Judge's comments (as reported) that suggests he does. It would strike me that if a young girl is playing with things far too advanced for her age that the responsibility lies with her parents rather than with her.

In fairness to the Judge, reflecting on the facts as we know them, I think his actions in this case look consistent with someone honestly trying to get the balance of justice right in a very sensitive area where no-one will thank him for trying to be diligent. Maybe he got the balance wrong - and maybe there are facts involved in the case that we don't know. But that's just to repeat that the issues involved are quite different to the Australian case.

Well, I got a different impression from what was reported. It seemed that some blame was being put on the girl. Maybe, I have misunderstood the the case, but I taught the reason it was news was due to this.

Schuhart

wes wrote: »

Well, I got a different impression from what was reported. It seemed that some blame was being put on the girl. Maybe, I have misunderstood the the case, but I taught the reason it was news was due to this.

You may be right, but my reading was that what was on his mind was the extent to which he had to consider in sentencing if an honest mistake was possible. I took the report that Judge felt he had a moral dilemma to be an indication that, in fairness to him, he could very likely see all of the issues and implications that we see when we consider the case.

Hence, while I'm not saying he necessarily made the right call, my feeling is he was trying to. His decision most certainly was that the offenders had to be given some leniency for possibly thinking the girl was 16; I don't think it follows that this necessarily transfers blame to the girl.

For the sake of argument, if you run over a pedestrian because you didn't see a red light, it would be your fault. However, if a nearby tree obscured your view of the light, a judge might show you some leniency. That doesn't mean it was partly the pedestrian's fault - just that the judge feels there is an element that justifies a lighter punishment.

Jannah

Splendour wrote: »

I think that a lot of fundamentalist Muslims are totally overboard with their rules and regulations as it is with alot of fundamentalist Christians. As you say in in another post Jannah,there are always fruit loops. I agree with you with regards to the burqua and niqab and tbh I find them rather scary!

However, I do agree with modest dress and wheras in alot of Islamic states they go overboard with dress code, I think we in the west have lost the plot with regards to dress code, although I certainly do not agree with Judge Hall's thinking either!

I personally don't have a problem with women choosing to wear any kind of covering.(Anyhow, what about the lads-I sometimes look at guys and think 'gosh he's afine thing!)The problem arises when a woman is forced to wear it rather than choose it for herself. I've just finished a book written by a 'fallen' Muslim who was spat at and threatened when she went out without any kind of a covering. She said she was seen as 'fair game' in the eyes of the Muslim men. Now that's dowright WRONG!!!

Completely and 100% agree! Its shocking what happens in western society where women have completely lost the plot- even to see junior cert nights with little girls dressed like drag queens and being leered at by dirty old dudes. BUT it's equally shocking to see the level of oppression in Islamic countries where some men (not all, by any means) would beat or kill their wives and sisters for the sake of "guarding their modesty." Really, I've yet to meet a man who says "phwoar, lookit the arms on that wan..."!

My friend went to Dubai and she saw a niqabi trying to eat and she would glance around quickly, lift her veil for a second and stuff the food in really fast before lowering it quickly again.... what sort of existance IS that!? Religion shouldn't be an excuse to completely disregard our own common sense and natural instinct of what is right and what is wrong- there's a balance between being embarrassingly underdressed and mauled on streets and being a head to toe walking blanket.

I also agree with the idea that women should be allowed to choose to wear a head covering- but if it's for any other reason (family pressure etc) than to please Allah , then that's just completely disregarding the real reason for doing it in the first place. I found it interesting that some femanist muslimas wore the hijab to act out against oppression so that they would get judged on what they said and not by what they looked like and some didn't wear the hijab for nearly the same reason- to combat oppression. Just goes to show how different interpretations can be.

I think that in muslim countries the major problem at the moment is the misinterpretation of the Qur'an. This whole 'anti the evils of Western culture' craze needs to seriously be reviewed- being scarily extremist in the opposite direction isn't the answer either. If anything, the whole taboo they put on sex and women's bodies tends to accumulate into this really inappropriate view of how to treat women as human beings and not as these strange objects to stick under a blanket.

Jannah

Oh, I forgot to mention, burqa isn't imposed by any Islamic teachings, its a tribal practice, along with the isolation of women in their homes, female circumcision and the banning of girls education. Islamic precepts require women to dress modestly but do not ask that we cover up in a specific manner.

Theres a really beautiful saying from the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh):
"The best veil is the veil of the eyes."
Meaning that men should look at women with respect, no matter what they are/ are not wearing.

Jari

“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 therof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to .......” (Quran 24:31).

This is clearly indicating that your beauty should not be on display, and it was custom at the time to cover the hair as well as the body. As you yourself indicated modesty is one perscribed in most cases by local culture however that of muslima is one islamically directed i.e. covering of all but your face and hands to the wrist. This is accepted as being loose clothing that does not show the shape of the woman and of course the covering of the hair which allows the woman to be viewed as a human being and not an object of desire, to go about her business without being hassled or looked at in a sexual way.

As a European muslim I find it also has the added advantage of clearly marking me out as a practicing muslim and gives me the added bonus of Salams from all muslimas no matter where there are from. The debate about hijab should also include that of removal of vanity for the sake of strangers, no longer am I prisoner to the changing fashions of hair, make up or judged solely on my beauty. I am a modest muslim who covers what is my "beauty" and chooses to share this only with those permitted in the Quaran

As for the burqa or niqab, if these are the choice of the woman and her husband/family who am I to judge? I often laugh at the thought of people thinking it is fine for woman to wander around in bikinis but are shocked to see them in niqab - if it was your sister or mother or daughter which would you prefer they wore?

It is accepted by scholars that the interpretation of the verses you quoted from the Quran is meant to describe the hijab and is for the best interests of the woman, her family and society in general.

Schuhart

Jari wrote: »

As for the burqa or niqab, if these are the choice of the woman and her husband/family who am I to judge?

Absolutely. The same goes for people who choose fetishwear. Its really none of our business, unless its intruding into our lives in some way.

Jari wrote: »

if it was your sister or mother or daughter which would you prefer they wore?

If they asked me, I'd say bikini. Yes, really.