I think it's easy to understand mate, when you consider the spectrum they work with for everything in Islam, from moderate to extreme. As you say these are more prevelant in strict nations, such as Saudi and Afghanistan. It's just bad interpretation as far as I am concerned. Forced marriages and all that, maybe some of the blokes have been handed some right stinker to settle down with, it's essentially just putting a bag over her head cos she's a troll.
One of the puzzling things about wearing the full outfit is eating in public. Eating one handed whilst holding up the veil face piece but not exposing your face leads to a long dry meal . Can understand why they eat with their hands now.
It seems that in most of the Worlds religions there exists extremes, in dress as well as in the requirements of any particular sect. For instance, consider that Christianity was almost 550 years old when Islam started. So, logically, Islam could be said to lag, culturally, by 550 years. So, what were Christians up to 550 years ago? Killing people for religious reasons burning at the stake, Fathers arranging marriages for their Children. Perhaps we should pass on from that. What about Dress Codes in various Religions. Those colourful orange outfits worn by some Buddhist Monks are rather cheering while the strict Jewish sect with the heavy black overcoats in the middle of summer shows real stamina. Then we have the odd Christians in The USofA who are mired in the early 19th century. Once more it not just the dress but they too go for arranged marriages. In fact it seems that the idea of individuals arranging their own marriages is a relatively new concept in cultural terms. When you consider the Divorce rate, it's not unreasonable to ask if it's been an improvement. Historians amongst you will know that Islam was a very tolerant religion. Then came the Christian Crusades followed by the rush by Christian Europeans to become Masters of The World. Followers of Islam and The Jews, were, in general treated as second class people. I believe that the expression, 'Ye sow, so shall ye reap', is of Christian origin. (PS. I have no religious axe to grind, I'm sceptical about all).
The ladies walk 5 paces behind their man not out of respect but because of land mines they're not stupid ! Can you remember in the 70s and 80s when we were classed as nasty for putting our hands in front of our mouths in the presence of the deaf then please explain how the full face cover is not discrimination against the hard of hearing??
Employing logic or common sense is just a waste of time and effort when it comes to religion and culture mate. Why would a religion that disenfranchises half its population on the basis of sex give a monkeys about disabled minorities?
Good point and one that hadn't occurred to me. It got me thinking and I wonder if MOST religions don't differentiate against the Ladies in the congregation. (Some more than others). Think of the fuss in the CofE when they started to ordain women. The Catholic Church still wont concede equality though I've never heard of any Gospel justification for this. In Judahism I believe that it's the duty of a husband/father to make sure that his family follow the Law. So, in terms of 'The People of The Book', Jews , Christians and Muslims there seems to be a cultural common denominator where The Male is considered superior to the female merely because of his gender. Here in The West this outlook is gradually breaking down. No doubt many fathers will do their utmost to fly the flag of supremacy but they will lose, in time. Any Muslim parent who wonders what's in store for his grandchildren has only to look at his 'Christian' neighbours for the answer.
What is being left out of this discussion is the cross over of religion and politics. Jew, Christian and Muslim (in chronological order of beginnings) got on pretty well between the 13th and 20th century until ancients texts, writings and beliefs were misused for political domination ends. All done in the name of a God of course.