The following discussion occurred after an Indian TV advert aimed towards Indian males looking at women wearing attractive clothes, was re-posted to a pro-Feminist facebook page hosted by a professed Muslim woman.

Feminists then commented on males looking at women (despite the women in the advert wearing revealing clothing) as being ‘perverts’ and having a ‘sickness in the heart’. While Islam does prohibit men from gazing at marriageable women, unlike feminists, Islam mercifully acknowledges human frailty, and provides a comprehensive solution to the problem of female sexual objectification in the West (and post-colonial countries) by prohibiting women from succumbing to their vanity [and the compulsion of the unscrupulous fashion industry] and publicly wearing revealing clothing, that doesn’t help men trying to guard their gaze.

Notice how Feminists use the TV advert to make a one-sided gender sectarian interpretation of the video, and shamelessly using Islam when it suits them, to make a one-sided condemnation of men. When it is pointed to them that the women are also jointly to blame, Feminists then resort to use of ad hominem and trivial and petty remarks when they run out of intellectual arguments. The following was the resulting discussion from video post.

SW

These Perverts Were Shamelessly Leching At Her

Abdullah al Andalusi

If you think the men look pathetic leching at those women, just look at the pathetic clothing/make-up the women wear to/that attract the attention in the first place – double standards.

Huda A

Abdullah Al Andalusi – again, how do you explain the case of the Hijabi lady being ogled at by the bearded perv? Is this not endemic in so-called Muslim cultures today?

And if the answer- as Alan Duncan sees it- is ‘diseased hearts’ then what does this really mean? That ogling a Hijabi means diseased heart while ogling a non-Hijabi does not? What is the basis for this distinction? Last I checked, the ruling on lowering the gaze was unconditional and absolute upon believing men (and women).

Abdullah Al Andalusi

‘how do you explain the case of the Hijabi lady being ogled at by the bearded perv?’

The advert’s script…

At least he was only looking at her FACE

Huda A

Except he wasnt ‘looking’? He was engaged in – and we are discussing -the specific act of ogling: an unnecessary, lust-driven gaze which is *categorically* forbidden.

‘only looking at her FACE’ – – Im curious, does the permissibility of lusting hinge upon which particular body part is being ogled? Does the lawful exposure of one body part also make its ogling lawful? Or is this act forbidden unconditionally, as per the Quranic directive?

Abdullah Al Andalusi 

The act is NOT forbidden unconditionally Huda Andrabi

Men can look and women (and visa versa) for the purposes/intention of marriage, as per the HADITH of the Prophet Muhammad (saaw) – yes, that means its a look connected to lust, but not for a casual relationship. It’s time Feminists stopped hating men for their sexuality. Women ‘ogle’ too, but they are never condemned for it. And of course, the ultimate hypocrisy – Women DON’T mind Ogling AS LONG as they are interested in the guy (maybe because e.g. he’s handsome, or well dressed, or smiles in a ‘smoother’ way while he looks etc etc). Feminists want to ’empower’ women to demand attention they want, but punish the wrong men for looking – pathetic.

The exposing of women’s bodies doesn’t make CASUAL ogling lawful, but it doesn’t mean that women EXPOSING themselves is lawful EITHER – BOTH ARE JUST AS BAD AS EACHOTHER – that’s my only point. I don’t absolve men from looking at uncovered women, I merely say to women ‘see the Wisdom of Islam’ and cover, for if you act outside the law of Islam, you will probably get treated by individuals acting outside the law of Islam too.

Huda A

Please to refrain from unnecessary labels, strawman rhetoric and irrelevant outbursts. It beings quickest way to losing all credibility with peoples.

Staying on track, I did specify ‘unnecessary’ – i.e. for NO other purpose than unlawful gratification, so the point about marriage/checking potential spouses out – though otherwise valid- is moot here.

True, societal double standards exist to the detriment (and advantage) of both sexes; physical objectification of women/wealth objectification of men being a prime example. But surely the presence of Divine guidance is exactly why we do NOT take our moral cues from social attitudes and trends but rather from what is prescribed by the Creator? I fail to see how your argument would find a place within this framework?

The basic premise of my argument is that God forbids believers – men AND women – from partaking in such acts. Whether cultural trends and attitudes play one up over the other is entirely irrelevant as far as core principles go. Ultimately, we are only to concern ourselves with that which our Creator expects of us- as believers – and not as mindless sheeple of any culture.

Abdullah Al Andalusi 

Perhaps you didn’t read my last post properly, please re read it again to ascertain the actual point i was making.

Huda A

I don’t recall defending women exposing themselves or even making any mention of it.I did however, take immediate issue with your attempting to cast ogling/harassment as something unique to those women that dont observe conventional Hijab – something in absolutely stark contrast to the reality of Muslim cultures across the board.I also asked what you thought of the woman IN HIJAB who was STILL ogled – and by a fellow Muslim no less. She apparently saw the ‘wisdom of Islam’ yet this did not stop him from transgressing.The only sensible answer to this [entirely self-imposed] dilemma is that men – and men alone- are responsible for their gaze. Until they have internalized this idea, excuses are limitless. As for women transgressing in regards to their attire, that is a separate issue and the two are not contingent upon one another whatsoever.

Abdullah Al Andalusi:

You said ‘As for women transgressing in regards to their attire, that is a separate issue’.

It seems God doesn’t agree with you, as He (swt) mentions what men and women should both do right next to eachother in the Quran:’Tell the believing men to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what they do. AND tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts AND NOT EXPOSE THEIR ADORNMENT except that which [necessarily] appears thereof AND to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and NOT expose their adornment’ [Quran 24:30-31]

Yes, men’s obligations are obligations regardless of whether women expose themselves or not – but do women exposing (and acting shamelessly) HELP men to guard their gaze?? … NO. This is called cause and effect. As for the man looking at the women wearing hijab – it stands to reason that it can’t be a lustful look, as men don’t get lust purely from looking at a FACE. UNMADE-UP Faces aren’t sexual [unfortunately, the ‘hijabi’ made-up her face].I could also argue, how do you know that the a man who looks at a hijabi, isn’t trying to find some way to speak to her to consider her from marriage?? If that is the case, would that not be permissible?All I am saying is, don’t expect men to play by the rules, if women are not prepared to play by the rules. If men were not dutiful husbands, yet expected women to always be obedient wives, you would probably accuse the men to being hypocrites – the same is my argument against women who DRESS TO ATTRACT ATTENTION, then complain when they get that attention from ‘not the right type of guy’.

Zubeda L

Sigh with the justifications.These poor, poor men.In the end let’s just blame it on women AND WRITE IN CAPITALS.

Abdullah Al Andalusi 

Yes, poor us, we simply can’t find people to engage with who can actually write an intellectual argument, rather than just depreciating their opponents with cheap digs and false strawmen…

Huda A 

There is a good chance this is going to go on for eternity, especially as you are veering off-topic once again.”Yes, men’s obligations are obligations regardless of whether women expose themselves or not”This was the only point being made and only one relevant to the video. Stopping here would have been most appropriate.However, it is deeply unfortunate that you insist on digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole with the pointless apologism in the remainder of your comment. Women of absolutely all ‘types’ face harassment, there is not a single type who is immune to it. It is therefore dishonest and dangerous to make attempts at profiling or stereotyping who may or may not be harassed.”All I am saying is, don’t expect men to play by the rules, if women are not prepared to play by the rules.”Hence my deliberately singling out the Hijabi: even though – as we both agree- men’s responsibility is theirs alone (and vice versa), those claiming Hijab as The Solution must then explain such occurrences, especially given their extent.The simple bottom line is that it is the woman herself – more than her attire/lack thereof- who is the real source of attraction. This is why the reality of harassment consists predominantly of women in attire seen as conventional to their particular culture. And this is why making bold statements on what does and doesnt induce lust in a man is not only irrelevant but downright irresponsible. And this is also why the bearded perv did what he did. It is indeed a matter of diseased hearts more than it is of anything else.Lastly, there is no conflict between my stance and the verses youve quoted -there would be if I had attempted to place the entire burden of modest conduct upon men alone but throughout Ive made clear that the ruling is binding upon ALL believers – only that one is not contingent upon the other. Like I said, without proper internalization, excuses are unlimited.

Abdullah Al Andalusi 

No Huda, everything I’ve said has been very on topic, you just don’t like the points made. Where did I place the entire burden of modesty upon women? No where, so read carefully what I am saying.Yet again you veer away from simple facts – human nature. Sure a woman may be looked at, but a woman who is dressing shamefully – which [according to your argument] must be due to her equally ‘diseased heart’ right? – would be a bigger fitnah and attraction than a woman that is covered. Covered women get less lustful looks than women who show their legs, wear low cut tops, or wear skin tight clothing – that’s a sociological tested and proven fact.As for women who wear no make up, and wear loose clothing, it is virtually impossible to lust after them. The ‘men imagine what’s inside’ argument is bogus – I’ve never ever encountered Muslim or non-Muslim men that have said that. I for one have never found covered women attractive in a lust inducing way. The only possible attraction is aesthetic attractiveness by a made-up face, but that could be eliminated by not wearing make up.My point is, there is an undeniable link between wearing attractive clothes and make up, and men looking at them. Unlike you, I don’t expect humans to be angels – but expect them to be weak (as they are human), like Allah (swt) said in the Quran ‘Allah desires that He should make light your burdens, and man is created weak’ [Surah NISA ‘WOMEN’]. Allah (swt) in that sura tries to help humans by removing the sources of temptation, perhaps you should read it. I have it on GOOD authority that Allah (swt) knows what He’s talking about.In the end, you used the WRONG advert to communicate a point. All the women were acting with ‘diseased hearts’, yet the men were blamed exclusively for impropriety. The truth is, both were acting with impropriety. And the women who go out dressing attractively WANT to be looked at, just not by the guys they don’t like. Most (not all) of the problem starts, when women go out seeking to be attractive. I’d would like to see you post up an advert about pathetic women too. When can I expect it?

Zubeda L 

And your scientific evidence to all your subjective assertions are…. (or is scientific evidence haraam?)…I

Abdullah Al Andalusi 

No, science is not haram, but lacking good manners , might be..

Subjective assertions? Please don’t confuse me with feminists. I’ll give you evidence only if you deny that a woman who wears revealing clothing attracts more looks than a covered woman. I only use evidence for such cases, for people who are so blindly dogmatic in a idiotic feminist narrative, that they deny the obvious.

Zubeda L 

Point made.

Abdullah Al Andalusi

Don’t run away Zubeda, you made a challenge and I told you my conditions.Do you or do you not, deny that women who expose their flesh or wear make-up draw more attention to themselves and consequently are more likely to attract attention to themselves than women who don’t do those things? It’s a simple question.

Zubeda L 

Run away? Gosh, no.Your question is just self serving rhetoric and seeks to blame women as the starting point and observed throughout this thread. As Huda has observed – your diatribes also veer off topic.

Abdullah Al Andalusi 

Do you or do you not, deny that women who expose their flesh or wear make-up draw more attention to themselves?

Zubeda L

Please do attend the ‘Can Muslims Escape Misogyny?’ event. It might help to broaden viewpoints from perspectives that seem stuck on narrow patriarchal structures that reinforce black and white views.

Abdullah Al Andalusi 

Not answering a simple question which you and me both know the answer to, is quite telling.

Please do read the writings of Sr Zara Faris on Feminism (and women’s dress in particular – see link). It might help to broaden viewpoints from perspectives that seem stuck on narrow Feminist dogmatic structures of thought that reinforce black and white views.

http://zarafaris.com/2013/04/09/feminists-and-sexual-harassment/

Zubeda L

Ha ha. Plagiarism too.

Abdullah Al Andalusi

Well at least I didn’t plagiarise an irrational ideology from the West (i.e. Feminism). I like how you put ‘ha ha’ as if you believed writing that would make your argument stronger, or the childishness of your discourse, less evident.

Zubeda L

You seem quite put out by happily labelling away.i gave a gender perspective and now u seem to have boxed me and try to label me a ….feminist. oh, how that hurts.. I love being childish with narrow minded people. Illogicality demand some gentle mocking. There’s, erm, no law against that right? Or is there?

Abdullah Al Andalusi 

You say you have a gender perspective, but then decry me for narrow mindedness?? Irony? Next time, try a HUMAN perspective, or better yet, an Islamic one, they are much broader than your myopic worldview.Clearly, Illogicality does demand some gentle mocking – which is why people with illogical beliefs do it so much to others.

Categories: Feminism, Muslim Debate Initiative, Online discussions & debates, The Muslim Debate Initiative, Western Society & Culture, WRITINGS

Tags: abdullah al andalusi