Burka

[mazHur]

What if women wish to, as is normal, gain physical gratification from sexual relations with men they aren't seriously involved with? How is that a disgrace to humanity - you act as if human sexuality is such a repulsive thing, but the drastically high birthrate in such countries shows that sex is clearly occuring - the difference is, it is being restricted, thereby limited to the sphere of married life - a woman loses the control of her sexuality, due to it being subject to the whim of her husband - the actual disgrace then is artificially created, as a means of ensuring sexually liberal acts, such as consensual pre-marital/cohabital/casual sexual relations are deemed filthy, as apposed to what they really are, perhaps pleasureful (we should hope that women in such countries receive pleasure from sex). You seem to put the emphasis too highly on sex as a form of reproduction, in contrast to the concept of sex for the practice of having an orgasm, which generally would seem to be the sexually natural form of fornication - the removal of the orgasm from this equation then, restricts the sexual practice, in the woman's case, as a mere means of perpetuating blood-lines - it is no wonder than, that you cannot understand the notion of sex-for-pleasure, when quite simply, you have completely removed pleasure, on the woman's part at least, from the equation.

O man! If a woman was not sexually gratified we Muslims wouldn't go for as many as 4 women at a time!!
Chaste women observe fidelity enjoy sex with their husbands and vice versa , this is what is embodied in our culture and Islam. If you want to seek extra- sexual pleasure then you may resort to sinning by violating the religious code and satiating your sexual whims through prostitutes and perverts. The world is full of them too. Deflowering nice girls as 'try outs' is a curse on humanity and that's why too much of Western population is not a product of marital act. If sex and orgasm had to be 'cheapened' the way you wanted what would be the difference between humans and animals??

[JBI]

O man! If a woman was not sexually gratified we Muslims wouldn't go for as many as 4 women at a time!!
Chaste women observe fidelity enjoy sex with their husbands and vice versa , this is what is embodied in our culture and Islam. If you want to seek extra- sexual pleasure then you may resort to sinning by violating the religious code and satiating your sexual whims through prostitutes and perverts. The world is full of them too. Deflowering nice girls as 'try outs' is a curse on humanity and that's why too much of Western population is not a product of marital act. If sex and orgasm had to be 'cheapened' the way you wanted what would be the difference between humans and animals??

But you raise an interesting problem - if a girl is married off as a virgin at a young age, how can she possibly know anything about sex, or sexual gratification - we are assuming masturbation is illegal as well, and the young age of marriage will pretty much cancel her attempts - but where is the healthy sexuality for the sake of sexuality? The whole notion of deflowering as "cheapening" is kind of silly - the emphasis put on the blood stain appearing on a sheet controls the sexuality of a woman, and limits it to the confines of a marital bed, and only a marital bed - you look at that as a virtue, I look at that as a denial of the bodily - a denial of a fundamental human aspect - sexuality.

[mazHur]

But you raise an interesting problem - if a girl is married off as a virgin at a young age, how can she possibly know anything about sex, or sexual gratification - we are assuming masturbation is illegal as well, and the young age of marriage will pretty much cancel her attempts - but where is the healthy sexuality for the sake of sexuality? The whole notion of deflowering as "cheapening" is kind of silly - the emphasis put on the blood stain appearing on a sheet controls the sexuality of a woman, and limits it to the confines of a marital bed, and only a marital bed - you look at that as a virtue, I look at that as a denial of the bodily - a denial of a fundamental human aspect - sexuality.

O boy! Who do you think a 'young girl' is? Of course we are NOT discussing children, are we?

Under 18 marriage is illegal here for women. However, here women are seen to get married between the age of 20 to 25, but at lower age in backward or tribal areas.
There is no law on masturbation in Pakistan but 'masturbation' as such is not reported and merely a hidden 'personal affair'. However, it is considered bad socially and culturally because the philosophy behind sexuality in Islamic countries is that as soon as you cannot live without 'sex' get married. Extra-marital sex is forbidden at law and religion. It may not be the case in Canada or the West but where it is it is!

What do you mean by 'healthy sexuality'?? Why do you think women are mere tools for providing relentless sexual pleasure to men without any code of life?? Spend money, sin, if you want extra pleasure---the world is full of professional women who can turn you madder than mad and leave you a broke!

the emphasis put on the blood stain appearing on a sheet controls the sexuality of a woman, and limits it to the confines of a marital bed, and only a marital bed

this is nonsense. I never stated this. You are again surmising and conjecturing.....emphasizing 'superstitions' not in any way related to burqa or the edicts of Islam!

[mazHur]

Why Dress Modestly?
September 11th, 2009 | Author: Tiffany

Modest dress is a big issue for me… But it was a long road getting to this point.

Obviously, there are a lot of aspects of dressing modestly that I will be talking about over time. Let me just begin here by sharing with you a little bit about my journey to this point.

The history:

* When I walked into the church the day I got saved (a 31 year-old single mom), I was wearing skintight jeans, engineer boots, a Dickies mechanic shirt, and a leather motorcycle jacket.
* My favorite outfit for going out to watch my “rock star” friends perform at Hollywood nightclubs was a “school-girl” outfit: plaid micro-mini skirt, black go-go boots, black bra, white blouse tied across my midriff…
* I was a fitness competitor, personal trainer, bikini model, and bit-part actress whose main claim to fame was my six-pack abs.

Yeah, I’m serious.

So when I discuss the issues of the “practicality” of pants over skirts, or what kind of men you attract with your attire, I know whereof I speak.

After I accepted Christ, my attitude began to change. Not all at once, by a long shot.

I wanted to honor God in His house, and began wearing only dresses to church. (When I say a “dress,” I include a skirt and top in that group for this discussion)

As I hungered for knowledge of the Word, and fellowship of other believers, I began to have questions about some of the things I was reading.

For instance…

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. – 1 Timothy 2:9-10

I became more and more conscious of the fact that it was impossible to hold an intelligent conversation with a man while wearing something that invited his eyes to look somewhere other than my face – never mind the fact that the men who wanted to talk to me when I was dressed like that weren’t the good Christians, potential husband/father types that I was now looking for.

More modest dressing was the first step. I ditched the minis, the cleavage, the midriff-baring, and the form-fitting. I was quite modest, by all of our society’s standards.

It took several years, and marriage to a wonderful Christian man, to even begin to wonder about the next stage.

What do you do with this verse?

A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the Lord, your God. – Deuteronomy 22:5

We all agree that men shouldn’t wear dresses. So why is it not obvious that women shouldn’t wear pants?

In a debate that includes dress, hair length, and more, Wolf and I came to the conculsion that if I see someone from across the parking lot, I want to be able to tell immediately what gender they are.

Most people’s reponse to this aspect of the issue is that “society has changed” and “pants are women’s clothing now, too.” I disagree, on several counts. Read on.

Sarah has some great thoughts on feminine dress, posted at Preparing Daughters. In part, she explains,

We have several reasons why I wear dresses only. The main reason is not to defraud men with the way I dress. If a lady wears pants, a man’s eyes are drawn to a part of her body they should not be drawn to. This can cause a man to have impure thoughts. The same thing with tight, revealing tops or low-necked blouses. We have heard some say, “But he is responsible for his thoughts!” Yes, that is true, but it is also our responsibility as a godly woman to dress in a way that would not provoke those thoughts. Would you be willing to deny yourself the “pleasure” of dressing the way you want to help a brother in Christ? “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend” (1 Corinthians 8:13). We could paraphrase it and say, “If a certain type of clothing make my brother to offend, I will not dress that way…”

Another reason we wear dresses is to appear distinctly feminine. Compare a girl wearing pants to a girl wearing a dress! Who looks more feminine? Clearly it’s the girl in a dress! We know some like to think that they have cute feminine pants, but pants are still men’s clothing in our day.

I particularly like the questions posed at Mom of 9’s Place (she has full, descriptive answers posted there!), as a summary “checklist” of the above arguments, and more:

* IS IT WORN BY THE OPPOSITE SEX?
* WHAT DOES IT MAKE OTHERS THINK OF ME?
* PREDOMINATELY, WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE DRESS THAT WAY?
* MUST I USE THE ARGUMENTS OF THE WORLD TO JUSTIFY IT?
* WILL IT CAUSE OTHERS TO STUMBLE?

“Will it cause others to stumble”, also mentioned above, is a big, big thing. I suppose that’s a post unto itself just waiting to happen.

And of course, using the arguments of the world to justify our actions is just plain crazy.

“Everyone does it”! Are they serious?

Well gosh.

“Everyone” these days is getting divorced, engaging in pre-marital intimacy, speeding on the freeway, cheating on their taxes… So those are all okay?

What do even the most worldly parents say to kids who use that as an excuse?

If all your friends were jumping off a bridge, would you do it?

How much more so for a people who are supposed to be “set apart,” and to be “salt and light” in the world?

So, in our house, the men dress like men and the women dress like women.

J and I do not even own anything other than modestly-long dresses (including jumpers, skirts, etc.). We don’t wear shirts that have logos or printing across the chest.

Yes, we’re even working on modesty while swimming.

Now I suppose we should have another look at the issue of women covering their hair…


http://www.as-for-my-house.com/2009/...ress-modestly/

[Nightshade]

Ok I have an admition to make now, Ive actually been swung to lean towards the wow Burka's really can ( note can depends on context etc) be opressive just by their exsistance view. Not convinced on the Hijab though.

Anyway here is a point Ive been thinking of if we concider that the burka is 'protection' in that it allows you to blend into the background then to return to teh OP it follows that in the West wearing the Burka is self defeating.
Ive said it before and I will day it again I do not belive that i is an Ismalic requirment to even wear a Hijab, provided you are dressed in such a fashion as to show off how beautiful and amazing you are ( humility, vanity, pride all that lot) then its all grand. BUt to return to my point if wearing the muslim veil and I mean this in all points is to protect from harassment and and being the centre of attention. Then it SHOULDN't be worn in the west. Because unlike in cultures where you automatically stand out and thus become a focus point/ eye catching wearing it in the West does that. And yu do get harassed by all sorts of people.

So if protection from eyes is the reason to wear it then surley it would be more effective not to wear it and dress 'modestly' ie not skin tight with cleavege, belly, thong and thighs hanging out. OH and flashing knickers left right and centre. That way you dont attract attention either by being 'enticing' or by being a sore thumb.

Course thast not why I wear my hijjab to me ite more a form of self expression akin to my sisters' multicoloured mohawk, multiple ear piercings, tedancy to wear odd shoes, patterened nail polish ( these are not all the same sister though boy if it was she'd be a sight and a half)

[mazHur]

[QUOTE=Nightshade;775243]

in the West wearing the Burka is self defeating.

this may be a feeling of the minority..
a cultural oddity
I don't think the mormons feel the same way in Utah?

I do not belive that i is an Ismalic requirment to even wear a Hijab, provided you are dressed in such a fashion as to show off how beautiful and amazing you are ( humility, vanity, pride all that lot) then its all grand

.

Islam doesn't prescribe any kind of dress for women. It just requires women to observe modesty and cover their femininity and adornments. If any dress can do that so much the better.

if wearing the muslim veil and I mean this in all points is to protect from harassment and and being the centre of attention. Then it SHOULDN't be worn in the west. Because unlike in cultures where you automatically stand out and thus become a focus point/ eye catching wearing it in the West does that. And yu do get harassed by all sorts of people.

This sounds like a reasonable explanation...
a minority such as women in burqa or hijab can be 'self-inducive' of people's attention. But does this mean that Muslim women should give up their religious duty towards covering up their femininity and adornments in foreign non-Muslim countries?
Sikhs as men have denied to give up their religious duty to cover their heads with turban and could be seen all around the world with turbans on their heads, then why be Muslim women be required to feel so feebler and peculiar in this regard?

So if protection from eyes is the reason to wear it then surley it would be more effective not to wear it and dress 'modestly'

this evidences the cultural problem faced by Muslim women in the West.
Some women do seem to feel 'awkward' with burqa in an unusual environment but does that mean they should leave their own 'right' or 'duty' for the sake of majority?
Would that mean that a cow-worshipping Hindu would be compelled to slaughter cows and eat beef in an alien environment where majority took pork??

[Nightshade]

Islam doesn't prescribe any kind of dress for women. It just requires women to observe modesty and cover their femininity and adornments. If any dress can do that so much the better.

I am aware of that, which is why I hold that it all cultural more than religious.

This sounds like a reasonable explanation...
a minority such as women in burqa or hijab can be 'self-inducive' of people's attention. But does this mean that Muslim women should give up their religious duty towards covering up their femininity and adornments in foreign non-Muslim countries?
Sikhs as men have denied to give up their religious duty to cover their heads with turban and could be seen all around the world with turbans on their heads, then why be Muslim women be required to feel so feebler and peculiar in this regard?

Look I am not going into the argument except tha even though I wear a hijjab and am a practising muslim I do not belive it isa religious duty or requirment, I belive it is deeply cultural but also can often act as an aid or backup to the wearer in being happy wiyh the decisions made , in my personal experiance.

this evidences the cultural problem faced by Muslim women in the West.
Some women do seem to feel 'awkward' with burqa in an unusual environment but does that mean they should leave their own 'right' or 'duty' for the sake of majority?
Would that mean that a cow-worshipping Hindu would be compelled to slaughter cows and eat beef in an alien environment where majority took pork??

Look mezhur, yu ae not a woman and you don't live in the west and you don't wear a hijab, and lets face it the hijjab is the least 'offensive' to west sesabilities of all the dress, whether this is the correct attitude to have or not is irelevant in this point . Because freedom of speach and expression is a fallacy, oh societyis trying o fix it but you will never have 100% freedom for 100% of the population becasue one persons freedom comes at the expense of another far too often.

My point is this I have been 'harrassed' more than once because of being so blatantly muslim, and once or twice I have actually been properly scared, just a couple of hours ago I was seriously concidering takin off my hijab and I hiding it in my bag and carrying on without it as I had accidentlywondered into an area that is known for assults ( to the point of hospitalisation) on anyone different. And by different I mean gingers, goths, emos, 'pretty' boys,gays, skiny lanky people, let alone people of differngt race or religion. I ddidn't but that was because I realised that there were too many people around and I can walk double fast when I need to.

Where is the protection of the hijjab if I end up in hospital? I know, I know God will protect me, but God helps those who help themselves and deliberatly flirting with danger is hardly smart or sensible!

[mazHur]

QUOTE=Nightshade;


Look mezhur, yu ae not a woman and you don't live in the west and you don't wear a hijab, and lets face it the hijjab is the least 'offensive' to west sesabilities of all the dress, whether this is the correct attitude to have or not is irelevant in this point . Because freedom of speach and expression is a fallacy, oh societyis trying o fix it but you will never have 100% freedom for 100% of the population becasue one persons freedom comes at the expense of another far too often.

My point is this I have been 'harrassed' more than once because of being so blatantly muslim, and once or twice I have actually been properly scared, just a couple of hours ago I was seriously concidering takin off my hijab and I hiding it in my bag and carrying on without it as I had accidentlywondered into an area that is known for assults ( to the point of hospitalisation) on anyone different. And by different I mean gingers, goths, emos, 'pretty' boys,gays, skiny lanky people, let alone people of differngt race or religion. I ddidn't but that was because I realised that there were too many people around and I can walk double fast when I need to.

Where is the protection of the hijjab if I end up in hospital? I know, I know God will protect me, but God helps those who help themselves and deliberatly flirting with danger is hardly smart or sensible!

Shade, I am sorry to hear all that. As you have a genuine reason ie apprehension of life in a non-Muslim country, Islam permits you to do away with your hijab to keep yourself safe. However, this apprehension could not have been occured to you in an Islamic state or even non-Islamic state such as India or Sri Lanka and in case someone had tried to molest you held have had it. I can but only deplore the mentality of those who torment you that way in the so -called 'civilized nations'! What are they doing with their law and justice-just controlling traffic and issuing tickets??

[JBI]

Shade, I am sorry to hear all that. As you have a genuine reason ie apprehension of life in a non-Muslim country, Islam permits you to do away with your hijab to keep yourself safe. However, this apprehension could not have been occured to you in an Islamic state or even non-Islamic state such as India or Sri Lanka and in case someone had tried to molest you held have had it. I can but only deplore the mentality of those who torment you that way in the so -called 'civilized nations'! What are they doing with their law and justice-just controlling traffic and issuing tickets??

Look, she has already stated that she believes the Hijab to function as a source of cultural association, rather than as a religious obligation for women - in that sense, God has nothing to do with her choices, and it isn't god who is going to forgive her, as, according to what she has just said, she does not believe Islam requires women to wear a Burqa - the taking it off for the sake of freedom then, has nothing to do with God, as god, according to her believe, as stated above, does not require, or expect women to wear a hijab, as, stated above, it is a cultural requirement (need I use bold text?).

{edit}

I'm not English, so I cannot comment on the state of things there, but you completely miss the point - the point was, that the hijab, or the Burka, in the case of England, and the neighbourhood she was frequenting, did not, and does not function as a protective device against assault, and in fact, can increase the likelihood, as she has mentioned from anecdotal evidence - in other words, she completely tossed out your argument in respect to the values of Western society, instead of, as you chose to interpret things, decry that the West is bigoted, and backwards, and forces her to go against her God's commandments.

[AlaskaDan]

If there truly is a God, does anyone really believe that he cares at all what you are wearing or if you shaved today or what your hair style is like?

Wouldn't a God care more what kind of person you were or how you treated other people?

[Farah786]

the burkha and the nikab and the headscarf are very different from one another. The nikab is covering the face. The burkha is the loose kinda of coat worn ontop of the clothing. The headscarf if just a headscarf, some larger than others, i.e. some worn over the top and back of body, some just covering the hair and neck, and some just covering the hair and tied up at head or at back.

[The Atheist]

This is worth adding into the mix:

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Wearing the burqa is neither Islamic nor socially acceptable.

[mazHur]

This is worth adding into the mix:

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Wearing the burqa is neither Islamic nor socially acceptable.

<<<<We communicate with each other with our faces<<<<<<

Well, that's funny! She reminds me of supine pose as explained in Kama Sutra :sigh:
I only knew humans communicated through their 'EYES' !!....and eyes are not hidden by the burqa!

Will someone ask her what does her 'Shia Islam' say about Purdah and is she being loyal to her FAITH by complying with the edict there??

She writes like a grade 5 school girl who has little knowledge about the religion she confesses to believe in. Almost the whole of Iran is Shia...even women cover themselves up there. What kinda Muslim she is?? Is she even a woman?? Ha , she doesn't like the scarf, the burqa, etc even as a fashion...that's okay, but why try to criticize those women who like it or try to malign their attire with flimsy reasoning??

God Save Islam
Muslims are out of their minds!

I've worked in the Middle East for the last 15 years but must honestly say that because of the formal/cultural separation of the sexes it would be hard to get a first hand female's perspective on this subject
In Saudi its very strict, but then on occasion when flying out from the Kingdom to the UK, the speed with which the Saudi women change into Western dress once airborn is quite something.
In Iran, its quite strict in public, but then when invited to an Iranian's house for a meal, its quite normal to sit down with the wife without the burka & head scarf and hold a normal discussion face to face. Unheard of in Saudi hospitality, where you sit with the man only and then ask him to thank his wife for the nice meal.
I think that here in Qatar, they have found the right balance. Head scarfs, covered arms, sharp but modest dressing.
Not sure if that helps.

you are pretty right. This is what Darwinian's call ADAPTILITY or ADAPTATION !!

[The Atheist]

I have to say, this smacks of the worst kind of defensiveness, because you're wrong in so many places.

Well, that's funny! She reminds me of supine pose as explained in Kama Sutra :sigh:

Where does this come from?

How could Yasmin Alibhai-Brown possibly remind you of the Kama Sutra?

She is 60 years old and there isn't even a photo with the article. The images of Yasmin available online are professional head shots, as one would expect of an author.

I only knew humans communicated through their 'EYES' !!....and eyes are not hidden by the burqa!

Humans only communicate through their eyes?

What?

Will someone ask her what does her 'Shia Islam' say about Purdah and is she being loyal to her FAITH by complying with the edict there??

Did you read the article? Of course she isn't obeying purdah rules. Why would she? Whether she's loyal to her faith is pretty obvious. She may have a different view to you, but her loyalty is unquestionable. Especially if you read the article.

She writes like a grade 5 school girl who has little knowledge about the religion she confesses to believe in.

This is a pretty odd way to attack an accomplished author, especially in the light of the article, which is extremely well written, mature, and nothing less than diametrically opposite to what a 5 year old would write like.

That you dismiss her religious knowledge is interesting, because she barely mentions it in the article, so it another meaningless, and purely defensive, attack.

Almost the whole of Iran is Shia...even women cover themselves up there.

Your point being?

She does note that in the piece...

What kinda Muslim she is?? Is she even a woman??

Pretty easy to find out the answers to those questions.

Ha , she doesn't like the scarf, the burqa, etc even as a fashion...that's okay, but why try to criticize those women who like it or try to malign their attire with flimsy reasoning??

Which flimsy reasoning is that?

[caddy_caddy]

Burka and the like is Islam in its extreme ; it's a threat , symbol of fear . For that reason westerners feel urged to eliminate it from their societies unlike other symbols they don't fear .I think we should try our best to reduce fear and build some trust between each other

In our societes it's sometimes a symbol of suppression . In this case change should arise from the society itself .At other times it is a symbol of very special relation with God . Women who wear it are reconciled with themselves and so proud of it . We cannot judge unless we can ask this very woman how does she feel about herself .

This is an immensly complicated topic. Here in Denmark, in line with increasing racism, it seems to have taken great proportions. At this point, it is now forbidden for women wearing simply a hijab, the headscarf, to rule in court. This was decided as a young woman as the first managed to complete the degree, in spite of all odds. Ridiculous.
I think it is important to remember that the bhurka, Hijab, etc, are not just religious symbols, but also cultural. I would never wear one, but I do think it is important to allow women who wish to wear one that right. Instead of outlawing it, one can assist those whom find it difficult to stop wearing one for social or family related reasons.
While I'm atheist I think its silly to ban religious symbols, as they are a part of our cultures, and our religions, or non-religions are a part of who we are. Instead I would argue that society should put its time and money into teaching tolerance and informing about the benefits of multidiversity.

Great and fair .

Niamh and Nighshade -- you said that hijab is cultural not religious . Hijab is religious and mandatory . Women who do not wear it are considered sinners and will be punished , so why God would punish us for sth He does not command ??
God is just and He won't punish us for something cultural .
I think it is sth very important every one should know .