Dave, as for being “sky-clad”, if Jain women choose to be naked in their own temples or their own homes, I have no problem with that. However, for me, there has to be a line drawn somewhere as to what kind of coverage is necessary in public, and I wouldn’t let Jain women walk down the street naked. Again, if women of a particular faith choose to cover themselves totally in their homes or in their temples, mosques or churches, I think that is a fundamental right they have. The important thing is what people do in public, and what is more, what they expect others to do in public. I’ve heard from Jewish friends that there’s an area in Tel Aviv (or is it Jerusalem) where you can get stoned if you accidentally walk down the street with your arms uncovered. Now I’m more than happy to cover up if going to a devout Jewish or Muslim household (and I have done so) but this scenario raises the question - how far can people extend their religious dress rules in public space? I tend to think that there has to be mutual respect and understanding on both sides. Rather than throwing stones at a poor hapless tourist, the residents of the street could ask her to cover her arms, or provide her with a cotton shawl or jacket. Likewise, if Westerners are travelling in a country where people are generally more covered than in the West, I think it’s respectful to try not to shock people (consider, for example, that wearing a sleeveless top is somewhat like walking down the street naked here).

LDU, your comments are very interesting. By commenting on the fatwa against Ms Mirza, I did not mean to intimate that this was the view of all imams or all Muslims. There are many strands of Islamic belief, and from what I understand, it all depends on the interpretation of your particular ulama (not sure about spelling?). It does operate like the common law, just as the Jewish law does too (what did I say about siblinghood?)

Yeats.

Both are equally appealing, and extremely modest.

Now, all of the Sharia, as a body of law, isn’t found in the Quran and Sunna (teachings of Mohammed), although most of it is. In situations which were non existent in the Prophets time, scholars may deliberate. For e.g Road rules, traffic etc… Also, there are rulings from Islamic institutions in the Middle East which permit western Muslims using bank loans to purchase property. This conclusion would have been reached after an analysis of trends in the West, and how different they are than those at Mohammeds time.

In Islam, there is usually multiple opinions on issues. For e.g. the plucking of the monobrow. Some scholars rule that people may pluck the region where eyebrows join, because its on the upper section of the nose. Others take a stricter interpretation of the prophets saying and discourage the plucking.

Also, each region has a different culture. Indian Islam looks Indian, Chinese Islam looks Chinese, Bosnian Islam looks Bosnian. With these cultural differences, also comes different approaches to the application of faith.

The scholar I linked above is merely providing a different opinion on the literal meaning of the quoted verse. Where the verse asks Muslims women to wear the Hijab so they may not be harassed, Dr. Zaki Badawi argues that if they’re harassed because of their Hijab, then it’s okay to not wear it in those circumstances.

As mentioned above, there are multiple opinions on issues.

Now, the author of the Hedaya and other writers on the Common Law quote only those few passages from the Koran which are absolute or unconditional, and shut their eyes against those many conditional verses, and general scope and tenor of the Koran. It is not to be wondered that the Mohammadan legists or the compilers of the Common Law are wrong in this point. Because, as a rule, or as a matter of fact, they have compiled the Common Law from different sources irrespective of the Koran, ….. Then only they commit the unpardonable blunder of citing isolated parts of solitary verses of the Koran, which are neither expressive enough nor are in general terms. In doing so, they avoid the many other conditional and more explicit verses on the same subject.

Mind you, I know next to nothing about the way Sharia operates, especially between different countries, or whether it is indeed unified and dogmatic the way some fundies think it is.
Is the scholar you mention making an appeal to “natural law”, such as is possibly under equity law in our system?
My ignorance annoys me.

If you assess the status of women during the time leading up to Mohammed’s prophethood, his teachings on women makes him come out a feminist.

About the hijab, section 33:59 of the Quran reads: “O Prophet, tell the believing women that they should cast garments over themselves…that they should be known…and not molested.”

From my understanding, in Arabia, those with little clothing were usually slaves, and thus harassed. Therefore the covering for Muslim women was required to protect them from harassment.

There are scholars who argue that if a Muslim lady is harassed because of her Hijab, then it is permitted for her not to wear one. Here is one such opinion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4742869.stm

Mohammed was certainly ahead of his time on the empowerment of women (e.g. "maintenance" of divorced wives). This may have been due to enlightenment, or (being facetious), the threat of a "squirrel grip" from Khadijah, his wife and small-businesswoman. His guidance (as opposed to the mad mullahs since) was often rooted in practicality (e.g. the frail and young children need not fast during Ramadan). Thus I’m think Mohammed would question the wisdom of heavy (and dark) clothing out in the hot direct sun of an Australian summer, as well as the wearing of hijabs when swimming in public. I suspect such appeals to practicality within Islam have less authority than in Judaism.

Also, I’m surprised that over-the-top religiously-motivated dress by males doesn’t receive the same attention. It’s just as worrying to me seeing ultra-Orthodox Jewish men dressed for a Siberian Winter during the hot Australian summer (particularly around parts of Elsternwick and Caulfield in Melbourne) as it is seeing a woman burdened by a heavy dark hijab in the same conditions.