Table of Content

Thenceforth, I'll refer to the term 'hijab' as 'headscarf' or 'Muslim headscarf'. In the Qur'an or Hadith, the term is never used for an head/hair/neck-cover as worn by traditional Muslim women today.

Introduction

Oppose Hate Crimes on Muslim women for Wearing headscarf

Muslim women in headscarf is not good analogy for Nun

Muslim Women wearing headscarf not necessarily Dedicated to Pleasing God

Headscarf indeed oppresses as much Muslim women as it may empower

New Testament does not ordain headscarf for women except in prayers

Headscarf is no determinant of degree of 'modesty' of women

With or without headscarf women can be valuable, dignified and graced

Women wearing the headscarf is not the height of modesty and morality

There is nothing really respectable about a woman wearing the headscarf

Muslim women wearing the headscarf may as well be superficial and obsessed with fashion indiustry

Introduction

I'm not a Muslim in the traditional sense but most of my family and friends are. A consequence of this is that I have to put up with influx of pro-Muslim, preachy & propagandist, electronic messages circulating in the Muslim community and relayed to me from my loved ones.

Though I never bother opening the messages, as I can tell from experience the height of ignorance, dishonesty and sometimes stupidity that await me. I still read them now and then. To remind myself of the depth of follies and fallacies that man-made beliefs and traditions predisposes even the smartest of minds.

In this thread, I've picked none but the below video, forwarded to me in 2018; a colossal misinformation and melodramatic appeal and another propaganda for traditional Muslim headscarf.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NkLHsTJWSI&t

The speaker opens thus;

Speaker: I am going to take a few moments commenting on Christian women in the church. This video is important for those who hate Muslim woman just because she wears hijab. Look at this clip.

The clip is a video record of Church service with Christian nuns in their attires.

Needless to say, I denounce hate crimes anywhere, against anyone for wearing anything - headscarf, face-veil, tank top or bikini. What I denounce even as much is the extent of misinformation by the speaker and the headscarf propaganda being his motive & focus for nearly all of the monologue.

We've now address the fair point in the message, the rest of it as you'll see is laden with misinformation.

Misinformation 1: Comparing Muslim women in headscarf to Mary or Nuns

Speaker: Then type in Mary, mother of Jesus(on Google), tell me what you see. You see her in hijab, that modest non-revealing apparel.

So? Mary or the nuns cover their hair supposedly in service to God, but these women are not like any Muslim woman in hijab. Far more than the Muslim woman, they give up more than just uncovering their hair. This is as poor analogy as analogy between Characters and Cosplayers.

Misinformation 2: Muslim Wearing headscarf = Dedication to pleasing God.

Speaker: Now, ask Christians why these women are wearing hijab, their answer would be; "because they are dedicated to serving God". And we can agree this is noble, righteous. A Muslim woman wearing hijab is doing the same, dedicating her life to pleasing God. So, why the double standard & hypocrisy?

So once a woman wears hijab, she's dedicated to pleasing God? Probably the speaker haven't met many Muslim women in hijab. I'll tell you what. I live in a place where 75-80% of women wear hijab. Know what these Muslim women are like?

As any woman, they may lie, cheat, be greedy, be obnoxious, date, smoke, wear nail polish and skinny jeans. These are flawed women that shouldn't be put on pedestal as the speaker does.

For many, the headscarf is just a cloth imposed by family, peers, culture or government, an apparel that they wear out of conditioning rather than conscious preference. It is not a big deal. And these women couldn't care less of 'dedicating to pleasing God'.

Misinformation 3: Muslim headscarf has not oppressed women

Next, the speaker cites American news reporter Tucker Carlson, whom he berates for saying that the Muslim headscarf has oppressed millions of women.

I hate to admit T.C is right. If you have a state law or culture that pressures women to cover their hair, is it not logical that women who do not want to cover will be oppressed? In Iran women took to the streets in protest after the headscarf was imposed post revolution.

Today, the daughters and grand-daughters of those Iran women keep protesting in less overt manner. In 2018, Soumya S, former Indian chess champion declined invitation to participate in chess tournament in Iran, in objection to the requirement that all female participant must wear the headscarf.

US Women Chess champion, Nazi Paikdze boycotted the competition in Iran for the same reason, in 2017. In Iran and other parts of Muslim world, #NoHijabday is now a phenomenon.

Where no formal law enforce headscarf, family and culture pressure women to wear it & so oppresses women who don't want to wear it. There are then Muslim women that dislike constant wearing of headscarf, but continue to wear it because they are afraid of going to hell if they take it off.

Testimonies of those Muslim women who feel empowered by the headscarf abound, but there are Muslim women feeling oppressed by it and the speaker cannot deny this. So, is TC hateful here? I don't think so. But the fanatic Muslim and politically correct/regressive Left think so.

PLUS: Let's not forget that even non-Muslim women are forced by state law to wear Muslim headscarf in regions like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Misinformation 4: Christian women dress code

Speaker: But hijab is in their own Bible, Corinthian 11: 5-16.

More crap, Corinthian 11 is directive to wear headscarf to prayers. This is not same as wearing the headscarf to school, to football field or engineering plant as traditional Muslim women have been taught.

Please see my thread on Qur'an Is the face/hair veil an Islamic Requirement?, there is no directive to cover the hair. Of course, if you read the Qur'an through the obscured lens of the traditionalists, you will find hair covering and may be face covering in the verses 24:31, 33:59.

To be true, the traditional interpretation of this verses is face-covering(niqab). Hadith report that the women covered their faces when 24:31 was revealed.

Sahih al-Bukhari » Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an

`Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their heads and faces with those cut pieces of cloth."

Mainstream scholars claim that face-veil is only a recommendation, not mandatory. This position is only supported by some schools of Islamic law, but it is illegitimate because a clear sahih hadith like above takes precedence over contradictory view of the schools of Islamic law.

Not to deviate too much into what the dress code in traditional Islam is, but this had to be pointed out for the sake of information.

Misinformation 5: Women Not Wearing the headscarf are 'Immodestly' dressed

The speaker then cut to a clip of Christian pastors condemning ‘immodest dressing’ demonstrated with mannequins.

Of course, same old crap. Fallacy of false dilemma; "If a woman is not wearing headscarf, she is dressed 'immodestly'. And if she is wearing headscarf, she is 'modestly' dressed."

Misinformation 6: It is the headscarf that gives Muslim women Reputation

Shows us shots of Christian women in similar headscarf to Muslim women. He concludes; "These are the best women of Christianity" and concludes with shots of Muslim women in headscarf, with the captions; "This is where she finds her dignity, grace and value".

Dignity? Grace? Value? How colossally stupid is this speaker? So, without headscarf, the following Muslim women lack dignity, grace and value?

A woman without the Muslim headscarf can't have value? Now wonder people hate Muslim headscarf. It is a twisted yardstick of evaluating women, for, regardless of individual character, intelligence and achievement, a woman without headscarf is less valuable than a woman in headscarf..

So in the eyes of the speaker, even hijab beauty fashion stars like Sondos Al Qattan is more valuable than a medical doctor like Qanta Ahmed. And just any random Muslim woman in the headscarf has more dignity than Queen Rania.

This obsession with headscarf among Muslims is so toxic that it may manifest as contempt for women not wearing the headscarf. For instance, there is a popular meme in the Muslim community that compares women in headscarf to 'wrapped candies' and women without headscarf to 'exposed candies infested with flies'.

Such is the value of women without headscarf, in the eyes of ignorant or twisted Muslims like the speaker.

I think this hijab 'politics' is nothing but Arab's cultural invasion of non-arab (or non-muslim) lands. The political/religious acceptance of hijabs often come with Islamic, and Arab cultural, package.

true2god:
I think this hijab 'politics' is nothing but Arab's cultural invasion of non-arab (or non-muslim) lands. The political/religious acceptance of hijabs often come with Islamic, and Arab cultural, package.

Since Hijab or covering is addressed in the Quran, and Quran is universal Book, then it is not Arab culture but muslims regardless of race. Quran is not for Arabs.

Just like you addressed the issue of homosexual been detested 50yrs ago in the West, Western civilization themselves were modest and had some sort of scarfs on until they became ungodly. Orthodox christianity still largely maintain the standard. So, op can post anything he likes. So hijab is no politics nor is it Arab culture.

true2god:
I think this hijab 'politics' is nothing but Arab's cultural invasion of non-arab (or non-muslim) lands. The political/religious acceptance of hijabs often come with Islamic, and Arab cultural, package.

"According to the four schools of thought in Sunni Islam, women must cover everything except their hands and faces, and their feet may be exposed in the Hanafi school."

And a hijab fulfills the dress code requirement, but if you are able to produce a dress that is not a hijab that fulfills this requirement then it's okay.
Or they could dress like some Hausa women (traditional with a scarf covering their heads) which is not a hijab, but it is in accordance with this dress code.
Things like the burka, those seem to me like Arabian culture rather than Islamic.

IMAliyu:

"According to the four schools of thought in Sunni Islam, women must cover everything except their hands and faces, and their feet may be exposed in the Hanafi school."

And a hijab fulfills the dress code requirement, but if you are able to produce a dress that is not a hijab that fulfills this requirement then it's okay.
Or they could dress like some Hausa women (traditional with a scarf covering their heads) which is not a hijab, but it is in accordance with this dress code.
Things like the burka, those seem to me like Arabian culture rather than Islamic.

The Yoruba iro and buba with gele fulfils this condition too using your analogy.


You may be right.

Alhajiemeritus:
The Yoruba iro and buba with gele fulfils this condition too using your analogy.


You may be right.

That's my understanding of the matter anyway.

Empiree:
Since Hijab or covering is addressed in the Quran, and Quran is universal Book, then it is not Arab culture but muslims regardless of race. Quran is not for Arabs.

Just like you addressed the issue of homosexual been detested 50yrs ago in the West, Western civilization themselves were modest and had some sort of scarfs on until they became ungodly. Orthodox christianity still largely maintain the standard. So, op can post anything he likes. So hijab is no politics nor is it Arab culture.

The Quran, the hadith and the seerah are products of medieval Arab society. Over 90% of laws and customs in the Quran are pre-islamic Arab cultural laws while the rest can be said to be a conglomerate of Jewish law, Zoroastrian law and others. Hijab is an Arab word which also confirm the the people and race from which the fashion emanates. The Japanese women, till date, still put on their traditional dress called Kimono which covers women from head to tow (no face covering though) and they never make a noise about it or try to forcefully culturally export it to other part of the world as an instruction from their Shinto God.

Every race, from time immemorial, have a peculiar dress pattern that appeal to their environment and culture. Arabian land is sandy and windy and nature makes it compulsory for their men and women to cover their hair so that winds don't carry sands into their hair and at times eyes. And this has always been the practice hundreds of years before Islam; it is part of Arabian culture among the pagans, Jews and Christian women in the Arabia.

The issue we now have is the appropriation of Arabic culture into Islamic culture which makes it look as if hijab is an Islamic dressing. Go and study the origin of the 'hijab fashion'. The problem the modern world has with hijab is its use for identity politics among the Muslim ummah all over the world. This identity politics, using the hijab, was not available as at 10years ago; it is a new trend which seems to have been agreed upon my modern Muslim. Hence all over the world it is always the official dress codes against the Islamic hijab. Here in Nigeria, it is the school uniform against the Islamic hijab. In France and Germany, it is the Islamic hijab against the schools and the larger society.

The modern hijab has nothing to do with religion but identity politics for easy identification of Muslims women from the kafir women. In Iran and Saudi Arabia many women are now in jail for failing to put on their hijab. Hijab in these countries are not by choice but by force.

true2god:
The Quran, the hadith and the seerah are products of medieval Arab society.

I need not read further. Abeg, if they are medieval products, i wonder what Bible is.

You are very delusional. This is 'Mary' drawn by christians. Keep living in denial. You need to decide which side you on. Those who drew rhe picture understood definition of Hijab. Tell us now, Mr true2god false2god that you dont believe in mother of your god. This way we know where you stand.

Or if Mary was here today he would dress in bikini or skirt to church?. smh..you watch 'God' and sinning right before him. Fantastic

Another Christian fanatic

Empiree:
I need not read further. Abeg, if they are medieval products, i wonder what Bible is.

You are very delusional. This is 'Mary' drawn by christians. Keep living in denial. You need to decide which side you on. Those who drew rhe picture understood definition of Hijab. Tell us now, Mr true2god false2god that you dont believe in mother of your god. This way we know where you stand.

Or if Mary was here today he would dress in bikini or skirt to church?. smh..you watch 'God' and sinning right before him. Fantastic

The Torah and the Injil are also products of medieval Jewish society. If I say medieval, I don't mean to say the books are bad because it seems you have already conditioned your mind to stereotype anything the word 'medivial' is attached to, and you see it as an insult to use the words 'medieval' and 'quran' in the same sentence. I believe you are mature and equally have a good grasp of what I mean but chose to play into Islamic gallery. We sometimes hate hearing or telling ourselves the truth.

true2god:
The Torah and the Injil are also products of medieval Jewish society. If I say medieval, I don't mean to say the books are bad because it seems you have already conditioned your mind to stereotype anything the word 'medivial' is attached to, and you see it as an insult to use the words 'medieval' and 'quran' in the same sentence. I believe you are mature and equally have a good grasp of what I mean but chose to play into Islamic gallery. We sometimes hate hearing or telling ourselves the truth.

no. You are now panelbeating your statement because I mentioned Bible. I am not a fool. Na today I know you?

Empiree:
no. You are now panelbeating your statement because I mentioned Bible. I am not a fool. Na today I know you?

Edited for peace:

Hijab is an Arab word which also confirm the the people and race from which the fashion emanates. The Japanese women, till date, still put on their traditional dress called Kimono which covers women from head to tow (no face covering though) and they never make a noise about it or try to forcefully culturally export it to other part of the world as an instruction from their Shinto God.

Every race, from time immemorial, have a peculiar dress pattern that appeal to their environment and culture. Arabian land is sandy and windy and nature makes it compulsory for their men and women to cover their hair so that winds don't carry sands into their hair and at times eyes. And this has always been the practice hundreds of years before Islam; it is part of Arabian culture among the pagans, Jews and Christian women in the Arabia.

The issue we now have is the appropriation of Arabic culture into Islamic culture which makes it look as if hijab is an Islamic dressing. Go and study the origin of the 'hijab fashion'. The problem the modern world has with hijab is its use for identity politics among the Muslim ummah all over the world. This identity politics, using the hijab, was not available as at 10years ago; it is a new trend which seems to have been agreed upon my modern Muslim. Hence all over the world it is always the official dress codes against the Islamic hijab. Here in Nigeria, it is the school uniform against the Islamic hijab. In France and Germany, it is the Islamic hijab against the schools and the larger society.

The modern hijab has nothing to do with religion but identity politics for easy identification of Muslims women from the kafir women. In Iran and Saudi Arabia many women are now in jail for failing to put on their hijab. Hijab in these countries are not by choice but by force.

true2god:
Edited for peace:

Hijab is an Arab word which also confirm the the people and race from which the fashion emanates. The Japanese women, till date, still put on their traditional dress called Kimono which covers women from head to tow (no face covering though) and they never make a noise about it or try to forcefully culturally export it to other part of the world as an instruction from their Shinto God.

Every race, from time immemorial, have a peculiar dress pattern that appeal to their environment and culture. Arabian land is sandy and windy and nature makes it compulsory for their men and women to cover their hair so that winds don't carry sands into their hair and at times eyes. And this has always been the practice hundreds of years before Islam; it is part of Arabian culture among the pagans, Jews and Christian women in the Arabia.

The issue we now have is the appropriation of Arabic culture into Islamic culture which makes it look as if hijab is an Islamic dressing. Go and study the origin of the 'hijab fashion'. The problem the modern world has with hijab is its use for identity politics among the Muslim ummah all over the world. This identity politics, using the hijab, was not available as at 10years ago; it is a new trend which seems to have been agreed upon my modern Muslim. Hence all over the world it is always the official dress codes against the Islamic hijab. Here in Nigeria, it is the school uniform against the Islamic hijab. In France and Germany, it is the Islamic hijab against the schools and the larger society.

The modern hijab has nothing to do with religion but identity politics for easy identification of Muslims women from the kafir women. In Iran and Saudi Arabia many women are now in jail for failing to put on their hijab. Hijab in these countries are not by choice but by force.

Whatever you say, pal. For as long as hijab made its way to Quran, it becomes part of the religion whether it is wajib, fard or mustahab it doesnt matter. What you mentioned about Japanese even Hindus, Sikh etc means they retained that part of religion of Abraham(as). Since Islam has always been religion of God from day 1 mean hijab was always worn prior to advent of nabi Muhammad(SAW).

Interestingly, 'mother of your god' had hers on. So modern christianity deviated from modest ways of dressing. They are the most indecent people on earth today bcus even traditional people across the globe still honor hijab. They can call it different names it doesn't matter. The only two forms of christianity that i respect are orthodox christianity and Amish in the sense of mode of dressing. But this modern christianity(which is majority, which you and many nigerian christians belong) is driving mankind to their total destruction. BUt you are all still guilty of shirk whether protestant, orthodox, Mennonites, catholic etc.

Empiree:
Whatever you say, pal. For as long as hijab made its way to Quran, it becomes part of the religion whether it is wajib, fard or mustahab it doesnt matter. What you mentioned about Japanese even Hindus, Sikh etc means they retained that part of religion of Abraham(as). Since Islam has always been religion of God from day 1 mean hijab was always worn prior to advent of nabi Muhammad(SAW).

Interestingly, 'mother of your god' had hers on. So modern christianity deviated from modest ways of dressing. They are the most indecent people on earth today bcus even traditional people across the globe still honor hijab. They can call it different names it doesn't matter. The only two forms of christianity that i respect are orthodox christianity and Amish in the sense of mode of dressing. But this modern christianity(which is majority, which you and many nigerian christians belong) is driving mankind to their total destruction. BUt you are all still guilty of shirk whether protestant, orthodox, Mennonites, catholic etc.

It is like anything that conform to Islamic culture and religion automatically retain 'part of religion of Abraham'. Meaning that Islam is, to Muslims, a standard for all other cultures and religion. This is a supremacist mindset which fuel extremist views and often leads to terror.

The Japanese' Shintos, the Chinese Buddhist and the Indian Hindus have nothing to do with the Abrahamic faith and their religion has been in force thousands of years before Islam, Judaism and Christianity. How can these religions retain the religions of Abraham when they existing long before the Abrahamic religions?

The Abrahamic faith is the exclusive belief and views of the Judaeo-christian world; the Muslims just attached themselves to 'The Abrahamic faith' for legitimacy in the west. You said the christian world is the most indecent part of the world but you have forgotten that the Muslim world is the most bloodletting, intolerant and oppressive part of the world. The christian world, according to Muslims, is bad but Muslims are hustling to relocate to the so-called christian world in their millions and over 60 million Muslim immigrants are in western Europe now and more are still coming. The US, being geographically lucky, has fewer Muslims bcause of the distance from the Arab/Muslim world and yet Muslims want the US to open, and relax their immigration policy, their border for easy entry. If the Muslim world is so good, Muslims wont be rushing to relocate to the society they so much despise. What an irony!

true2god:
It is like anything that conform to Islamic culture and religion automatically retain 'part of religion of Abraham'. Meaning that Islam is, to Muslims, a standard for all other cultures and religion. [s]This is a supremacist mindset which fuel extremist views and often leads to terror.[/s]

shaking my head. This is Quran, a REVELATION for God's sake not Hadith. Hadith is where Arab culture crept in. Since Quran is UNIVERSAL for ALL MANKIND AND JINN, Commands therein are for all people who embrace it regardless of tribe, race, color, ethnicity, nationality. Some cultures or traditions may bend the rules to fit their culture. Nothing wrong with this because Islam recognizes cultures as long as it doesn't stand in conflict to it. This is not supremacists but religious fact. Talking about supremacists, didn't your CHRISTIAN colonial masters force their ways on Africans?. Now they wanted to try it again but were busted. Watch this few minutes British attempt to invade Africa again



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO1pRFj2K8Q

No way. Not again. This is 21st century not stone age. I remembered growing up in primary school. They would distribute that little terrorist manual called new testament Bible in schools. They tried their efforts to no avail. They would make us sing those silly Christian terrorist hymns every morning assembly. They would tell us at lunchtime to pray to muhammad and Allah for food. After praying for 5-10 mins and no food, they would tell us to close our eyes and pray in Jesus name and said to open our eyes.

By the time we opened our eyes, these crazy people already put plates of food on our desks. After we opened our eyes, they said Jesus answered our prayers but Muhammad and Allah don't. This fraud. This fraud is what gave birth to modern CHRISTIAN stupidity in churches today by faking miracles. Our eyes are open now. All these frauds they committed against us Muslims were painful but had little to no effect on many of us. Guess who funded this madness?. The so called Abrahamic faith aka Judeo/Christian from international community. They failed woefully with all their devilish plans.

The Japanese' Shintos, the Chinese Buddhist and the Indian Hindus have nothing to do with the Abrahamic faith and their religion has been in force thousands of years before Islam, Judaism and Christianity. How can these religions retain the religions of Abraham when they existing long before the Abrahamic religions?

Do I need to teach you this all over again?. That Islam was the first and only religion that came with the first creation, Adam?. Therefore, these religions you mentioned were fabricated to corrupt message (Islam) sent to them. The least you could have said was that Quran came after these religions.

The Abrahamic faith is the exclusive belief and views of the Judaeo-christian world; the Muslims just attached themselves to 'The Abrahamic faith' for legitimacy in the west. You said the christian world is the most indecent part of the world but you have forgotten that the Muslim world is the most bloodletting, intolerant and oppressive part of the world. The christian world, according to Muslims, is bad but Muslims are hustling to relocate to the so-called christian world in their millions and over 60 million Muslim immigrants are in western Europe now and more are still coming. The US, being geographically lucky, has fewer Muslims bcause of the distance from the Arab/Muslim world and yet Muslims want the US to open, and relax their immigration policy, their border for easy entry. If the Muslim world is so good, Muslims wont be rushing to relocate to the society they so much despise. What an irony!

Aponle ni tapa... Hausa ni Hausa nje we dey respect you for saying "Abrahamic faith". There is no such thing. If you say there was such a thing called "Abrahamic faith", abeg, which of the two religions did Abraham practice?. Don't tell me both religions because that would be hypocrisy but Abraham was not hypocrite. His religion was Hanif (pure Islamic monotheism). Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but a true muslim.

The nonsense called Abrahamic faith was nothing but bogus attempt to hijack Islam. As for other nonsense you talked about on immigration, I am glad you said Western nations are CHRISTIAN Nations which make them guilty of slavery following their Bible. Maybe you should ask yourself why they "migrated" to Africa in the first place to steal their resources?. History tells us that 30% of Africans on slave ship were muslims and forced to convert to CHRISTIANITY.

Maybe you need educational course on forced conversions of muslims.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBQelGvwkhE

After CHRISTIAN West stole their resources and ran off, they built their nations on stolen Muslim goods and they are still doing it in the middle East and Africa in 21st century. These CHRISTIAN terrorist Nations can't stand on their own the moment Africa and middle East countries get their act together. They would collapse like remote demolition. They always hide behind 'terrorism'. This is camouflage. This is what France did under Nicolas Sarkozy by sending military to secure his country interest in Mali few years ago yet, it is telling the world that the locals who were trying to take control of their land are terrorists.

It is clear that Judeo CHRISTIAN world is a terrorist ideology that is driving mankind to destruction. Abeg, me no get time for argument or debate. It is Ramadan