To feel sad to see 5 year old girl in hijab

[INeedSomeSun]

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

dondraper what do you mean by 'cover' ?
Do you mean covering the face?

If women are required to cover themselves in the cause of religion did god make a mistake ? Perhaps he should have created them hairless.

Our natural state is nakedness, like all the other animals. We are born that way. The only genuine reason for covering up is environmental. Anything else is unnatural.

bombayjoeThere does seem to have been a change, but it's across religious sectors. Within Orthodox Judaism and many Orthodox Christian sects have noticed a rise in women choosing to cover. The Catholic media has noticed a rise in young women wearing the lace veil - for reasons such as sign of faith, stops distractions during Mass, to a backlash against perceived immodesty. It isn't a specifically Muslim issue, even if British mainstream media likes to tell us it is.

don Men do have a tradition of headcovering. From the Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History "A focus on women's veiling and covering practices in general can obscure the fact men have historically engaged in comparable practices. For example...in pre-Islamic Arabia for veiling by men, which the scholar Fadwa El Guindi suggests served as a protection against the harm resulting from envy. In ancient Tome, the men's toga was drawn over the head during certain religious observances. And many cultures require head coverings of various kids, even if not veils per si - for men to observe propriety; until the second half of the 20th century in the West, for example, a respectable man would not have left his home without his hat, whether a worker's cloth cap or businessman's homburg". There are several Muslim male head coverings, many choose to do so (quite a large population do near me). There are many cultures around the world in which men wear head coverings even to this day. Why British men no longer do so is possibly because, once it fell out of fashion, it became culturally linked to women and men are taught not to want to things that could be seen as feminine without a good excuse. Or, they don't tend to wear their hair long any longer so there isn't much physical benefit much like when wigs fell out of favour after we could control lice better.

crumbled What are we now meaning by cover then? Everyone is using Hijab, headscarf, headcovering and cover to the point of mixed messages it seems. The OP is about a girl in a Hijab, not a burka, I don't think anyone here is recommending a burka. However, mixed messages does not invalidate the fact that the imperialistic flavour and history behind this discussion should be acknowledged or that shaming and blaming women or forcefully taking away clothes does not ever give people any real resources to get out of oppression. It is usually just a part of the oppression from somewhere else. We should consider what real resources we can give people, what we can do to end oppression rather than continuing to talk about how others are to blame and attacking real or perceived victims.

"
The intentions make no difference at all. Covering is not a requirement, it's a choice. You are, after all, not oppressed. You wear it, for whatever reason, out of choice. Which is alright, of course, for you, but in making that choice you validate and normalise the non-choice of many other women. And not just "some women, somewhere" - maybe the woman next door. How do you know?"

When I have sex with my husband it is a choice. In making that choice do i normalise and validate those who are raped by their husband?

of course not. It makes no sense.

Spork: would you agree with me about women who choose to wear a veil and to cover every wisp of hair with only hands and face showing?

Nailak: it makes perfect sense: it is a visible validation and normalisation of oppression.

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.

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.

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.

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.

wearing a scarf is also common to many cultures and communities as has been repeatedly stated on this thread!!!

"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.

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.

plenty of Muslim women dont cover, including most of Pakistan, TUnisia, Turkey etc, why would u feel there is a need to demonstrate this?

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,

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?