To feel sad to see 5 year old girl in hijab(909 Posts)
Probably will get flamed for this & iabu as its not my business.
I am not racist in any way. I am Asian myself and have many Muslim friends.
Growing up, I never saw any muslim girls with hijabs. This is a trend which has been growing since the late 90s.
I know that the meaning behind the hijab is to protect modesty and show committment to Islam. It is supposed to be the girls/womans decision after much thought and dedication.
At 5 years old they are still getting changed in the classroom for PE and she won't be able to do this now with boys around. How will she play and do PE freely? She has been singled out by the views of her parents.
Also, she will barely know what religion means, so she has not made an informed decision for herself.
Normally she is chasing about with my DS and other kids before school.Today she was just stood there, perhaps embarrassed or told not to?
I felt very sad
sisters we are oppressed.
Is true, we dont believe in freedom we believe in submission.
dondrapers why does what i wear have to be seen in comaparison to what my husband wears?
Why can i not just be me? do i have to think oh i better not wear what i like as my husband doesnt dress like that?
"Not for the sake of these women, but because you cannot stand the hijab"
Please don't ascribe to me views I don't hold. This is all in your head.
"you have been so narrow minded and continuously been oppressive of freedom of choice."
Not true at all. You haven't read my posts. In fact it is more of an appeal to educated, non-oppressed, free Muslim women. And there was a specific post (which you cannot possibly have read) where I said choice was extremely important, and a ban on covering would defeat the purpose.
"You have extremely bigoted views. FYI: a bigot is a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own."
Absolutely not true. I am tolerant of all views - I don't have to agree with you. By that definition you would fit it yourself. In fact you misrepresent my views, which is worse: you come to a judgement full of prejudice.
"your views smack of the disgusting out-dated mentality of being somehow superior or trying to teach 'them' of a better way of life, so they can see how great 'we' are"
How ironic. To be accused of being out-dated by someone who defends gender inequality. If you'd read my posts, you'd see the issue of colonial feminism has been discussed. In fact I was asked to listen to Muslim women and enlighten them, I was asked to criticise the society and I was asked to take a stand. Not by anyone on my side of the debate, I suggest you read my posts again, and some of my links.
It seems that once again you've been addressing imaginary posts by an imaginary person.
Gah: Alot from this *thread not friend (damn you autocorrect!)
Iv learnt alot from this friend. Those verses quoted from the bible about women covering their heads gave me the context of why head covering is seen as submissive in the west. Because those verses specifically use the words to submit to men and mention the place of women to men.
The sole two verses in the quran about hijab are completely different to the extent to the bible verses on headcovering that it comes down to the hadith and interpretation to get the true meaning. As The quran leaves it open as to what is adornment and then what is a cover. Will post the verses side by side tomorrow to show what i mean and compare.
the less than ideal opinion I think you are referring to is the Persian meaning of awrah not the Arabic meaning. In The latter the word awrah is neither confined to women nor even just to the body- in the quran awrah is translated to mean 'vulnerable' as well as the 'nakedness' of both men and women.
The debate on differences in what constitutes awrah for men and women in different parts of the Muslim world is similar to what constitutes awrah in the western world. It isnt a race to see who can be the most restrictive as much as different cultural traditions and religious takes within sunni islam. Compare attitudes to nakedness between the countries Germany/Sweden/ Britain/America. All 'protestant' christian countries. there are often threads about these differences in societal norms- amongst liberal westrn democracies. why can't a women walk around topless in the UK when a man can walk around topless? she may even be arrested for that.
The difference of mens and womens bodies can be seen in advertising also. It is womens bodies that are used to adorn products and services. to whose eye? the male gaze. Even for products used by both men and women. In the quran the significant verses on covering men are commanded to lower their gaze and cover their private parts. But the following verse to women doesn't use the word 'private parts' but the word 'adornment'. So tells women to lower their gaze and cover their adornment 'except what is usually apparent'. The word adornment is also used in the quran to describe 'children' - that they are an adornment of this world. And the stars are described as 'adornments' for the heavens. And gold and clothes are described as 'adornments' - that which enhances the attraction of something. the quran describes the private parts of women as adornments but also women themselves as part of the adornment of the worldly life-that women themselves not their bodies enhance the beauty of the temporary world. (but not for the benefit of capitalism)
As to voices there is a verse in the quran specifically to the wives of the prophet that says do not 'soften' your voices when talking to unrelated men 'lest he in whose heart is a disease will move with desire'. It says instead therefore 'speak in an honourable manner' (not 'do not speak at all') which is the difference in modern times between speaking in a 'formal' manner and a 'casual' manner. some muslims took this verse to mean that the voice is also part of the 'awrah' or part of the 'adornment' of women. But many muslims take it as more of a general guide rather than law- not least because it specifically addresses a Group. It's also based on the culture of the place where the quran is being read.
We seem to nearing the end of this thread - it is unfortunate that crumbled , you have been so narrow minded and continuously been oppressive of freedom of choice. Please stop pretending to care about the women in other countries. you are quite disingenuous and very unreceptive to any information that contradicts or challenges your unpalatable views that deprive the woman of freedom of choice.
The problems of the oppressed women around the world do not start and end at the hijab - It has however become the cause to champion, for people like you - to liberate these women from something that was not the cause of their suffering in the first place. Not for the sake of these women, but because you cannot stand the hijab. You have decided to make the hijab symbolic of oppression -again a narrow and blinkered and incorrect view, because time after time, hijab wearing and non-hijab wearing women here have told you that they are not oppressed.
You can try to cover it however you like (no pun intended!) but your views smack of the disgusting out-dated mentality of being somehow superior or trying to teach 'them' of a better way of life, so they can see how great 'we' are. Let them remove 'their' funny costume and become like 'us' to feel liberated. Because 'their' life is not as 'enriched as 'ours' until they do. You talk of freedom - all you have done in this entire thread is try to take away another woman's freedom, because of your beliefs - with little regard for theirs.
You have extremely bigoted views. FYI: a bigot is a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race (world english dictionary)
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
I was reading about awrah on Wikipedia (yes, I know Wikipedia isn't an unimpeachable source), and several things stood out to me.
The etymological derivation of awrah itself indicates an opinion of women less than ideal, but more specifically, the difference in definitions of what is awrah for men and for women seems to me to be a competition for who can be the most restrictive in what is and isn't considered to be an 'intimate part'.
Why are womens' faces, in some definitions, intimate, and not mens'? And even womens' voices are considered awrah in some instances. Why not mens' voices?
Yes Sheikhs do cover up, but only when it suits them (eg in the desert). They are allowed to go without coverings if they prefer and usually do so when in the west. here we have Sheikh Mohammed meeting the Queen.
Again, complete disengenuity...
Sorry, I genuinely don't mean to be rude, but seriously - we can all see in every day life that men do not cover themselves to anything like the same degree that women do.
What is the point of saying 'some' men do? It doesn't persuade me in the slightest that overall men choose not to cover (part or all of) themselves
For goodness sake, an old lady wearing a headscarf to protect her hairdo is nothing like 'covering'. The Queen usually wears hers when she is horseriding or visiting her racehorses, she doesn't cover up every time she goes out in public. Most old ladies who wear headscarves are only using them as a version of a hat, for the same reasons we all wear hats, to keep warm/cool or keep our hair tidy on a wet and windy day. It has no religious significance whatsoever.
As for why emulate France? At least they are trying to do something about FGM, which is more than our govt is.
dondraper from what I have seen it seems some Muslims cover (to varying degrees) and some don't - male and female.
What anyone chooses to wear or not in the uk shouldn't bother anyone else as long as it is within the law and the law stays as it is.
I would say that I personally find face coverings disturbing and somewhat antisocial but even then if that's what someone wants to wear, their choice.
LittleSporks and nailak - sorry, but once again, you haven't been able to give me anything like a convincing argument as to why women routinely cover (all or part of) themselves and mend don't, and you know it
The 'arguments' you are trying to present are utterly disengenuous.
Muslim men do not cover themselves in anything like the way women do.
I have seen plenty of Muslim men working around with their knees exposed, for one. I see them in summer with their shorts on. Their sons have shorts on, too. I see some of their wives covered head to toe in black. Sorry, but I think it is appalling, and I criticise it.
Yet again, nothing like a convincing argument has been presented as to why women feel the need to 'choose' to cover (all or part of) themselves, and men freely reject it.
If covering is so wonderful, why don't the men do it too?
It's a simple question for which nobody has ever been able to give me an answer.
And as for sheiks - yes, can see why someone who doesn't cut their hair might deal with it in the way they do. What does that have to do with covering one's actual body?
I am aware that plenty of women don't cover. It is, after all, a choice. What's your point?
"covering all parts of the body sometimes including the hands and face is also not what happens in many Muslim countries!"
Also I don't know what your point here is.
"covering the hair, and wearing modest clothing is common in many cultures"
In Indian (hindu) culture women often cover the head, but not the hair: I'm aware that Jewish women will often wear a wig. The second is attached to religion. It is not common in many cultures to cover every wisp of hair and every piece of skin, sometimes including the face, apart from the hands.
covering all parts of the body sometimes including the hands and face is also not what happens in many Muslim countries!
covering the hair, and wearing modest clothing is common in many cultures,
plenty of Muslim women dont cover, including most of Pakistan, TUnisia, Turkey etc, why would u feel there is a need to demonstrate this?
I think there's something quite central you don't understand. Quite apart from the fact that women should be able to wear what they want, a ban would defeat the purpose. The idea is that non-oppressed, free women CHOOSE to reject covering. That sets an example, shows it's possible to be a Muslim woman without covering. It isolates and identifies those under coercion. It makes one part of oppression visible.
"would you campaign for womens rights to cover?"
No of course not! I disagree with the choice and criticise it! Why would I campaign for it? Why would you even think that?
Completely covering the hair and all parts of the body except the hands and sometimes the face is NOT common to all cultures and communities, and pretending it is, if I may quote Gosh, is disingenuous.
wearing a scarf is also common to many cultures and communities as has been repeatedly stated on this thread!!!
you defend right to choose, so would you campaign for womens rights to cover?
As campaigning for one side and not the other is not representing choice.
It is like saying I would campaign for women not to be forced to have abortions, but I am critical of womens choice to have abortions, I think they choose badly, but I am pro choice......
THe point is men make their choices and women make their choices. WOuld I rather my husband walked around in thobe, Yes I would. However I cant control the way he dresses and he cant control the way I dress.
I like to be recognised as Muslim. My husband can be recognised as Muslim through his nationality and beard, it is said in the Quran part of the reason to wear jilbaab is to be recognised as Muslims.
You will find in all traditions that it is normal for women to be in general more observant then the men.
Plenty of men don't lol plenty of men accompanied by covered women lol lol
Marriage is common to all societies and all communities. It makes perfect sense.
Oh, I do defend your right to choose nailak. Have you not read my posts. I think there are women who choose badly - at this time - and I reserve the right to express that belief and to be critical of that choice.
ok so if i get married that is validating those who are forced in to marriage?
as it is a visible validation and normalisation of oppression?
no, it doesnt make sense.
erm plenty of men do choose to cover up..lol, have you not seen sheikhs?
do a google image search of sheikh and you will see plenty of men with their head covered!
In the west ther private parts of men and women differ. A man can walk around topless, a woman cant.
In Islam the private parts of men and women are still different. For both they are more.
So a Muslim man cannot walk around with his knees or tummy showing. As the private parts for men are greater in Islam then in current society.
Similarly the private parts for women are greater.
I don't understand how you can want to defend womens rights to choose, as long as they choose a particular choice, if they choose something else you wont defend it.
That would be like me saying I will defend womens rights to wear hijab in Turkey or France, or Tunisia, but I wont defend those who are forced not to wear it.
Either you believe in choice, and you believe women are intelligent and capable of making their own decisions.
Or you believe women are not capable of making their own decisions and need to be told or persuaded in to making the right choices, based on your intepretations of right and wrong.
Nailak: it makes perfect sense: it is a visible validation and normalisation of oppression.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.