Ok, so you do mean that covering itself is degrading, not just that the
compulsion to cover is a violation of one's personal freedoms (when implemented in public). I think we both agree on the compulsion issue, so let's look at the other issues.
Here is what I'm getting from your argument:
covering is degrading for both men and women.
there is a fundamental problem with Islamic view on what modesty is. The logic behind the demand for covering is exactly the same as the one Australian Shaykh used.
They don't realize that it means that Islam says they can't be man enough to control themselves.
if someone else becomes responsible for your sexuality and its expression, then it's easier for you to act as you want to and then cast the blame on that person b/c it was their responsibility."
1) 'Covering is both degrading for men and women because it views women as a piece of meat and men as uncontrollably impulsive as animals.'
2) 'The Islamic view of modesty is degrading because it views women as a piece of meat and men as uncontrollably impulsive as animals.'
3) 'Islam degrades men because it says that men are unable to control themselves (like animals)'
4) 'Islam degrades women by putting the responsibility for controlling sexuality on them, while men are free to act as they please'
1/2/3 - I think the 'piece of meat/uncontrollable animals' analogy is more of a slip in rhetoric than it is a slip in concept. Nowhere in Islam does it say that women are a 'piece of meat'. There is a hadith that says 'women are the honour of Islam'. In the last sermon Muhammad spoke about both men and women having rights over one another. The Quran speaks about spouses being kind to one another. And so on. I don't believe that the
Islamic concept is to think of woman as a piece of meat, it is more toward thinking of women as treasure, and the rules related to modesty are like burying that treasure. The Imam simply made a bad analogy, and it happens to all of us when we are trying to convey understanding of a concept.
Does Islam view men as uncontrollable animals? I think in this case we do find some Islamic concepts that relate to this claim. The basic Islamic idea is that the 'unconscious' man (human) is impulse driven, like animals. The Quran refers to disbelievers as cattle, due to their being 'unconscious of God'. The idea that disbelievers and hypocrites follow their lusts or their desires comes up again and again as well. I think we would both certainly take issue with 'belief' as the marker for consciousness, but putting that aside, the question is
does the 'unconscious man' tend to be more impulsive than the 'conscious' man? In other words, do we have a basic animal quality to us? Well considering that we
are actually animals I don't think that this is unreasonable. Without the education/harvesting of consciousness men do seem to feel more free to act on their impulses. Do they not? In fact, the Imam in your example seems to have been more impulse driven in his remarks than conscious driven. He was acting like an animal (lol). Islam doesn't claim that all men are animals but rather that all men have an 'animal' quality to them, those who do not suppress them (the unconscious) are more akin to animals, while those who suppress them (the conscious) are more akin to their true Adamic (human) nature. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. We are compiling more and more science about this (our 'animal' or physical characteristics of attraction) as well. Bottom line again here is that we are reading too much into the analogy, or we could say the Imam slipped in making a degrading analogy.
4 - Is it degrading to put the responsibility of controlling sexuality on women or it is too burdensome? I believe there is a case to be made for overburdening women with this responsibility when it comes to Islamic law. I think that there are other teachings about women in Islam that are degrading (less than men intellectually, religiously, in witness, etc.), and it is those teachings that produce the sort of negative attitudes toward women in Islam that you are complaining about. However, our issue here is covering. Again, in the issue of covering I believe the case to be made is that the compulsion to cover (hijab, niqab, burqa, one-eyed veils, etc) in Islamic law (enforced in the public) is placing too much burden upon women and poses an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of dress (and freedom of belief). Thus the
compulsion to cover in Islam is degrading, as it is a violation of our common freedoms. But what about covering that is done freely? If a woman believes that the many beauties of women should be managed by covering, what is wrong with that?
I think we can conclude on two things here:
'The
compulsion to cover (for women in Islamic public law) is degrading, because it is a violation of the freedom of dress and the freedom of belief (and in some cases, the freedom to SEE)'
and
'Covering is degrading to both men and women' is a New Ex-Muslim myth!Assalamu alaykum
Topic: Top Ex-Muslim Myths