And you somehow believe it is a requirement for women to wear hidjabs?
It is not. I do not wear one. Some women in the family do, some do not, even between the mother and the daughters. There is no law for this.
Yes, more oppressive to the muslim woman is the hard religious bigotry and ignorance that denies that they have their own minds and their own agency, based on the gross stereotypes that think the Saudi Wahabbites are all of the muslims or even actually typical.
Oh, I don’t suppose it was ~really~ necessary. 
Actually, that depends on where you are. In rural Cameroon, my neighbor would sometimes visit with her headscarf on and her shirt off!
Every culture has things they expect people to cover for the sake of modesty, and every culture has silly rules. My favorite here is that you are supposed to wear nylons to job interviews— our legs are somehow inappropriate, so we have to wear fake legs that cover our real legs. It’s just completely bizarre. Most of this stuff is strange and needlessly oppressive when you take a step back and look at it as an outsider.
Far be it from me to question our resident expert on all things Muslim but maybe you could refute or explain this map:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Map3.10RequiredDressCodesforWomen_compressed.jpg/1200px-Map3.10RequiredDressCodesforWomen_compressed.jpg
Right. Now there’s a rule that’s more restrictive for men. Neither men nor women can show bare legs in a job interview, generally speaking. But women have at least two choices for how to accomplish the coverage, men only one.
And let’s face it, if a guy goes in to most job interviews in a kilt, he ain’t getting the job.
That map supports the claim. You’ve got a bunch of predominantly Muslim countries, and all have different requirements and enforcement of covering. Ergo, covering is a civil/social/cultural requirement, not a religious one.
Although I think it more fair to say that *some *women interpret the Quran to require different levels of cover, from full to none at all. I’ve certainly talked with women who do believe it a requirement from god that they cover. One specifically said to me, “It’s not men who require us to cover, it’s GOD!” So I think it’s fair to say that opinions differ.
The Quran mentions covering bosoms and guarding your modesty (24.31), and wearing outer garments when abroad (33.59). It doesn’t give specific fashion advice beyond that. How you interpret “guarding your modesty” is up to you, unless you live in a place with a government that has opinions on the matter.
That’s one weak “ergo”, imho.
And of course, the same has been true of the verses (1 Cor.) interpreted by, or for, Christian women.
I have worn a hijab when traveling in places where it is the norm for a large chunk of the female population and/or when entering a mosque. But then as I am of (long-ago) Mediterranean heritage, my physical appearance is such that depending on where I am, I might be mistaken for a local until I open my mouth (it happened in Morocco once, with hilarious results). I tend to keep a simple all-purpose hijab in my bag when traveling in places where it might come in handy.
Would I do it at home in the U.S.? I don’t know. At various points in my life I’ve worn various types of head coverings, from a felt fedora to a Russian flowered peasant scarf to a bandana to keep my hair out of my face, all of which felt natural at the time. I suppose if I were living somewhere where it was the norm, I might do it now and again just to blend in and be hassled less. But at home? It’s not out of the question, but I don’t see it happening except in a very narrow set of circumstances - maybe if I had a close friend who was a hijabi and she asked me to do it with her? I don’t know - heck, my grandmother grew up an Orthodox Jew, and even she never really covered her head as an adult. So head coverings are a not terribly long ago part of my own heritage, but it would still feel weird.
I do think some women wear ones that are really beautiful, though, particularly the South Asian and Turkish ones I have seen.
It must be so burdening to have an actual muslim interrupt a desired festival of prejudiced opinions without good foundations in any knowledge. It seems better perhaps that the muslims and the muslim women be the silent objectified victims for the white knighting hand-wringing and the strange assertions.
I personally would be profoundly ashamed to assert and write similarly asserted ignorant things, as to what is asserted here often about the muslims, about the christians or the jews based on my ‘small’ knowledge…
What am I to refute from a non-sourced wikipedia graphic that those with the Pre Conclusions that will preach their views regardless…. ?
In any case the map has a number of subjective colorings and one objective coloring - that of the legal injunction to wear the hidjab (as it is mentioning the veiling we can understand this). It is hard even to understand why all of the westernmost African Islamic countries of the Senegal, the Mali etc are missing but since they do not fit the implied narrative, perhaps it was ‘inconvenient’
So the objective coloring, there are the three countries - the Iran (where the women push back strongly on the imposed injunction), the Saudis who I have already expressed my opinion of, and the Sudan under the dictatorship.
Then there are the added dark coloring of the Afghanistan, the Pakistan, the Iraq, the Yemen, the Niger and the Nigeria… that say “specific garments required”. On what basis the Niger and the Nigeria is asserted I do not know (I can not think of any Nigerian law or code in this fashion), the Afghanistan is of course a failed state. The Pakistan I do not know what is pretended there, I have been to the Pakistan and women wore all kinds of things (as AK84 has attested).
What this “specific garments” is then pretending to show or analyze I can not tell or understand what kind of objective or a non-prejudiced basis is being used. The other categories have similar, I know the Algerian well, what this map is pretending about the Algeria I can not understand.
The majority of the muslim world and representing the enormous majority of the muslims population (including my countries) there is no legal requirement for hidjab, and even in this map with its clear seeking to present a critical image focused on the muslims, this is clear.
So perhaps the pretending to be concerned about muslim women as their hidjab over the hatred can explain how a map that shows that the huge majority of muslim majority countries by the population or just by the simple numbers have no laws imposing the hidjab and even in a significant population factor, ‘discourage’ it socially some how says that we are suffering from the hidjab.
As a secular, and as a non-hidjab wearer - I do not even like it - I am more concerned about the bigotry expressed towards the ordinary pious ones (or the many in the Western countries as among certain of my family who put it on from the cultural-religious expression as defiance against the prejudice) and the hatred and violence directed to them than the hidjab itself.
Or as the cartoon I shared shows, there is the Hidjab and there is the Hidjab - from the sexy hidjab to the chic hidjab to the beledi (country peasant) hidjab to the Wahhabite versions to the Niqabi Wahhabite ninja. I am concerned only about the Wahhabites with their restrictions, their stupid gloves and their stupid niqab.
The ordinary Hidjab is not an oppression, any more than the Western pressure on women to be sexy and made-up is an oppression. Or as Even sven pointed out, wear other things.
No burden at all. I welcome your insights. I just wish you’d lose the attitude.
That map was just to illustrate that it’s not just Saudi Wahabis who demand the veil.I am quite aware it’s not the same across the entire religious population. My hometown has decent sized Lebanese and Somalian communitiies. The former rarely wear it, the latter often (though Lebanese are probably half Christian).
no it is the Saudi, the Sudanese dictatorship with the close connection to the Wahhabites and the the Al Qaeda stranges, and the Iran. Et voilà, those are the three.
It says then what I said.
Which is actually much more literally clear (than the Quran) that the head of a woman should be covered during prayer, to my heathen reading. There’s not a lot of room for interpretation there, is there? Cover or shave, those are your only options, because Eden.
In college, I used to wear a pashmina wrapped around my head in one of the common hijab fashions, to keep the snow off of my hair. I got way more obnoxious attention from redneck assholes than I ever did while walking around in very tiny skirts. I am about two shades paler than typing paper, and in no way apt to be hastily profiled as a Muslim woman otherwise.
I moved to Boston, where so far as I can tell, few if any people pay headscarves any attention. I’ve established experimentally that if you tell Muslim ladies “I really like your scarf,” they take it about like they would, “I really like your hat.” I keep meaning to get one of the Haitian or African women where I volunteer to teach me how to do the twisty-rose-turban thing they do with theirs.
I would certainly wear one if invited into a mosque or other space where it would be considered inappropriate for me to wander around with my hair uncovered. I’d feel disrespectful without one. I also made it a point to scare up a pretty hat when I ushered for Hillel, even though I wasn’t required to walk into the sanctuary, and didn’t even know if I’d be assigned to the conservative services.
That’s actually not what you said. You said all the haters only think about Saudi Wahhabites when they think “Muslim”. And frankly, I don’t get what you’re saying in this post at all. Those are the three what? Al Qaeda “stranges”? My guess is you mean “strangers” but that doesn’t make sense either.
The problem with your map is that it doesn’t differentiate between places where hijab is mandatory (which are a handful of places that are generally screwed up in any number of ways) and places where hijab is just…clothing.
People tend to wear the customary clothing of their region, be it a salwar kameez, dashiki or jeans and a tee-shirt. I know that if I went to Namibia, which has areas where toplessness is the norm, I wouldn’t feel comfortable walking down the street bare breasted. Is this because I’m horribly opressed? No, of course not (well, I am a little oppressed in the many states where being bare-chested is illegal). It just means that I was raised someplace where women wear shirts, and that’s what I find comfortable and fashionable.
This is kinda related.
My dad thinks Indian women who wear saris are oppressed. He can’t imagine that they choose to wear those outfits on their own volition. He also thinks Muslim women who wear hijabs are oppressed. He can’t imagine that they’d cover their hair without being forced to.
But I’m guessing he thinks his wife isn’t oppressed when she wears high heeled shoes and shaves her legs.
It hasn’t occurred to him that she dresses this way because of societal pressure and her desire to fit in. She wants her husband to see her as attractive, and she wants others to see her as a respectable woman. If she’s oppressed, then so is pretty much anyone who cares what others think.
I wasn’t aware that a scarf was a Muslim exclusive garment.
Yes it does. I don’t know exactly how accurate it is but the dark green is labeled "violence or legal prosecutions for violations ".
Anyways, I don’t think hijab=oppression so I’ll just bow out now.
