here is no greater indication of how malleable human beings are than that in this day and age there are women who still adorn themselves in the burka: a form of attire that entirely covers a woman from head to toe, with small slits over the head piece whereby the woman can see.  I say this even though I take the idea of modesty very seriously.  I think that both women and men can be modest in their dress.  And yes, I do think that the standards of modesty differ between women and men.  This difference, I believe, is tied to the indisputable fact that consensual sex is tied to the woman’s consent in a way that it is not tied to the man’s consent; and the exceptions prove the rule.

The burka makes a mockery out of modesty; and flies in the face of reality.  To start with the last point, it is simply false that sexual attraction is only one directional, with only men finding women physically attractive (to put things in a more neutral manner).  Even I can attest to the fact that all sorts of women, including Muslim women, find men physically attractive.  So if modesty in physical appearance in a public setting is what drives the burka for women, then there ought to be a like garment-piece for men.  In this way, all those Muslim women would not be distracted by that very modestly dressed Muslim man who nonetheless is extremely attractive.  Or, are we to pretend either that there are no such attractive Muslim men or that Muslim women, however, dressed lack the psychological wherewithal to recognize such a man. 

As for modesty, the very idea behind it is not that one hides entirely one’s physical attractiveness, but that the presentation of one’s attractiveness is done in a manner that does not flaunt one’s assets.  Surely, the choice is not between either a woman’s covering herself from head to toe or her presenting herself as brazen sexual object.  This is so even thought what counts as flaunting sexual attraction can be a matter of disagreement.  For on no account can showing one’s face in public be seen as flaunting one’s sexuality; otherwise, we would be in the awkward position of having to accuse nuns of flaunting their sexuality.  Not a very plausible thesis! 

This last observation is quite significant.  For if one does take the burka seriously as the form of modesty on the part of women, then precisely what one has to hold is that nuns are immodest in their public presentation.  Not only is that view absurd, it is an outright insult to nuns everywhere. 

Now, I ask: What does it mean to tolerate a practice that, without good reason, implies that those who do not behave in accordance with the practice are morally bankrupt in some way?  On the face of it, that is woefully unacceptable.  Yet, that is precisely what we are being asked to do insofar as we are being asked to tolerate the practice of the burka.  For the burka is not just a silly style for women like platform shoes like 7-inch spiked heels or whatever.  No, the burka is necessarily a statement about the proper way in which a woman should present herself in public: This is how other women would dress if only they were sufficiently modest.

What is more, a burka is not at all like a nun’s habit.  For the nun’s habit marks the acceptance of a special spiritual calling; and there is no implication whatsoever that other women are less morally proper if they do not also accept that calling.  It is understood from the outset that being a nun or priest entails a level of self-sacrifice that a very decent and upright individual might not be willing to undertake.

The burka, however, is not at all about a special calling of that sort.  Therein lies the problem.  If we are asked to take Islam seriously, then we cannot do that without taking seriously precisely what Islam implies about our moral behavior; and one of the inescapable interpretations of the burka is that a properly modest woman would be covered from head to toe.

Let me now say a word about the hijab.  This, too, is said to be about modesty—though obviously to a far lesser degree.  But I have often wondered: Who is fooling whom?

Let me explain. I think that the idea of only a woman covering her hair is silly, since it is all too clear that women can get just as excited about a man’s hair as a man can about a woman’s hair.  At any rate, women can get excited enough that the difference is hardly worth drawing attention to.  And ask any man with lots of hair on his head.  If there is anything to which he is not indifferent, it is going bald.  Whether one is a man or a woman, hair matters and it matters considerably.

What intrigues me, though, is that the hijab, unlike the burka, can very easily be turned into an extraordinary fashion statement.  In fact, I seen a number women in a hijab and have thought to myself “Wow, she looks stunning”.  The right hijab worn in the right way can be rather like a piece of jewelry. 

But wait-a-minute!  The very idea of behind the hijab is that it is supposed to be a form of modesty that diffuses rather than accentuates sexual attractiveness.  So if Muslim women are wearing them in a way that achieves the latter than they are being woefully disingenuous. 

Let me be clear here.  I can imagine that once upon time there was nothing at all attractive in a woman’s wearing a hijab, because the hijab was, say, none other than a plain black piece of cloth that entirely covered a woman’s hair and neck. 

If you haven’t noticed, however, the hijab has enjoyed quite a transformation.  The hijab comes in many colors and can have various designs upon it and so forth.  With all of this, what one ends up with is not a drab piece of cloth that serves as a head-covering, but something that can very well accentuate a woman’s beauty in just the way that the right sort of scarf around a woman’s neck can.

On the hand, I have no qualms with the jihab accentuating a woman’s beauty, since I quite like seeing elegant beauty in a woman that is displayed in a modest manner. 

On the other, I despise the pretense.  Let me explain.  I never looked at a nun in a habit and thought to myself “Wow, that habit makes her look quite attractive”.  The very idea behind the design of a habit is that sort of thought should not occur to a man—at least not unless he is a pervert. 

When a woman wears a beautifully crafted hijab that accentuates her physically beauty surely she is aware of this.  If so, then she is by her behavior living a lie in wearing that item, since the very idea behind the jihab is that it is supposed to convey modesty and not bring into sharper relief a woman’s beauty.

Now, I can hear someone screaming that my reaction to various women wearing a jihab simply reveals my perverted mind.  I think not.

I can recognize whether a nun wearing a habit has beautiful face or not.  Just so, I have never once had the thought “Wow, that habit really does something for that woman’s beauty”.  For the way in which habits are constructed makes that thought pretty much impossible.  And of course, this holds even more so for the burka.

If a Muslim woman wears a plain black hijab, then that is what I shall see: a plain black hijab.  If, however, Muslim woman wears a hijab that has beautiful designs upon it as well as some semblance of sparkling jewelry, then that, too, is what I shall see.  Don’t ask me to look at the two head-coverings in exactly the same way; for they are not at all identical.  What every man and, of course, every woman knows is that the right headpiece on a woman can make all the difference in the world in terms of accentuating a woman physical attractiveness or not.  Insofar as this simple truth has been extended to wearing the hijab, then doing so has become extremely disingenuous. 

The burka is none other than a form of oppression masquerading as modesty.  The hijab, by contrast, has so evolved that the difference between wearing it and wearing an attractive headpiece otherwise known as a hat has all but evaporated.  In either case, what we end up with is not modesty but dishonesty.