Muslim beliefs- Awrah

I am not a Muslim, and with this post I want to understand something I dont currently get.

The idea of covering up is something mainly imposed on women, as they are needing to cover their hair, but also their entire bodies, some of them also choose to cover most of their face. Men's awrah seems significantly reduced, with one of the parts that needs to be covered being the knees. I do not understand this at all. When asked why women should cover up according to Islam, it is to protect their beauty from the eyes of the opposite gender, to make them look less desirable to then. Their hair, and primarily female parts are therefore covered. However, even their arms/legs must be covered? Why is this, when they are not sexual unless they are made to be sexual?

Men are attracted to women, in the same way women are attracted to men. We also find the male figure very attractive, for example, the muscles, the shoulders, the back, the face and the hair. This also leads to lust does it not? So why are men not made to cover up to prevent this lust. Why is it that women are expected to ignore this beauty in a man's figure, Islam does not have rules on covering all these attractive man parts. However, every part of a woman, whether it is sexual or not, is covered?

Especially focused on male awrah. Male KNEES are not predominantly attractive to females, so why do these need to be covered, when the rest of the entire upper body is lusted over a lot more. It makes me wonder if (even if the religion was firstly based on truth), men have changed rules in the past to suit them to enforce control over women, but have not put in the same control for themselves. This idea is also seen in the fact that men are allowed multiple wives but women are not, however as many muslim women have told me, this is a minor part of the writings but heavily used and focused on for a lustful benefit. Why do men openly admit their lust if women's lust is seen as impossible.

I think that the more emphasis put on covering a whole gender up, the more the other gender will want to see...a case of mystery basically. Men will stare more in the hope of seeing anything. I understand modesty but I dont understand the ENTIRE female body being viewed as sexual. If this is the way men see women, surely the emphasis of the religion should predominantly be correcting the men from committing sin, as the woman is not actually to blame for this. She has not shown her arm with the intention of attracting men. I know the lower your gaze verse, but men are corrected way less than women from a young age on this. Men should be taught control instead of having a guarantee that the other gender will hide themselves away for their benefit. Women are very attracted to men, however because men are not censored as much by society and religion, women have evolved a way less lustful gaze, this is the aim of Islam's principles for men too right?

Another thing I see often, is that Muslim men openly talk about looking at women, being attracted to them and lusting over them, this is not criticised at all and seen as normal. But when a woman talks about a crush she is immediately given many hate comments, it is as if the religion expects women to not be attracted to men? Will someone explain to me why Islam hardly refers to a woman's gaze on a man?

Women who do adhere to the hijab, and fully modest attire are are still heavily criticised if small curves are shown. However I have never seen a single man's comment sections have something about their legs showing, many post shirtless, but this is not talked about.

I am not a Muslim, and with this post I want to understand something I dont currently get.

The idea of covering up is something mainly imposed on women, as they are needing to cover their hair, but also their entire bodies, some of them also choose to cover most of their face. Men's awrah seems significantly reduced, with one of the parts that needs to be covered being the knees. I do not understand this at all. When asked why women should cover up according to Islam, it is to protect their beauty from the eyes of the opposite gender, to make them look less desirable to then. Their hair, and primarily female parts are therefore covered. However, even their arms/legs must be covered? Why is this, when they are not sexual unless they are made to be sexual?

Men are attracted to women, in the same way women are attracted to men. We also find the male figure very attractive, for example, the muscles, the shoulders, the back, the face and the hair. This also leads to lust does it not? So why are men not made to cover up to prevent this lust. Why is it that women are expected to ignore this beauty in a man's figure, Islam does not have rules on covering all these attractive man parts. However, every part of a woman, whether it is sexual or not, is covered?

Especially focused on male awrah. Male KNEES are not predominantly attractive to females, so why do these need to be covered, when the rest of the entire upper body is lusted over a lot more. It makes me wonder if (even if the religion was firstly based on truth), men have changed rules in the past to suit them to enforce control over women, but have not put in the same control for themselves. This idea is also seen in the fact that men are allowed multiple wives but women are not, however as many muslim women have told me, this is a minor part of the writings but heavily used and focused on for a lustful benefit. Why do men openly admit their lust if women's lust is seen as impossible.

I think that the more emphasis put on covering a whole gender up, the more the other gender will want to see...a case of mystery basically. Men will stare more in the hope of seeing anything. I understand modesty but I dont understand the ENTIRE female body being viewed as sexual. If this is the way men see women, surely the emphasis of the religion should predominantly be correcting the men from committing sin, as the woman is not actually to blame for this. She has not shown her arm with the intention of attracting men. I know the lower your gaze verse, but men are corrected way less than women from a young age on this. Men should be taught control instead of having a guarantee that the other gender will hide themselves away for their benefit. Women are very attracted to men, however because men are not censored as much by society and religion, women have evolved a way less lustful gaze, this is the aim of Islam's principles for men too right?

Another thing I see often, is that Muslim men openly talk about looking at women, being attracted to them and lusting over them, this is not criticised at all and seen as normal. But when a woman talks about a crush she is immediately given many hate comments, it is as if the religion expects women to not be attracted to men? Will someone explain to me why Islam hardly refers to a woman's gaze on a man?

Women who do adhere to the hijab, and fully modest attire are are still heavily criticised if small curves are shown. However I have never seen a single man's comment sections have something about their legs showing, many post shirtless, but this is not talked about.

I am not a Muslim, and with this post I want to understand something I dont currently get.
The idea of covering up is something mainly imposed on women, as they are needing to cover their hair, but also their entire bodies, some of them also choose to cover most of their face. Men's awrah seems significantly reduced, with one of the parts that needs to be covered being the knees. I do not understand this at all. When asked why women should cover up according to Islam, it is to protect their beauty from the eyes of the opposite gender, to make them look less desirable to then. Their hair, and primarily female parts are therefore covered. However, even their arms/legs must be covered? Why is this, when they are not sexual unless they are made to be sexual?
Men are attracted to women, in the same way women are attracted to men. We also find the male figure very attractive, for example, the muscles, the shoulders, the back, the face and the hair. This also leads to lust does it not? So why are men not made to cover up to prevent this lust. Why is it that women are expected to ignore this beauty in a man's figure, Islam does not have rules on covering all these attractive man parts. However, every part of a woman, whether it is sexual or not, is covered?
Especially focused on male awrah. Male KNEES are not predominantly attractive to females, so why do these need to be covered, when the rest of the entire upper body is lusted over a lot more. It makes me wonder if (even if the religion was firstly based on truth), men have changed rules in the past to suit them to enforce control over women, but have not put in the same control for themselves. This idea is also seen in the fact that men are allowed multiple wives but women are not, however as many muslim women have told me, this is a minor part of the writings but heavily used and focused on for a lustful benefit. Why do men openly admit their lust if women's lust is seen as impossible.
I think that the more emphasis put on covering a whole gender up, the more the other gender will want to see...a case of mystery basically. Men will stare more in the hope of seeing anything. I understand modesty but I dont understand the ENTIRE female body being viewed as sexual. If this is the way men see women, surely the emphasis of the religion should predominantly be correcting the men from committing sin, as the woman is not actually to blame for this. She has not shown her arm with the intention of attracting men. I know the lower your gaze verse, but men are corrected way less than women from a young age on this. Men should be taught control instead of having a guarantee that the other gender will hide themselves away for their benefit. Women are very attracted to men, however because men are not censored as much by society and religion, women have evolved a way less lustful gaze, this is the aim of Islam's principles for men too right?
Another thing I see often, is that Muslim men openly talk about looking at women, being attracted to them and lusting over them, this is not criticised at all and seen as normal. But when a woman talks about a crush she is immediately given many hate comments, it is as if the religion expects women to not be attracted to men? Will someone explain to me why Islam hardly refers to a woman's gaze on a man?
Women who do adhere to the hijab, and fully modest attire are are still heavily criticised if small curves are shown. However I have never seen a single man's comment sections have something about their legs showing, many post shirtless, but this is not talked about.

A lot of "Muslim" men are not Muslim, they just say they are. You are agnostic until you know your scriptures, these men do not. All Abrahamic religions are outdated and science repeatedly proves their statements (which are directly from "God") wrong. There are many good messages and beliefs to learn from religion but IMO I see no reason to follow the religion

I agree, I feel as if religions teach a lot of good values and may well have had foundations of truth. But over time, the pure messages of the religions cannot be passed down directly, they must be written down or taught, and therefore are subject to interpretation (language based etc) or even worse, exploitation for ones own benefits. I am sure that a loving God would not impose many of the unequal rules on the human species just because they are a different gender, these have been distorted by teachers/rulers/powerful men of the past to suit them and their own gender. I have studied this many times and the origin of many of these more unequal beliefs is mostly concentrated around the agricultural times, basically when the idea of passing down land through generations became a thing. Therefore, in order to be certain their land was being passed down to their own offspring, men have influenced religious teachings with things that seem entirely "ungodly" for example, men being allowed multiple wives thing if they are not satisfied, but women being bound to a single husband, and religious inequality. It otherwise makes no sense at all that in all these years, there have been no primarily maternalistic religions or female prophets. From the start of time, men have wanted to control women, and as time has gone on, these has become engraved into religions falsely.

I agree, I feel as if religions teach a lot of good values and may well have had foundations of truth. But over time, the pure messages of the religions cannot be passed down directly, they must be written down or taught, and therefore are subject to interpretation (language based etc) or even worse, exploitation for ones own benefits. I am sure that a loving God would not impose many of the unequal rules on the human species just because they are a different gender, these have been distorted by teachers/rulers/powerful men of the past to suit them and their own gender. I have studied this many times and the origin of many of these more unequal beliefs is mostly concentrated around the agricultural times, basically when the idea of passing down land through generations became a thing. Therefore, in order to be certain their land was being passed down to their own offspring, men have influenced religious teachings with things that seem entirely "ungodly" for example, men being allowed multiple wives thing if they are not satisfied, but women being bound to a single husband, and religious inequality. It otherwise makes no sense at all that in all these years, there have been no primarily maternalistic religions or female prophets. From the start of time, men have wanted to control women, and as time has gone on, these has become engraved into religions falsely.

You are correct in the fact that they are centred a lot around controlling women, the bottom line from me is that how dare a loving god raise children in terminal illness and pain just because it is a "test". How dare he. Not loving to me. Seems to me it is more plausible for religion to be created by the government as a way of enforcing law. If there is nothing after death and you and your children are starving, is stealing that bad? If there is eternal punishment for stealing, is stealing that bad? See it always has been and always will be based upon control of the common man and woman, hedonism is human, religion is not