Leigh: "Hijab" is a veil/curtain used to conceal. In the vernacular it signifies headcoverings and/or the concept of modest dressing and modest character. The word hijab has a variety of connotations including a mystical one in that seekers of God aim to purify themselves to remove the 'hijab' that veils God.

The Qur'an specifically refers to women's dress in three places. That is, 24:30-31, 33:59 and 24:60. (More is found about men's dress in the hadith traditions). In regard to veiling, the Qur'an says in the context of instructing both men and women on proper etiquette, that believing women should draw their khumur (headcovers) over their juyub (chests).

The purpose of this is to de-sexualise the public sphere. It's a myth that there is something shameful about female sexuality. The Qur'an in the immediate preceding paragraph says: "tell the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them."

Traditional discussion of female clothing rules are found in the legal texts to do with covering for prayer. In this, it is universally understood that a free woman must cover everything except her hands and face. Some include the feet in this exception.

Khalid Abou El Fadl makes the point that in the Prophet's society, veiling was a sign of class and status. Free women veiled, slave women did not. He takes the position that the original injunctions were about removing hierarchies of status.

In regard to cultural interpretations of public dress, these have varied among Muslims for fourteen hundred of years. Some cultures interpret the Islamic dress code to include complete covering, others relatively minimal covering. All would consider their interpretations "Islamic" and "religiously mandated" which is why some women believe God asks them to cover their head, and others believe God does not. Given that Muslims span the globe and cover practically every race, language, and cultural background - asking for 'one' answer on how Muslims interpret their religion in this relatively minor matter is laughable.

Hope that helps.

I think that most people commenting here have forgotten about all those other dress conventions, and the place that they hold in society.

Most men in administrative and service jobs wear ties. The tie is a useless garment, but either failing to wear one, or worse, refusing, can lead to ostracism and limited opportunities. That is why men who don’t normally wear ties wear (generally borrowed) ties and jackets when they have to appear in court. It is a sign of deference.

It wasn't that long ago in Australia when women were not allowed to wear slacks in the workplace. A dress or skirt was required, preferably with heels and hose.

It was only in the early to mid 1970s that the 'requirement' for a woman to wear a head covering in church slipped away. Any female over the age of puberty was expected to show respect to God by wearing a hat or a scarf.

The ‘foundation garment’ was another requirement of ‘civilised’ dress for a woman. The idea that a woman had a slight tummy, the shape of which could be seen even when clothed, was seen as a definite social faux pas. Even today, women who don’t really need to wear a bra for either support or modesty wear them. It is no wonder that the burning of bras was seen as such a symbol of feminism.

As for the poor deluded fools who wear sandals to anywhere except a beach, or even worse, wear sandals and socks, well I personally find them as objectionable as some of the posters here find the hijab, but for very different reasons. I feel that the wearing of sandals is saying that the wearer is saying ‘I don’t conform to your norms and I want to be lazy enough not to have to wear real shoes”.

However I do not call for the banning of sandals, or laws against the wearing of sandals and socks, because as confronting as I find the sight of them: it is something I have to deal with within my own mind.

Thanks to you too, ummyasmin.

A slight qualification to my last post re sandals: It is men wearing sandals that I find objectionable - and men wearing 'dress' shoes with short socks and shorts.

This looks ridiculous.

But I have to live with that!

No problems Leigh.

I must admit, I never got the bow tie thing. They look very silly to me.

I have to agree with Ummyasmin, Leigh and hamlet in what they say regarding clothing and cultural clothing. Suits, ties, high heels, makeup, perfume, body piercing, heavy clothes in hot weather, skimpy clothes in cold weather. You name it, most fashion is just plain stupid and a waste of time and money. But it is colourful and enjoyable to watch, I could be looked upon in that way just because I wear clothes. I would hate to see the freedom for us to look ridiculous or nice, removed. It's what makes us as a country and our toleration of difference is the best there is.

With the hijab and other religious clothing, that is not the point. It is the religious connotations and confrontations that religious clothing imparts to others. The wearing of religious clothing and expressive paraphernalia, is a statement, not a fashion choice. Religious statements in secular countries, impose social restraints upon the majority population. That is simply wrong. If your religious expression effects others in an adverse way, then is that not a sin.

With that imposition, add the growing demand for more religious rights in the general community, that disrupt the secular activities and expression of the people. There should be no problem with someone walking down the street with a scarf, tent or bikini on, as long as when they are required to interact with others, they reveal themselves and communicate in a reasonable manner. Try doing that with a women wearing a hijab and see what happens if your a man. Mind you it was much the same when nuns wore habits, in the streets they were silent, very ignorant indeed. But thats religion