Phys wrote:
Nice try!
Forced modesty, maybe.
Rape and killing are not a “modest act” and it isn’t an act of love, its fear. It is an act of control. Which it appears Muslim men don’t have any. Why else would you throw a sheet over a woman from head to toe? Gotta love honor killing. YAY! ALLAH! LALALALA!
Rape and killing have nothing to do with covering yourself. If someone's going to rape and/or kill someone else, what they're wearing won't change that. Honor killing is a backwards cultural practice that some still do in this world, just like so many other things. Yazidis in Kurdistan, for example, still do it, and they're opposed to Muslims and Islam. It's a fallacy to assume that everything any Muslim does, has some Islamic justification.
It's only "forced modesty" if they're
actually forced to do it. It is
not "forced modesty" if they
choose to do it, which of course, a lot of them do, especially in secular, western countries. It's amazing that people can take one possible justification for a religious injunction as being the sole reason for that religious injunction. Yet, it's those "possible justifications", as well as people's individual, opinionated analogies (which they very carefully and selectively nit-picked from) that they jump on.
It's a very simple concept to understand; Muslims believe that God obliges believing women to be modest by dressing a certain way, so they do it. It's not because they're 'scared of being raped/killed' if they don't. It's what can be called "willful obedience". Men have a modesty dress code as well (though it doesn't cover nearly as much).
Also, being covered from head to toe is no more a symbol of "oppression" than being bare-butt naked is a symbol of "freedom". Slaves sometimes wore next to nothing, and slavery is about the farthest you can get from "free". At the same time, people of exceptionally high status, who could sometimes do anything they wanted, were sometimes covered "from head to toe", yet their position was about the farthest you could get from being a slave. So, that whole argument really doesn't fly, as it's very subjective. Yet they're trying to portray it as some sort of indisputable fact, when clearly it isn't.
It's even more ridiculous when they try to say that covering everything except the hands and face is oppressive. How more absurd can they be than that? That implies that if I'm wearing a hoodie (with the hood up), as well as pants and shoes, that I'd be "oppressed". Or would I not be, since I'm a guy? Do they differentiate it's alleged "oppressiveness" between guys and girls doing that? If so, isn't that sexism in itself? Or do they differentiate on the
reasons that it's being done? Well, they seem to only be focusing on people's personal justifications and analogies, which aren't official reasons. They're so dishonest and hypocritical.
