I found this article very positive and have heard some intelligent, enlightened Muslim women describe wearing the hajib in exactly the same way - not as repressing, but as liberating.

Western women have been conditioned from an early age to physically attract males by their appearance and it's enjoyable and fun for many and just a natural part of our existence, but it's also difficult for those females who haven't the physical attributes to exude their sexuality in the same way their peers can.  

We look at Muslim women - covered from head to toe - and imagine all sorts of attrocities beneath.  

Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality

A woman swathed in black to her ankles, wearing a headscarf or a full chador, walks down a European or North American street, surrounded by other women in halter tops, miniskirts and short shorts. She passes under immense billboards on which other women swoon in sexual ecstasy, cavort in lingerie or simply stretch out languorously, almost fully naked. Could this image be any more iconic of the discomfort the West has with the social mores of Islam, and vice versa?

Ideological battles are often waged with women's bodies as their emblems, and Western Islamophobia is no exception. When France banned headscarves in schools, it used the hijab as a proxy for Western values in general, including the appropriate status of women. When Americans were being prepared for the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban were demonised for denying cosmetics and hair colour to women; when the Taliban were overthrown, Western writers often noted that women had taken off their scarves.

But are we in the West radically misinterpreting Muslim sexual mores, particularly the meaning to many Muslim women of being veiled or wearing the chador? And are we blind to our own markers of the oppression and control of women?

The West interprets veiling as repression of women and suppression of their sexuality. But when I travelled in Muslim countries and was invited to join a discussion in women-only settings within Muslim homes, I learned that Muslim attitudes toward women's appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression, but in a strong sense of public versus private, of what is due to God and what is due to one's husband. It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channelling - toward marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home.

Outside the walls of the typical Muslim households that I visited in Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt, all was demureness and propriety. But inside, women were as interested in allure, seduction and pleasure as women anywhere in the world.

At home, in the context of marital intimacy, Victoria's Secret, elegant fashion and skin care lotions abounded. The bridal videos that I was shown, with the sensuous dancing that the bride learns as part of what makes her a wonderful wife, and which she proudly displays for her bridegroom, suggested that sensuality was not alien to Muslim women. Rather, pleasure and sexuality, both male and female, should not be displayed promiscuously - and possibly destructively - for all to see.

Indeed, many Muslim women I spoke with did not feel at all subjugated by the chador or the headscarf. On the contrary, they felt liberated from what they experienced as the intrusive, commodifying, basely sexualising Western gaze. Many women said something like this: "When I wear Western clothes, men stare at me, objectify me, or I am always measuring myself against the standards of models in magazines, which are hard to live up to - and even harder as you get older, not to mention how tiring it can be to be on display all the time. When I wear my headscarf or chador, people relate to me as an individual, not an object; I feel respected." This may not be expressed in a traditional Western feminist set of images, but it is a recognisably Western feminist set of feelings.

I experienced it myself. I put on a shalwar kameez and a headscarf in Morocco for a trip to the bazaar. Yes, some of the warmth I encountered was probably from the novelty of seeing a Westerner so clothed; but, as I moved about the market - the curve of my breasts covered, the shape of my legs obscured, my long hair not flying about me - I felt a novel sense of calm and serenity. I felt, yes, in certain ways, free.

Nor are Muslim women alone. The Western Christian tradition portrays all sexuality, even married sexuality, as sinful. Islam and Judaism never had that same kind of mind-body split. So, in both cultures, sexuality channeled into marriage and family life is seen as a source of great blessing, sanctioned by God.

This may explain why both Muslim and Orthodox Jewish women not only describe a sense of being liberated by their modest clothing and covered hair, but also express much higher levels of sensual joy in their married lives than is common in the West. When sexuality is kept private and directed in ways seen as sacred - and when one's husband isn't seeing his wife (or other women) half-naked all day long - one can feel great power and intensity when the headscarf or the chador comes off in the the home.

Cont....

Page 2.

Among healthy young men in the West, who grow up on pornography and sexual imagery on every street corner, reduced libido is a growing epidemic, so it is easy to imagine the power that sexuality can carry in a more modest culture. And it is worth understanding the positive experiences that women - and men - can have in cultures where sexuality is more conservatively directed.

I do not mean to dismiss the many women leaders in the Muslim world who regard veiling as a means of controlling women. Choice is everything. But Westerners should recognise that when a woman in France or Britain chooses a veil, it is not necessarily a sign of her repression. And, more importantly, when you choose your own miniskirt and halter top - in a Western culture in which women are not so free to age, to be respected as mothers, workers or spiritual beings, and to disregard Madison Avenue - it's worth thinking in a more nuanced way about what female freedom really means.

Naomi Wolf is the author, most recently, of The End Of America: Letter Of Warning To A Young Patriot and the upcoming Give Me Liberty: How To Become An American Revolutionary, and is co-founder of the American Freedom Campaign, a US democracy movement.

Nice article, she explained it in a very precise way.


Quote:

So, in both cultures, sexuality channeled into marriage and family life is seen as a source of great blessing, sanctioned by God.

Yes, it's even considered an act of worship actually in Islam, for human beings to fulfill their desires in the correct channel (ie. in marriage). It's quite ironic though because one minute Muslims are attacked for being too conservative and 'anti-sexual' and the next minute for being too perverse and over-sexual (polygamy, marrying young etc).

Regarding the french hijab ban, one thing that was quite disturbing was how they tried to portray the hijab as 'a religious symbol', when in fact it's nothing like that at all. A Muslim woman covering her hair is no more a religious symbol than a Christian woman covering parts of her body, such as breasts. Or a Muslim man covering his knees with long shorts. The hijab is actually just a level of dress, rather than any specific form/tradition of clothing, and in fact hijab refers to the covering of the body in general, so the man wearing his longer shorts is also hijab.

I understand that the hijab is the least and the burqa is the most conservative attire. In between are the al-amira, shayla, khimar, chador and the niqab.

While there is no religious symbology in the attire itself, it represents an acknowledgement and proclaimation by the wearer of his/her religion - that being Islam. Thereby, it is a symbol of religion as opposed to a religious symbol (if you get what I mean).

:)

The french however, in their attempt to remain puristically secular is misguided in attempting to ban the hijab and the kippah. They are in no way comparable to religious symbols such as the Christian cross

Quote:

I understand that the hijab is the least and the burqa is the most conservative attire. In between are the al-amira, shayla, khimar, chador and the niqab

Actually, half of these terms are synonyms I think, just from various different languages. Hijab, Khimar and Niqab are the Arabic terms. Some of the others sound Arabic, but I've never heard them used to refer to levels of decency in dress. Al-Amira for instance means princess perhaps. Chador is Persian, not sure of it's exact meaning, Burqa I'm not sure, but perhaps Persian as well and seems to be synonymous with Niqab.

Hijab is considered the Islamically required level of dress. Khimar is just a certain style of Hijab, but has the same level of cover. Niqab is considered an extra step that can/should be taken in times of social upheavel, or if required due to certain circumstances, such as if a girl's face is so beautiful it causes fitnah (temptation and social upheavel).


Quote:

While there is no religious symbology in the attire itself, it represents an acknowledgement and proclaimation by the wearer of his/her religion

No more than long shorts represent an acknowledgement that a man is a Muslim, or that a bra (or other breast covering) represents that a woman is Christian. It is purely a level of decency.


Quote:

Thereby, it is a symbol of religion as opposed to a religious symbol (if you get what I mean).

I get what you mean, that it's something that can identify a woman as Muslim, but she could also be Orthodox Jew as well, or Orthodox Christian, or she could just be a really modest and shy Atheist :)


Quote:

The french however, in their attempt to remain puristically secular is misguided in attempting to ban the hijab and the kippah. They are in no way comparable to religious symbols such as the Christian cross

Actually I think the kippah is on the same level as the cross. It serves absolutely no practical dress purpose, except as a religious decoration. Doesn't mean I think it should be banned, definitely not, but it's not the same as Hijab, it's definitely more like a cross.

Just a basic point,"sexuality" is a mental process, while we are conditioned to appreciate some forms as more beautiful than others, psychologically, facial symmetry is a prime determinant for attractiveness.

I have no problem with women wearing scarves, or loose clothes, if they wish to, but for muslim women, the choice is not theirs to make, it has been made for them by the edicts of their religion, that is unacceptable.

The full tent thing, with the eye slit, should not be allowed in public, it only promotes mistrust, and suspicion, of those who seek to hide their identity.
If we were in the desert, in a sand storm, it may have some practical purpose, but in a modern society, it needs to be relinquished and rejected as being an anachronistic symbol of an unfair and unrealistic standard from a primitive time.

Quote:

The full tent thing, with the eye slit, should not be allowed in public, it only promotes mistrust, and suspicion, of those who seek to hide their identity. If we were in the desert, in a sand storm, it may have some practical purpose, but in a modern society, it needs to be relinquished and rejected as being an anachronistic symbol of an unfair and unrealistic standard from a primitive time.

This is true.  Perhaps the burqa originally began as protective clothing - but some of those poor women look as though they are so uncomfortable and sweltering.  It's even more unpleasant to see little girls covered this way as well.

But some of the headscarves can be very attractive and although most western women wouldn't wear them, the few western Muslim women who do apparently have a choice and like it.

Out of curiousity Abu - why do so many little girls have to wear the full burqa - especially those who are nowhere near puberty?  

Quote:

I have no problem with women wearing scarves, or loose clothes, if they wish to, but for muslim women, the choice is not theirs to make, it has been made for them by the edicts of their religion, that is unacceptable.

Your assertion is illogical mozza. Are we to believe that every single Muslim woman is forced to cover her hair? Simply by virtue of the fact she's a Muslim, yet if she's a non-Muslim, she could do it out of choice? This is nonsense. In countries like Turkey, France and Tunisia where legislation exists to PREVENT Muslim women from covering their hair, we see them breaking the law, risking imprisonment, forgoing positions in parliament and so forth in order to assert their RIGHT to cover their hair. Your assertions are baseless and stereotypical.

Do you think women in Western countries cover their genitals and breasts out of force, because there's legal edicts that prevent them from exposing these parts of their bodies? Or do you think they do it mostly out of choice because they don't feel comfortable exposing themselves in public? Yes I'm sure there's some nudists and other 'free spirits' out there who would prefer not to cover anything, but they're a minority and are not relevant to this discussion.


Quote:

The full tent thing, with the eye slit, should not be allowed in public

Then neither should any attire that covers the face. No bandages for plastic surgery patients, no Blinky Bill costumes, no Clowns, no motorcycle helmets, no balaclavas etc.


Quote:

it only promotes mistrust, and suspicion, of those who seek to hide their identity

No more than any of the things listed above do. If police or other authorities need to check a Muslim woman's identity they can do so. As they can with any of those others listed above that often obscure their face in public.

You are just being biased against Muslims, and you know it.


Quote:

If we were in the desert, in a sand storm, it may have some practical purpose, but in a modern society, it needs to be relinquished and rejected as being an anachronistic symbol of an unfair and unrealistic standard from a primitive time

Since pre-Islamic Arabs didn't wear it, that's a pretty pointless assumption. If it were only a measure taken against harsh atmospheric conditions, then we'd assume it would be taken by all peoples living in such harsh conditions. This is one of those non-starting arguments that some of the less intellectually-inclined opponents of Islam have attempted to promote.

Mantra,


Quote:

But some of the headscarves can be very attractive and although most western women wouldn't wear them

Actually the whole point of them is to be non-attractive. So any Muslim woman you see who's hijab appears attractive has missed the point of the hijab.


Quote:

Out of curiousity Abu - why do so many little girls have to wear the full burqa - especially those who are nowhere near puberty?

They don't. Covering for Muslims (male and female) is not required until they approach puberty. I've been to a few Arab countries, and never once remember seeing a girl under 12 covering.

I'm assuming you're making this claim because of some documentary you've seen about Afghanistan that depicted young girls like this? They most likely entered a village and got their translator to ask the kids, "who wants to dress up like mum and aunties??", wouldn't surprise me. Really most of the media we get here regarding Muslims, especially Afghanistan or Iraq is just nonsense. Goto images.google.com and type in "Afghan children" and see how many pre-pubescant girls in burqas comes up. I went through the first 3 or 4 pages and couldn't find any. There was quite a few wearing something like hijab (even though their hair was half exposed), but that's about it.

Quote:

legislation exists to PREVENT Muslim women from covering their hair,

It is extreme that the authorities felt they need to go so far, to try and stop a silly practice which women have been indoctrinated to believe.
That a woman should feel naked, if she has her hair exposed is frankly, just too weird, and whoever is teaching them that from such a young age is doing them psychological damage.
Not unlike prurient parents who tell their kids that nudity is "rude".


Quote:

Do you think women in Western countries cover their genitals and breasts out of force,

In a way, yes it is a form of coercion, it is social coercion, and as you well know, many cultures did not always cover their bodies out of a "learned" sense of modesty, or shame. Eskimos weren't big on nudity, but south sea islanders were, climate played it's role.


Quote:

Quote: The full tent thing, with the eye slit, should not be allowed in public Then neither should any attire that covers the face. No bandages for plastic surgery patients, no Blinky Bill costumes, no Clowns, no motorcycle helmets, no balaclavas etc.

Is that the best you can come up with?
You must admit it is a pretty silly response.
All the things you mention are serving a practical purpose, if I saw someone walking down the street in summer in a balaclava, I would ring the cops.
Try harder.

Quote:

I'm assuming you're making this claim because of some documentary you've seen about Afghanistan that depicted young girls like this? They most likely entered a village and got their translator to ask the kids, "who wants to dress up like mum and aunties??", wouldn't surprise me. Really most of the media we get here regarding Muslims, especially Afghanistan or Iraq is just nonsense. Goto images.google.com and type in "Afghan children" and see how many pre-pubescant girls in burqas comes up. I went through the first 3 or 4 pages and couldn't find any. There was quite a few wearing something like hijab (even though their hair was half exposed), but that's about it.

Well yes - that's true Abu.  It seemed so authentic as these little girls were only about 8 or 9 and they were so humble and shy.  They weren't allowed to look males in the eye either or allow any male to see their face apart from their father.

They were excellent actresses - if that's what they were.  Thanks for clearing that up though.