http://www.theaustralian.news......01,00.html

Women practicising their religion and making free fashion choices or a grossly distorted view of relationships between men and women? I’ll go for the latter interpretation.

Of course some of you will say that the Sheik’s views have been distorted or that he does not represent mainstream Islam but isn’t this tale wearing thin? There is a problem and it needs to be comprehensively addressed.

Your perception of the world, Amir, is that men steal women’s beauty not just that they just enjoy life by doing what comes naturally.

HC: I never said they were stealing her beauty. It has been said previously by others here that a woman’s “charms” are her own property and she has rights over that property; in that she can decide to show them to the world.

So, if her charms are her property and she has rights over the use of that property, then, like other public goods, they suffer from the problem of nonexcludability.  By covering, she is essentially attempting to reduce that nonexcludability and, by doing so, there would be a commensurate increase in the notional value of those charms to those that she does make them available to.

As I said, I tend to think the reason women cover is because they want to practice their religion. But if we are going to define “charms” as property and make it subject to property rights then it does have interesting consequences.

once again you resort to breathless rhetoric when imagination, logic or intelligence fail. We are in your corner buddy, but you have to make an argument, So far you have retreated from genital mutilation and from wife beating to merely restating your opinion over and over and over again. Why not try the Arthur Herman”s (of CIS) tactic of suggesting a period of western imposed paternalistic midwifery on the Muslim world? Its an absurd position but it does have the veneer of a sophisticated argument, something which your comments have lacked.

This may work with your students who unfortunately have no avenue of escape, but in the cyber-world, academic pomposity and bombast count for nothing. So far Maryam has made mincemeat of your views and you are now seriously out of your depth. It might work at that jumped-up technical college that you refer to as a university, but it has demonstrably failed here.

Its time to get up off the floor and and come up punching, get your game face on, your playing first grade, son.

And you are incorrect to suggest we spend to much time with our backsides in the air, we do not spend enough. We must spend more time in prostration to our Lord.

I encourage you to do likewise, if for no other reason than it will assist in blood flow to your brain.

Your perception of the world, Amir, is that men steal women’s beauty not just that they just enjoy life by doing what comes naturally. Do you really see the world this way? By making herself look like a sack of potatoes a woman controls the property rights to her beauty???? Men and women are beautiful to each other Amir – no need to hide this and why do it?

Suffering is a pain in the butt, Amir, pleasure is better. Suffering is a virtue only for those for whom it does not matter since it is their life. They are miserable sods that the world would be better off without.

Is it your owm lack of intrinsic intelligence that forces you to such crazy positions? Go outside and smell the flowers Amir. Enjoy your life and forget about the wizened old fools who teach you this nonsense. It is a time-wasting delusion.

Christianity (and particularly the Catholic Church) have oppressed generations of Westerners with this nonsense for centuries. Be a wise guy – learn from the mistakes of others.

Now my question of who owns a woman’s sexuality still needs to be answered. Independently, of the attitudes of the west and independently of the issue of the Niqab:

Do we agree that it is the individual woman who ought to own her sexuality and ought to be the residual claimant to that sexuality?

This is an interesting question. Although I think the point is moot because most women wear niqab for religious reasons, the question of ‘ownership’ of a woman’s beauty is nonetheless an interesting one.

I suppose one could argue that for a non-covered woman, everyone owns her ‘womanly charms’ (to use your expression); in that, anyone can enjoy or benefit from them by looking at them. By covering, she is then essentially reclaiming her ‘charms’ and can now choose who she allows to see them. Therefore, a woman that is covered has a much stronger degree of ownership of her ‘charms’ or sexuality than a woman that is not.

The problem is that the main arguments for the Niqab are predicated on the idea that women ought to wear the Niqab to keep leering eyes of strange men away from them. It is not my argument. The overwhelming reason for advocating and justifying the Niqab is as a limit to the sexual desire of men.

This may be how some people have sought to rationalise or justify in secular terms the wearing of niqab, but I don’t think this is the main argument. The main arguments for niqab are, without doubt, arguments based on fiqh not on pop sociology.

In any case, if people are going to promote the veiling of the face, appeals to the supposedly uncontrollable sexual urges of men are not amongst the most compelling rational arguments. Simply, “sexual desire of men” will not disappear just because the object of someone’s desire is obscured from them, no more than I think people would feel less thirst if water was only bottled in opaque containers. If that were the case, societies with more conservative dress codes would be free from sexual perversion and misconduct. However, as we can see from some recent reports from the gulf, this is obviously not the case. Therefore, the causal connection between conservative female dress and conservative conduct by males is not necessarily as strong as some might claim. A far more effective measure is to encourage men (and women) to show self-control and restraint. In other words, fear Allah.

Anyway, tomorrow is Eid so I wish all of you a blessed and happy Eid. May Allah accept all of our good deeds this month, forgive our sins and make our siyam and salat a shield for us all on the Day of Judgement.

The reasons are irrelevent to this discussion anyway. Regardless of what reasons she has for covering her face and whether they can be empirically proven or rationally argued, the real issue is whether she is forced or not.

Thank you for your very thoughtful comments, its an interesting question. To what extent is any clothing for women (or for that matter, men) an expression of personal freedom and absolute choice, and how much is due to social cultural and religious strictures? This discussion is equally valid all all cultures and with all clothing (e.g. a bikini) as much as it is with the veil.

The hijab is enough in the eyes of all the sheikhs and sheikhas to wear when a woman is on Hajj, in-fact many religious authorities (eg Shafi madhab) say it is forbidden for a woman to cover her face on Hajj, when she stands next to and prays shoulder to shoulder with men who are unknown to her. If the niqaab was as you content “overwhelmingly about limiting sexual appeal of women” then logically this would be the context to wear it the most, rather than the hijab. But the opposite is correct.

I think that we can get into a long tortured discussion about my first contention for a long time. But today is the last day of Ramadan, and I do not wish to spend it debating with a sister. So this will be my last post for a while.

So EId Mubarak for tomorrow Inshallah, and mayy Allah SWT give from the best of this world and the next.

The problem is that the main arguments for the Niqab are predicated on the idea that women ought to wear the Niqab to keep leering eyes of strange men away from them. It is not my argument. The overwhelming reason for advocating and justifying the Niqab is as a limit to the sexual desire of men.

I am addressing my view to that argument, and there are plenty of scholars that propose that motivation for the Niqab. In fact, this blog is permeated with that view.

Here I’m taking the underlying normative aspects of that argument and seeing where it goes. The consequence in that setting is then who owns a woman’s sexuality?

Once we agree that the argument for the Niqab is not the protection of women’s charms from strange men, then the question becomes, what exactly is the motivation for advocating the Niqab.

Now my question of who owns a woman’s sexuality still needs to be answered. Independently, of the attitudes of the west and independently of the issue of the Niqab:

Do we agree that it is the individual woman who ought to own her sexuality and ought to be the residual claimant to that sexuality?