I Was Married To A Muslim For Four Years And Identified As A Muslim For Five. I Used To Wear Full Hijab. I Used To Tell People It Was My Choice Too.

[SilentLoner]

I was married to a Muslim for four years and identified as a Muslim for five. I used to wear full hijab/abaya.

 

I used to tell people it was my choice too.

 

What I didn't tell them, was I "chose" to wear such restricting garments because my husband made it clear that if I didn't, he wouldn't go out in public with me. He also would break something of mine or "lose" it in retaliation.

 

I didn't tell people that I was surrounded by an entire community of people who shunned women in tank tops and jeans, writing them off as "disobedient to Allah" or "disbelievers". 

 

I didn't tell people I was surrounded by a community of people who reinforced the belief that women who don't completely cover up earn street harassment or other unwanted sexual attention.

 

I didn't tell people that I was told by the women at mosque, either directly or indirectly, that wearing Hijab was the only way men would stop looking at me as a sex object and treat me as a respectable human being. Never mind that men didn't have to completely cover up to earn the same standard of respect.

 

I didn't tell people that I chose to wear hijab because my husband was such a controlling misogynist, that he didn't want other men to "know my body" as he'd always say. He was very possessive.

https://www.quora.com/What-do-uncovered-Western-women-think-of-when-they-see-us-Muslim-women-who-wear-a-niqab-and-are-covered-from-head-to-toe/answer/Noel-Rosario-1?srid=uVy4&share=152fc829

[Vigile]

Yeah, this is where I have problems with freedom of religion. How many of these types of rites or traditions have the potential to be both abusive and coerced? It's a sticky situation as the state stepping in to protect can also abuse people who genuinely do make a free choice, yet many, as in this example, would be served by state protection. It's a rock and a hard place to be sure.

 

In this case, I think community intolerance can actually be a good thing. Don't tolerate full burkhas. Make it uncomfortable for the adherent. This has no legal ramifications, assuming it doesn't step over into illegal areas of discrimination, such as denial of housing, etc.. 

[Daffodil]

I'm most surprised by the fact that these coverings are not prescribed by the Koran. Even Christians who cover their hair can point to one or two verses that could be used to support it (a woman should not pray with her head uncovered, for instance), but I keep hearing that the Koran has no such instruction. It's purely cultural, so how can any of them use it as a freedom of religion issue? I also think that community intolerance would help - especially with the full burka where you can't even identify who you are talking to. Of course my fear would then be that these controlling men would prevent these women from ever leaving their homes if the community would not allow them to wear burkas.

[rjn]

As far as I can remember, the Quran only instruct women to dress modestly and cover their "charms", which is everything between the ankles and shoulders.

[Wittyusername]

As far as I can remember, the Quran only instruct women to dress modestly and cover their "charms", which is everything between the ankles and shoulders.

I read somewhere that

1. It was the wives of Mohammed who first wore the burka and thus 'if it was good enough for Mohammed it should be good enough for you '.

 

2. The reason his wives were so covered was because he was a highly public figure and it was almost a privacy thing, like for celebs, not intended to be copied by all.

 

3. At the time it was not unheard of for women's bosoms to be very exposed and the instructions was for females of the religion to 'cover your chests', which morphed somehow into a whipping for showing a hand in some countries.

 

Even in western countries until 100 years ago 'decent' women had their hair covered with a hat or scarf and/or tied up (it's bewitching, dontcha know) and ankle length skirts and covered shoulders were the minimum in decency.

[mwc]

     Isn't this just sort of like Stockholm Syndrome?  She wasn't a captive per se but she did identify with those around her and then start to see their choices as her choices.  In a way all cultures and sub-cultures are all variations on this theme.

 

          mwc

[SCM]

Yeah, this is where I have problems with freedom of religion. How many of these types of rites or traditions have the potential to be both abusive and coerced? 

 

 

I second this, freedom is only useful if you have the power to exercise your will. how many of those back-water hamlets, youth-camps and home-schools have people exercising their freedom of religion, while having no power to live outside of their surrounding's beliefs, or worse, getting punished for straying. how many weak and powerless people are there that tell the outside world what that lady in the OP told people who asked. how many are suffering, or would choose a different life if they had the option.

 

this doesn't even get into when people start policing their own brains and don't allow themselves to feel how they actually feel, or admit they want what they want.

 

I don't really think there is an uncomplicated solution to this.