Would banning the hijab be an unfair restriction on a religious practice?
Would banning the hijab be an unfair restriction on a religious practice?
Islam is a very legalistic religion. Everything has to be based on the Koran or Hadith to be fully supported. The Koran is regarded as the literal word of God, while the Hadith is more interpretative. Anything not based on either is a cultural accretion that may be thought of as religious by some Moslems, but challenged by other Moslems. Facial covering is something more like the underwear prescribed by Mormonism, or insisting on visibly wearing a cross on a chain when your employer/government proscribe the wearing of religious symbols, than the turban in Sikhism. Veiling of women is not mandated by anything in the core religious writings of Islam, as such it is not fundamentally religious.
For some, a hijab may be religious as it is adopted as a tradition within Islam as a religious belief. Others may wear a hijab for cultural reasons.
There are variations in how the Qur’an has been interpreted, just as Biblical interpretations have varied, but that does not make one type of practice necessarily less religious than others. Islamic scholars have differing views on the wearing of the hijab, as do the women who wear them.
In Christianity, priests may wear religious dress, and religious sisters may be veiled. These garments aren’t specifically mentioned in the Bible or anywhere else for that matter as necessary for religious belief, but they are still known as ‘religious dress.
Some may make the argument that all religious practice is cultural not religious, but I don’t think that’s what you are doing here as you are arguing for a literal interpretation of the Qur’an.
It is cultural, not religious. Though the covering of women's hair is supported by most interpretations of the Koran/Hadith, covering the face is not. It arises from a very imprecise passage with reference to the women of the prophet Mohammed's family being 'screened'.
Islam does not directly mandate the covering of women's faces. The cultural nature of this practice is shown by the Tuareg, whose women are never veiled, but whose men often are. The Tuareg are Moslem.
How do you feel about traditional highland dress that involvees the wearing of two knives, one a fighting dirk that large and sharp enough to do a fair bit of damage, even the Skean Dhu, traditionally worn in the sock could do quite a bit of mischief.
Most rental sgian dubhs are blunt or have a plastic blade. Dirks, fighting or otherwise, aren't part of ceremonial Highland dress. The sgain dubh isn't worn in some ceremonial dress. At least, that's true in Scotland - I don't know what Americans do; many create 'Scottish' customs that don't exist in Scotland and just make Scottish peopel laugh.
Many Pagans wear an Athame or knife that's used ritually, some groups use swords too, an Athame is part of a Pagans normal ritual equipment.
I don't know what pagans do, but I do know that Gardnerian Wiccans (the sort with strict initiations and lineage from Gardner, who created Wicca) don't wear athames. They are part of ritual equipment but most Gardnerians don't travel with them, or if they do, they obey the law and pack them away. Apart from anything else, they don't want to have a piece of ritual equipment they treaure confiscated by the police or airport security. (Again, I can't speak for Gardnerians in the USA, which has its own laws.) In Gardnerian Wicca, the sword stays in the covenstead. The only pagan I know who tries to wander around the UK with a sword is still subject to the law. Ditto for pagans who want to carry around knives.
For those occasions I am part of a Wiccan circle, I use an athame with a bone blade. My metal knives are not for that purpose and stay at home.
How do you feel about traditional highland dress that involvees the wearing of two knives, one a fighting dirk that large and sharp enough to do a fair bit of damage, even the Skean Dhu, traditionally worn in the sock could do quite a bit of mischief.
Many Pagans wear an Athame or knife that's used ritually, some groups use swords too, an Athame is part of a Pagans normal ritual equipment.
A knife, or sword has no morality, that is entirely in the hands of the user, a tool or a weapon, its your choice.
There's always a mismatch between what women wear, what they do and how they act, with how little control some men are willing exert over what they keep in their trousers. I don't see how wearing any sort of head covering is a come on, or off.
The imbalance of power is that men feel they have the right to sex from women and feel free to take it or otherwise use sexual acts as a weapon and that they have tacit support from the law in so many cases. I know we have laws against rape and unwanted sexual acts, but its inadaquately enforced, it takes to long to get to court and the sentences are often inadaquate, that's if a woman is believed in the first place.
My Mum was last sexual assaulted in her mid 80's, by a man of a similar age to her, in Lidl's supermarket.. He pushed himself up against her and started rubbing himself against her, I was at the other end of the checkout and could see something was going on, but not what, I could see Mum guddling about in her handbag and her feet peddling up and down, the she swung round and elbowed him sharply in the ribs. When I asked her about it afterwards and did she want to report it, she no, she'd trampled all over his feet, concentrating on his insteps and then took the wind out of him with her elbow.
I think we'll all agree that this was a shocking thing to happen.
But given the context of this conversation, my Mum was wearing her woolly hat, her knee length coat, trousers and sensible shoes. I think this incident demonstarates that whatever her age and whatever she's wearing to go about her lawful business a woman isn't safe from sexual assault in a public place, let alone a more private space.
Don't you think that the use of the hijab is terribly chauvinistic because it shifts the burden of self-control from men to women, placing the responsibility unfairly on them? What if some women find certain men attractive? Is that the men's fault, or is the real issue that some people are simply not prepared to respect others' boundaries? To me, this is a power imbalance.
Restrictive clothing...hummm, does that include high heels that inhibit the ability to walk or run quickly? Does it include bras that are badly fitting, because most of them are, I dont' believe we should have to train any part of our bodies to accept clothing. What about tight trousers and pencil skirts?
What about make-up, does that not give a false impression, or beards that cover most of the face?
Given that many Muslim women choose to cover thier heads, I'd say its their descision.
There have been times when I would happily have covered my whole body and certainly my face. If I had hair loss due to chemo or alopecia, then I may well choose a hijab they come in many colours and types and can be far more attractive than a woolly hat.
How do you feel about burkini's, swimming costumes that cover much of the body, some are very similar to wet suits, if anyone made me have to go swimming then I'd be looking at wearing something like that.
No, but any face covering [in public] must be banned for safety reasons. I think any restrictive clothing ought not to be 'compulsory' - this is counter to modern human rights. These practices go back thousands of years and are not aligned to modern views. They are usually targetted at women. Similar to the daggers worn by Sikhs - these also must be banned, unless made out of non harmful materials.
Yes it would, a hijab is a headscarf that covers the head and sometimes the neck too, similar to a nuns wimple. Do you really want to ban people from wearing what is basically a hat or turban?
Are you sure you don't mean a niqab, or a burka? Both of these cover the face.
