Surely the standards in what's considered appropriate attire for a woman have evolved over time. I can understand why a couple of thousands years ago it was deemed appropriate for a women to cover her head with a scarf or veil.
Denying that dressing code standards have evolved and that they have to accompany the evolution of human societies is simply preposterous. Not accepting the simple fact that a women being urged to cover her body and hair contains the implied notion that somehow she is reduced to a sexual object is ridiculous as well.
It assumes a woman without a veil is obscenity exposed to men's sight. Surely there is no clear definition of what's obscene and what's not. Surely it is difficult to qualify or quantify obscenity and all the US supreme court could say about it is "you know it when you see it". What the supreme court was wise enough to admit here is the simple evidence that it is mostly a matter of when and where it takes place, and that standards in what's socially acceptable and what's inappropriate would depend on the society and community we're talking about. There may be societies in the middle-east that still feel a woman without a veil isn't something socially acceptable. It's not been that long since women in most mediterranean countries have come to consider dropping the scarf. In Spain and Italy, you would still see women in their 60s wearing a scarf on their head.
For them to cover their hair, there is no other justification than tradition, and coming back to my initial point, tradition is bound to evolve over time including dressing code standards.
Trying to find another supposedly higher justification to it in the ancient scriptures, and trying to impose this justification as still valid in today's world... well this doesn't make sense at all to me.

Janissary wrote:

i meant  the events which have been done so far and have been said because of freedom have been done so such as the events in danish newspaper and european newspapers.

I didn't want you to think that I just ignored your last response, Janissary.  I still don't understand what you mean, but that's ok...don't worry about it.

Lazarus

Waïti wrote:

Janissary my friend, Surely the Internet is not mentioned in Koran. So if you're consistent in your reasoning, women should refrain from using it, for fear it might go contrary to the scriptures, since it is not explicitely mentioned in holy books as an acceptable practice for women to interact with men over the Internet. Perhaps it's even totally inappropriate and definitely not a sign of 'modesty' from their part to chat with men on englishforum.com... Waïti.

on this subject, i want to make clear on that of course cant everything be written on holy books but holy books can be interpreted appropriate to today's world and they give us the clues of how a person should live now. and as we know, the meanings of holy books change by ages so it can be interpreted appropriate to day.

and regardless to what religion i am a follower of , i think one should do what is written in books to which they are follower of. so isaid the girls who want to be covered , want to do it so. not due to not want to be a sexual object of men.

and if a religion says man cannot speak with women and if i were a member of that i would not speak. you may think i am narrow minded or conservative but if you believe that you should do so,as well.

thanks to God,my religion doesnt say so. on the contrary it urges people to pay attention to others and summon us to be benevolent to everyone not only people who are in our religion but everyone.

as Mevlana said " Come,regardless to whoever you are , whatever you have done so far and if you are even a sinner , nevertheless , come"

i know i ahve a little drifted the topic but i dont want to remove anything i just wrote whatever come to my mind.thats all

regards

Lazarus wrote:

Janissary wrote: again the same problem emerges, many things in Western Societies are done behind the matter of freedom. isnt this a freedom? veiling? as long as it doesnt bother anyone. but it does.due to it bothers some people, it is not allowed. If a group of men are not commanding she wear the veil, then yes, it is a free choice.  If there are potentially lethal consequences for the woman who drops the veil, then, no, she isn't making a free choice. Lazarus

Well, though freedom concerns public attentions, choice of these kinds of things are too personal. What you guys call people doing protests that they should be allowed to walk naked in the public or else and wearing the transparrent cloths revealing all those secret parts ??? Then the rape is likely to happen.

If people are allowed to walk in the two pieces then why not if anyone likes it??? But I'm not supporting it though. It's personal and if it disturbs anyone why the hell ??? It's the personal thing as the Panty & Bra kind of thing.

Cheers

I agree that no matter what purpose of wearing the veil, once you believe in a certain kind of religion and the commandment indicates that you shoud do like that, you must obey. Following this rule, I don't think the women who are wearing or are going to wear it is miserable. Maybe, if we command them of unveilling, which will do them harm. Whatever, do as you like, do as you chooe.