So it's okay for a woman to "display her beauty" to close relatives, eunuchs, and male slaves. Wow, that's fascinating. I used to think all that business was a little backward and medieval, but this really changes my preconceptions about this most progressive of religions.

Um, yeah, Islam was born 1400+ years ago and they had slaves and eunuchs at that time. I don't see why you're so surprised that the texts would mention that.

I understood the point of the post to be in regard to it being OK for a woman to expose her beauty in front of family, slaves and eunuchs, not that slaves and eunuchs existed (as they also did in Christianity).

Not quite sure to what extent this exposing was intended -- the idea of a woman exposing herself to her brothers or her father, uncles &c seems a little odd to me. I assume it just meant a relaxation of the requirement to have everything but her face, hands and feet covered in her own home.

It does mean the relaxation of the strict requirements of attire for the woman around that set of men.

As for 'exposing' herself, or nudity, it is reserved for the husband.

No, not surprising, but it's pretty ridiculous that people quote texts describing social conditions current in a medieval desert society, admit that the conditions are no longer current or desirable, but insist nonetheless that somehow the prescribed social behavior associated with those conditions still ought to apply.

The bottom line is, it's all of a piece. While anybody who wants to is free to do it, it needs to be said that the attitude underlying veiling women is essentially antithetical to a modern society.

And sexual objectification through pornography, legalized prostitution ( most MODERN societies legalize prostitution), exploiting women into endentured servitude (27 million slaves worldwide is the highest in human history and found in India, China, and several MODERN societies), unaccountable extramarital sex, objectified fashions dominated by men, are ALL consistent with MODERN society.

But the headscarf is the scourge of mankind because none of the above are BAD because they are part of the MODERN SOCIETY.

If all the Muslim women in the world took off their headscarves, what would be next on your list of complaints with Islam and the Muslim world?

In other words, it's because the veil and headscarf aren't universal that all these problems exist? And if Muslim women removed them, they would all end up as prostitutes or rape victims? Give me a break.

The fact of the matter is that veiling women IS a form of objectification. In societies where such nonsense goes on, the underlying assumption is that women are "property" of their men, and one veils them for the same reason one puts valuables in a safe-deposit box--to keep others from getting at your stuff, What's being protected is not the safety or "honor" of women, but the decidedly male-dominant social order. Furthermore, veiling women has the additional "advantage" of marking and maintaining them as such--which is to say, it's a form of social control over them.

A Muslim woman is certainly within her rights to buy into this entire medieval load, even if only symbolically and only for the sake of showing her membership in a group. And I guess a Jew would be perfectly entitled to wear a yellow star on all his clothes, too. But I'm entitled to scoff at any suggestion that in either case it's a choice that indicates something liberating or life-enhancing--all the more so because I'd be right.

Not really disagreeing with you, but I think you will find that most Muslim women do not wear veils. Headscarves are, I believe, far more common, and while it seems silly to me to think that a woman exposing her hair is immodest, I also do not see it as especially oppressive.

O_hellanbach,

Your analogy between Muslim women and the hajib and Jews wearing yellow stars of David on their clothes -- an allusion to what the Nazi's made the Jews wear -- is most specious: in the latter case it wasn't the Jew's choice. A much more apt analogy is the yarmulke (sp) worn by Jewish men of some Jewish sects -- or a hat in lieu of a yarmulke. The same goes for Sikhs and their male head dress. I don't hear people claiming these latter two religions are backwards because of the dress requirement. Christians wear crosses. All sorts of women on occasion or more often wear a babushka/scarf or some hat, so why is it Muslim women cannot wear their choice of head dress?

All this complaining about hijabs seems mighty bigoted, but I expect nothing less from Christians, a most self-righteous yet hypocritical cult.

I say this all as a life-long atheist. Boo-Yah.

"...and while it seems silly to me to think that a woman exposing her hair is immodest..."

The erotic properties of womens' hair are both well-known and well documented as well as the fact that a woman's hair has long been considered one of the most private, personal parts of her body. (Reference everything from the intimacy of Mary washing Jesus' feet with her hair to the tradition of married women wearing their hair pinned up instead of freely flowing to signify that their hair belongs to their husband and is no longer available for courtship.)

So, I disagree, in many, possibly most, cultures historically it has always been considered that showing unbound hair is either immodest (e.g. for married or older women) or a signal that the woman is on display for the purpose of inviting male attention.

As such, I think any overt or subtle traditional requirement to either bind or hide the hair is a form of oppression in that it causes the woman to have to manipulate her body to conform to some artificial standard imposed by others, instead of her being allowed to do as she alone wishes.

Yes, I know that a woman's hair has symbolic significance in many cultures. My remark that it seems silly is just saying that it does so to me (ie from my cultural perspective).

And yes, in a sense I can agree that any sort of cultural norms that dictate how one gender must manipulate his/her body could be thought of as oppressive to some degree. But on the other hand, calling it such risks trivializing the term -- especially in light of the very real oppression towards women in much of the world.

I might draw the analogy that in western cultures, it has been considered immodest for women to expose their bare breasts in public (eg at the beach), while generally not for men to do the same. But I wouldn't attack those women who choose to not remove their bikini tops of supporting the worst forms of western female oppression. But, just as with the wearing of headscarves, I support the right of women to chose whether or not to cover up.

Well, that was part of my point. In our judeo-christian culture, binding of the hair has traditionally served the same purpose as veiling the hair in islamic culture. And while most people in our culture now do not particularly give it a whole lot of thought, the undercurrent of the socio-religious significance is still very pervasive in almost every aspect of life.

Business women, to be taken seriously, either bind up long hair or simply have it cut short. Most older women wear short hair, or again bind it up. A woman with long free flowing hair is veiwed first as a sex object and only then as whatever else she is - see every ad for every single kind of cosmetic, fashion, jewelry, car etc. The oppression here is just as real as the oppression in islamic countries, only not physical, just psychological. Long, flowing, exposed hair means one thing and short, bound or hidden hair means something completely different and people do treat you according to that standard.

I just don't see any difference between the practice of veiling for muslims and the practice of binding or cutting in western culture to acheive the same result - a signifier of a woman's exact place in society and how she is to be treated by others.

Having the advantage of reading the whole thread, it appears that you've got O Hellenbach in the cross hairs; so it would seem I agree with you... but then you turn around and pull your own stereotype in your conclusion:

"All this complaining about hijabs seems mighty bigoted, but I expect nothing less from Christians, a most self-righteous yet hypocritical cult."

...there's nothing in the New Testament that urges Christians to be self-righteous or hypocritical, any such behavior is not Christian behavior. The word Christian, derives from Christ-like behavior; the saints at Antioch were so Christ-like, if there are today one billion people claiming to be Christians and yet acting self-righteous and hypocritical, it just means they are not truly Christian in nature, it does not mean that "Christian" equals that behavior... because in saying that, you are saying that Christ was self-righteous and hypocritical.

hence, you are making a far worse error than O Hellenbach.

The analogy isn't as far-fetched as you make out, though I admit it's a pretty extreme analogy. But veils have in fact been decidedly NOT optional, and thus NOT a choice for most of history in most of the Arab world. And, they've been part and parcel of the entire pattern of female oppression that is still common throughout the Islamic world. That ain't bigotry, that's just a very sad reality. If you want to explain how any of those other religious symbols carry the same burden, then explain, and I might be happy to discourage their display as well

I am also not saying any Muslim woman should be prohibited from wearing a hijab or veil or whatever she wants. Given its history (still ongoing) as a symbol and method of female oppression, I just can't see why any free modern woman would want to.

FWIW, I am an atheist too, but wasn't lucky enough to have been brought up as one.

To me a comparison with the status of the bra in North American society would be apt. It was a garment that promoted modesty and tradition that came to be seen by some as a symbol of oppression. Today, most Western women, even self-described feminists, wear a bra for fashion and utility – for physical support as well as avoiding lecherous stares.

The hijab is also a garment of utility with a controversial history. Don’t be so naive as to think those who wear it aren’t aware of its benefits and drawbacks. They are making a choice, as we are all entitled to do.