Promiscuous women cause earthquakes...

g5fd6ow0hseima

Where?

Piste

Willow Rough Windbreak wrote: »

However, to hold the opinion that a women can not show her naked body as a result of her own clearly thought, conscious decision is the essence of intolerant.

There

g5fd6ow0hseima

Bear in mind this is in relation to the Koran verse that I quoted earlier.

hivizman

Splendour wrote: »

What makes a woman think that wearing a veil is pleasing to Allah?

There was a long thread on the topic of veiling on this forum last year, which contains relevant verses from the Quran and also relevant hadiths: see link.

To sketch out the argument, the general consensus among Muslim scholars (although there are exceptions) is that the verse quoted earlier in this thread (Surat An-Nur 24:31), combined with various statements of Muhammad, means that women are expected to cover their hair and all of their body except for their face and hands. Given that this is considered to be a requirement derived from the Qu'ran and the Sunnah of the Prophet, observant women believe that following such a requirement will be pleasing to Allah, and will be rewarded on the Day of Reckoning (and failure to cover will be displeasing to Allah, and will be reckoned as a sin on the Day of Reckoning).

Some scholars go further, and based on various other hadiths they conclude that covering the face in the presence of unrelated men is also required. An intermediate position is that covering the face, while not a strict requirement, is mustahab (desirable or recommended: this means that covering will be rewarded, but not covering the face will not be accounted for as a sin). Women who accept the teaching of these scholars therefore believe that covering the face in the presence of unrelated men is pleasing to Allah.

Freiheit

Your engaging in hyperbole Irish Convert. I believe in freedom of women to express themselves in ways that is true for them, not as dictated by a 6/7th century Bedouin. I find the Islamic doctrine on women, in terms of veiling, but not just veiling hugely offensive and anachronisitic.

It restricts women and prevents them from fulfilling their potential as people on many levels.

Of course most Muslim women are happy to cover, theyre conditioned to do such, from the cradle to the grave........but I stress conditioned.

hivizman

Freiheit wrote: »

Your engaging in hyperbole Irish Convert. I believe in freedom of women to express themselves in ways that is true for them, not as dictated by a 6/7th century Bedouin.

But what if the way that a woman wants to express herself is by covering herself in a manner that she believes is "pleasing to Allah", as revealed to the person she believes is Allah's last and final messenger?

Freiheit:65699372 wrote:

I find the Islamic doctrine on women, in terms of veiling, but not just veiling hugely offensive and anachronisitic.

In my current job, I have dealings with many young British Muslims, both male and female, as well as young Muslims from other parts of the world. What strikes me most is the wide diversity of views and practices, even by people who consider themselves to be practising Islam. Some women don't cover their heads, possibly because they believe that veiling is out of date and has no place in Western societies. Others who don't cover their heads are responding to parental or peer pressure that regards covering as something that might draw unwanted attention to Muslim women (with the possible risk of violence in extreme situations). Women from the Middle East tell me that they dress less conservatively in the West (at home, they are likely to cover their heads, wear long and loose garments, and even wear face veils, but they see that as simply conforming to local social expectations), but even here there's a range from covering the head but wearing "Western" clothes to not covering and dressing in ways indistinguishable from non-Muslim women. Of those born in the West, there are a few who cover their heads, and a very small minority who wear abayas (long loose over-garments). Muslim women from Malaysia almost always cover their heads, but again there is a range of clothing styles, from rather elegant trouser suits to loose ankle-length dresses.

The point is that there is no single monolithic "Islamic doctrine on women", only a wide range of local practices (often culturally influenced), and different interpretations of the verses and hadiths that provide guidance on what women should wear.

Freiheit wrote: »

It restricts women and prevents them from fulfilling their potential as people on many levels.

In some cases, you are correct here, but again we have to be careful not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" and be intolerant from the opposite side. There may be many ways in which women can fulfil their potential, all of which involve some forms of compromise and possibly missing out on fulfilment in other aspects of life.

freiheit wrote: »

Of course most Muslim women are happy to cover, theyre conditioned to do such, from the cradle to the grave........but I stress conditioned.

Yes, many Muslim women don't have much experience of alternatives to how they have been brought up, but Muslim women in the West, particularly those who are now two generations or more away from their immigrant ancestors, are much more aware of alternatives, and more prepared to make positive choices (whether or not to cover, for example) rather than simply following what their parents have taught.

What I find interesting is the behaviour of Western converts to Islam - research has shown that female converts are more likely than not to embrace "Islamic dress", including covering their heads and wearing long, loose garments. Indeed, several female converts go in for face veiling. This cannot be the result of "conditioning" (though those hostile to face veiling might assert that they have been "brainwashed" into veiling).

Tom Dunne

Freiheit wrote: »

Your engaging in hyperbole Irish Convert. I believe in freedom of women to express themselves in ways that is true for them, not as dictated by a 6/7th century Bedouin. I find the Islamic doctrine on women, in terms of veiling, but not just veiling hugely offensive and anachronisitic.

Two questions for you:

how many Muslim women do you know?

have you ever been to a Muslim country?

Splendour

hivizman wrote: »

Some scholars go further, and based on various other hadiths they conclude that covering the face in the presence of unrelated men is also required. An intermediate position is that covering the face, while not a strict requirement, is mustahab (desirable or recommended: this means that covering will be rewarded, but not covering the face will not be accounted for as a sin). Women who accept the teaching of these scholars therefore believe that covering the face in the presence of unrelated men is pleasing to Allah.

Thanks hivizman, from what I understand the law from Muhammad is not the reason women over their faces but rather men's interpretation of the law, or embellishing of it.

Freiheit

Point taken Hivizman....I know their is no equivilant of the Pope with centralised authority. Is there much of a revisionist movement in Islam?.A lot of theologans, not restricted to Islam reinterpret scripture in order to make it fit better in contemporary society....

My cousin is married to Muslim man , of the Ismali school and under the Aga Khan, my cousin being a woman of course. I have a copy of the Koran and regularily watch the Islam channel. I haven't had the opportunity to talk to many Muslim women in the non-virtual world, but I would love to if they were available.


But is part of religion lost when it's processed by revisionist movements? I think much of Christianity has been lost through this means.

In my fallible opinion it's a misogynistic religion and whose concept of a woman is insulting.

hivizman

Splendour wrote: »

Thanks hivizman, from what I understand the law from Muhammad is not the reason women over their faces but rather men's interpretation of the law, or embellishing of it.

Yes, in this particular case some of the hadiths come from wives or companions of Muhammad rather than from Muhammad himself.

In general, Sharia is no exception to the general situation that laws themselves, and how they are applied, come about through human interpretations. In the case of Sharia, I recently came across (though I can't now find the reference, alas) the view that Sharia, as the Law of Allah, is the ideal to which human interpretations are just approximations. To claim that a particular interpretation is the Sharia is therefore an arrogant claim that particular scholars advancing that interpretation are the equals of Allah in identifying the law. This doesn't mean that we go to the other extreme and say that any interpretation is acceptable, because an interpretation that contradicts the unanimous consensus (ijma) of the scholars would be very difficult to defend.

In the case of veiling, some Islamic scholars give more weight to certain hadiths that other scholars think are either "weak" or open to alternative interpretations. Hence there is a consensus that women should cover their awrah, interpreted (following Surat An-Nur 24:31) as their entire head and body except their faces and hands. The exception for faces and hands comes from a hadith reported by Abu Dawud (Book 32, No. 4092): "Narrated Aisha (the Prophet's wife): Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) turned his attention from her. He said: 'O Asma, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this', and he pointed to her face and hands."

For those interested in how advocates of face veiling use Qu'ranic verses, hadiths and the interpretations (tafseer) of early Muslim scholars, here is a link to a short pro-niqab document:

The Obligation of Veiling the Face and Hands

A contrary view is expressed in this short article.

hivizman

Freiheit wrote: »

Is there much of a revisionist movement in Islam?.A lot of theologans, not restricted to Islam reinterpret scripture in order to make it fit better in contemporary society....

Something I find fascinating about Islam today is the wide range of revisionist movements, and how difficult it can be to put high-profile Muslims into simplistic boxes. For example, Tariq Ramadan has written and spoken extensively on how a "European Islam" could be emerging, which could be quite different in some ways from a "Middle Eastern Islam", but (based in particular on his recent book What I Believe), he finds it difficult to reject some of the implications of common interpretations of Sharia.

Having mentioned Ramadan's What I Believe, a quotation would be helpful:

I have often repeated to Muslim Westerners that they should think of themselves as "gifts" as well as "questions" to their fellow citizens. They are gifts because they carry with them other prospects, other cultures, and other memories that are a wealth with which they nurturs their own society. They must be aware of and consider confidently what they are and what they can bring to Western societies: other viewpoints, the experience of true cultural pluralism, the meaning of shared, and not monopolized, universals. This presence from within is now a constitutive element and suggests that advances in economic development and technological skill should never be mistaken to imply ideological or philosophical superiority. This presence and gift offers its wealth and teaches humility. But Muslims must also remain "questions": with their faith, their practices, their behavior, and their day-to-day civic commitment, they must positively challenge their fellow citizens. This is exactly the meaning of the formula I used many years ago when I told Muslims: your presence must become normal without becoming commonplace.

Tariq Ramadan What I Believe (New York: OUP, 2010, pp. 115-116)

This resonates a lot with me as an Irishman who currently lives in England.

More briefly, the other type of revisionists are the so-called Salafi, who seek to reconstitute Islam on the basis of the practices of Muhammad, his Companions, and their successors in the first three generations of Islam. This movement aims to peel off what it considers as "innovations" that it regards as subsequent accretions to Islam with no Qu'ranic or Prophetic authority.. A lot of the English-language material on Islam on YouTube comes from this movement.

Freiheit wrote: »

But is part of religion lost when it's processed by revisionist movements? I think much of Christianity has been lost through this means.

This is certainly a danger, and Islam is currently facing in a number of countries (not necessarily just in the West) the tensions that arise between secular state systems that see religion as something purely for the private sphere and "totalising" religions that do not accept a sacred-secular divide, but regard religious belief as affecting all aspects of human life. Certainly many Muslim contributors to YouTube are concerned that the younger Muslims in countries such as the USA are becoming enamoured with the "consumer society" and are losing touch with their religion.

Freiheit wrote: »

In my fallible opinion it's a misogynistic religion and whose concept of a woman is insulting.

As with Christianity, Islam faces the challenge of determining how much of the Qu'ran and Sunnah needs renewed understandings in the circumstances of the 21st century (which will inevitably mean that understandings formed centuries ago are shown to be time-specific and culture-specific, even though the underlying revelations are still regarded as eternal). I agree that, to a non-muslim, the attitudes of many Muslim men towards women seem crude and oppressive, but people are asking questions both within Islam and from the outside that may continue to stimulate slow change.

Freiheit

Is Tariq Ramadan a contributor to the Times of London? If so found him fairly progressive, what exactly does he mean by "challenge their fellow citizens" though?.

Look I know not all Muslims are misogynisitic or that all Muslim women feel oppressed, but I feel that women in Islam are vulnerable to interpretation.

hivizman

Freiheit wrote: »

Is Tariq Ramadan a contributor to the Times of London? If so found him fairly progressive, what exactly does he mean by "challenge their fellow citizens" though?.

Continuing the quote from Ramadan's What I Believe:

At the core of the West, Muslims' individual and collective presence should be seen as a question or rather a series of questions: What does this presence mean to me? How can their behavior be explained? Where do I stand? Who am I and what do I want to be in front of this "other", at the core of shared, confident pluralism? This questioning presence is a mirror. The mirror of the other reflects a thousand questions about oneself. Those questions may indeed be unsettling at times, but they are ever so necessary.

Source: Tariq Ramadan What I Believe (New York: OUP, 2010, pp. 116-117)

Ramadan grew up in French-speaking Switzerland, and his writing style is that of a French intellectual, so it's not always clear what he's actually trying to say. But I think that his argument here is that Muslims, simply by being different, have the potential to make the rest of us ask questions about our own beliefs and assumptions. This comes out for example in discussions such as this thread, where the fact that a cleric in Iran can put forward what most of us consider to be weird views about the relationship between what he characterises as female promiscuity and the occurrence of natural disasters starts to make us think about why we find these views so strange.

Freiheit wrote: »

Look I know not all Muslims are misogynisitic or that all Muslim women feel oppressed, but I feel that women in Islam are vulnerable to interpretation.

Even a realisation that there is a range of attitudes and behaviours among Muslims makes it harder for us to generalise and stereotype. Until recently, the interpretation of religion (not just Islam but Judaism and Christianity) has been a male monopoly, and Islam has been slower to take on board womens' understandings.

Freiheit

don't stereotypes exist of all groups...minorities and majorities?...usually partial truths...which can cause prejudice until there is greater interaction....

hivizman

Freiheit wrote: »

don't stereotypes exist of all groups...minorities and majorities?...usually partial truths...which can cause prejudice until there is greater interaction....

Yes, there's even a branch of social psychology known as stereotype theory. This holds that stereotypes are cognitive devices that help us to make sense of the world by developing schematic views of groups and assuming that members of such groups match the characteristics we associate with our stereotypes. The danger is that we tend to overgeneralise and attribute characteristics that may indeed apply to some members of a group to all members of that group.

Freiheit

yes I encountered that during last years Social Psychology module with Oscail...Wrote an essay on Minorities and stereotypes, I focused on Gay and Transgendered people specificaly,but the theory could apply to Muslims too. Stereotypes act as a guide, we need guides but as you say they are not 100% accurate.