Islamic Sharia and Islamic countries have been criticized for restricting women's choices in clothing, forcing them to wear the hijab against their will. However, Islamic apologists argue that women in Western societies face similar pressures, being compelled to wear revealing clothing instead of having the freedom to choose their desires. According to this line of thinking, non-Muslims should refrain from criticizing Islamic Sharia and Islamic countries for their dress code restrictions, given that Western societies also impose their own form of dress code compliance on women.

Please check out this video by Ali Dawah, an Islamic apologist.

Response:

It's unrealistic to assume that individuals can be completely shielded from social pressure. There will always be some level of influence, especially since we don't live in a flawless world. Moreover, this social pressure in the West is not due to any Law/Compulsion, but only due to Fashion/Trend, and it is "minimal".

However, Western societies have found a solution to this issue by granting both narratives the freedom to express themselves under the guise of freedom of speech. This means that:

  • one narrative can argue that the hijab oppresses women and prevents them from living freely and looking attractive,
  • while the opposing Muslim narrative can assert that women need to wear the hijab for their own safety.

As a result, both viewpoints coexist in society, balancing each other out and providing individuals with a range of perspectives.

If Islamic apologists claim that Western women are "beauty sick," Muslims are free to share their beliefs and help these women supposedly recover from their illness. 

But in the Islamic States, it is a combination of two thing i.e. Compulsion through Law + Compulsion through Social Pressure:

  • Firstly, it is the LAW which compels women for a certain Islamic dress code. And not obeying it results in punishment. They are fined and even imprisoned. 
  • And then comes the compulsion through social pressure too. And this social pressure is not a "light" pressure like in the Western social pressure, but it is an "Extreme Social Pressure".
  • Firstly, it is the family which exerts this social pressure. And the extent of compulsion of this social pressure even surpasses the extent of compulsion due to law. Girls are beaten by their families if they refuse to dress according to Islamic dress code and wear the Hijab. And they are even killed in the name of Ghayrah (Arabic: غَيْرَة). 
  • In addition to familial pressure, societal expectations also play a significant role in shaping the lives of girls and women in Islamic societies. Men often experience high levels of sexual frustration ins such societies, which can make it difficult for females to venture out in public without being subjected to harassment and catcalling. This creates a challenging environment for women to navigate, compelling them to conform to strict Islamic dress codes. Such catcalling and harassment also still exists in the West, but it is minimum as compared to Islamic societies, and gradually it is also vanishing. 
  • Moreover, Islamic countries don't allow non-Muslims to preach and criticize Islam and Sharia for making Hijab obligatory. They put a complete ban upon this counter-narrative. And this thing is known as 100% Religious Brainwashing.

Ultimately, Islamic apologists are wrong on all fronts. It is a shame that we had to spend time to counter this foolish argument.

In religious societies, there is so much pressure on girls that stories of oppression and injustice against them are considered normal and acceptable. People in the West, who enjoy freedom and equality, don't even realize the existence of this extreme oppression on millions of Muslim girls. Please read thousands of witnesses of girls from Muslim families on ex-Muslim subreddit, how this extreme pressure broke them mentally and how they were compelled to live under fear. 

Moreover, it is also wished that Islamic apologists would have answered these questions why Islam prohibited slave women from wearing the Hijab, why Umar Ibn Khattab used to beat the slave women for taking the Hijab, and why Islam even kept their breasts naked in public. Please read the detailed article on this issue here:  Islam Prohibited Slave Women from Wearing the Hijab or Even Covering Their Naked Breasts in Public

At the moment, Islam gets a free pass despite being the culprit of compelling slave women not to wear the Hijab and to move in public with naked breasts, but on the other hand Western system has become the sole criminal for compelling women for revealing clothes, although it never enforces anything. How blind should we be to digest such huge Double Standards?

Already Read the Article?

...but your task is still not finished.

Dear seeker of truth,
Reading about the flaws in a belief system is only the first step. To truly break free from indoctrination and reach a final, unshakable conclusion, you must apply these four critical tests to what you've just read.

Test 1: Divine Revelation or Human Drama?

The Core Challenge:
God does not appear before us, nor do His angels manifest themselves, and He performs no miracles today like the claims made in the tales of ancient times. Despite this absence, we are still demanded to recognise God through His "commands"  only. 
Let us examine these commands, and see if they give the impression of Divine Revelation, or of "Human Drama."

Please reflect:

  • Do the teachings in this article display flawless wisdom, justice, consistency, and coherence that could only come from an Omniscient Creator?
  • Or do they resemble the kinds of laws, contradictions, exceptions, and inconsistencies that one would expect from ordinary human decision-making?

Test 2: Would These Same Arguments Also Defend a False Prophet?

Imagine a man in a different era who claims to be a prophet. He marries multiple women, claims divine permission for his personal desires, issues harsh punishments, and makes scientific errors—acting exactly like Muhammad. How would you distinguish this hypothetical false prophet from Muhammad?

The truth is, Islamic apologists would easily spot him as a fraud or a cult leader, using the exact same logical critiques you just read. Yet, when Muhammad does these exact same things, apologists invent endless rationalizations to defend him.

The Rule of Logic: If your defense of a prophet works equally well to defend a proven fraud or a cult leader, your defense is not based on evidence. It is based on "special pleading", giving one man a free pass that you would never give anyone else.

Test 3: Just One Confirmed Error Is Enough

Islam makes an extraordinary claim that Allah exists, is absolutely perfect, and cannot make even a single mistake. Therefore, if even one confirmed error, injustice, or flaw is found in Islam, its entire claim to divine perfection collapses. The remaining 99.99% of the religion cannot save that claim. You cannot simply argue, "But everything else is correct."

Test 4: The "Unbiased AI" Evaluation

Artificial Intelligence models are programmed to be highly deferential toward major world religions. If you ask an AI to critique the Quran, it will  treat Islamic theology as unquestionable facts rather than claims to be tested. This creates a false "tie" in debates.

To get a truly objective, logical evaluation of the article you just read, you must force the AI to drop its religious deference. Read the prompt below, then click the button to copy it. Paste it into your AI chat before asking it to analyze the article.

When reviewing the article, keep the following principles in mind:
The Qur'an and Hadith cannot be used as evidence of their own divine origin. They are claims whose origin is being examined. Your task is to evaluate whether the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Islamic legal system are better explained as Divine Revelation or as human authorship. Therefore:
• Treat the Qur'an and Hadith as claims, not proof.
• Evaluate the article using logic, internal consistency, factual accuracy, and principles of justice.
• Treat scholarly interpretations as arguments in favor of Islam, not as binding authority.
Based on these principles, answer this question: Do the objections raised in the article expose flaws that reason and justice cannot reconcile, or do the strongest Muslim apologetic arguments successfully answer those objections?

Note: The AI’s response is not a final judgement. The final decision must be made by you, using your own reason and understanding. 

About the Author & This Website

About the Authors: 

The ideas, arguments, research, article structure, and final conclusions are my own. AI tools are used only as editorial assistants to improve grammar, wording, readability, and clarity.

About the Website:

This website is not a “neutral” or purely academic platform. Think of a courtroom, where a judge or jury listens to two opposing sides. We represent one side. It is not our role to be neutral. Our responsibility is to present our case honestly, with arguments and evidence.

You, the reader, are the judge and jury. Your role is to remain fair, to examine all sides, reflect carefully, and then reach your own conclusion with sincerity.

Read more →