Why hijab in Islam?

[JJWhite]

True, but because there are alcoholics does not mean that alcohol shouldn't be available or even advertised.

I'm not really liking the analogies being used here...LOL.

 

[fschmidt]

I'll agree that Western women tend to overdo it a lot in terms of dressing immodestly.

Let's be honest: men are far more visual when it comes to sexual stimulation. It's nature, it's biology. Knowing this, it is really pretty messed up for women to flaunt themselves about in front of men wearing next to nothing. Yes, men should be responsible for their actions. Yes, men should not objectify women. But it makes it incredibly hard for them to do such things when an incredibly attractive woman is bending over in front of a man in a string bikini. That's like setting a cupcake in front of a four year old and expecting him not try some of the icing (i.e. expecting the man not to think impure thoughts or stare.) I'm not saying men should make excuses for bad conduct - but we women should do what we can not to encourage it.

Do I think hijabs are overdoing it? In Western cultures, probably. I don't know many Western men who get aroused just by looking at a woman's hair. But making an active effort not to flaunt our bodies about in a culturally appropriate context should be a goal. It really is a cultural issue. In the West, wearing a low cut shirt and short-shorts seems to cause issues for a lot of men when it comes to impure thoughts. I try to respect that. In Africa, maybe its showing off one's legs. They should respect that. Just use your common sense.

Also, for goodness sake, ladies have some self-respect. It's not just about men. We should have enough self-respect to dress in ways that don't just highlight our bodies but lend credence to our intelligence and personality too.

Thank you for this. If you don't mind my asking, what church (Christian sect) do you attend and do they share this view? I am interested in finding reasonable religions.

 

[LoAmmi]

I'm not really liking the analogies being used here...LOL.

Well... yeah.

It's a freedom thing for me though. What I think should be done is not what I am willing to impose on others.

To be honest, I find a lot less revealing clothing far more attractive than a string bikini.

 

[Booko]

I hope he doesn't mind me posting this, but this is what he posted one for me when I asked the same question:

Mikraite - Liberalism

Oh, I saw that.

I would like to say this about that:

"When I use a word, it means exactly what I intend it to mean -- no more and no less." -- Humpty Dumpty

But to be serious, there appears to be some conflation of liberal with libertine going on in that link. They are nowhere near the same. And there are many definitions of liberal, depending on context. Given the subject matter probably "social liberalism" is the most relevant?

It seems like a good time to agree on some terms...

 

[fschmidt]

And there are many definitions of liberal, depending on context. Given the subject matter probably "social liberalism" is the most relevant?

It seems like a good time to agree on some terms...

As I said in that post:

"Liberalism is the broad term that I am using to cover all of the Left. (Note that this is the American sense of the word and in other countries the word may have a different meaning.)"

 

[Booko]

See "Sex and Culture" by Unwin which shows the pattern that female premarital chastity correlates with rising cultures and female premarital promiscuity with declining cultures.

Can you refer me to something a little more modern than 1934?

Introductory Chemistry may not have developed much since then, but anthropology and sociology certainly have.

If you want to have a discussion about the importance of a chaste and holy life and the role of marriage in a stable society, that would be an interesting discussion. But that would go way beyond female modesty so probably a new thread would be useful?

 

[LoAmmi]

As I said in that post:

"Liberalism is the broad term that I am using to cover all of the Left. (Note that this is the American sense of the word and in other countries the word may have a different meaning.)"

I identify as a liberal. Here is what I am for. Please tell me which ones you do not like:

--help for the poor and those who need it. This could be welfare until they get back on their feet, it could be jobs programs, it could be education assistance.

--affordable healthcare for everybody. Nobody should die in the United States because they could not afford treatment. It shames us that it happens.

--separation of Church and State. I do not want my religion ruling the United States so I certainly do not want another religion doing the same thing. Laws should not be made for purely religious reasons, they need to serve a secular purpose as well. That doesn't mean a completely cleansed-of-religion political system. On the same token, religious institutions should be able to be run without interference. Within reason of course. A place that wants to sacrifice humans cannot be allowed to.

--Maximizing the freedom for the people.

 

[fschmidt]

Can you refer me to something a little more modern than 1934?

No. Western culture is in rapid decline and sane objective thinking has been banished from academia. Nothing of value outside of the hard sciences has been produced by academia since about 1950. The last reasonable publication from academia on this topic was "Family and Civilization" by Zimmerman in 1947.

 

[Booko]

Booko, what is your religion? I like to know which groups/religions are my enemies.

My stepfather was a Calvinist and a devout one. I doubt he ever seriously entertained a thought of adultery and certainly not of divorce. His first wife passed away as did my father, long before my mom and stepdad married. While Calvinism often has a reputation for being humourless, it's not as well-deserved as outsiders think. But I haven't been a Calvinist for years (my mom still is). I'm not sure if that answered your question or not.

As for my religion being your enemy, why would you think that? On this end it seems like maybe you're jumping to conclusions. I'd rather we avoid that, if possible.

If for example you imagine I am in favor of the lack of modesty today you are sorely mistaken. Perhaps we should explore the subject further and compare some notes so you'll know what I actually believe and then you can judge with good information?

The really short version is that in my religion modesty is "a thing", we are to get married before having sex, and marriage requires consent of all living parents, which makes us far stricter than religions generally are. Cohabitation is right out, as is nudism and yes, marriage is a union of one man and one woman and there are not exceptions.

What I do not wish to do is use the force of law to impose my religious beliefs on those that do not share them. I prefer persuasion or leading by example unless there is some compelling issue of public safety (like people generally agree murder and theft are dangerous behaviours).

I understand that I live in a pluralistic society and for people to get along and to maximize everyone's religious freedom and to keep the peace requires we all put up with a few things we'd rather not.

Oh, as regards modesty in dress, one thing that hasn't been addressed yet is...aesthetics. Not everyone looks like Michaelangelo's David. I seriously doubt anyone wants to see me in short shorts in public anyway. I prefer to be considerate of others. *ahem* :o

 

[dazed]

Very true. I remember that Saudi scholar who said that women should only ever unveil one eye in the burqa, because two eyes would be too seductive. And being seductive, some poor man may take it upon himself to sexually assault the woman, of no fault of his own.

I wonder what other things a Muslim man can legally take, ie no fault of his own, if the owner failed to cover his procession? That's a nice seductive house, car, bathroom you have there. It's mine now because you tempted me.

 

[fschmidt]

I identify as a liberal. Here is what I am for. Please tell me which ones you do not like:

--help for the poor and those who need it. This could be welfare until they get back on their feet, it could be jobs programs, it could be education assistance.

--affordable healthcare for everybody. Nobody should die in the United States because they could not afford treatment. It shames us that it happens.

--separation of Church and State. I do not want my religion ruling the United States so I certainly do not want another religion doing the same thing. Laws should not be made for purely religious reasons, they need to serve a secular purpose as well. That doesn't mean a completely cleansed-of-religion political system. On the same token, religious institutions should be able to be run without interference. Within reason of course. A place that wants to sacrifice humans cannot be allowed to.

--Maximizing the freedom for the people.

Some liberals are for some of the above, but none of the above is specific to liberalism. Ultra-orthodox Jews are active in helping the poor in their own communities, and they are not liberals. Saudi Arabia has affordable healthcare for everybody and isn't generally considered a liberal country. Separation of Church and State was implemented in America at its founding when it wasn't liberal at all. I consider Liberalism to be a religion and America today to be a Liberal Theocracy in complete violation of separation of Church and State. As I explained in my post, most liberals are very anti-freedom. If you really support freedom, then I assume you vote Libertarian in the elections. Libertarians are generally not considered liberals.

 

[LoAmmi]

If you really support freedom, then I assume you vote Libertarian in the elections. Libertarians are generally not considered liberals.

I usually go for the lesser of two evils between the Democrats and the Republicans.

I don't support some of the more wacky Libertarian concepts. I once heard a libertarian say they wanted to take the roads away from the state and give them to private businesses. These businesses could then charge whatever toll they wanted on the road. That is insane.

I also like regulation of businesses. Complete unrestricted capitalism ends up harming workers in the end. Nobody wants to see a return to things like old mining corporations where you were basically stuck for life with no means of saving money or doing better.

 

[fschmidt]

I usually go for the lesser of two evils between the Democrats and the Republicans.

I don't support some of the more wacky Libertarian concepts. I once heard a libertarian say they wanted to take the roads away from the state and give them to private businesses. These businesses could then charge whatever toll they wanted on the road. That is insane.

I also like regulation of businesses. Complete unrestricted capitalism ends up harming workers in the end. Nobody wants to see a return to things like old mining corporations where you were basically stuck for life with no means of saving money or doing better.

Your previous statement was "Maximizing the freedom for the people." This is what Libertarians support, even when it doesn't make sense. So I guess you should take back your previous statement. I do vote Libertarian, even if I don't agree with some of their ideas, because at least they generally support freedom while Democrats and Republicans generally oppose freedom. Of course there are some freedoms I would like to curtail like immodest dress in public.

 

[LoAmmi]

Your previous statement was "Maximizing the freedom for the people." This is what Libertarians support, even when it doesn't make sense. So I guess you should take back your previous statement. I do vote Libertarian, even if I don't agree with some of their ideas, because at least they generally support freedom while Democrats and Republicans generally oppose freedom. Of course there are some freedoms I would like to curtail like immodest dress in public.

Businesses are not people. They have legal standing as a person, but I do not grant them anything beyond that. Maximizing freedom for the people and maximizing it for corporations are two different concepts.

I don't vote for third parties because they have no chance of winning. I would rather vote for the devil I know than let the devil I can't stand win with me throwing a vote away. I understand the current political climate.

 

[fschmidt]

But I haven't been a Calvinist for years

Why?

 

[Booko]

As I said in that post:

"Liberalism is the broad term that I am using to cover all of the Left. (Note that this is the American sense of the word and in other countries the word may have a different meaning.)"

Oh, thanks fschmidt!

To be clear I live in the U.S. and so there is a definition of Left we might have in common, but there are all sorts of things one can be on the "left" of and be on the "right" in other ways.

And political views are not along a straight line either. There's also the Authoritarian/Libertarian dimension.

Did you you mean social libertarianism, by any chance? Or am I mistaking where you're coming from?

 

[Booko]

No. Western culture is in rapid decline and sane objective thinking has been banished from academia.

What connection do you have to academia these days? Do read any particular peer-reviewed journals? Have occasion to be involved in academia? Are you an academic yourself?

I ask because I'm too accustomed to seeing people from far outside academia making comments on it based on rumours as opposed to having actual direct contact in some way, and I don't want to make the mistake of assuming that's where you're getting your evidence.

I do think that just because a work is produced in academia doesn't mean it's necessarily good. But it isn't necessarily bad either. Everything has to be weighed to see what is useful and what is not.

But that has been the case in academia since...academia existed. Academia has produced many good things, but also phlogiston and throughly unfounded racial theories.

Nothing of value outside of the hard sciences has been produced by academia since about 1950.

There is transformational grammar, which began a trend in linguistics, a soft science, which continues to bear fruit to this day as the theory is refined. This work has helped to create compiler and programming language theory in computer science -- a hard science. So something since 1950 in a not hard science does appear to have been of use.

What about research and progress in decision theory? There seems to be some really promising research there. Also not a hard science.

Are there no developments in economics you think have been worthwhile since 1950? I thought the use of computers in modeling had moved it ahead rather well, though the aspects I've read about were written from the point of view of implementing models, since I was reading ACM Journal at the time.

Do you see no value in textual criticism? Is the preservation of old works of literature and culture not something you view as worthwhile?

I'll leave smaneck to add her two cents worth on what's going on in academia where Middle Eastern Studies is concerned, as that's her bailiwick.

 

[fschmidt]

Oh, thanks fschmidt!

To be clear I live in the U.S. and so there is a definition of Left we might have in common, but there are all sorts of things one can be on the "left" of and be on the "right" in other ways.

And political views are not along a straight line either. There's also the Authoritarian/Libertarian dimension.

Did you you mean social libertarianism, by any chance? Or am I mistaking where you're coming from?

By "Left" I don't mean one end of a one dimensional spectrum. I mean a certain point of view.

Liberals are not social libertarians at all. They detest marriage and have implemented strong government regulations to destroy it. They have also implemented strong government regulations to ban reactions to promiscuity and generally ban criticism of women under so called "sexual harassment" laws. They are in the process of destroying free speech with their hate-crime laws. They also do their best to restrict religion, banning prayer in school. In France, the liberals ban religious dress. Liberalism is generally very intolerant.

 

[Booko]

I wonder what other things a Muslim man can legally take, ie no fault of his own, if the owner failed to cover his procession? That's a nice seductive house, car, bathroom you have there. It's mine now because you tempted me.

You know, that's an angle I had never quite contemplated before. Thanks, Dazed!

I think I'll swipe the next Lamborghini I see and claim I'm not to blame because the owner tempted me by leaving it visibly on the street, and I really lust for Lambos.

Failing that I could just channel Flip Wilson...

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Right-libertarians are a crazy bunch who don't seem to realize that they're essentially campaigning for a return to feudalism, where those with vast economic power are free to indulge in it in whatever way they see fit.

But that's a whole different topic. The issue here is the oversexualization of the female body to the point where even exposed hair becomes an invitation for rape.