A non-Muslim woman's view on hijab

Schuhart

metrovelvet wrote:

Oh and I never said this:

Originally Posted by metrovelvet
To be honest if two people have exactly the same qualifications then the person who is better looking has an advantage.

My profound apologies – the perils of cutting and pasting. That quote was actually from kmick.

the_new_mr wrote:

So, you're planning to single-handedly prove Islam wrong are you? Illusions of grandeur here perhaps? And, may I ask, who are you to say so? I don't mean this to sound offensive but don't you think that this is arrogant?

As far as I’m concerned religion is a human invention so, no, I don’t see myself or anyone else as arrogant when they question these inherited traditions. Religion implicitly acknowledges that average people like us can demonstrate its errors. That’s why concepts like heresy and apostasy exist.

the_new_mr wrote:

But then, how do I know you don't have horns and a tail?

I’ve never denied it.:eek:

the_new_mr wrote:

As I said anyway, the identity of the person who wrote that text isn't important.

I’m happy to proceed on that basis, but would point out that you started by announcing this to be the view of a non-Muslim woman which suggests you initially felt this to be important.

the_new_mr wrote:

Alternatively, you could always go and read the views of some Muslim women on the net and see how they defend it even more passionately than I do.

If I check on the net I’ll certainly find women defending the practice. I’ll also find women decrying it and, for example, complaining about the Turkish Prime Minister’s wife wearing a veil while accompanying her husband on official visits abroad. I’m not necessarily saying I agree with that complaint, but I’d take it the practice has far more significance for Turkish women than for me. Suffice it to say, it’s not an issue on which there is consensus among either women in general or Muslim women in particular.

the_new_mr wrote:

You still insist on rewording it? That's not why women wear it and you know it.

In fairness, I don’t know why women wear it. I expect some women wear it because they accept it as a religious obligation. Some may do it to show that there are proud of their heritage in a context where Islam is being criticised. Others may find their families approve of the practice and wearing it avoids conflict in the home. Perhaps some do it because they didn't have a chance to wash their hair last night, and I'd guess that's not exhausting the possible reasons someone could have.

But on the question of submission to husbands, I take it we accept that strand is present in Islam. I 've nothing to hand, but I could come up with the inevitable fatwas from islamonline.net if the need arises.

the_new_mr wrote:

Let's say gender equity then.

We can call it gender equity, but I’ve a fear that we’re only looking for a phrase that seems to say equality but doesn’t. I see two concepts.

There is, on the one hand, the concept that traditional gender roles should be held in equal esteem. If I was labelling that agenda, I’d simply call it something like ‘traditional values’. On the other hand, there’s gender equality. That’s the removal of any artificial barrier to one or other gender adopting a particular role. If memory serves, Plato considers this in the context of the ideal republic. In answer to the question should women participate in military training, the argument concludes that they should even if, on average, they might be less useful as soldiers. Why? Because otherwise security becomes a gift of men to women, and a principle of dependency is formed.

I’m not particularly getting into the topic of gender roles here as, obviously, it’s vast. I’m just underlining that point that ‘gender equity’ as you use the term and ‘gender equality’ are two quite different propositions. I’m not sure anything is made clearer by calling both of these different things ‘feminism’.

InFront

Don't really have time to reply properly, but just happened to notice a special feature on hijab on islamonline earlier available here which has information from the most basics to hijab and law, and more complicated questions.

And even better page is an article from a Muslim woman (well we should have a bit more female input!) here where she describes why she chooses the headscarf

the_new_mr

Good call InFront. I've been quite uncomfortable with the lack of female input on this thread and while I'm more than happy to defend my sisters around the world right to wear hijab, a word from one of them is worth at least 100 of mine or anyone else's. Nice links.

Schuhart wrote:

As far as I’m concerned religion is a human invention so, no, I don’t see myself or anyone else as arrogant when they question these inherited traditions.

I know that's what you think but this forum isn't for that.

Schuhart wrote:

Religion implicitly acknowledges that average people like us can demonstrate its errors. That’s why concepts like heresy and apostasy exist.

No idea what you're on about there. Just because heresy and apostasy exist doesn't mean that a religion (as if to personify it here) acknowledges that average people like us can demonstrate errors because, I believe, that Islam has no errors. In fact the very idea of apostasy means that someone is not practicing that religion anymore. It means that they have left what is defined in that religion.

And anyway, if you are of that opinion then I won't force mine on you but there's no point for you to try to force yours on me or anyone else here. I refer you back to this post.

Schuhart wrote:

I’m happy to proceed on that basis, but would point out that you started by announcing this to be the view of a non-Muslim woman which suggests you initially felt this to be important.

Well, originally I felt it was a big part of it but now that I have you doubting the source then I said to myself that we may as well just concentrate on the text. And my reasoning for that is that there are a number of Muslim women who would give the reasons mentioned in the text and more (as InFront has demonstrated).

Schuhart wrote:

Suffice it to say, it’s not an issue on which there is consensus among either women in general or Muslim women in particular.

That may be the case but a large number of Muslim women all over the world wear hijab. Even most of the women who don't wear it admit that they really feel they should and have their own personal struggle with it and want to wear it some day.

Schuhart wrote:

In fairness, I don’t know why women wear it.

Your very next sentence...

Schuhart wrote:

I expect some women wear it because they accept it as a religious obligation.

This is it. I think you can strike out "some" and put "most". Any other reason is simply additional... like a bonus. And if any other reason is the primary reason then I believe that woman should renew her intention as to why she is doing it for it is an act of worship.

Al-Nour:31
"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed."

Schuhart wrote:

I’m not sure anything is made clearer by calling both of these different things ‘feminism’.

Without getting into the whole gender equality thing, I think it's fair to say that both of what you mentioned can be called feminism if there are women who call themselves feminists saying either of these things.

At the end of the day, men and women are different. We all know that. We've all known it since we were little kids. But are they equal? In God's eyes, there is no question that the answer is a resounding YES.

But, unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. If men of the world gave women the respect they deserve (and I speak of men in Muslim countries as well as men in the west and the rest of the world), then perhaps a lot of women wouldn't feel insecure.

You have a situation where women see that they aren't being treated with respect. So, they ask themselves "how can we get respect?" and come to the conclusion that the best way to do this is by being the exact same as men. If a woman wants to work then she should. If she wants to stay home then she should. Personally speaking, I think the family should come first and not be jeopardised by both parents working but if it can be done then why not? Obviously, in some cases, both parents must work in order to support the home.

I'd like to know how it is that if society promotes the idea that it's perfectly okay for women to be scantily clad in music videos, to dress to show more and more of their figure and skin and generally be what men want them to be (or perhaps more accurately, dress and behave how men want them to) then how is this respecting women? We live in a world where magazines like Playboy are seen as "okay" and simply part of the entertainment industry. Why should we accept this rubbish? I repeat the words of my feminist friend from this blog. Who benefits?

And then there's rotten inequality when it comes to how men and women are viewed when it comes to relationships. Everybody knows Christina Aguilera here I assume. The following is an extract from one of her songs.

If you look back in history
It's a common double standard of society
The guy gets all the glory the more he can score
While the girl can do the same and yet you call her a whore
I don't understand why it's okay
The guy can get away with it the girl gets named

Disclaimer: I'd just like to take this opportunity to say that the only reason I know of the above lyrics is because it was on a tv show. I don't listen to Christina Aguilera

She's spot on! But I don't agree with her solution. I would say go the other way. If a man sleeps around, call him a slut and lower your level of respect for him. I'm sad to say that the situation isn't much better in a lot of Muslim countries and is one of the most serious problems that most Muslim societies face today. It's not usually as extreme as "sleeping around". But if a young man has a girlfriend, people often say "He's just young and will come out of it when he gets older" but if a girl has a boyfriend it's usually a family scandal.

So, in this respect, hijab is pure feminism. A woman is saying to the society: "I won't wear things just because you want me to wear them, I'm going to cover myself up because only my husband has the right to see me. You're going to have to judge me by my personality, mind and skills because that's all you're going to see of me. I am my own person and I won't be what you want me to be."

DinoBot

the_new_mr wrote:

Girls are not supposed to wear it until they reach the age of puberty and that's that. Anyone who forces their girls to do so at a younger age is asking something of them that they are not required to do.

And don't you think it's insulting to the intelligence of women to say that they don't have a choice?

Well you see thats why I dont really write too much on this topic. I have discussed this to death over the years and its very difficult to get anywhere. You see most people like to speak of the ideal, like you saying there is choice, while the reality is what you see. You said "Girls are not supposed to wear it until they reach the age of puberty" but thats the "IDEAL". The "REALITY" is what you see in Mosque.

The "Ideal" is that woman have choice, "reality" is that there is alot of pressure on the men to have their wives and daughters cover up........ I know this first hand so dont state quoting quran :-) Ideal is nice to know but I think if more muslims started to look at how Isam is practiced it would lead to a better disscussion.

the_new_mr wrote:

And what were you doing in the mosque anyway DinoBot?

Im not an outsider looking in ;-)

The Corinthian

One thing that a lot of people seem to be missing out on is the cultural or ethnic dimension to the hijab. After all, when they go abroad Scots are hardly 'fitting in' when they wear kilts and so it can be argued that the wearing of the hijab is as much as cultural or ethnic identity as a religious one - a theory strengthened if you consider the huge variations in Muslim female coverings, from full-body burka's through to those who will wear none or even instead wear a wig (something that many orthodox Jewish women have been doing for a log time) - variations that are based largely upon the where the women in question are from. And religious interpretation, of course.

It's very easy to confuse the Islamic faith with its Arabocentric origins. The principle language of faith is Arabic, the historical origins are Arabic, even many of the religious observances are not uncommon to pre-Islamic and non-Islamic Arabic cultures. As such it is understandable that many women would genuinely want to wear it as it is, after all, part of their cultural identity, just as much (if not more so) as kilts are for Scots.

kmick

the_new_mr wrote:

Did a quick google. How about this post from a feminist blog?

To be honest having read the first page of this there is not much coherent thought there either. It varies between 'we should wear what we like' to 'we should not wear what men like' and any other point in between. However it does not go any way to showing me this...

the_new_mr wrote:

All you have to do is visit a non-Muslim feminist website and you'll see most of them encouraging women to wear casual clothes that cover up their body and not wear much makeup etc etc. There are plenty of cases where a woman who did this later got the sack.

the_new_mr wrote:

What a morbid and unfair attitude. Survival of the fittest is it? Let the beautiful people win because they look more pleasing the eye?

You are taking me out of context. What I said was that if two people have 'exactly' the same qualifications and one is better looking and gets the job on this basis; they have got the job because they have an 'advantage' over the other person. That advantage is beauty, which is recognised as 'positive' concept world wide and in every religion.

Thanks for the debate - however I think it has done little to dispel my very loosely held views that the debate on religions and their good and bad elements is conducted at a very basic level in society.

metrovelvet

The irony of the hijab is that like any kind of veil or covering it draws attention to the very thing its trying to hide,so what it actually ends up doing is OVER ertoticising women's hair.

Its like girls who wear a bucket of makeup on their face to hide their bad skin, it only draws attention to it.

No doubt this started out with practical purposes -a head covering protects the skin and hair from the hot middle eastern sun- and has evolved into a matrix of cultural significance.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

I've been quite uncomfortable with the lack of female input on this thread

Indeed, as it would be interesting to see an exchange of views between women who place a positive value on the practice and women who see it as anathema.

the_new_mr wrote:

I know that's what you think but this forum isn't for that.

Indeed, but I have no other way of responding to your query about ‘arrogance’ other than to state plainly that I don’t see how this concept applies to one human querying an institution founded by another human.

the_new_mr wrote:

Just because heresy and apostasy exist doesn't mean that a religion (as if to personify it here) acknowledges that average people like us can demonstrate errors

Its evidence of someone claiming the right to intermediate between you and God, and placing a sanction on anyone who tries to dissent. No religious authority figure of any faith can explain how what he’s saying is different to turtles all the way down, a proposition readily understood by anyone. The reason religious dissent is suppressed is because it cannot be answered.

the_new_mr wrote:

Even most of the women who don't wear it admit that they really feel they should and have their own personal struggle with it and want to wear it some day.

That could well be true, however you’ll understand that we really need some evidence to so quickly jump from ‘some’ to ‘most’. I think it might also be helpful to report that some women seem to be in situations that might intimidate them into wearing it, just to acknowledge there's a little more to this issue than basking in the glow of wholesome womanhood.

the_new_mr wrote:

Everybody knows Christina Aguilera here I assume.

Indeed, but I doubt if she foresaw that her lyrics would be used to defend the idea that a woman should wrap herself in a blanket in front of every man except her husband, who, of course, can have multiple wives.

the_new_mr wrote:

So, in this respect, hijab is pure feminism.

Only in the sense of feminism being redefined to mean something other than what it is. Can I start calling myself a theist, by redefining the term to mean someone who thinks God is a human construct?

metrovelvet wrote:

No doubt this started out with practical purposes -a head covering protects the skin and hair from the hot middle eastern sun- and has evolved into a matrix of cultural significance.

Some have suggested that it has quite a different origin.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

Religion implicitly acknowledges that average people like us can demonstrate its errors. That’s why concepts like heresy and apostasy exist

If your statement were correct then by default Islam implicitly acknowledges its errors – but what errors? I don't know how you come to that conclusion, it just sort of, popped into the reply like an accepted fact. I'm sure we've had such a debate previously (!) lets just agree that the above shouldn't be, or isn’t, taken as accepted fact. God doesn't make errors. If you're a non-Muslim, I presume you might disagree, but as the_new_mr said, that's simply because you've (i.e. 'one has') decided not to embrace Islam.

Terms like apostasy don’t imply a fault with Islam. They exist because there are almost always people who reject truth - for a very different example: Jewish Holocaust denial exists. Does this mean that history inherently perceives an error in saying the Holocaust happened? No, of course not. It just means that some people inevitably deny the truth. That doesn't detract from the Holocaust. (sorry about the grim example, first one to mind).
Apostasy doesn’t detract from Islam, it just means some people deny it.

It's [Hijab] not an issue on which there is consensus among either women in general or Muslim women in particular. In fairness, I don’t know why women wear it. I expect some women wear it because they accept it as a religious obligation. Some may do it to show that there are proud of their heritage in a context where Islam is being criticised. Others may find their families approve of the practice and wearing it avoids conflict in the home. Perhaps some do it because they didn't have a chance to wash their hair

Yes, Hijab is a religious obligation, so there are positives that come with that, that's the universal reason.

Apart from the immediate religious obligation, I don't think anyone can really pin-point the other benefits as universal for all, but they certainly are there and have been mentioned already.

Just in relation to ‘force’, Muslims, like anybody, can make mistakes. Any swing away from what Allah wills is a wrongdoing, a sort of deviation. Sometimes there is deliberate wrongdoing, or else someone has been misinformed. It happens at a personal level, it happens right up to Government level. I think it is important to differentiate between this wrongdoing, and Islam. True Islam is from Allah, wrongdoing is down to human weakness.
So as you say, yes we presume that sometimes there must be cases where women are forced to the Hijab… but who gets the blame for that - Islam? I don't see how. The person causing the problem? Yes, that makes more sense. Allah sets the standard, we obey or we don't. Obviously it would be great if we could all honour Him perfectly; unfortunately for us we all make mistakes. Islam cannot be accountable if one of us upsets Allah - that wouldn't make any sense, it's our choice, we take the blame ourselves.

(Eventually) my point is that if people sometimes get it wrong about Hijab, it doesn't detract from the inherent correctness of Hijab and all of the benefits that belong to it. It just means that someone has unfortunately got it wrong. Should that ruin Hijab for everybody else? As kmick said earlier, most people seem perfectly happy with it, where’s the problem?

...gender equality. That’s the removal of any artificial barrier to one or other gender adopting a particular role.

Yeah but meanings of that are really broad. I mean it would depend on what the artificial barrier is, and what particular role is in question.
What is gender equality? I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with the notion of men and women should be 'the same'. Why are we different? For procreation and nothing else? If a woman is the very equal of a man except in anatomy, doesn't that just revert the definition of womanhood back to the role as a childbearer? Doesn't that also mean that man, is only actually defined by his sexual functions?
That sounds like a terrible definition of what it means to be a man, and what it means to be a woman. Yet this is what gender equality suggests.

Why can't we just accept our differences, and be comfortable with them? Should we all be the same? Doesn't that just erode womanhood? And manhood too? What is left to set us apart as we were created? I am reminded of this quote from the_new_mr's link (University of Texas, Gender Equality)

Other feminine roles have been reduced as well, making women feel powerless. It seems like the only way for them to gain power is through sex. For example, at Harvard University, a new magazine, whose creators are female, will feature Harvard women posing nude. Why would women at one of the most prestigious universities in the world and who presumably have everything going for them want to pose nude? Because it is the only way they can distinguish themselves from men.

Originally posted by DinoBot
You see most people like to speak of the ideal, like you saying there is choice, while the reality is what you see. You said "Girls are not supposed to wear it until they reach the age of puberty" but that’s the "IDEAL". The "REALITY" is what you see in Mosque.

As has been said, Islam does not instruct little 4 and 6 year old girls to adapt Hijab unless you know differently? If some parents instruct it, it’s their decision.
Here is an interesting link that deals with the difference between force and obligation:

"What those writers say about forcing hijab on Muslim women is a false allegation put forward by some Westerners against Islam and the Muslim woman. The main objective behind such allegation is to encourage the Muslim woman to break the laws of the Muslim family and disobey her parents. It is not a call for liberation or giving Muslim women their rights.

Allah Almighty has entrusted parents with their children. Parents bear the responsibility to raise up their children in the Islamic way. If they do that, they will be blessed in this life and in the Hereafter, and if they don't, they will get bad result during their life and in the Hereafter. In Islam, parents are not to force their children to do anything that is considered against the law of the Shari`ah. That is why Islam has ordered parents to take care of their children and to bring them up according to the Islamic manners.

Hijab is an obligation from Allah on Muslim women. The obligation is referred to in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. The Muslim woman must wear it and the Muslim parents should encourage their daughters to wear it."

See how he says 'encourage', of course we must strongly encourage it, because it is an instruction from God. But ultimately, it can’t be forced on someone.

Just to go back to those young girls, are you sure that they were forced to wear Hijab? I have no reason to defend their parents, but as everyone who has sisters or little girls around the house knows, they enjoy dressing up like adults, especially at that age. Little girls sometimes ask to play with their mothers' jewelry; they want to have the same profession as their Dad, or their Mother. As their elders, children just want to behave like their parents and inherit knowledge - that's how they learn (we all learned) to grow up. Six year old girls try to emulate their mothers.

So even though she doesn't understand the meaning of it, I don't think there is harm in allowing a girl to put on a headscarf if she really wants to do it to be like her mother, maybe just for the visit to the mosque. I would have thought it (hopefully) encourages a positive attitude to Hijab, and makes it something special for her visit - if she wants it. Motivation is surely one of the most important tools of parenting, what better way to teach children than to motivate them? I wonder if those girls would usually dress like that? Anyway that's just one theory, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions in either direction.

Originally posted by Schuhart
Indeed, but I doubt if she foresaw that her lyrics would be used to defend the idea that a woman should wrap herself in a blanket in front of every man except her husband, who, of course, can have multiple wives

It's not a blanket, it's Hijab, and it’s for God. It doesn't have to be 'every man except her husband', and as you already know, 'having multiple wives' does not reflect the reality or the complexity of that situation, it seems like a bit of a cheap shot.

I'd never really thought about the hijab before. A simple headscarf hardly seems that oppressive. And some of the ones I've seen can be very pretty indeed. It's interesting to see the feminist slant on it and some of the opinions... they certainly seem to make sense to me. One kuwaiti girl I know says it saves on bad hair days

I suppose it all comes down to why each woman wears it in the first place. If they all have the attitude of being comfortable with it and happy with how they can pick and choose who they show what to and being modest, good for them. If they're getting in trouble - so to speak - with family members etc for not wearing it, well then we have a different story.
But then that applies to anything, doesn't it. Like makeup. I like wearing makeup once in a while (read: a long while ) just to dress up or whatever. But the moment someone says I have to wear it day to day, I'll dig my heels in.
So um yeah, there's another non-muslim women's opinion for you all, dunno if it's any use to anyone.

Speaking of headscarves in general, did irish women from a few decades ago not always wear them here...?

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

If your statement were correct then by default Islam implicitly acknowledges its errors – but what errors?

So it joins that long list of error free religions that contradict each other. Bearing in mind the extent of disagreement within each faith, never mind between faiths, I simply cannot understand how an assertion of perfection can be seriously presented.

Consider the context. I’m being described as arrogant for questioning Islam. Apparently, my accusers feel their belief system is error free. Where should that charge of arrogance truly lie?

InFront wrote:

Apostasy doesn’t detract from Islam, it just means some people deny it.

Apostasy is one of the techniques used by religion to frustrate questioning and discussion. It protects itself by placing a taboo over the questioning of the faith. The comparison to Holocaust denial is just irrelevant.

InFront wrote:

True Islam is from Allah, wrongdoing is down to human weakness.

This is a word game played before. It consists of redefining ‘Islam’ to mean a sort of Platonic ideal, and the human implementation is just an imperfect Earthly reflection. Let me clarify that I’m interested in the Earthly reflection.

Plato does, of course, use the image of the cave to communicate an idea of human understanding. Outside the light shines. We stand in a cave with our backs to it watching shadows playing on the wall, thinking that is reality. In that situation, religion isn’t the light. It’s one of the shadows.

InFront wrote:

if people sometimes get it wrong about Hijab, it doesn't detract from the inherent correctness of Hijab and all of the benefits that belong to it.

Indeed, but there still has to be acknowledgement of that aspect of the faith that leads to a woman being shot for not covering enough of her hair. From what we can gather, her assailant did not justify his actions on the basis of an excessively literal reading of ‘The God Delusion’.

InFront wrote:

As kmick said earlier, most people seem perfectly happy with it, where’s the problem?

No problem whatsoever. If large numbers of
women freely choose a subservient role and what to follow a belief system that values that choice and provides symbols to wear that reflect it, I’ve no trouble at all. I just think we have to be open about that being what we are saying.

InFront wrote:

What is gender equality?

The whole issue of equality is too vast to deal with here, but I don’t see it as requiring anyone to have surgery. I’m more interested in just establish that, generally, Islamic values are not about gender equality. Doing my best to meet you half way, I might describe it as being very positive about different genders having very different roles. But that’s something else. (If I wasn’t trying to meet you half way I’d describe it as ‘women should be as equal as they can be, poor dears’.)

InFront wrote:

It's not a blanket, it's Hijab, and it’s for God.

Indeed, but if she forgot her Hijab a blanket could do the job just as well. I’m sure God would pay exactly the same amount of attention to it.

InFront wrote:

It doesn't have to be 'every man except her husband',

So true. She can strut her stuff out in front of her father and her sons, too.

Do you really think your statement makes any material difference to the situation?

InFront wrote:

and as you already know, 'having multiple wives' does not reflect the reality or the complexity of that situation, it seems like a bit of a cheap shot.

A cheap shot that Islam leaves open for me. Sounds to me like a candidate for Ijtihad, but seeing as how the doctrine is absolutely error free I suppose that’s out of the question.

bluewolf wrote:

some of the ones I've seen can be very pretty indeed.

I like the fact of some actual humanity entering the discussion. So it makes me reluctant to say it, but I have to ask if this is not exactly what the hijab is supposed to be masking. According to the lads, its all about religion and hiding what you’ve got.

bluewolf wrote:

One kuwaiti girl I know says it saves on bad hair days

I’ve frequently suspected this. Thanks for adding some reality to the discussion.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

So it joins that long list of error free religions that contradict each other.

No, it is the true religion, there is no long list. But no doubt there is a long list of points where Islam is not in agreement with other traditions and beliefs, these are the points where other faiths, specifically Judaism and Christianity move away from Islam, though we've still got areas of shared beliefs.

Bearing in mind the extent of disagreement within each faith, never mind between faiths, I simply cannot understand how an assertion of perfection can be seriously presented.

As Muslims we don't subscribe to these differences, so I don't see how we can be expected to explain them, or how they would ever detract from perfection in Islam, not beeing Islamic beliefs?

Consider the context. I’m being described as arrogant for questioning Islam. Apparently, my accusers feel their belief system is error free.

Can I ask do you believe that about atheism? I don't know anyone who ever thinks themselves wrong when it comes to their faith - how could it remain their faith when it is actually a doubt to them?

Apostasy is one of the techniques used by religion to frustrate questioning and discussion.

No, Islam isn't a conspiracy theory, you need to have a word for the rejection of iman (the sincere, inner faith) and denial of Allah, this is what the experts describe as 'kufr', which suggests apostasy. There is no ulterior motive or hidden agenda. If Allah wanted to cease any questioning and discussion, why wouldn't he just have taken away our ability to consider these very questions?

The comparison to Holocaust denial is just irrelevant.This is a word game played before. It consists of redefining ‘Islam’ to mean a sort of Platonic ideal, and the human implementation is just an imperfect Earthly reflection.

Yes the Holocaust comparison is quite a bad one, it's just the central point that is important: just because some people deny a truth, it doesn't actually detract from the truth.
Some people reject Islam, reject iman - that doesn't mean that Islam is false, it just shows that some people don't believe in it.
Islam is the faith that we are all expected to follow as best we can inshallah (if it is God's will), and sure, deviation away from that is a human weakness or lack of knowledge. You obviously find that frustrating, but I'm not sure what other way there is to say it.

Plato does, of course, use the image of the cave to communicate an idea of human understanding. Outside the light shines. We stand in a cave with our backs to it watching shadows playing on the wall, thinking that is reality. In that situation, religion isn’t the light. It’s one of the shadows.

Not exactly, in Islam we do have the Qur'an, which to continue your cave allegory, allows Muslims access out of the cave into the openness. The Qur'an is the direct word from Allah, it consists of the Ghayb (the unseen) that He has chosen to reveal for us. So watching shadows on the wall in Plato's cave is not an appropriate metaphor for Islam.
Does atheism, or someone like Richard Dawkins, claim to be the visionary who stumbles out into the light to the higher truth? Isn't it a more valid thing to say that atheists are still inside the cave, denying the existence of such an outdoors - because they cannot see it, cannot imagine it, and insisting that they are all the better for it?

Indeed, but there still has to be acknowledgement of that aspect of the faith that leads to a woman being shot for not covering enough of her hair.

What woman? If that happened, there's no defending it; I don't see how such acts which are as illegal as they are immoral can be blamed on Islam when they are clearly the not Islamic.
Another unfortunate example I'm afraid but again it's the concept that matters - if someone is shot in the street, do you blame the shooter or do you blame the law that forbids it?
So Islam cannot be held accountable for killing a woman who doesn't observe Hijab - Islam doesn't warrant it.

From what we can gather, her assailant did not justify his actions on the basis of an excessively literal reading of ‘The God Delusion’.

You think he took it from the Qur'an? Can you quote the instruction?

The whole issue of equality is too vast to deal with here, but I don’t see it as requiring anyone to have surgery. I’m more interested in just establish that, generally, Islamic values are not about gender equality. Doing my best to meet you half way, I might describe it as being very positive about different genders having very different roles.

Well I think that sums up what I understand the Muslim outlook to be - but 'Allahu Alam' (God knows best). So if that were your definition I think we agree on it, different genders, while equal in the eyes of God, have differing roles in life.

You also say that women should be as equal as they can be. Well, I don't think I really disagree with you, but it depends on the meaning. Do you mean "the same" in that they are the very same except for in anatomy? Or does the similarity end when you take into account that there are more subtle, emotional and characteristic differences between men and women? It's a big difference, but it's also a huge issue, and there are no easy answers.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

No, it is the true religion, there is no long list.

There’s some guys on the Christianity forum you should meet.

InFront wrote:

As Muslims we don't subscribe to these differences, so I don't see how we can be expected to explain them, or how they would ever detract from perfection in Islam, not beeing Islamic beliefs?

Are you suggesting that there’s uniformity of belief with Islam? (Incidently, when I said disagreement within faiths as well as between faiths, I was suggesting that in addition to the obvious divergence between, say, Islam and Christianity, Muslims don’t all agree on what Islam is, Christians don’t all agree on what Christianity is. I might not have made that clear enough.)

InFront wrote:

Can I ask do you believe that about atheism?

I might be totally wrong, and even now Satan might be heating a poker to get it good and hot for me when I arrive. But I don’t see the point in following an elaborate fantasy to pretend I’m not facing an unknown. I think I’ve said either in this thread or a recent one that quite possibly the Quran is the exact word of God. I just think the chance is so low that it can be discounted. Ditto for the Bible or any other theist source book you’d care to mention.

There’s an essential uncertainty in human existence. I’ve said in other forums that I see the atheist leap of faith is to assume its better to face that than pretend it’s otherwise. That could be wrong. Maybe we’re better off pretending.

InFront wrote:

If Allah wanted to cease any questioning and discussion, why wouldn't he just have taken away our ability to consider these very questions?

I really don’t know. For the same reason he gave women bodies that have to be hidden?

InFront wrote:

Some people reject Islam, reject iman - that doesn't mean that Islam is false, it just shows that some people don't believe in it.

That statement is utter consistent. The act of rejecting a religion does not show it to be false. What should set some alarm bells ringing is how religion reacts both to that rejection and simply to honest questions.

InFront wrote:

Isn't it a more valid thing to say that atheists are still inside the cave, denying the existence of such an outdoors - because they cannot see it, cannot imagine it, and insisting that they are all the better for it?

As I see it, atheists are in the cave like everyone else, staring at the wall. We’re just saying “these are only shadows, how do we get out of here?” Maybe if we shut up and stared at the shadows for long enough they’d change colour, and we’d stop being bothered. That seems to work for everyone else.

InFront wrote:

What woman? If that happened, there's no defending it; I don't see how such acts which are as illegal as they are immoral can be blamed on Islam when they are clearly the not Islamic.

I’m being too oblique – it’s a reference to some religious nut shooting a government minister in Pakistan. Indeed, there’s no reason for mainstream Islam to have to defend such actions or anything like that. I see it in the same way as if an evangelical Christian maintains his faith is wonderfully uplifting, that its fair to point to, say, Ted Haggard and reflect on how he must surely have read the bible more than once and it hardly made him a paragon of virtue. What’s the point of that? To challenge an easy consensus of apathy that, without such challenges, would pretend that religion spreads sweetness and light in every corner of the world.

InFront wrote:

Do you mean that women are the very same except for in anatomy? Or that there are more subtle, emotional and characteristic differences between men and women? It's a big difference, but it's also a huge issue, and there are no easy answers.

I’m garbling my points, and I can see I phrased that poorly. I’d see the Islamic value as (summarising into one phrase) being very positive about different genders having very different roles, and not really being concerned about equality. Maybe you shouldn’t be. Maybe that’s a good thing. I’m just pointing out that this seems to be the value because there seems to be a reluctance sometimes to frankly acknowledging it.

Just so I don’t seem evasive, clearly I don’t see this as a positive value. Some women don’t agree with my outlook, and choose Islam because they want a philosophy that values that homemaker role. I’ve never been drawn to the idea that the gift of God is a quiet woman in a well kept house. But I’m already sharing a disordered house with a loud woman, so I really shouldn’t object to someone achieving their own version of Nirvana.

I see the core principle of equality as being one that does not make any assumptions based on gender. That’s not to say that differences don’t exist, or natural inclinations might not lead people in certain directions. But I don’t see why birth into one or other gender necessarily has to limit someone’s options, other than in respect of simple and obvious physical limitations of what a male or female body is equipped to do.

That’s the ideal, but I don’t see that ideal as something fixed or even something that we fully understand. Bear in mind, I don’t think any deity has given us the final word on anything. We are still writing the story.

the_new_mr

kmick wrote:

You are taking me out of context. What I said was that if two people have 'exactly' the same qualifications and one is better looking and gets the job on this basis; they have got the job because they have an 'advantage' over the other person. That advantage is beauty, which is recognised as 'positive' concept world wide and in every religion.

In fairness kmick, I don't think I took you out of context. You're saying that with all things being equal, a more beautiful person should get the job because, in your own words, "that is the way of the world".

metrovelvet wrote:

The irony of the hijab is that like any kind of veil or covering it draws attention to the very thing its trying to hide,so what it actually ends up doing is OVER ertoticising women's hair.

In your opinion. And by the way, hijab doesn't just mean covering the hair. It's about dressing modestly in general.

Schuhart wrote:

Only in the sense of feminism being redefined to mean something other than what it is.

There's no redefinition here. It's already been established that feminism can mean a couple of things.

And are you a feminist who is a female? No, I don't think you are. Perhaps, though, you could take up your point with someone who does classify themselves as a female feminist and does consider hijab an important part of her feminism. Maybe you could have a talk with Yvonne Ridley whenever you get the chance.

InFront wrote:

Just to go back to those young girls, are you sure that they were forced to wear Hijab? I have no reason to defend their parents, but as everyone who has sisters or little girls around the house knows, they enjoy dressing up like adults, especially at that age. Little girls sometimes ask to play with their mothers' jewelry; they want to have the same profession as their Dad, or their Mother. As their elders, children just want to behave like their parents and inherit knowledge - that's how they learn (we all learned) to grow up. Six year old girls try to emulate their mothers.

So even though she doesn't understand the meaning of it, I don't think there is harm in allowing a girl to put on a headscarf if she really wants to do it to be like her mother, maybe just for the visit to the mosque. I would have thought it (hopefully) encourages a positive attitude to Hijab, and makes it something special for her visit - if she wants it. Motivation is surely one of the most important tools of parenting, what better way to teach children than to motivate them? I wonder if those girls would usually dress like that? Anyway that's just one theory, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions in either direction.

Excellent point! I'd say there are a lot of girls that like to wear hijab when they go to the mosque. It's just part of the "day out" experience for most of them. And of course, if they are being forced then that's plain wrong but as has already been mentioned a number of times here, you can't blame a religion for the actions of its followers.

Schuhart wrote:

Where should that charge of arrogance truly lie?

Well, I said you were being arrogant for believing that you can single-handedly disprove Islam. I believe Islam is error free and you don't. That's a difference of opinion and I'm ready to accept it as that. Perhaps you should think of doing the same?

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, but there still has to be acknowledgement of that aspect of the faith that leads to a woman being shot for not covering enough of her hair.

Once again, don't blame a religion for the actions of a crazy few.

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, but I doubt if she foresaw that her lyrics would be used to defend the idea that a woman should wrap herself in a blanket in front of every man except her husband, who, of course, can have multiple wives.

Two things to say to this:

1.: How does her foreseeing this have anything to do with the discussion at hand?

2.: The discussion of having more than wife has already been discussed here on this forum before in a number of other threads and is off-topic in this one. You have done these kind of quick fire attacks before. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable Schuhart. You tend to do this often. I remind you of rule #1 of the forum charter which you have just breached. Consider this an official warning and I bring your attention to the recently amended forum article 1a.

Funnily enough, I was at a talk the other day in a small mosque where a scholar was talking about two main topics. The first was about building bridges with those whom a rift has built up or with people in the west. The second topic was about rights in marriage and the discussion soon ended up being about polygany. Anyway, the scholar made a very good point. He said that if someone is intent on marrying another woman and says the main reason he's doing it is to follow the sunna (the tradition of the Prophet) then he should consider marrying an old widow or divorcee who needs companionship in their old age and a carer for her children since the majority of the Prophet's marriages were as such.

Schuhart" wrote:

bluewolf wrote:

One kuwaiti girl I know says it saves on bad hair days

I’ve frequently suspected this. Thanks for adding some reality to the discussion.

Yeah, thanks for the input Bluewolf.

But I must add, I think the Kuwaiti girl in question was more than likely just trying to add some humour to the matter and is very unlikely to be her prime motivation. If it is, then as already mentioned, she should renew her intention.

Schuhart wrote:

For the same reason he gave women bodies that have to be hidden?

Not all the time.

Schuhart wrote:

What should set some alarm bells ringing is how religion reacts both to that rejection and simply to honest questions.

I think you have the wrong idea about questions in Islam. Questions are allowed. You often tend to attack Islam and take the mickey which nobody reacts well to. If you have an honest question then you deserve to have it answered. But if you have your questioned answered and you don't like the answer then you can either pursue the question further if you feel you need to clarify your question or add another factor or two to the question, or you may pursue the question with a different person or just decide it's not for you and leave it at that. It's your decision. Once again, I bring your attention to this thread.

Schuhart wrote:

I’m being too oblique – it’s a reference to some religious nut shooting a government minister in Pakistan. Indeed, there’s no reason for mainstream Islam to have to defend such actions or anything like that.

If that is your opinion then why say what you said earlier?

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

It's already been established that feminism can mean a couple of things.

I think we’ve moved passed being lost in terminology. My concern was using language in a way that cloaks meaning rather than clarifies what is being said. I’m stating the split, as I see it, as being between people who feel it is important that distinctions in socially determined gender roles are maintained and those who don’t. Calling the maintenance of distinct gender roles ‘feminism’ and pointing out that many women support the maintenance of distinct gender roles does not, IMHO, clarify that distinction.

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, I said you were being arrogant for believing that you can single-handedly disprove Islam.

I’m not confident you’re digesting the significance of what it takes to say something is error free.

the_new_mr wrote:

I believe Islam is error free and you don't.

You can, of course, assert that Islam is error free. I can, of course, respond that Islam has several conflicting variants so that statement is meaningless. Clearly, whether any dialogue results depends entirely on whether there’s an appetite for discussion.

the_new_mr wrote:

That's a difference of opinion and I'm ready to accept it as that. Perhaps you should think of doing the same?

If that’s all there was, I’d be fine. All that drags me in are statements that make no sense, like Islam being asserted to be error free. Asserting Islam to be a matter of faith causes me no problems.

the_new_mr wrote:

How does her foreseeing this have anything to do with the discussion at hand?

Because I’d suspect (not having discussed the matter directly with her) that her complaint about different standards applying to the behaviour of women actually means things like the expectation that women should cover themselves lest they provoke a man’s lust.

the_new_mr wrote:

You have done these kind of quick fire attacks before.

If referring to something that’s a part of Islam, however many embarrassed explanations try to mitigate it, constitutes a ‘quick fire attack’, then I expect that I’ll be experiencing 1a fairly shortly. I look forward to it because, without over-dramatising the significance of the discussions here, in miniature it sort of makes my point about the reaction of religion to dissent. And don’t worry, I won’t leap to the conclusion that just because one Muslim bans me from a board it means that every Muslim wants to suppress free speech. After all, I’d quite possibly find an amount of common ground with Irshad Manji.

the_new_mr wrote:

he should consider marrying an old widow or divorcee who needs companionship in their old age and a carer for her children since the majority of the Prophet's marriages were as such.

Is there a smiley that expresses stunned silence?

the_new_mr wrote:

I think you have the wrong idea about questions in Islam.

No, I think I’ve got it pretty clear. Only ask questions that don't really matter.

the_new_mr wrote:

If that is your opinion then why say what you said earlier?

I can’t put it any better than I did.

Hobbes

Schuhart wrote:

And don’t worry, I won’t leap to the conclusion that just because one Muslim bans me from a board it means that every Muslim wants to suppress free speech.

That is why I am here, so you don't have to think that way.

Look you have a question you ask it. You may not like the answer, the answer can be attempted to be clarified for you, again you may not like the answer. The answer may even be wrong or contradictory to what you believe and your welcome to agree to disagree.

But that is where it stops.

As mentioned Rule #1 is the forum is not for Muslims to defend their faith from attack. You have many other forums to continue such discourse if you so wish.

Your writing style is somewhat aggressive (intentional or not who knows) and as mentioned you do tend to draw other subjects which are better suited for separate threads rather then derailing the thread.

Please take this into consideration in the future. Thanks.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

Calling the maintenance of distinct gender roles ‘feminism’ and pointing out that many women support the maintenance of distinct gender roles does not, IMHO, clarify that distinction.

If you read my posts carefully, you'll find that I didn't say that. What I said was that, although I do believe that men and women are better suited to certain tasks (in general I might add) that doesn't mean that a woman shouldn't work if she wants to. And the point I was making was that wearing hijab is a statement of women's rejection of the disgusting objectification of women in these modern times.

Schuhart wrote:

I’m not confident you’re digesting the significance of what it takes to say something is error free.

I know how it looks to you but if you don't agree with me on that then I won't hold that against you. You're free to your own opinion.

Schuhart wrote:

You can, of course, assert that Islam is error free. I can, of course, respond that Islam has several conflicting variants so that statement is meaningless. Clearly, whether any dialogue results depends entirely on whether there’s an appetite for discussion.

I see it as very simple.

Let's set down a few assumptions that I'd like you to take on board for the sake of discussion. Assume that there is a God. Also assume that He is perfect and that His judgement and knowledge is perfect and infinite. Now, assume that He sent books of revelation to mankind. Mankind is not perfect. There's no need for an assumption for that... it's a fact. Why would you expect the followers of something (even if it's perfect) to perform it in a perfect manner?

So, I believe that Islam, the religion as God intended it to be is perfect. If we don't follow it correctly then that's our fault. Also, if we don't understand or agree with certain aspects then I believe that there are two possibilities. One is that we aren't interpreting the text correctly. Another possibility is that our mind is not capable of grasping the wisdom. Now, obviously if you're an atheist then this whole thing falls down but at least I might have gone some way to helping you understand what we (and most other theists) believe.

Schuhart wrote:

Because I’d suspect (not having discussed the matter directly with her) that her complaint about different standards applying to the behaviour of women actually means things like the expectation that women should cover themselves lest they provoke a man’s lust.

I think you must have mis-typed that statement because it reads like you're agreeing with me.

Anyway, I think that her point is very solid and sound and I'm glad on one level that someone as famous as her is making it. The only problem is that we are on different sides of the spectrum. Also, I was making my point with reference to promiscuity and how it's not right that men can get away with it and be called studs but when women do it they're called sluts. If I had my way, the term stud would be reserved for football boots and men who sleep around would be called sluts.

Schuhart wrote:

If referring to something that’s a part of Islam, however many embarrassed explanations try to mitigate it, constitutes a ‘quick fire attack’, then I expect that I’ll be experiencing 1a fairly shortly. I look forward to it because, without over-dramatising the significance of the discussions here, in miniature it sort of makes my point about the reaction of religion to dissent. And don’t worry, I won’t leap to the conclusion that just because one Muslim bans me from a board it means that every Muslim wants to suppress free speech. After all, I’d quite possibly find an amount of common ground with Irshad Manji.

Let's be clear on something Schuhart. We're not trying to get you banned. We're not suppressing free speech either. But you know the charter and you frequently break the rules in it. The charter is written the way it is to stop trolls from having an open season on attacking Islam left, right and center. The only reason that you're allowed to make some of the comments you do is because you've already been identified as not being one of the aforementioned trolls and that your post may actually have some intellect behind them.

As Hobbes kindly pointed out:

Hobbes wrote:

Look you have a question you ask it. You may not like the answer, the answer can be attempted to be clarified for you, again you may not like the answer. The answer may even be wrong or contradictory to what you believe and your welcome to agree to disagree.

But that is where it stops.

I know you have some problems with some aspects of Islam and you don't have to agree with anything that I or anyone else here says. But if ask and you get your answer and you don't like it then you should just leave it at that. If the answer provokes another question in your mind then, by all means, ask again. But debating about Islam in this manner is really quite pointless.

So, in short, stay as long as you keep within the rules of the charter.

Schuhart wrote:

I can’t put it any better than I did.

Alright but I think the members of this forum deserve an explanation for your behaviour on this particular topic. At one point, you said:

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, but there still has to be acknowledgement of that aspect of the faith that leads to a woman being shot for not covering enough of her hair.

but then later said:

Schuhart wrote:

I’m being too oblique – it’s a reference to some religious nut shooting a government minister in Pakistan. Indeed, there’s no reason for mainstream Islam to have to defend such actions or anything like that.

If you already thought he was a nut then why imply that it was "an aspect of the faith" that lead that person to shoot the woman not wearing hijab?

Dontico

kmick wrote:

This is so wrong on so many levels I don’t even know where to start. Is this what passes as intelligent commentary these days.

First of all the way it is written and the spelling is atrocious. Now this is a minor point but if a person wants to be taken seriously at a minimum they need to use a spell checker.

boards.ie doesnt have a spell checker. how one spells has little to do with if thier point is correct or valid.
your spelling may be correct but your points are silly.

if women are allowed wear make, ugg boots, high heals and other pointless clothes, why not allow them to wear head scarves or what ever.

allow, approve, what ever.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Why would you expect the followers of something (even if it's perfect) to perform it in a perfect manner?

No, but I’d expect just an element of recognition of what an assertion of perfection entails.

the_new_mr wrote:

But debating about Islam in this manner is really quite pointless.

That may be true. I find I’ve the same bemused feelings as some of the atheists who invest an amount of their lives in the Creationist thread on the Christianity forum, admittedly more pointless and less varied than this place. Why do I bother? But then something gets posted. Without circling, because anyone can just reread the thread, I read the start of this one and actually said ‘I’m just not getting involved’. But then the Unwarranted Supposition Detector swings into the red zone and I just have to go off again.

the_new_mr wrote:

your posts may actually have some intellect behind them.

I doubt that, but I do admire your faith on this point.

the_new_mr wrote:

If you already thought he was a nut then why imply that it was "an aspect of the faith" that lead that person to shoot the woman not wearing hijab?

I’ve done some breathing exercising and I’m listening to Fleetwood Mac so that I’m as mellow as can be while trying, at the same time, to communicate this with some bit of coherence.

I’m totally open to the idea that someone could say the Hijab has a life affirming meaning for them. Clearly that doesn’t mean they have to take responsibility for the actions of others possibly using the same symbol in a more negative manner. But it seems to me that, as much as is possible, we have to grasp the totality of a topic as much as we can.

I mentioned that matter of some Turkish women complaining about their Prime Minister’s wife wearing Hijab while on official visits. On one level, I’d wonder what the problem is. If she’s a Muslim and the Hijab’s her thing there’s no particular reason for her to stop because of her husband’s job.

Yet, I’d also wonder why some Turkish women might have such an objection and if the source of that objection should not be identified and considered. Just dismissing it as ‘oh, they must have met some people who really didn’t understand it’ seems too quick.

I don’t know if that makes what I’m getting at any clearer. No, I’m not suggesting that you or anyone else has to stand over or be seen as a party to someone who wants to intimidate people to follow their line. At the same time, I feel more is needed than simply saying ‘just because they’ve got the wrong idea is no concern of mine’. That just seems too dismissive of the idea that the symbol you value might be tarnished by some things that are not so positive.

But I must add, I think the Kuwaiti girl in question was more than likely just trying to add some humour to the matter and is very unlikely to be her prime motivation. If it is, then as already mentioned, she should renew her intention.

Yes of course, it was just a little joke. I can't remember what we were talking about in general at the time anyway.

the_new_mr

bluewolf wrote:

Yes of course, it was just a little joke.

I knew you knew it was a joke. I was just pointing that out for Schuhart

Schuhart wrote:

I don’t know if that makes what I’m getting at any clearer. No, I’m not suggesting that you or anyone else ...

You didn't answer my question.

kmick

Dontico wrote:

boards.ie doesnt have a spell checker. how one spells has little to do with if thier point is correct or valid.
your spelling may be correct but your points are silly.

I have already answered this question twice about spelling. Please read back to see my responses. Thanks for pointing out that my points are silly. That is a well thought out response.

Dontico wrote:

if women are allowed wear make, ugg boots, high heals and other pointless clothes, why not allow them to wear head scarves or what ever.

In fact women ARE allowed wear high heels, head scarves, nose rings, wigs, lipstick and whatever they like the last time I checked. Do you live in another country? I never argued the Hijab should not be allowed. Again please READ my posts.

Dontico wrote:

allow, approve, what ever.

Did you fall asleep?

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

You didn't answer my question.

I’m taking the unanswered question to be ‘what’s the doctrinal link between Hijab and this murder’. From what I can gather, the assailant claims religious reasons for his actions. Put simply, the point I was trying to get at is if Hijab is being presented as an act that frees should we close our eyes to things that suggest elsewhere women want to leave it behind. That’s what I’m trying to get at when I talk about trying to grasp the whole of the issue, and not just create an artificial case consisting of exaggerating the extent to which women dress to impress men and suggesting that an act of fastidious covering is an appropriate response to that.

But, to an extent, I find that point I was making irrelevant because of something else I found today. In passing, I might just say that you really should stop recommending islamonline.net as a source of material. Really, it’s ****e. I find it very useful if I need to get a bit of religious intolerance in a hurry. You know my views about religion. If I find it a useful source, do I really need to say more?

Anyone, here’s a Canadian Muslim explaining why she wears a Hijab with the kind of honesty that convinces. I’m not going to quote, because I feel it would be an interference with her thought. I think she settles the matter.

the_new_mr

She certainly is doing it for the right reason. Submission to God is the reason why anyone should do any religious duty.

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily agree with the rest of her post and I know of other women who wear the hijab and would probably disagree with them as well. Anyway, I guess that's just a matter of opinion and everyone is free to their own.

But, like I said, she's got it right.

Schuhart wrote:

I’m taking the unanswered question to be ‘what’s the doctrinal link between Hijab and this murder’.

No, the question was:

the_new_mr wrote:

At one point, you said:

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, but there still has to be acknowledgement of that aspect of the faith that leads to a woman being shot for not covering enough of her hair.

but then later said:

Schuhart wrote:

I’m being too oblique – it’s a reference to some religious nut shooting a government minister in Pakistan. Indeed, there’s no reason for mainstream Islam to have to defend such actions or anything like that.

If you already thought he was a nut then why imply that it was "an aspect of the faith" that lead that person to shoot the woman not wearing hijab?

To put it more specifically, why say the first statement when your opinion on the matter was the second statement? To say that it is an "aspect of the faith" as you did is extremely misleading and most unfair.

Schuhart wrote:

But, to an extent, I find that point I was making irrelevant because of something else I found today. In passing, I might just say that you really should stop recommending islamonline.net as a source of material. Really, it’s ****e. I find it very useful if I need to get a bit of religious intolerance in a hurry. You know my views about religion. If I find it a useful source, do I really need to say more?

I'd like you to mention the link in question. If it's there then I'd like to know and I guess it's of everyone's interest to know.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

She certainly is doing it for the right reason. Submission to God is the reason why anyone should do any religious duty.

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily agree with the rest of her post and I know of other women who wear the hijab and would probably disagree with them as well.

It’s her personal view, but a coherent one. I like her alertness to the world around her and the recognition that, for her, Hijab symbolises values that many around her share, whether veiling is a part of their outlook or not. I also liked the ethic of gender equality that pervades her outlook. I don't expect that all women wearing a veil share her view.

the_new_mr wrote:

To say that it is an "aspect of the faith" as you did is extremely misleading and most unfair.

In fairness, in that man’s perception and in the perception of some others it is right to use force to maintain religious orthodoxy. Yes, that view is found in all religions even where the mainstream doctrine would suggest tolerance is required. By saying ‘aspect of the faith’ I don’t mean that a core value of Islam is to shoot women that don’t veil. At the same time, it would appear that in some parts of the world the veil is less than optional, and even some scholars justify a death penalty for apostasy. The fact that some interpret their religious obligations in this way does seems to have some level of relevance to the question. I think it has far less relevance when we stop the fiction of pretending that the Hijab represents a little island of purity in the midst of depravity.

the_new_mr wrote:

I'd like you to mention the link in question. If it's there then I'd like to know and I guess it's of everyone's interest to know.

Over the past while I’ve come across several articles on islamonline.net that I’ve found questionable. Examples (I’m digging up a painful old thread, but you did ask) are the fatwas justifying suicide bombing by Palestinians as religiously sound.

Contrary to appearances, I actually don’t see my life centred on declaiming against Islam at every conceivable opportunity. However, if you really want me to point you to some more of the articles on that site that I’ve found questionable I can do that. I don’t keep a list, but I can probably find an amount by spending a little time searching. I can even open a thread on ‘stuff that makes me think islamonline.net is run by craw thumpers’. But do you really want to go there?

Sesshoumaru

I think these two paragraphs are very sad indeed. Just what sort of freedom does the hijab bring this young German girl? Her religious indoctrination had reduced her to the level of a mentally handicapped person according to the judges. Too scared to go on a school trip in case she breaks some religious laws or loses her headscarf. I really feel so sad for these young girls, instead of enjoying the best years of their lives, they waste them worrying about religious laws.

If you do believe in god, why did he give women hair that needed to be covered up? Why did he make men incapable of controlling their desires? Does he have some sort of sick sense of humour? It just doesn't make sense.

In the following years, the German courts stuck to their guns. In another regional case, the judges had to decide whether a class excursion was mandatory for a Muslim girl. In their ruling of 2002, they parroted the language of a fatwa issued two years previously. The former chairman of the Islamic Religious Community in Hesse had stipulated that a Muslim woman not accompanied by a mahram, a male blood relative, must not stray more than 50 miles from her home - because this is the distance a caravan of camels can travel in 24 hours.

Camels are something of an anomaly on the German autobahn these days. Sympathetic judges nonetheless recommended sending the 15-year-old brother along as a mahram. Given her fear of losing her headscarf or violating other religious laws, the schoolgirl's condition, they argued, was comparable to that of a "partially mentally handicapped person." She therefore needed somebody to accompany her; otherwise, she should not be forced to take part in the trip, they reasoned.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,467360,00.html

InFront

Firstly, the judge wasn't comparing the girl's headscarf to a mental disability, he was comparing the inability of her to travel alone, or her fear of losing the headscarf, to that of a person with a mental disability.

It's a pointless comparison. I don't drink alcohol, therefore, by this logic, I am comparable to a recovering alcoholic.
I can't touch my elbow with my nose, then I am comparable to a person with no elbow... or no nose.
This girl cannot travel alone, therefore she is similar to someone with a mental disability? It's just pointless logic, it seems like it's designed to be controversial.

If you do believe in god, why did he give women hair that needed to be covered up?

We can't speak for Allah.:)
But extend that logic in the above quote to the entire body, and you see a problem?

For a woman, a significant benefit of headscarf (that has been mentioned already) is that she gets to choose who she lets see her hair, it gives her greater choice in how she is perceived and by whom.

kmick

I am going slightly off topic here but here is a philosophical question (and it applies to all religions).

1) God sends a book to his followers (be that the Torah, Bible, Koran etc)
2) Humans (being the fallible creatures they are) interpret that book.
3) Somewhere along the line different factions of similar religions split into Catholic/Protestant, Sunni/Shia etc.
4) One faction believes they are the true interpretation.
5) The other faction believes they hold the true interpretation.

Now somewhere along the line the 'perfect' set of rules laid down by the Supreme Being have become blurred and divided. Things which made sense in another era (for example pork was banned in Jewish religions - they say - due to the fact that it was very dangerous to eat in hot climates as it went off very quickly and made you very ill) now became things which people clung to desperately and they were willing to die for this because they still believed they were the one true faction.

So Islam/Christianity/Jewish religion has the right to believe it is the one true religion - my question is this - which version? And by choosing a version we have already made a decision, conscious or not to live out our whole lives based on how 'men' or 'women' perceive the true word to mean - with all that implies.

Again I am not questioning Islam specifically here as it applies to all religions. But can you see my point?

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

In fairness...

In fairness you say? There's noting fair about that commentary. If you already thought he was a nut then you shouldn't have made your first statement of

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, but there still has to be acknowledgement of that aspect of the faith that leads to a woman being shot for not covering enough of her hair.

If people make mindless decisions such as using force to make a woman wear a veil then is it fair to blame the religion? I don't hold Christianity responsible when some so-called Christians throw petrol bombs into a mosque. I won't even hold atheism (as a mindset) responsible if some atheists throw some petrol bombs into a mosque. I'll just call those individuals nutters and leave it at that.

Schuhart wrote:

Over the past while I’ve come across several articles on islamonline.net that I’ve found questionable. Examples (I’m digging up a painful old thread, but you did ask) are the fatwas justifying suicide bombing by Palestinians as religiously sound.

Well, personally speaking, I'm not really sure what to think of that. I understand that the thing that is supposed to make such acts okay in that part of the world is the fact all Israelis are effectively soldiers in the Israeli army since they all serve military service on a regular basis. The only thing about that is that children and elderly may often get caught up in the act which doesn't rest well with me. So, like I said, not really sure what to think about it. Only God knows what's right for sure.

On the subject of the girl in Germany. I think that a large number of scholars say that traveling in, and I quote, "safe company" is enough when it's done in public places. That is to say a large group of people in places which are not deserted (like the desert, or mountains) where it can be dangerous.

And kmick, your question is one that is obviously posed to each religion in the world. The Islamic point of view is that Judaism was God's true religion until it lost its way and that Christianity was God's true religion until it lost its way and now Islam is the continuation of that message. As God says in the Quran:

An-Nasr:37
"And this Quran is not such as could ever be invented in despite of God; but it is a confirmation of that which was before it and an exposition of that which is decreed for mankind-- Therein is no doubt--from the Lord of the Worlds."

Al-Ahqaf:12
"And yet, before this there was the revelation of Moses, a guide and a [sign of God’s] grace; and this [Qur’an] is a divine writ confirming the truth [of the Torah] in the Arabic tongue, to warn those who are bent on evildoing, and [to bring] a glad tiding to the doers of good:"

And I am of the opinion (along with others like me) that most Shia are to be considered Muslims too.

The best anyone can do is make the decision as best they see it for themselves in a sincere manner relying upon both their heart and mind and leave the judgment up to God.

Sesshoumaru

Schuhart wrote:

Over the past while I’ve come across several articles on islamonline.net that I’ve found questionable. Examples (I’m digging up a painful old thread, but you did ask) are the fatwas justifying suicide bombing by Palestinians as religiously sound.

islamonline.net is a mainstream site. You won't find anything questionable or extreme there. Like stoning homosexuals to death.