Islam equates a woman’s nakedness with immorality, but this is a misconception. The idea of what counts as “naked” has changed across cultures and history. In many societies where women wore little or no clothing, they were still considered honourable, modest, and faithful to their husbands. Clothing does not define morality, but character does.
In reality, a woman considered "naked" in a village is not deemed naked in a big city like Tehran. Similarly, a woman considered naked in Tehran is not deemed naked in Istanbul. And a woman considered naked in Istanbul is not deemed naked in New York!
Even within the Muslim community, standards of “modesty” vary widely. For some families, a simple headscarf with long sleeves and jeans is acceptable. For others, this is considered immodest, and women must wear a full burqa, leaving only the face visible. In even more conservative circles, wearing a jilbab or abaya is still not enough, but women are required to cover their faces, and sometimes even their hands and fingers, from men.
The concept of nudity varies across places, times, and individuals.
Even in the society of Prophet Muhammad, his companions, and the Muslim communities over the past thirteen centuries, slave women were forced to move in public without hijab and with exposed chests, and it were not considered naked or immodest by Muslims. Furthermore, it was not deemed nudity for male Muslim customers to physically touch and inspect the body parts of these slave women before their purchase and sale. On the contrary, such practices were considered entirely permissible and sanctioned by divine law for those Muslims. For proofs and details, please our article:
However, if a free Muslim woman stepped out without covering her head, she would immediately face accusations of nudity and shamelessness from those same Muslims.
Labeling a woman as naked or shameless and immodest is fundamentally not about clothing but about the human "mindset." In this regard, the "Islamic religious mindset," shaped by religious indoctrination, occupies the lowest rung, as it fails to recognize the glaring double standards: on one hand, Prophet Muhammad mandated that free women be entirely enveloped in a burqa, making their leaving the home or interacting with men a source of trouble; on the other hand, slave women were prohibited from observing hijab, their modesty was limited to covering only from the navel to the knees, their chests were exposed in public, and their bodies were deemed permissible for male customers to inspect in the markets of slavery.
Muslim Objection: Why do atheists only advocate for removing the burqa from their women? Why do they not have them appear completely naked in public?
When this topic was discussed, religious individuals provided no response to the repeated questions about these double standards in Islam. Instead, Islamic apologists persistently raised the objection: Why do atheists only advocate for removing the burqa from their women and not have them appear completely naked in public?
Our response:
This issue pertains to the evolution of clothing. According to science, human evolution initially occurred in Africa, from where humans migrated and spread across the world. While in Africa, humans had no need for clothing, as the climate allowed them to endure both heat and cold without it.
Even today, numerous tribes in Africa and the Amazon exist where clothing is not customary, and people live entirely naked. Have you seen documentary videos about these tribes? If not, please watch them on YouTube to broaden your perspective and avoid remaining confined to narrow-minded views.
When humans migrated to colder regions, they developed a "need" to wear clothing to protect themselves from harsh weather. Over time, this necessity evolved into fashion, and people adopted clothing as part of their customs and traditions. Subsequently, various religions introduced laws regarding clothing.
In the West, the evolution of clothing was initially driven by necessity and later influenced by religions like Christianity, where women covered their entire bodies, often including their heads with scarves. Women who defied these religious fashion norms faced societal criticism. However, as religion gradually receded in Europe, so did the layers of clothing imposed on women.
In the new Europe of the last century, women began appearing in public wearing skirts that reached the knees. Today, skirts have further evolved, shrinking into "miniskirts," and no one objects or labels such women as naked. In Scandinavian countries, clothing on beaches and riverbanks has evolved to the point of being limited to bikinis.
Moving further, some beaches in Scandinavian countries exist where clothing is entirely unnecessary, and people move about completely naked. Thus, the short clothing or miniskirts you see women wearing in Europe today reflect the current state of Western society, which, through evolution, may in the future embrace complete nudity without objection.
In African and Amazonian tribes where complete nudity is the norm, no one objects to it. Similarly, on Scandinavian beaches where nudity is accepted, there is no criticism.
The issue lies with Islam and Muslims, who are afflicted by the most extreme forms of hypocrisy and double standards.
Calling women “shameless” for not following your culture or religion ignores the reality that morality is not fixed. It evolves, just like clothing did. True dignity means freedom of choice, not forcing one rule for everyone while defending ancient double standards.
Hassan Radwan