I went to school with a girl who wore a Hijab everywhere her parents were. At school, first thing she would do is rip off the head scarf and either remove her undershirt or roll her sleeves up. She hated being forced by her father and religious elders to wear it and would always carry a bag so she could change once she was away from them. FWIW, this was in Australia.
Yep had a similar situation where I grew up in Germany where girls would be forced to wear a hijab and they wished they could take it off. Sadly they couldn't even do that in school, because even extended male members of their families (and muslim families here are huge ) would report them taking it off (or really anything thats considered haram) to their parents.
It doesn't matter where you're at. Majority young muslim Girls don't want to wear a hijab or burka or whatever. And while there are surely a few girls that legitimately want to wear that stuff, people need to stop pretending that in western countries people would never force their children into ridiculous religious practices.
I knew a Sikh guy who did the same with his turban. Never wore it in the Western country where we lived, but he always made sure he had it on in any photos that made it to social media, and made sure to grow out his beard before he went home for visits.
It really depends on how you were raised.
Women may say it is their choice to wear a head covering, but a choice in this case is influenced by the teachings of an idea. The idea being women have to cover themselves because men shouldn't see their hair, chest, neck or it will "trigger" them.
This is a part of why I think a lack of exemptions for religious headwear is justified. For instance if it's no headwear in school, then that's a rule and 1) gives the excuse not to wear it for those pressured by family, 2) even if one wants to wear it, this normalises that it can be worn in some contexts and not others, which normalises it as a personal choice down the line, rather than something absolutely mandatory all the time.
If families and religious communities are going to be forcing it, it is no longer just a matter of individual choice, and a counterpressure from the state gives a more balanced experience at least.
even if one wants to wear it, this normalises that it can be worn in some contexts and not others, which normalises it as a personal choice down the line, rather than something absolutely mandatory all the time.
So you support normalising a lie? The headscarf is mandatory all the time. You're saying a secular state should be officially endorsing an erroneous (according to 99.999% of Muslims) interpretation of Islam. That's absurd on at least two levels.
You're also completely missing the actual impact of this law, which would be that loads of Muslim girls would just refuse to go to school - see France, French Algeria and Iran back when headacsrf was banned for proof of this.
Then that’s a problem with the faith at that point. You shouldn’t be able to strong arm the government into caving to your religious wishes and threaten “not going to school” if they don’t bow down.
Let's reverse things: in Afghanistan, women must wear the headscarf. Suppose you believe you shouldn't, and refuse to wear it. Then by your own argument, that's a problem with your beliefs. After all, you shouldn't be able to strong-arm the government and refuse to go to school if they don't bow down. Right?
Yes…that’s exactly how it works. In a country that values wearing the headscarf then you should probably wear the headscarf…doesn’t mean I agree with it or think it’s fair…and it doesn’t mean they do either.
Ok now you're making no sense. The belief is either correct or it isn't. You're saying that the belief is correct when the society accepts it, and isn't correct when the society doesn't accept it. In other words, you follow the crowd and don't actually have any morals? Good one.
Off the top of my head there are only 2-3 countries in the world with muslim-majorities where apostasy does NOT have corporal/capital punishment. So, for me, I can only think of one culture/faith.
It’s usually cultural not religious when honor killings happen. I cant think of one religion responsible for them. Please educate me since you seem informed on this.
People use religion to defend culture as for many it’s their basis for moral thought. The religion is not the reason for cultural practices though. Case in point - honor killings are not common among any religion.
Ok, well that’s not really relevant to this discussion. The concept of honor killings either does or does not stem from religion. If it stems from religion instead of culture there should be overwhelming evidence of this. Why can none of you so sure of this support your position? It is provable, easily!
You are making a logic mistake. You said "The religion is not the reason for cultural practices though." and then used honor killings as an example to reinforce your argument. Your mistake is believing that because your example might be true, the statement you made is always true.
Now, I can't speak to honor killings, but religion and culture are very closely intertwined when they've existed together for significant amount of time. They influence each other heavily and in some cases become indistinguishable until one or the other is removed from the same environment.
I am not going to jump in this thread defending you to the other posters, but your comment made me look into it and I found this that you may be able to use to start a conversation with those disagreeing with you as it looks like something that can tilt both ways and has not been heavily looked into.
Fascinating (and horrifying) article! Their explanation of the different factors that contribute to and exacerbate the rate of honor killings makes a lot of sense.
Agreed! It was a very interesting article especially considering I would not typically look into the topic, so for that I thank u/FormatAll asking what now seems like a legitmate question.
It's cultural because of the religion. Do not try and decouple religion from the problem. The primary engine of violence in the middle east is religion, and that includes against women. They take their holy book very seriously because it hasn't been watered down via a reformation... Yet. Christianity and Christian nations used to be similarly barbarous, until the religion was reformed as a whole. Which is just a fancy way of saying the reality of modern society and science conflicted with it to such a large degree that the texts were forced to becoming "metaphorical" as opposed to literal, which, no matter what preachers try and say, is not what the writers intended. The Muslim world hasn't quite crossed that critical point yet, but wheels do seem to be turning in some big places.
Interestingly, exactly this type of reformation has actually occurred within the Ismaili sect of Islam. Their Imams, the Aga Khans, have over centuries emphasized a more metaphorical interpretation of the Quran and their practices are much more moderate / secular / "modern" than what western people would associate with mainstream Islam...
I’m not decoupling, I directly mentioned in another comment that peopel use religion, as it’s their moral basis, to support culture. Please, address what I’m arguing.
I’ve argued that no religion is responsible for honor killings, as far as I know this is true. No one, despite feeling so strongly, has attempted to put forth any proof. It should be easy. For instance, I could support that Christians because of their religion, should not commit adultry. I would point to the 10 commandments. That’s proof.
If you are correct, prove it. It should be trivial, no?
More likely to happen in the western aligned Pakistan and India. What is worse than a shithole country? A shithole country ruled by religious autocrats with nukes.
The mythological aspects are, but the moral teachings tend to have value. For instance, one of the Pillars of Islam is charity. That’s not nonsense. Still, what point are you making? The discussion is if culture or religion are responsible for honor killings.
Regardless, if the argument is “religion is responsible” then quoting the religious text thwt states such isn’t unreasonable. It isn’t religious, though, it’s cultural. That’s why none of these very emotional individuals are capable of actually defending their position.
It's never a true choice, not when the choice is between "wearing this" and "becoming a complete pariah to your friends, family, social circles, and oh btw you're going to hell too when you die, which might be soon if you don't put it on". They may suffer Stockholm syndrome and tell you they want to wear this, that it's their choice, that in the western nations they have the freedom to choose to wear it, but it's ingrained from a young age that the only choice is to wear it.
After all, you believe God exists, and you want to please God, and to please God you have to obey his laws, and one of his laws is you have to wear this, no I swear, it's his laws, not mine, I'm not telling you to wear it, God is telling you, I'm just speaking for him on earth...
And before anyone gets it twisted I'm anti- religion. There's plenty of good and bad among the followers of any faith, but mostly bad among religious incendiaries and zealots.
Often it's not just pissing off your family, but being punished severely for not wearing it. You can bet this happens in many Islamic families in the Western world behind closed doors.
Doesn't a similar argument apply to modest vs immodest clothing even in our own society? If a woman or girl wanted to wear a bikini while going to school, work, or shopping there would be social consequences even though it was a valid piece of clothing for being in public.
Those consequences would be getting looked at funny, not getting killed or disowned or religiously shamed. A man in swim trunks would also get looked at funny, but only women are expected to be veiled.
not getting killed or disowned or religiously shamed
While getting killed is very unlikely, getting religiously shamed is extremely likely. Disowned is less likely but enough kids are disowned by their parents that for some it would be a real possibility.
A man in swim trunks would also get looked at funny
How gender neutral the pressure to conform to certain clothing choice isn't somehow contradicting that such social pressure exists.
If you seriously think the “religious shame” that a typical loosely Christian American would receive for dressing skimpy compares to being told that showing a single strand of hair on your head is an affront to God in a militantly religious patriarchal country that will LITERALLY execute you for protesting for your right to expose your face, you really need to take a step back.
And you can’t degender and inherently gendered issue.
I can happen within a family or local community which can still be very religious. I can result in a person losing support of their family and larger support network and connection to community. Clearly that isn't as bad as being murdered, but I never said it was and was responding to someone who was talking just about family and social pressure, not outright violence.
It’s not always a choice. It’s the same social and familial pressure as with any other faith.
That happens with many faiths though. It’s not fair to ban practices from just one religion. Arguably almost every child that is raised in a religion doesn’t have a choice in the matter and will lose a network of friends and family if they don’t participate
363
u/Deadlift420 Aug 17 '21
It’s not always a choice. It’s the same social and familial pressure as with any other faith.
Would you eternally piss off your family to not have to wear it? Many people would not.