Why Muslim girls cover up for Islam

By Thair Shaikh
The case of Shabina Begum is just one example of young women rejecting Western values



A GROWING number of British Muslim girls are embracing a strict version of Islam in a similar manner to Shabina Begum, who won a landmark ruling earlier this week to wear religious dress to school.
While Miss Begum’s victory to wear the jilbab to lessons was a personal triumph, her case is just one example of a wider problem among the young female Muslims.

According to the Muslim Council of Britain, an increasing number of teenage girls are wearing Islamic clothes and are embracing the religion more intensely than their parents.

“They have fewer direct links with their country of origin compared with their parents and so more of the younger generation find an awareness of their identity through religion,” said Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the council.

“Many of them follow Islam more strictly than their parents and there is no doubt that an increasing number of young Muslim women are wearing the hijab and jilbab,” he said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-1511146,00.html

ISLAM means submission in Arabic...

There is a verse in the Koran that states: “O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their jalabib close around them; that is better that they will be recognised and not annoyed. And God is ever Forgiving, Gentle.”
From these and other references, Muslim scholars have determined that the minimum dress requirement for women is clothing that covers the entire body, apart from the face and the hands.

The jilbab: a long flowing gown, has to be worn in open public places but does not have to be worn indoors
Shalwar kameez: The most popular dress worn by Muslim women from the Indian subcontinent. The kameez is a long tunic and the shalwar are baggy pants. Jemima Khan used to wear these in Pakistan
Dupatta: a long, light scarf worn around the neck by women from the Indian subcontinent. Can be used to cover the head and face
Niqab: a veil covering the face worn by some Muslim women over the hijab or jilbab. The veil can have eye slits or can be grid-like
Burka: a shroud that covers the entire body, including the hands, feet, and face. Common in Afghanistan
Chador: an all-enveloping black garment revived in Iran in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khomeini

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-1511145,00.html

because even her hair is a temptation to a man is by and large healthy. Submission is one thing, but if it's because men can't control their own faith in Allah if "tempted", then it's nothing more than suppression of personal freedom and a warped since of faith.

edit: wording

"the veil should be in the eyes"

that you do not find the hijab healthy.

like everyone else here at the DU.

guilt/shame rant that says it's their fault for being immodest.

Shirin Ebadi, Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winning human rights lawyer, has talked a lot about this.

Also Ayan Hirsi Ali, Somali-born Muslim Dutch MP, who says peasant mentality of some Muslim males keeps women in mindframe of sex slaves fit only to exist as baby machines...

Ayan Hirsi Ali wrote the screenplay to Submission: see:
http://clarityandresolve.com/archives/2004/09/theo_van_gogh_m_1.php

But didn't feel like defending my position or getting into a semantic argument regarding dress code laws. If a woman wants to dress modestly, it's her choice, but I don't have to feel that her reasoning is logical or that her religious rights in the West should be an excuse for the further suppression of women in Islamic households. I am aware that not all Islamic households follow this same fundamentalist point of view and that more moderate Muslims exist and don't feel that covering their women from head to toe is necessary in practicing their faith.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2829274

was interesting exchange of views.

Ebadi has spoken out vociferously against those males who still treat Sharia law as their main preserve against criticism of sex abuse/exploitation.

He married a six year old??

until she reached puberty.

He had a bunch of wives.

...It seems to me that culture is the biggest factor in determining what "modest" means. I've seen Indian Muslims loosely cover their heads with a sheer scarf and consider this to be very observant. Which is pretty consistent with most religions: incorporate your own cultural practices into the religion.

there is a line between modesty and oppression.

It's one thing if they would prefer to wear a head scarf for example and loose fitting clothing.

It is difficult however to start accomidating people when they cover their entire face as well. Now by accomidate, I don't mean we shouldn't be tolerant, but they should be mindful that certain functions in society (like driving a car) are best advised not to be done in such conditions. I'm speaking of the case in FL, where the woman wanted to be able to get a drivers license, while completely covered.

Granted, my personal belief is that religious fundamentalism is unhealthy in any sense. The hypocrisy is probably the worst part. To allow men to wear shorts, tighter fitting clothing, allow the face and hair to be completely exposed, while forcing women to cover it all up, is indeed inherantly sexist.

As you said, it is also unhealthy, for it assumes that men are savage beasts that cannot resist any temptations.

misunderstood things. Mohammod(sp?) was actually the first (in an age where women were not expected to read or write or have any education) to make sure all woman know how to read and write. It was the work of other muslisms that have worked to degrade women.

(now you may scream at me all you want):hi:

and I have read a couple other bios on him. + my friend who is muslim herself. Her father and Uncle have strong debates about thier faith. Her father believes that the message has been corrupted by various people. His brother is of the belief that nothing is wrong with the view points today.

stories surrounding Muhammad have evidence

Sorry-- can't make a call for evidence when the attacks are wholly unsubstantiated to begin with.

The Qur'an, the hadith, the ta'rikh etc. for these early periods are so completely up for discussion, debate now-- and just as they've been debated for centuries.

Not to mention half of the stuff in the Bible.

Story of Lot, anyone????

How about Deuteronomy and Leviticus?????

As my (liberal) church group joked, a gay man eating lobster is TWICE as sinful.

Were all peasants taught to read and write? How was this done? Were public schools established in villages? Were slaves taught to read and write? And what was the material basis for doing so? Today, we have cheap paper. Before that, children were taught using slates. I've never heard of a society that had universal literacy prior to modern times. The claim that Mohammad achieved this is remarkable.

Universal literacy is not an easy achievement. It takes a considerable education system wherever it occurs. And it leaves behind considerable evidence, because everyone knowing how to read and write, they proceed to do so. Widespread literacy is the basis for amateur and commercial writing, for entertainment, advice, record keeping, business transactions, etc. Businesses and institutions develop around these, even where only a large portion of the public is literate. Consider Elizabethan England, which did not have universal literacy, yet had handbills distributed advertising everything from plays to legal issues. And graffiti. Even the Romans left graffiti everywhere, and they did not have universal literacy. If this revolution really did occur in medieval Arabia, it should have left behind considerable evidence of itself. Even if only the female half of the poplution was literate. It doesn't seem like much to ask where that evidence is.

The point was simple-- all this brouhaha over what the Prophet said or did, the veracity of the ealy tradition as a whole is just as difficult to prove as the Age of the Patriarchs, the history of Jesus Christ, the life of Siddhartha Gautama, the life of Kung Fu-Tzu etc.

The role of literacy in the pre-modern world is an irrelevant point to the issue I was raising.

Claiming that Mohammed brought universal literacy to his culture, or even just universal for women, is much like claiming that hundreds of thousands of Israelites wandered Sinai for forty years. In either case, that should have left behind some objective evidence. Especially the former.

Now yeah, whether Jesus had a blood brother, whether Lot had incest with his daughters, or whether Mohammed had a nine year-old wife -- these are all stories whose veracity is up in the air.

OK-- I would read the posts a little clearer before jumping on the bash-Mo bandwagon.

My point was and remains-- none of this stuff is verifiable--it's what people do based upon the belief that these things happened that makes true history.

I most certainly agree with the sentiment expressed that if a woman is required to cover up so as not to tempt a male, she is being Supressed and he is being Weak !!

I also find it interesting that a Muslim living in a Democratic society would expect to be permitted to excercise her religious freedom by wearing the jalbib, but in a Muslim/Arabic society a non-practicing woman would not be permitted the choice of not wearing the garment.

I think it's either them or the Hasidic women who, at the time of marriage, shave their heads and wear a wig, or cover their hair outside of the home. Similar situation, but I never hear anyone bitching about that.

say that they have to have a hole cut in the top sheet of their bedding. This is the only way in which sexual intercourse is permitted, so that both man and woman can remian otherwise clothed in their night gear and not seek eachother's nudity.

Same side of the fundie religious argument that imposes restrictions on their foloowers...

However, I do realize that different sects may do different things.

http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/hasid2.html#HASID2-Q8

or their husbands have sold them Some Bill of Goods.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/sheet.htm

who wear "the garment."

of zealot religious mis interpretations that are used to demonize the feminine. If men can't control themselves on even the most innocuous thing as hair, what the hell are they doing running the world?

From what I understand, and I could be wrong, many married women shave their heads because it (evidently) makes it easier when they need their monthly "mikveh." In the community near me, the women usually wear wigs with a covering over the wigs (scarf, small hat, etc.)

Here's some quick info I found:

http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/hasid2.html#HASID2-Q4

Speaking of Muslim women, I know a Muslim woman who began wearing a head covering after 9/11. She did it to distinguish herself as a Muslim woman, but one who is faithful, kind, and peaceful. She said it's a little bit of a pain in the neck (she misses going to the beach!) but it is her decision. While her dress is modest, she wears Western clothing. In her home, she wears nothing on her head unless a man outside of her family is visiting.

It's her choice, and whether or not I agree with it is inconsequential. At least in this country, she has a personal choice. To me, that's the important part :)

but, as I stated before, I don't have to agree with it's origins. There are Christian sects that also do things out of faith, like never cutting the girl's hair, or not seeing a doctor, that I don't agree with either. Yes, we all should be able to wear, or not wear whatever we want in this "free" society of ours, but I think it's important to understand the origins of one's motivations and the reasonings behind faith based choices before just committing oneself wholeheartedly to a particular style of dress or practice.

Thanks for the link, I had never heard of this before, and my boyfriend is Jewish. Although, he doesn't practice so, I can't say that I've had much exposure other than Shabbat on Fridays. I have been to his friend's child's 1st year birthday party, and at a wedding and noticed the covering of the couple at both places while the Rabbi blessed them. I can't say that I enquired into the reasoning as just assumed that's their religion. I don't believe in organized religions myself, but do think that it is necessary in certain societies to maintain cohesion. Unfortunately, the centuries have bastardized most religions with zealot misinterpretations and have become a source of conflicts and slaughter.

he should not be allowed to vote or own property. And should possibly be leashed.

These "modesty" regulations, whether Islamic, Christian, Jewish or anything else, assume that men are naturally rapists, and women are basically sluts. And the only way to prevent women from being sluts or men being rapists, is to keep them from seeing each other. It's an insult.

They believe it, and that's fine.

Part is because they feel ostracized and need validation. If they act like an "Other", their isolation from society is a natural consequence of their own actions, not those of others (this is a terminology I truly despise, but which seems appropriate here). I've known fundamentalist Xians that would have been estranged from society just because they were strange or alcoholic, but which decided to estrange themselves.

Part is because it's a source of pride and self-esteem. We all need to have some group we feel superior to. It's close to the previous point, but I don't think it's identical. I forget why I think this, however.

I think it's also sometimes mixed up with this strange belief that there's some necessary connection between a person's culture/language/religion and the dominant culture/language/religion in the place where one's genes used to be. We occasionally hear about making sure kids adopted before they can even focus are exposed to "their culture" or "their language". Like Xianity, Islam in situ is as much a culture as a religion.

the US

They feel threatened...they are seeking answers and security.

And they are rebelling against their parents to a degree.

since when young people usually do that it means doing something that turns away from where your family comes from in terms of things like religion.

Parents who have stopped "going to church" (read Church, Synagogue, Mosque, etc)-- who may have become "more secular"-- the next generation, seeking to "be different" turns away from their parents' ways.

I know the explanation I'm giving is simplistic--but I've noticed it--the students in college today appear to be much more conservative than in my day. I've seen numerous other examples as well.

Just hope it doesn't turn into any "Children of the Corn" scenario.. :)

guys would have to wear leisure suits and the girls bell bottom jeans for the next 20 centuries.

another perspective....


Hijab (Veil) and Muslim Women

Ms.Naheed Mustafa
"My body is my own business."

MULTICULTURAL VOICES

A Canadian-born Muslim woman has taken to wearing the traditional hijab scarf. It tends to make people see her as either a terrorist or a symbol of oppressed womanhood, but she finds the experience liberating.

I often wonder whether people see me as a radical, fundamentalist Muslim terrorist packing an AK-47 assault rifle inside my jean jacket. Or may be they see me as the poster girl for oppressed womanhood everywhere. I'm not sure which it is.
I get the whole gamut of strange looks, stares, and covert glances. You see, I wear the hijab, a scarf that covers my head, neck, and throat. I do this because I am a Muslim woman who believes her body is her own private concern.

Young Muslim women are reclaiming the hijab, reinterpreting it in light of its original purpose -- to give back to women ultimate control of their own bodies.

The Qur'an teaches us that men and women are equal, that individuals should not be judged according to gender, beauty, wealth, or privilege. The only thing that makes one person better than another is her or his character.

Nonetheless, people have a difficult time relating to me. After all, I'm young, Canadian born and raised, university-educated -- why would I do this to myself, they ask.

Strangers speak to me in loud, slow English and often appear to be playing charades. They politely inquire how I like living in Canada and whether or not the cold bothers me. If I'm in the right mood, it can be very amusing.

But, why would I, a woman with all the advantages of a North American upbringing, suddenly, at 21, want to cover myself so that with the hijab and the other clothes I choose to wear, only my face and hands show?

Because it gives me freedom.

WOMEN are taught from early childhood that their worth is proportional to their attractiveness. We feel compelled to pursue abstract notions of beauty, half realizing that such a pursuit is futile.

When women reject this form of oppression, they face ridicule and contempt. Whether it's women who refuse to wear makeup or to shave their legs, or to expose their bodies, society, both men and women, have trouble dealing with them.

In the Western world, the hijab has come to symbolize either forced silence or radical, unconscionable militancy. Actually, it's neither. It is simply a woman's assertion that judgment of her physical person is to play no role whatsoever in social interaction.

Wearing the hijab has given me freedom from constant attention to my physical self. Because my appearance is not subjected to public scrutiny, my beauty, or perhaps lack of it, has been removed from the realm of what can legitimately be discussed.

No one knows whether my hair looks as if I just stepped out of a salon, whether or not I can pinch an inch, or even if I have unsightly stretch marks. And because no one knows, no one cares.

Feeling that one has to meet the impossible male standards of beauty is tiring and often humiliating. I should know, I spent my entire teen-age years trying to do it. It was a borderline bulimic and spent a lot of money I didn't have on potions and lotions in hopes of becoming the next Cindy Crawford.

The definition of beauty is ever-changing; waifish is good, waifish is bad, athletic is good -- sorry, athletic is bad. Narrow hips? Great. Narrow hips? Too bad.

Women are not going to achieve equality with the right to bear their breasts in public, as some people would like to have you believe. That would only make us party to our own objectification. True equality will be had only when women don't need to display themselves to get attention and won't need to defend their decision to keep their bodies to themselves.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/hijabexperience.html

and not necessarily as a Muslim woman. Her argument sounded completely plausible until she mentioned her bout with bulimia and her futile search for an unreachable figure. All of us women endure this same battle, but that is no reason to throw on a headscarf and denounce all of societal perceptions through a religion. We can easily combat these unrealistic images by denouncing the source rather than embracing a primarily misogynistic religion. And I am not singling out Islam, all of these mainstream organized religions have misogynistic undertones.

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/news/sfchronicle20040119.html

Apparently not all Muslim girls are covering up ! And offer critique of Islam, too. Mon Dieu ! And she's quoting scripture too back it up. You go, girl !

""It's not hard to see why people react strongly to Irshad Manji. At 35, she's become a ubiquitous fixture on Canadian television, the smartest, hippest, most eloquent lesbian feminist Muslim you could ever hope to meet.

Manji, who is in the Bay Area today and Tuesday to talk about her new book, "The Trouble with Islam: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change," leaves no stone unturned in her attack on the fault lines of her faith. She berates "sclerotic contemporary Islam" for turning its back on human rights, stifling freedom of thought and expression, oppressing women, encouraging slavery and fomenting anti-Semitism. She accuses the religion of standing silent in the face of terror and derides her fellow Muslims for becoming "brain-dead" and "automatons." She calls for an Islamic reformation, replacing jihad, or religious war, with ijtihad -- independent critical thinking for Muslims. And she says this reform most probably will come from places where Muslims are free from the stifling totalitarianism of the Islamic world.

"I am arguing that Muslims in the West have the best opportunity to revive ijtihad because it is here that we already enjoy the freedoms to think,express, challenge and be challenged without fear of state reprisal," says Manji. ""

Mohammed should be proud of this girl.

it was very interesting because usually you see Muslims who get into politics and take the "liberal" side usually doing it because of things like the Palestinian issue and other foreign policy. and not because of things like gay rights which most muslims usually oppose.

that Mohammed, seeing the plight of widows from the tribal wars ongoing in his region, decided that economically protecting them thru multiple marriages was better than starvation; plus his own favorite wife was a widow, correct me if I'm wrong.

Arguing about religion is pointless. Ameliorating social conditions, changing over time, should reflect the tenets of religion--and show improving conditions as 'proof'. Islam can change if people can change.

I personally would like to see our Congress become enraged over the usury that is allowed by the banking system: some charging 800% interest, and Congress doesn't bat an eye ! Islam is against usury, although Prince Alwaleed bin talal controls Citigroup, one of the offenders in this regard.

I think St. Thomas Aquinas and Mohammed agree on the evils of usury, and especially now with the new Bankruptcy law in Congress...maybe Muslims and Christians and Jews could unite and see if they can overturn or ameliorate the evils of usury (and thus show charity and compassion to the poor).

I won't hold my breath, however.

based on the bible and quran. but liberals who embrace those religions usually bring up the part about helping the poor and others who are needy and against exploitation.

but right now it seems the part about opposing gays is much more embraced than those other parts which reflect liberal values.

the multiple wives thing is not something just among muslims but other religions and cultures also.

perhaps the underlying reasons for it are all the same which as you say are economic. at least that's what i remember reading once on some african trible where men have multiple wives.

i think you are right about Muhammed. i think it was his first wife who was much older than he was. but from what i remember wasn't she a business woman and pretty wealthy ?

muslim youth show their defiance at what is perceived as a war where "muslim=bad", through more aggressive displays of their identity, sort of daring western society to take them on.
i'm sure its more a political statement than a purely religious one. these youth are not born-again muslims.

at least they do over here in the Netherlands. The head scarf is traditional clothing, the tight jeans... is not.

I've seen a few of them in see-through blouses like Japanese teens wear.

Miss Begum is wearing the longer robe, but no veil. Speaking for the media, she was not exactly the picture of submission.

Statistically, speaking, how does one define "a growing number"?

Just a thought.