A non-Muslim woman's view on hijab

Sesshoumaru

InFront wrote:

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.

I never said wearing the headscarf magically made her disabled or comparable to a disabled person. Its clear to me at least that the judges are referring to her belief that if she loses it or violates some other religous law she will burn in hell and this makes her comparable to a mentally disabled child. But I guess she will be fine as long she doesn't travel further than a caravan of camels can in 24 hours.

InFront wrote:

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

Well we were all originally naked until our ancestors leanred how to skin animals and make primitive clothing from their hides. It doesn't need to be covered up. But it had clear advantages for our ancestors. Over time I imagine it just became the norm to see people in clothing. Which is probably why most people would have a problem with people walking around naked today.

InFront

Sesshoumaru wrote:

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

If you read the entire article, the point is made very clearly that there are different interpretations of how to punish the person, which varies from stoning to whipping, life imprisonment, etc.

As to the issue of how the homosexual person is judged in an Islamic State, the Companions of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon him differed among themselves on this issue, and this led to different views maintained by Muslim Jurists. For example, in the Hanafi school of thought, the homosexual is punished through harsh beating, and if he/she repeats theact, death penalty is to be applied. As for the Shafi`i school of thought, the homosexual receives the same punishment of adultery (if he/she is married) or fornication (if not married). This means, that if the homosexual is married, he/she is stoned to death, while if single, he/she is whipped 100 times. Hence, the Shafi`i compares the punishment applied in the case of homosexuality with that of adultery and fornication, while the Hanafi differentiates between the two acts because in homosexuality, the anus (a place of impurity) may also be involved while in adultery (and fornication), the penis/vagina (which are reproductive parts) are involved. Some scholars hold the opinion that the homosexual should be thrown from a high building as a punishment for his crime, but other scholars maintain that he should be imprisoned until death.

Its clear to me at least that the judges are referring to her belief that if she loses it or violates some other religous law she will burn in hell

That particular fear wasn't mentioned in the article, it said that the young woman was anxious not to go without her headscarf.
While the mental disability speculation formed part of the judge's commentary and opinion, it isn't a ruling. It's an opinion he's entitled to, but personally I think it's in very bad taste. Even just for the sake of the young woman he refers to, it's not a very pleasant thing to say to a young teenager.

But I guess she will be fine as long she doesn't travel further than a caravan of camels can in 24 hours.

The idea of being accompanied relates to the protection of women and the recognition of their dignity, however cynically I'm sure some people think of it. Again, the pretty unnecessary reference to the caravan of camels without bothering to explain the derivation or context seems to be seeking an 'easy shot'.
There is a bit more about traveling with mahrams here and incidentally it mentions a very promising hadith “There will come a time when a woman will ride her camel to Iraq from Madinah on her own in total security”. Unfortunately, that is certainly not the case at the moment. Anyway, although this fatwa refers to adult sisters, it does explain in detail how once the necessary precautions are taken, accompaniment of mahrams is not always completely necessary. Anyway that's very off topic but hopefully explains it.

Sesshoumaru

I read the part about only getting 100 lashes if the man isn't married. But honestly I am equally appalled at either punishment. Homosexuality is not a crime.

Filan

I also am appalled at the view advocated in this passage....do the New Mr. and other moderators here agree with capital punishment for Homosexuality? Whether it be death or floggings? This contrary to E.U. law, the International Declaration on Human Rights and so full of hate. what are your views?

Filan

I also am appalled by the violence advocated in this passage...whether it be flogging or death...Do you realise that this is contrary to Irish and E.U law?. It is also in breach of the International Code on Human Rights. Do the moderators agree with these violent punishments?

I also take offence as to how you deleted my passage on "Physical Punishment of Women"....claiming that it was a "bad translation"....this appears to me to be the usual tactic of Muslims who are embarassed by the anti-establishment passages of the Koran...claim it's a bad translation and try to distort it's meaning...why is there so much wife beating in Islamic culture ? Clearly a lot of Muslim believe that it is their right? Can you tell me why? I am appalled.

Schuhart

The only advantage of participating in this discussion is it gives me an excuse to letch in the pursuit of theological clarity. That empirical research raises a question in my mind of more relevance and interest than what women do with scarves.

Culottes. What’s that all about?

the_new_mr wrote:

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.

I’m not sure where you think this line is leading. Briefly, if someone wants to talk about Catholicism, it is indeed appropriate to include some thought of the Spanish Inquisition. Atheists have to accept that Marxism was a failed attempt to build a perfect secular society (and some struggle with that acceptance). In much the same way, if the hijab is presented as an expression of freedom, then most certainly it is right and fair to probe some realities about it.

the_new_mr wrote:

I'm not really sure what to think of that

I’m reasonably clear on what to think of it and while your comment Only God knows what's right for sure suggests an element of fence sitting, I take it that my point about islamonline.net is made. There’s an amount of quite negative material there. It does cause a problem when it’s suggested here as a source to find out the truth about Islam and we actually find material that confirms the criticisms made. The open and inquiring face of Islam we have to find elsewhere – in the lone blogger I found above or the ijtihad.org site linked on another recent thread.

Sesshoumaru wrote:

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

I know that real people suffer because of the kind of nonsense that islamonline.net peddles, but I actually lol when I got to this bit

Some scholars hold the opinion that the homosexual should be thrown from a high building as a punishment for his crime

It positively begs for a follow up question ‘Respected scholars, I live in Mayo, the land of Bungalow Bliss. If no high building can be found, is it permitted to repeatedly throw the offender from a low building?’

It’s a wonder to guess at the mindset that can sit down and calmly consider the case for stoning as against a taste of the cat. It leads me to the conclusion that there’s more honest and mature intellectual achievement displayed at the Young Scientist of the Year exhibition than on the whole of islamonline.net.

Hobbes

Maybe I didn't make myself clear earlier on or people thought it was only related to one person. Either way if my earlier warnings aren't followed this thread will be locked and related people will be taking a holiday.

Filan your borderline on being banned. I suggest you actually read the forum charter.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

In much the same way, if the hijab is presented as an expression of freedom, then most certainly it is right and fair to probe some realities about it.

Ok, but I don't think there's anybody here defending what I'm sure we can agree are abuses of the hijab when they can and do happen.
While it might be interesting to probe this maybe, you have to go outside of Islamic teaching to figure it out. If you want to find out why some men beat their wives, or some men kill themselves (and indeed others) by suicide, or why some men force hijab on some women or get involved in illegal drugs or fight their fellow Muslims, then eventually you have to put the Qur'an back on the shelf, and try to understand why bad people do the things they do.

All that we can really talk about is the ideal; the thing that is supposed to happen.

There is really only a limited number of ways of saying it: blaming Islam for things that are not Islamic is completely backwards. It's more like blaming atheism for Hinduism than blaming atheism for Marxism, because at least Marxism supported the atheist outlook.
In the past you don't blame Islam for terrorism when some other people did so, I don't see why you now seem to want to blame Islam for the misuse of Hijab.

I take it that my point about islamonline.net is made. There’s an amount of quite negative material there. It does cause a problem when it’s suggested here as a source to find out the truth about Islam and we actually find material that confirms the criticisms made. The open and inquiring face of Islam we have to find elsewhere

...the kind of nonsense that islamonline.net peddles

You haven't seen Bruno Guiderdoni's interviews on islamonline, then?:)

Nobody is forcing the opinions on that site on you, or on anyone. It is a very large resource, the opinions expressed are as diverse as they are thought provoking, it has a good reputation for fairness. I really don't see the problem with it.

there’s more honest and mature intellectual achievement displayed at the Young Scientist of the Year exhibition than on the whole of islamonline.net.

Not sure if you're knocking either the Young Scientist or islamonline there. Either one is uncalled for imo!

kmick

To be honest you might as well lock the thread. It has become meaningless. A lone woman safely crossing the desert on a camel in Iraq is more more likely than getting any sort of semi-proficient thought out of some of the posters on here.

I will reiterate my position that intelligent discussion about religion on this board is impossible and move on to the After Hours section where I can deliberate the pros and cons of buying a subwoofer.

Schuhart wrote:

It’s a wonder to guess at the mindset that can sit down and calmly consider the case for stoning as against a taste of the cat. It leads me to the conclusion that there’s more honest and mature intellectual achievement displayed at the Young Scientist of the Year exhibition than on the whole of islamonline.net.

Agreed and this thread to boot!

InFront

More intelligent discussion in After Hours kmick? That hurts, bad.:)

However, if you don't agree with the answers or question their intelligence, feel free to seek more thorough or accurate scholarly explanations and post them here. But please don't question the intelligence of posters who have a genuine interest in improving our knowledge of Islam if you have nothing to contribute or ask yourself.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

I don't see why you now seem to want to blame Islam for the misuse of Hijab.

In the past I’ve used that parallel of the Irish community and the IRA. In doing that I’ve mentioned that something that Irish people need to be challenged on is the old constitutional claim to the territory of Northern Ireland providing an excuse for the IRA campaign. Taking that as a parallel, hopefully you’ll appreciate the relevance of asking if a particular doctrine invites misuse.

That said, I think I’ve already pointed out that I see the truth of the issue lying somewhere in the account of Commonplacer’s blog, with the hijab as essentially an expression of religious faith without any pretence of it having magical powers to insulate a woman from the society around her. I’d also feel something that might usefully be taken from the discussion is not to feel a defensiveness over what we might term the attachment to traditional gender roles that seems to be a strong theme in Islam. If someone’s position is that gender equality isn’t a priority, then we save a lot of each others time by just getting it out there. And to be clear, many women and men would agree that gender equality isn’t a priority, and set greater store by an ideal of respect for traditional gender roles.

InFront wrote:

You haven't seen Bruno Guiderdoni's interviews on islamonline, then?

I did see an interview with him there, and I’ve likely quoted from it in discussions here. FWIW, I felt that his rejection of the whole ‘scientific miracles in the Quran’ business was very much played down in that interview.

InFront wrote:

Nobody is forcing the opinions on that site on you, or on anyone.

I’m not suggesting anyone is forcing anything on anyone. I’m simply saying if you freely choose to recommend that site as the place to go to find out about Islam, we’re going to find scholars saying quite obnoxious things and producing holy texts to justify those things being part of the faith.

Hence, if we turn up here saying some scholars see stoning as a potential penalty for some sexual practices, or that there seems to be a theological consensus that a death penalty is justified for apostates or that some seem to give a level of credence to a prophecy that the day of judgment won’t arrive until every Jew has been killed (except for the ones that hide behind a boxthorn tree), its only because we’ve read it on islamonline.net.

My own read of the situation is that, for whatever reason, there’s a reluctance by some to acknowledge that a lot of this stuff just doesn’t make sense in anyone’s language. There seems to be a retreat into phrases like ‘God knows best’ in situations that call for something a little stronger – like ‘that text makes absolutely no sense in today’s world, and its astonishing to see a grown man who purports to be a scholar of religion treating it as if it demanded some respect’.

InFront wrote:

Not sure if you're knocking either the Young Scientist or islamonline there.

I think the Young Scientists come out of the comparison well, unless someone is turning in a project on ‘the role of altitude in defenestration of persons with non-hetrodox sexuality’.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

In the past I’ve used that parallel of the Irish community and the IRA. In doing that I’ve mentioned that something that Irish people need to be challenged on is the old constitutional claim to the territory of Northern Ireland providing an excuse for the IRA campaign. Taking that as a parallel, hopefully you’ll appreciate the relevance of asking if a particular doctrine invites misuse.

But you'd only really be examining the peaceful, southern version of republicanism as a control, you'd use it to calibrate measurement of the lunacy and senselessness attached to militant republicanism in the North.

To use another comparison, it's like a radiologist taking an x-ray of your good ankle, to assess the damage that's been done to the bad ankle. If he started putting the good ankle in a cast, you'd think he were a fool.

What you seem to be doing is putting the 'good Islam' in a cast. You focus on real Islam, and look at fatawa, and read passages from the Qur'an, and that's all great; but don't seem to remember to look back at the broken piece and realise they're not the same things.
For us as Muslims, it's important to look at the broken bits too, and it's necessary to be reminded of them. But there must be an acknowledgement that this is not the real Islam for that exercise to have any merit.

That said, I think I’ve already pointed out that I see the truth of the issue lying somewhere in the account of Commonplacer’s blog, with the hijab as essentially an expression of religious faith without any pretence of it having magical powers to insulate a woman from the society around her.

All that really matters, as far as I am aware, is her adherence to hijab as part of her faith. Finding any other benefits in hijab is not compulsory, but it seems pretty obvious these benefits are there. Do you really think that a woman observing hijaab gets judged less on her personality than a woman in more revealing clothing?

If someone’s position is that gender equality isn’t a priority, then we save a lot of each others time by just getting it out there.

I can only speak for myself, but gender equality (in society) is a sort of made-up term that I personally can't decipher any meaning from. Where does equality end and begin? If you don't know that, how can you be prioritising it.

There seems to be a retreat into phrases like ‘God knows best’ in situations that call for something a little stronger – like ‘that text makes absolutely no sense in today’s world, and its astonishing to see a grown man who purports to be a scholar of religion treating it as if it demanded some respect’.

I think most people would rather 'retreat into phrases' like that as you put it than put forward our own version of events when the facts are unclear, or to save from preaching when we have no business doing so. Discussion is one thing, a good thing, but surely recognising and accepting our collective limits in understanding when they do exist, is necessary. This is a submission, submission being the recognition of Allah's absolute authority, central to Islam.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

For us as Muslims, it's important to look at the broken bits too, and it's necessary to be reminded of them.

That’s mostly where I’m coming from, but I would worry sometimes that the dismissal of something as not ‘real’ Islam is too quick and glib. It’s fair enough if an action turns out to be just a lone nutter to question if there is, in fact, any wider significance. But if we find a number of apparently qualified scholars, deemed to be knowledgeable in the faith, coming out with a questionable proposition I take it we can actually pose the question does real Islam have some broken bits.

InFront wrote:

Do you really think that a woman observing hijaab gets judged less on her personality than a woman in more revealing clothing?

If ‘more revealing clothing’ just means ‘head uncovered’, then I’d say a woman in a hijab will be immediately judged as someone who wants to ostentatiously display her religion* before she’s opened her mouth and that single fact may indeed colour how some people judge her. A woman with her head uncovered, on the other hand, won't have to cope with that preconception.

If more revealing clothing means something that I might regard as more revealing (I think we can both accept that as a meaningful definition), then maybe the person in question is expressing her personality.

From my letching in the cause of empirical research I can confirm that most women show evidence of putting more thought into what they wear than what first came to hand when they struggled out of the bed. I don’t think that’s a discovery that will net me a Noble prize, or even a honourable mention at the Young Scientists. Maybe I need to lose weight or something, but I don’t get a sense that they are doing this for my gratification.

I’m questioning the assumption. I don’t think it stands up to scrutiny.

*Note for clarity. I’m not suggesting that someone shouldn’t ostentatiously display her religion, if she wants.

InFront wrote:

I can only speak for myself, but gender equality (in society) is a sort of made-up term that I personally can't decipher any meaning from. Where does equality end and begin? If you don't know that, how can you be prioritising it.

Which, to be honest, communicates to me a lack of interest in the idea. That’s fine. I just don’t see the point in not being transparent about it.

InFront wrote:

Discussion is one thing, a good thing, but surely recognising and accepting our collective limits in understanding when they do exist, is necessary. This is a submission, submission being the recognition of Allah's absolute authority, central to Islam.

I’d wonder at how an acceptance of a limit to understanding can be squared with an assertion that absolute authority can be found anywhere. (Incidently, I’d take it that defenestrating members of the gay community is something we can dispense with as a by-the-by without reaching any limit of human wisdom.)

Digging up Plato again (a real philosopher will read this and expose me as a fraud) if memory serves he had a concept of ‘episteme’, which meant that ultimate, true knowledge that we can probably all imagine existing and which he felt Earthly knowledge is an imperfect reflection. I can understand someone feeling that a particular religion offers a potential path to episteme. I can even understand someone feeling it possible or even likely that episteme will turn out to be their religion. But I honestly can’t understand how someone can assert as a certainty that episteme is their religion, because there is simply no way of knowing that.

Filan

A problem that a lot of people in my community feel pertinent is that Muslims do not allow discussion and debate. Questioning is immediately perceived (I stress perceived as opposed to actual fact) as being retorted with a threat of violence, even within it's own community...I am Vice President of a Community Centre in Clare...and this is how people feel...Muslims appear not to accept the legitimacy of debate...Everyone must be open to question and to criticism...often wrongly....including myself....but it remains an unassailable right of others to criticise me , rightly and often wrongly... including you..Likewise the Islamic religion should not be beyond criticism...as Christianity and others are not. I take the threat to ban me as being an illustration of that...and attempt to obstruct debate...you did not like what I said..so rather than answer it you consider closing my mouth ..but you fail to answer my questions...that will only damage the image of Islam ...there is nothing wrong with not having all the answers..nobody or no faith has....could debate not be a means for Muslims and non-Muslims alike to understand your faith better...and maybe raise your opinion poll rating?.

the_new_mr

Well Filan, you make your point clear. Allow me if you will to respond (and I guarantee that there is no threat of violence ).

First, we should define what exactly you are looking for. If you're looking for the ability to ask honest questions and get them answered then you have every right to do that. Unfortunately, we live in a world where a lot of Muslims are woefully ignorant of Islam. I don't have any illusions about myself. I'm most certainly not a scholar. I can say that I know a good bit (thank God) but I know there are also things that I don't know.

Perhaps the reason that some Muslims may respond in a negative manner to questioning is because most Muslims believe whole heartedly that their religion is truly flawless. That's not to say that Islam as it is practiced today is flawless. No human is perfect and it therefore follows that no Muslim is perfect and so the flaws of a Muslim should not be highlighted as the flaws of Islam.

Coincidentally, Amr Khaled started a TV program only Tuesday talking about learning to live together. Not sure yet whether or not they're going to have the program on his site with english subtitles as he has done before but we'll see.

Being the vice-president of a community centre, you are potentially in a very strong position to relieve any tension that may reside in your community and I believe that your position puts you in a position to do so. I would suggest getting a fully qualified presenter/speaker on Islam to go to your community centre and give a talk for anyone who wants to listen. And by qualified I don't mean the most senior member of the Muslim society or someone like that. I mean someone who does this all the time and has made it part of their life. If you are sincere in your efforts then I think that things will get better.

Before I go on, I'd like to point out that here on the Islam forum, we really try to do our best not to ban people if we can help it but the forum charter is there to prevent pure craziness from starting up. Hobbes is a non-Muslim moderator and had every right to warn you. We won't ban you unless you break the charter but if you do then you leave us with no choice.

In short, you can ask a question and keep going with it if you want. But don't expect any of us here to admit you're right for the sake of it if we don't agree with it. I try to be as sincere as possible as do the other Muslims here as far as I can see. If we reach a point where we're just not going to agree then we should agree to disagree. Either that or we can discuss the core of that disagreement. Unfortunately, this often ends up in circling around and around the same points in which case it's probably best to leave it.

And now to answer your post from earlier:

There's no "usual tactic" employed. I removed the verse quoted as it was indeed a bad translation and bad translations have no place here as they only fuel misunderstanding and ignorance. It looks like the kind of translation you normally find on an anti-Islam web site. I know that it's a bad translation because I can understand the verse in Arabic. You don't have to believe me I suppose but there you go.

As for the wife beating in Islamic culture idea. I think you'll find that wife beating exists all around the world and has nothing to do with religion. The fact that some bad Muslims do it and then try to justify their evil deeds by using badly interpreted verses in the Quran is disgraceful.

And to answer your question on the punishments for homosexuals. I think that this quote from this article is the best I can give you.

All Islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence consider gay acts to be unlawful. They only differ in terms of penalty. Some say that no physical punishment is warranted. Some see that severe punishment is warranted, while others require a minimum of 4 adult male witnesses before a person can be found guilty of a homosexual act.

Schuhart wrote:

Briefly, if someone wants to talk about Catholicism, it is indeed appropriate to include some thought of the Spanish Inquisition.

No it isn't. It's okay to talk about the Spanish Inquisition if you're going to talk about that particular school of thought at the time etc etc but nobody expects to talk about the Spanish Inquisition when talking about Catholicism in a general manner. The same goes for the Crusades. The Crusades were evil but most Christians agree with me on this so what's the point of bringing it up? It's not part of the Catholic faith after all.

In the same way, there are things that some Muslim commanders may have done in the past that were wrong. Does Islam have to be held accountable for that? Most certainly not.

Schuhart wrote:

In much the same way, if the hijab is presented as an expression of freedom, then most certainly it is right and fair to probe some realities about it.

You are free to probe it. Probe to your heart's content. You present your points, we present ours and then you, I and everyone else can make up their minds. If we agree then that's great. If we don't then that's fine. No point going any further... or do you have a reason why we should? Because if you do then I'd love to hear it.

Schuhart wrote:

I’m reasonably clear on what to think of it and while your comment Only God knows what's right for sure suggests an element of fence sitting, I take it that my point about islamonline.net is made. There’s an amount of quite negative material there. It does cause a problem when it’s suggested here as a source to find out the truth about Islam and we actually find material that confirms the criticisms made.

There's no fence sitting. If I don't know then I'm not afraid to say so and I don't take too kindly to being accused of just sitting on the fence as if I'm trying to play some kind of diplomatic game. If you want an honest answer then ask me. If you want a dishonest answer, don't bother.

And I don't think your point on islamonline.net is made actually. The reason I can't make up my mind on it is because I can see both sides of the coin. So, I'll leave it up to God to decide.

From my point of view, islamonline.net presents lots of ideas and opinions on lots of different subjects and, as a Muslim, I find it a good read. For example, it fairly prevents the different views of different scholars on what to do with an apostate so you can't point the finger at it for being biased in that way.

[qutoe="InFront"]To use another comparison, it's like a radiologist taking an x-ray of your good ankle, to assess the damage that's been done to the bad ankle. If he started putting the good ankle in a cast, you'd think he were a fool.

What you seem to be doing is putting the 'good Islam' in a cast. You focus on real Islam, and look at fatawa, and read passages from the Qur'an, and that's all great; but don't seem to remember to look back at the broken piece and realise they're not the same things.
For us as Muslims, it's important to look at the broken bits too, and it's necessary to be reminded of them. But there must be an acknowledgement that this is not the real Islam for that exercise to have any merit.[/quote]Excellent analogy and very good point.

Schuhart wrote:

That’s mostly where I’m coming from, but I would worry sometimes that the dismissal of something as not ‘real’ Islam is too quick and glib.

What do you want Schuhart? Your arguments are becoming very shaky when it comes to logic. Do you want us to say that a man killing a woman for not wearing the hijab is part of real Islamic teachings? Because if you do then you can forget about it. Why would we say that if it's not what we think?!

InFront wrote:

I think most people would rather 'retreat into phrases' like that as you put it than put forward our own version of events when the facts are unclear, or to save from preaching when we have no business doing so. Discussion is one thing, a good thing, but surely recognising and accepting our collective limits in understanding when they do exist, is necessary. This is a submission, submission being the recognition of Allah's absolute authority, central to Islam.

Good point. I'd like to add to that if I may?

It may be difficult for a non-Muslim or at least a non-theist (reluctant to put atheist there for some reason) to understand why someone would say "Only God knows for sure". It's very simple really. We don't know the answer. We believe in God and we acknowledge that God knows everything so only God knows for sure. Even when we think we might know the answer, we might actually be wrong and so only God knows for sure.

To put forward an opinion that we're not sure about and claim that we are would be a massive sin. I don't expect anyone like Schuhart to understand precisely why we feel like that but I would expect that someone like Schuhart can at least accept it and understand why we might do it.

metrovelvet

What do Islamic lesbians have to say about it? Does anyone know of any feminist/queer theory on the subject?

DinoBot

metrovelvet wrote:

What do Islamic lesbians have to say about it? Does anyone know of any feminist/queer theory on the subject?

Way off topic but..................

Islamic lesbians, there can not be such a thing. Islam does not make allowances for this so anyone who has this lifestyle falls outside Islam. Simple.

Im not saying that Im against lesbians, its just, as with most religions, Islam does not allow this.

Hobbes

metros out for a week as is kmick (from yesterday) and Filan is has been privately warned. I'll leave the response but that is where that particular discussion ends.

Schuhart

Hobbes wrote:

I'll leave the response but that is where that particular discussion ends.

I’m not trying to be a pain in the arse (on this particular occasion) but I’m taking it that this refers to some post by metrovelvet that seems to be deleted – i.e. I notice the thread is not locked so I take it that further posts are allowed. If not, feel free to delete this post because I’ve misinterpreted the situation.

the_new_mr wrote:

it fairly prevents the different views of different scholars on what to do with an apostate so you can't point the finger at it for being biased in that way.

I can live with the kind of bias that sees a death penalty for apostasy as simply unjustifiable.

the_new_mr wrote:

Do you want us to say that a man killing a woman for not wearing the hijab is part of real Islamic teachings? Because if you do then you can forget about it. Why would we say that if it's not what we think?!

I think I’ve substantially addressed that already when I said

It’s fair enough if an action turns out to be just a lone nutter to question if there is, in fact, any wider significance.

In other words, it would take more that simply one isolated incident to require a substantial response. I’m happy to leave the point sit there, largely because the personal insight into the hijab that Commonplacer gave us leaves me with a clear picture of how one Muslim explains her outlook. That outlook simply takes my consideration of the issue in a different direction – and, no, I’m not assuming that all Muslims share her view.

I could, if energised, go off and dig through the Amnesty International report on Saudi Arabia, where I understand there is compulsion regarding veiling which I’d suspect (but don’t know) is justified on religious grounds. I could find out more about why some Turkish women object to its public display at official functions. I could investigate if, indeed, that case is isolated and inexplicable, or a symptom of a deeper problem. But. frankly, I’m not energised because I’m (really) not interested in decrying Islam from every mountain.

What I’m more leaving as a thought is that, presumably, if someone points to a view expressed by a scholar on isalmonline.net suggesting stoning of gays is potentially valid, or death for apostates is mandated presumably that material cannot be dismissed as ‘not part of real Islam’. I take it that ‘real Islam’ to be meaningful has to cover the full range of views held by people deemed to have expertise in matters of the faith.

Taking that definition, and considering some of the material on islamonline.net, does seem to suggest that real Islam has some real problems. As we’ve seen from some of the links posted recently in threads here, there are some Muslims quite clear that these problems exist. They seem to think the right way forward is to face up to them. I think they’re right, and I hope they succeed in breathing some real life back into their religion. I think theism can actually be quite helpful when its informed by some kind of reasonable commitment to seeking episteme.

I would expect that someone like Schuhart can at least accept it and understand why we might do it.

Its not theism per se that’s hard to understand. What’s hard to fathom is, on the one hand, the hesitation over making even quite basic judgements about reasonably straightforward issues combined with an absolute certainty about God. Should the level of doubt indicated not lead to agnosticism?

Consider the contradiction in asserting the absolute certainty that the Quran is flawless, but shrugging helplessly when someone asks a question about what some of that text means. If the uncertainty of what it all means is so great, how does anyone know it’s flawless?

At the end of the day, if that’s your position and you don’t want to discuss it, clearly that’s fine. But I don’t have the same yawning gap with, say, Irshad Manji, who seems to believe in God, and believe Islam to be a religion founded by God, but doesn’t have a hang up about religious texts having errors and/or just going out of date.

Hobbes

Look I am really trying my hardest not to ban people here but your not helping. I said stay on topic, you should stay on topic. If there is an offtopic issue you wish to discuss then create a new thread on it.

If you want to discuss moderation you use either the moderation thread, or a thread in progress on feedback http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055069104

I've tried to hold off locking the thread because some people (may or may not be in this thread) see it as a chance to get discussions locked.

There will be no more warnings.

the_new_mr

DinoBot wrote:

Islamic lesbians, there can not be such a thing. Islam does not make allowances for this so anyone who has this lifestyle falls outside Islam. Simple.

Well, to address this quickly without going off-topic...

I don't know if it's true to say that a lesbian would necessarily be considered as outside of Islam. I'm not 100% sure of this so don't quote me on it. But I would imagine that it would be considered to be a sin like any other (albeit a major sin) and one that someone could potentially repent from (such as alcohol, murder, etc).

Schuhart wrote:

Taking that definition, and considering some of the material on islamonline.net, does seem to suggest that real Islam has some real problems. As we’ve seen from some of the links posted recently in threads here, there are some Muslims quite clear that these problems exist. They seem to think the right way forward is to face up to them. I think they’re right, and I hope they succeed in breathing some real life back into their religion. I think theism can actually be quite helpful when its informed by some kind of reasonable commitment to seeking episteme.

Real problems in whose eyes though? Is it not just a matter of opinion? Just because you think that (for example) pornography is fine doesn't necessarily make it so. You can have your opinion but, in keeping with your school of thought, believing that you are most certainly correct seems a little closed minded to me.

It is really quite ironic that most atheists call theists closed minded because they're not willing to accept the possibility that there isn't a God when it can easily work the other way as an atheist can be considered to be closed minded as they're not willing to accept the possibility that there is a God. If someone thinks about it and comes to their own conclusion then that's fine. They will obviously think everyone else is wrong if they think that they are right but trying to ram it down everyone else's throat as if it's obvious seems a little pointless. Especially since most theists see that it's obvious that this world could not exist without a Creator.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

how many western women who complain about the hijab would walk around town bare breasted? how many western countries wouldn't slap a fine for indecency on said bare breasted woman?

God bless Canada.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Real problems in whose eyes though? Is it not just a matter of opinion?

That's absolutely true, it simply an opinion. I think, almost inevitably, discussion breaks out within faiths between reformers who have an opinion that things need to change and traditionalists who feel that change may undermine the faith. Clearly, a traditionalist might see the call for change to be more damaging than whatever concerns motivate the reformers.

the_new_mr wrote:

It is really quite ironic that most atheists call theists closed minded because they're not willing to accept the possibility that there isn't a God when it can easily work the other way as an atheist can be considered to be closed minded as they're not willing to accept the possibility that there is a God.

In fairness, I think most atheists do accept the possibility of a God. They simply feel its unlikely or (as one poster on the Atheism forum likes to put it) that its unlikely that there's any God worth worshipping. Equally, tbh, I think many (I think I've no basis for saying most) theists would acknowledge that they cannot be certain there's a God. But, to an extent, I think it reveals the problem of using the term 'closed minded' in this context. We've all (including me) a temptation to regard as closed minded anyone unwilling to entertain that our personal belief is at least possibly true.

DinoBot

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, to address this quickly without going off-topic...

I don't know if it's true to say that a lesbian would necessarily be considered as outside of Islam. I'm not 100% sure of this so don't quote me on it. But I would imagine that it would be considered to be a sin like any other (albeit a major sin) and one that someone could potentially repent from (such as alcohol, murder, etc).

.

Why was my reply deleted, or did it just not get sent ??

the_new_mr

It was moved here:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055070618

maitri

the_new_mr wrote:

although the Quran is clear on the fact that hijab is a religious obligation, women are usually left to decide for themselves. If a woman decides to wear it because of social pressures then she is not wearing it to please God and there are likely woman who are doing this but this is completely against the spirit of Islam. One meaning of Islam is submission to God. Wearing hijab for anyone or anything other than for God goes against this very idea.

Whether or not the Qur’an is clear on the fact that hijab (understood as headscarf or veil) is a religious obligation for women depends, IMHO, very much of how this word “hijab” should be translated. I’m absolutely no expert on this, as I’m a non-Muslim (my father is Muslim though), and I don’t speak Arabic, but I just came across a post somewhere else with references to other verses in the Qur’an containing the word hijab (and other words derived from the root H-J-B) that seem to suggest that it’s really not normally used in the meaning of ” headscarf” or “veil” at all:

42:51
And it is not for any human being that God would speak to him, except through inspiration, or from behind a barrier (HIJAB), or by sending a messenger to inspire whom He wills by His leave. He is the Most High, Most Wise.

41:5
And they said: "Our hearts are sealed from what you invite us to, and in our ears is a deafness, and there is a barrier (HIJAB) between us and you. So do what you will, and so will we."

38:32
He said: "I enjoyed the good of materialism more than I enjoyed remembering my Lord, until it became totally dark! (HIJAB)"

19:17
She took to a barrier (HIJAB) which separated her from them, so We sent Our spirit to her, and he took on the shape of a human in all similarity.

17:45
And when you study the Quran, We place between you and those who do not believe in the Hereafter an invisible barrier(HIJAB).

7:46
And between them is a barrier (HIJAB), and on the elevated platform are men who recognized others by their features. And they called out to the dwellers of Paradise: "Peace be upon you!" They have not yet entered it, but they are hoping.

83:15
No, they will be blocked (HJOOBOONA) from their Lord on that Day.

QXP 33:53
O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! Do not enter the Prophet's homes unless you are given permission. When invited to dine, arrive not too early waiting for preparation of the meal. When you are invited, come at the appointed time, and when you have finished eating, disperse. Linger not in the quest of HADITH (vain talk). Behold, this might hurt the Prophet, and he would be shy to say so. But Allah is not shy of telling you what is Right. And if you ask something you need from the ladies (the household of the Prophet), ask them from behind the curtain. (HIJAB) This is good for your hearts and for their hearts. (Respect of privacy is an essential component of mutual respect). It is not for you to hurt the Messenger, nor that you should ever marry his wives after him. Verily, this would be a great offense in the Sight of Allah. (They are their mothers 33:6).

Now, if you read the word HIJAB here in 33:53 as “veil” or “headscarf” instead of "curtain", does’t it actually seem to suggest that men should wear hijab, because it says to the men: "And if you ask....ask them from behind the 'HIJAB'..."?

Another source (www.submission.org) also says:

“The word "Hijab" appeared in the Quran 7 times, five of them as
"Hijab" and two times as "Hijaban," these are 7:46, 33:53, 38:32,
41:5, 42:51, 17:45 & 19:17.
None of these "Hijab" words are used in the Quran in reference to
what the traditional Muslims call today (Hijab) as a dress code for the
Muslim woman. “

the_new_mr wrote:

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."

Here the word translated as “veil” is khimar, if I remember correctly. As far as I can see some sources translates this explicitly as “headcover” like you do while others translates this as “garment” or “cloth” or just “something that covers something”.
So it all seems to depend very much of which translation or interpretation one chooses, doesn’t it?

As I said I’m non-Muslim and I don’t speak Arabic, so please correct me if I’m wrong about something here. And I hope you’re not offended of me writing about these things that I probably know too little about.

the_new_mr

Not offended at all Maitri. Your input is welcome and your conduct is to be commended.

Also, first time for me to know that your father is a Muslim. Would like to know more.

maitri wrote:

Here the word translated as “veil” is khimar, if I remember correctly. As far as I can see some sources translates this explicitly as “headcover” like you do while others translates this as “garment” or “cloth” or just “something that covers something”.
So it all seems to depend very much of which translation or interpretation one chooses, doesn’t it?

Well, as it happens, the translation I copied used the word veil, not headcover

Anyway, the words in verse 31 of surat Al-Nour that are interpreted for the head covering can be transliterated as:

walyadribna bikhumurihinna AAala juyoobihinna

which says to make their "khimars" cover their "chests".

Also, I happen to believe that there are some things that would have naturally made it through to these days from back then as they were if you know what I mean. I'm sure some people will say it's just a case of culture and not religiously based but then what about Islam in Malaysia or Indonesia? It wasn't culture there and yet the practice was adopted there quite early in the life of Islam after the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him).

maitri

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, as it happens, the translation I copied used the word veil, not headcover

True!:) (Oooops!:o )

the_new_mr wrote:

Anyway, the words in verse 31 of surat Al-Nour that are interpreted for the head covering can be transliterated as:

walyadribna bikhumurihinna AAala juyoobihinna

which says to make their "khimars" cover their "chests".

Agree! So the question here is how to translate or interpret the word "khimar", and as I said I see there are different opinions on this.
(What everybody seem to agree on is the "cover the chest"-part, and from what I have read there actually were some women at that time who didn't cover their chests at all.)

the_new_mr wrote:

Also, I happen to believe that there are some things that would have naturally made it through to these days from back then as they were if you know what I mean. I'm sure some people will say it's just a case of culture and not religiously based but then what about Islam in Malaysia or Indonesia? It wasn't culture there and yet the practice was adopted there quite early in the life of Islam after the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him).

I do understand your point here.
However if you look at the hadiths that tell about what was the practice around the time of the Prophet Mohamed, they seem to say that some women (among them the wives of the Prophet - the Mothers of the Believers -) were told to veil themselves while others were not.
Some examples (again taken from a Muslim friend):

Quotes are from Sahih Bukhari.

The Prophet allowed unveiled women in his presence:


Narrated Sad bin Abi Waqqas: Umar bin Al-Khattab asked the permission of Allah's Apostle to see him while some Quraishi women were sitting with him, talking to him and asking him for more expenses, raising their voices above the voice of Allah's Apostle. When 'Umar asked for the permission to enter, the women quickly put on their veils. Allah's Apostle allowed him to enter and 'Umar came in while Allah's Apostle was smiling, 'Umar said "O Allah's Apostle! May Allah always keep you smiling." The Prophet said, "These women who have been here, roused my wonder, for as soon as they heard your voice, they quickly put on their veils. "'Umar said, "O Allah's Apostle! You have more right to be feared by them than I." Then 'Umar addressed the women saying, "O enemies of yourselves! You fear me more than you do Allah's Apostle ?" They said, "Yes, for you are harsher and sterner than Allah's Apostle." Then Allah's Apostle said, "O Ibn Al-Khattab! By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Never does Satan find you going on a way, but he takes another way other than yours." (Book #57, Hadith #32)

She was "among those who were ordered to use a veil". (So everybody wasn't?):

Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet stayed with Safiya bint Huyai for three days on the way of Khaibar where he consummated his marriage with her. Safiya was amongst those who were ordered to use a veil. (Book #59, Hadith #523)

Veils only for the Mothers of the Believers, (that is the Prophet's wives)?

Narrated Anas: The Prophet stayed for three rights between Khaibar and Medina and was married to Safiya. I invited the Muslim to h s marriage banquet and there wa neither meat nor bread in that banquet but the Prophet ordered Bilal to spread the leather mats on which dates, dried yogurt and butter were put. The Muslims said amongst themselves, "Will she (i.e. Safiya) be one of the mothers of the believers, (i.e. one of the wives of the Prophet ) or just (a lady captive) of what his right-hand possesses" Some of them said, "If the Prophet makes her observe the veil, then she will be one of the mothers of the believers (i.e. one of the Prophet's wives), and if he does not make her observe the veil, then she will be his lady slave." So when he departed, he made a place for her behind him (on his and made her observe the veil. (Book #59, Hadith #524)

I believe you are right in saying that veils for women were indeed adopted by early Muslim women, but according to several sources I've found it was yet only in the second century that veils became common:

“As Islam reached other lands, regional practices, including the covering of women, were adopted by the early Muslims. Yet it was only in the second Islamic century that the veil became common, first used among the powerful and rich as a status symbol. The Qu'ranic prescription to "draw their veils over their bosoms" became interpreted by some as an injunction to veil one's hair, neck and ears.
Throughout Islamic history only a part of the urban classes were veiled and secluded. Rural and nomadic women, the majority of the population, were not. For a woman to assume a protective veil and stay primarily within the house was a sign that her family had the means to enable her to do so.

Since nomad women rarely veiled, in the early stages of those Islamic countries with nomadic roots, women often were allowed to go unveiled, even in town. In the years of the early Safavid dynasty, women were unveiled, although the custom was changed by late Safavid times. Among the Turks, who came into Anatolia as nomads, Ibn Battuta in the fourteenth century saw what he called a "remarkable thing. The Turkish women do not veil themselves. Not only royal ladies but also wives of merchants and common people will sit in a wagon drawn by horses. The windows are open and their faces are visible."


(This quote is from http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/essay-01.html )

the_new_mr wrote:

Also, first time for me to know that your father is a Muslim. Would like to know more.

My father is a Muslim convert. He converted five or six years ago if I remember correctly. He is now married to a Muslim lady and spends most of his year in Pakistan. Before he converted to Islam he was an atheist. (My mother is Catholic.)
I hope this covers what you wanted to know.:)

the_new_mr

maitri wrote:

I do understand your point here....

Just to elaborate a little on what I meant:
When I think about it, I find that it would have been very difficult and unlikely that the khimar as a headcovering would have been wrongly considered as something that is a an obligation at such an early period of Islamic history. Especially as there is a very clear and serious warnings in the Quran about making that which is lawful unlawful. Can't find the verse at the moment. Maybe someone else would oblige?

Also, there's the far east thing I mentioned.

As for the hadith you mentioned. I can't comment on their authenticity but I know of another hadith that states that the Prophet came home one day and his wife had a female guest at home. When he went in, he saw her without a headcovering and turned away and said "Only the face and hands should be apparent".

So, I guess either that hadith or yours are false. Or maybe they're both false. Only God knows.

Anyway, we know of the hadith that says that actions are measured by intentions so I hope that women who don't wear the hijab and sincerely and honestly believe that they don't have to wear it will not be held accountable on the day of judgment. I'm still of the opinion that they do though.

maitri wrote:

My father is a Muslim convert. He converted five or six years ago if I remember correctly. He is now married to a Muslim lady and spends most of his year in Pakistan. Before he converted to Islam he was an atheist. (My mother is Catholic.)
I hope this covers what you wanted to know.:)

Thanks. Any more details though?

maitri

the_new_mr wrote:

So, I guess either that hadith or yours are false. Or maybe they're both false. Only God knows.

That's an interesting observation.:)
Or maybe the female guest in "your" hadith for some reason was "among the women who were (for some reason ) ordered to use veil" in "my" hadith? I sure don't know.

I respect your opinions and your reasons for thinking the way you do. My main point is only that it seems to be more that one way to understand or interpret these texts. How they were understood (or meant to be understood) at the time of the first Muslims, it's not possible to know for sure, I guess.

However, if I were a Muslim Woman (which I am not, as I said) I think I would probably be among those Muslims who are less interested in the literal words of the hadiths or even in the different translations of the word "khimar" or "hijab" (well... hmmm... I am a pathological Nerd, so I would probably be interested, as I am now even without being a Muslim , but it wouldn't be the main point for me, I think) than in what resonates with my own common sense and my own conscience. For me to observe and believe in a rule, you see, I really need to understand why the rule is a good rule. And when it comes to the hijab, I don't understand why it should be a rule. (Though, of course, I am not offended by others wearing them. They can very often be beautiful - and on a bad hair-day I even envy them, though I kind of "pity" the women who can never feel the summer breeze in their hair.)
Personally I have never understood or agreed with the "common sense"-arguments given by hijab-defenders about why women should feel obliged to cover their hair, ears and neck - as well as all of the arms and legs - today in our society. But of course I do respect that others may come to different conclusions as long as they don't force their opinions on others.

the_new_mr wrote:

Anyway, we know of the hadith that says that actions are measured by intentions so I hope that women who don't wear the hijab and sincerely and honestly believe that they don't have to wear it will not be held accountable on the day of judgment. I'm still of the opinion that they do though.

Fair enough.
BTW, do you also think that men are religiously obliged to cover their face behind a beard, and never wear trousers that cover the ankles?

the_new_mr wrote:

Thanks. Any more details though?

I can't think of anything right now. But if you have questions of course I'll try to answer. (But it may take some time, because unfortunately I'm not sure about how much internet access I'll have in the weeks to come.)

Regards,

M.