i think you are arguing just for the heck of it right now but anyways here is my post again:
"that argument makes no sense. By that logic a small sin is better then bigger sin.
Any hijab (which these sisters are takiing is haram as it doesnt qualify as proper hiijab) better then no hijab (also haram)"
Both are haram: no hijab and the hijab these sisters are taking. We cannot just say oh at least the girls have something on their head so its fine. Thats still not proper, but somehow you brought in bikinis??
It's a perfectly valid point that I brought up.
I never made any pronouncements about the acceptability or unacceptability of the hijabs pictured, and I think others who commented are only making the very obvious point: their hijab is better than no hijab.
Modest dressing is not a pass/fail deal. There is a scale at work. Yes, even for dress that does not meet shar'i requirements, there is a scale. All cultures have some
concept of hijab; some concept of decency. And we can look at them and compare them to our own beliefs. In Eastern Europe and Russia, it was until very recently, expected of women to cover their hair. Even today, the most religious Orthodox Christian women, cover their hair! Now this is not a shar'i hijab: maybe they have the hair in the front of their head showing, or maybe -- because they have no concept of mahram and non-mahram -- they do not cover their heads inside their home, even when non-relatives visit.
Or take for example the traditional Korean woman's dress: the hanbok. It's a very long, loose fitting dress, and is worn with a head cover. But, for example, the head covering doesn't cover the neck or ears.
So... seeing these types of dress, are we going to sit and lie to ourselves saying that because these do not meet shar'i requirements, that they are no different
than the typical immodest clothing we see commonly worn in Western Europe and the United States?
If you think that, then you're an idiot.