The Hijab Problem

[Father Heathen]

hijab is equally for men and women.

Never seen men required to wear them.

 

[icehorse]

You didn't. You made another vague comment that has no substance in it.

I'm not going to google this for you. Your repeated requests for me to do so are looking like sea-lioning. It's easy to search the internet for those Muslim majority countries who are wealthy because of oil. SA and UEA are a couple examples. Your challenge is to name MM countries without oil that are not impoverished. I think you'll be able to find only a few.

 

[Remté]

Never seen men required to wear them.

The hijab spoken of in the Quran is not a head scraf. It has a rather wide meaning. For instance both women and men are in the Quran recommended to "lower some of their gaze" this is part of hijab of the eyes. And it is for both sexes equally.

 

[Remté]

You apparently don't even know the Bible that well. The Abrahamic texts demand death for apostasy, they forbid the worship of other gods, the demand women be covered up, they instruct adherents to not mingle with non-adherents, and, yes, death to the infidels is very present in the Quran. The Quran, at least, gives us some sort of environmental ethic and concern for non-human animals that is lacking in the other texts.
As for books, multiple Muslim majority countries combined produce less books than single countries who are much smaller, they have fewer public libraries, and illiteracy is still pretty high in some areas. And then, where they are highly literate and writing books, censorship laws put up a very large obstacle for publishing.

The bible? How'd you get to that? The "abrahamic texts"? There are a wide variety. The Quran doesn't require women to cover themselves. It doesn't call for death for apostasy. It doesn't call for death to infidels. It doesn't prohibit "mingling" either in a general sense.

 

[Remté]

I'm not going to google this for you. Your repeated requests for me to do so are looking like sea-lioning. It's easy to search the internet for those Muslim majority countries who are wealthy because of oil. SA and UEA are a couple examples. Your challenge is to name MM countries without oil that are not impoverished. I think you'll be able to find only a few.

I didn't expect you to google it. I was under the impression you are confident of your knowledge so I thought it must be a matter of typing a few relevant sentences. I was wrong.

It still seems to me you are asking me to search the internet for the same propaganda you fancy and it is a strange assumption that I would beging looking from the same place as you. If I did we would be talking of two completely different topics. Which is why I asked you to provide examples. So that we could speak about the same topic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The bible? How'd you get to that? The "abrahamic texts"?

Because Muslims are instructed to heed the words of the prophets.Sura 5:44 mentions the Torah as a guiding light.

The Quran doesn't require women to cover themselves.

Al-Noor 24:31 requires women to cover everything that isn't necessary, and lists specifically who she can relax this policy around.

It doesn't call for death for apostasy.

Bukhair 52:260 states that if a Muslim discards his faith he is to be killed.

It doesn't call for death to infidels.

Sura 9:5 states slay the idolaters where you find them, and take them captive.

It doesn't prohibit "mingling" either in a general sense.

Sura 3:118 states Muslims are only to take "intimates among themselves" because everybody else want's to ruin them and see them suffer.

 

[Remté]

Because Muslims are instructed to heed the words of the prophets.Sura 5:44 mentions the Torah as a guiding light.

That doesn't mean the Torah is a guiding light. It simply says the revelation to Moses was.

Al-Noor 24:31 requires women to cover everything that isn't necessary, and lists specifically who she can relax this policy around.

It does mention something along the lines of not showing what doesn't need to be shown but that is not the same as covering the whole body.

Bukhair 52:260 states that if a Muslim discards his faith he is to be killed.

That is a Hadith.

Sura 9:5 states slay the idolaters where you find them, and take them captive.

slay and take them captive? It speaks of the battle of Tabuk. There was war. And the next ayat states:

"If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge."​

Sura 3:118 states Muslims are only to take "intimates among themselves" because everybody else want's to ruin them and see them suffer.

That is about the situation of the time. The Muslims made friends with Jews who were enemies of the prophet. This guidance is a warning against their hypocricy so their friendships won't be taken advantage of.

 

[icehorse]

I didn't expect you to google it. I was under the impression you are confident of your knowledge so I thought it must be a matter of typing a few relevant sentences. I was wrong.

It still seems to me you are asking me to search the internet for the same propaganda you fancy and it is a strange assumption that I would beging looking from the same place as you. If I did we would be talking of two completely different topics. Which is why I asked you to provide examples. So that we could speak about the same topic.

sorry, this is just sea-lioning on your part.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That doesn't mean the Torah is a guiding light. It simply says the revelation to Moses was.

It says this:
Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light.

"If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge."

And the rest it says to ambush, kill, and capture.
Are you going to do this seriously or continue wasting my time and ignoring what I post?

 

[Remté]

It says this:
Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light.

Your translation maybe. But that doesn't change anything. See it says "in which was...." but the revelations as they are presented today are no longer what they were. They have been ruined.

And the rest it says to ambush, kill, and capture.
Are you going to do this seriously or continue wasting my time and ignoring what I post?

I ignored barely anything. I corrected to some extent each of your misconceptions.

 

[Vinayaka]

What problem?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't like the definition. I hope we're done with that.

If you use the weakest definition you might have a valid claim. The problem is that when a word has more than one meaning a person does not generally use the weakest definition. If you can admit to a weak argument we are done.

 

[Remté]

If you use the weakest definition you might have a valid claim. The problem is that when a word has more than one meaning a person does not generally use the weakest definition. If you can admit to a weak argument we are done.

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That doesn't make any sense.

You mean that you do not understand.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The hijab is a symptom (result/consequence) of the underlying problem of misogyny (covetousness of women by men) and a degrading (and degraded) solution to another underlying problem (that is) sexual degeneracy; which pervades not only Islam, but essentially all religious institutions.

It is clear that Muhammadans especially typically view women as first and foremost objects of/for sex and/or sexual gratification(s). As a result, sexually degenerated men (whose minds are constantly occupied by viewing women through the lens of sex) act out on these imaginations which manifests in the form of abuse. If a woman is raped in Islam, the fault is her own, and thus we find the genesis of the hijab: a symbol of 'modesty'.

However, the 'problem' is not with the women, but with the men who sexualize women. This is precisely what Muhammad represents: the sexualization of women and degrading them into a status/value of what they are "worth" to other men. As a result, women are "worth" more if they are young and/or virgin. Islam essentially uses women as a form of currency: given freely to jihadists as captives of war (which can be used as sex slaves) and men allowed marrying up to four women.

This treatment of women (of which the hijab is a symbol) is essentially why the planet is being destroyed: the feminine aspect is naturally nurturing (mother) and is required for life (womb). The patriarchal religious institutions of the world (which utilize male central figures as models/idols) systemically erodes the status of women away from the most essential part of creation to the most coveted and abused. Such is the nature of religion; and such is the nature of Islam especially.

Unfortunately, for many women (especially in Saudi Arabia and Iran), the hijab is not even a choice for them. Their male "guardians" enforce it along with the state, and many non-Muslim women in European countries are wearing one just to avoid being raped by a Muhammadan. The default perspective of Islam regarding a non-hijab woman is her being (like) a whore. As is obvious, the problem begins with how Islam instructs its male adherents to view women - no doubt directly pointing back to the central idol of Islam: Muhammad who was, no doubt, a sexually degenerated warlord that made a currency out of women.

This is essentially the central 'problem' on the planet, but it probably won't be for a few hundred years until humanity wakes up out of these idolatrous institutions and re-realizes the importance of the balance of genders and the unique role the women play in creation: no less important than mother nature herself (which is almost herself dead).

I would be willing to bet: restoring the status of women would likewise restore the planet. Of course the only way to prove this to be true is to actually restore the status of women, which I personally won't hold my breath for but it stands as it is: restore women, restore the planet. And the first place to look is: Islam.

It is a machine that preys on women.

I fully agree with you that when women are treated as equals the world will be restored. We Baha’is say that humanity is like a bird with two wings one male and the other female and that without two wings the bird cannot fly to the loftiest heights. So too without women as equal partners humanity cannot build a wonderful peaceful civilisation.

Having said that don’t you think that western civilisation with its porn, it’s strip clubs, sex shops and magazines, Miss World contests, and porn films doesn’t degrade and denigrate the station of a woman to a mere animalistic sex object for pleasure & exploitation?

In our western societies women are continually used as sex objects in ads to sell anything from cars to Coca Cola. Wasn’t it the west not Islam which invented hot pants or the miniskirt or pornography? It seems to me that most of western society’s focus on women has been as objects of sexual desire to be exploited for pleasure and profit.

The materialist and the capitalist seized by greed and selfishness seems to have no qualms about promoting women as sex objects such as in Hollywood to make $billions.

I would like to point out firstly that Abraham had 3 wives. In those times monogamy was acceptable not because of women being used as sex objects but because it was a way of life. Just as slavery was well before the Bible or Quran but polygamy, as with slavery, appeared well before Abraham or Muhammad and were ancient practices not invented by any religion.

Change is gradual. Slavery for example and monogamy have gradually been wound down and abolished by Prophets because they were time old habits and traditions not easy to break except over time and ages.

Slavery was mentioned in the Bible, but not founded by it yet the rights of slaves delineated and further so in the Quran until Baha’u’llah abolished it altogether. So it took the maturing of humanity some 3,000 years to come to the realization that a detestable thing like slavery was not in its best interests. So too with polygamy. It was not a practice invented by either the Bible or Quran but regulated by these books as it would take time for humanity to willingly accept monogamy. So religion should not be blamed for practices that were not invented by it but ancient practices difficult to eradicate.

Progressively, as humanity has matured over time, laws have been continually refined until now Baha’u’llah has appeared and promoted the equality of men and women, monogamy and abolished slavery.

Polygamy is a very ancient practice among the majority of humanity. The introduction of monogamy has been only gradually accomplished by the Manifestations of God. Jesus, for example, did not prohibit polygamy, but abolished divorce except in the case of fornication; Muhammad limited the number of wives to four, but making plurality of wives contingent on justice, and reintroducing permission for divorce. In the Quran it says to take only one wife if you cannot be equally just to all of them which is impossible so it is promoting monogamy indirectly but through reason. Quran 4:3)

if you fear that you will not be able to act justly between your wives (economically and socially), then content yourself with only one 4:3

Muhammad was monogomous for 25 years married to Khadijah until He was 50. . About 2 years after her death He married Aisha. His marriages were political and humanitarian such as supporting widows or to unite tribes in marriage. He treated women with the utmost respect.

I think if we wish to be accurate and honest, bother eastern and western societies are responsible for the way women have been viewed and both need to change to see women as equal partners in the world community.

Polygamy - Bahai9

 

[Subduction Zone]

I fully agree with you that when women are treated as equals the world will be restored. We Baha’is say that humanity is like a bird with two wings one male and the other female and that without two wings the bird cannot fly to the loftiest heights. So too without women as equal partners humanity cannot build a wonderful peaceful civilisation.

Having said that don’t you think that western civilisation with its porn, it’s strip clubs, sex shops and magazines, Miss World contests, and porn films doesn’t degrade and denigrate the station of a woman to a mere animalistic sex object for pleasure & exploitation?

In our western societies women are continually used as sex objects in ads to sell anything from cars to Coca Cola. Wasn’t it the west not Islam which invented hot pants or the miniskirt or pornography? It seems to me that most of western society’s focus on women has been as objects of sexual desire to be exploited for pleasure and profit.

The materialist and the capitalist seized by greed and selfishness seems to have no qualms about promoting women as sex objects such as in Hollywood to make $billions.

I would like to point out firstly that Abraham had 3 wives. In those times monogamy was acceptable not because of women being used as sex objects but because it was a way of life. Just as slavery was well before the Bible or Quran but polygamy, as with slavery, appeared well before Abraham or Muhammad and were ancient practices not invented by any religion.

Change is gradual. Slavery and monogamy have gradually been wound down and abolished by Prophets because they were time old habits and traditions not easy to break except over time and ages.

Slavery was mentioned in the Bible, not founded by it but the rights of slaves delineated and further so in the Quran until Baha’u’llah abolished it altogether. So it took the maturing of humanity some 3,000 years to come to the realization that slavery was not in its best interests. So too with polygamy. It was not a practice invented by either the Bible or Quran but regulated by these books as it would take time for humanity to willingly accept monogamy. So religion should not be blamed for practices that were not invented by it but ancient.

Progressively, as humanity has matured over time, laws have been continually refined until now Baha’u’llah has appeared and promoted the equality of men and women, monogamy and abolished slavery.

Polygamy is a very ancient practice among the majority of humanity. The introduction of monogamy has been only gradually accomplished by the Manifestations of God. Jesus, for example, did not prohibit polygamy, but abolished divorce except in the case of fornication; Muhammad limited the number of wives to four, but making plurality of wives contingent on justice, and reintroducing permission for divorce. In the Quran it says to take only one wife if you cannot be equally just to all of them which is impossible so it is promoting monogamy indirectly but through reason. Quran 4:3)

if you fear that you will not be able to act justly between your wives (economically and socially), then content yourself with only one 4:3

Muhammad was monogomous for 25 years married to Khadijah until He was 50. . About 2 years after her death He married Aisha. His marriages were political and humanitarian such as supporting widows or to unite tribes in marriage. He treated women with the utmost respect.

I think if we wish to be accurate and honest, bother eastern and western societies are responsible for the way women have been viewed and both need to change to see women as equal protagonists in the world community.

The West clearly did not invent pornography.

As to Muhammad, I never saw child rape as very supportive of women.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

You are right. I did leave out a line I meant to include. It is still correct as written and you inferred what was not implied.

Again no Muslim woman is forced again you have the burden of proof to prove this. Where in the Qur'an does it say that it is compulsory? Perhaps you should have done more homework:

"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.

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". (24:60)."

IS HIJAB COMPULSORY?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The West clearly did not invent pornography.

As to Muhammad, I never saw child rape as very supportive of women.

So now you are making the false claim that he (Muhammad) rapes children...How unintellectual and false of you.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The West clearly did not invent pornography.

As to Muhammad, I never saw child rape as very supportive of women.

Modern pornography from what I can gather began mostly in Paris, UK and the USA. The USA to my knowledge is the largest promoter of porn in the world.

Pornography - Wikipedia

Aisha

There is a lot of inaccurate information regarding this topic and many tend to blindly support it without any real evidence or in depth research and investigation.

Without a birth or marriage certificate the approximate age when Aisha married Muhammad can only be arrived at through historically related events or/and research. Here is one such example... Hadiths have been known to be very wrong and unreliable.

a) Abu Bakr’s first daughter, Asma, was born in 595, 27 years before the Hijra, the Prophet’s emigration to Medina. At the time of the Hijra, she was married to Zubayr ibn Awwam and was six-months pregnant. Her son Abdullah was born three months later in Quba while she was migrating to Medina. She died in the 73rd year of the Hijra at the age of 100; her teeth had not even fallen out. Here there is another critical piece of information. The age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma was 10 years. According to this, Aisha’s year of birth was 605 (595+10=605) and her age at the time of the Hijra was 17 (27–10=17). Since her marriage took place six, seven or eight months after the Hijra, or just after Badr, this means Aisha was 17-18 years old at that time.

https://www.amazon.com/Aisha-Companion-Scholar-Resit-Haylamaz/dp/1597842664

There are many, many more examples which establish her age to be a mature woman when married likely around 19 at consummation. Most anti Muslim sites just pick up on a single Hadith and go with that but there’s much more to it and I think we should be fair and just and not make false accusations as in this case without definitive proof and evidence.

http://aaiil.org/text/books/others/.../aishahagetimemarriageholyprophetmuhammad.pdf

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again no Muslim woman is forced again you have the burden of proof to prove this. Where in the Qur'an does it say that it is compulsory? Perhaps you should have done more homework:

"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.

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". (24:60)."

IS HIJAB COMPULSORY?

You can't be this blind:

In Iran a head scarf is mandatory, one might try to weasel out and say that is not a hijab. In the Sudan a women is on trial for not wearing one. Meanwhile in countries where it is rife there will be pressure to don one:

Woman In Sudan Refuses To Wear Hijab, Faces Flogging | HuffPost

I know that many Muslims will say that it is not compulsory, that does not mean all Muslims. This all or nothing approach to topics may be why you misinterpreted my earlier post.