Miss USA 2010 - Rima Fakih

donaghs

Interesting read in the Metro the other morning. The new Miss USA Pageant winner is the first Muslim, and Arab-American to win the competition.

Any thoughts on this? With the nature of the competition, this is bound to bring both praise and condemnation(from religious conservatives and secular feminists alike).
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2010/05/ahmed-rehab-miss-usa-scrutiny-indicates-weird-obsession-with-islam.html

wes

Well, she is very pretty .

So anyway, well good for her. Hopefully this will help here with here future career in law (if I remember right).

I did also find someone of the racist and conspiratorial nonsense being peddled by right wing nut jobs in the US, to be especially entertaining. The accusations of a Hizbollah plot was a particular highlight. Some how some bright spark that a conservative Islamic organization, would try and get someone to win a beauty contest. Some people are truly insane, and the fact that they recieved main steam coverage in the US, show just how messed up certain parts of that countries media is, when a nonseniscal moron can spout a pack of bigotted lies with no proof whatsoever.

irishconvert

I think she is very misguided to take part in such a competition.

philologos

Interesting. Could I ask why?

I have thoughts of my own about it, but I'd like to hear it from an Islamic point of view.

irishconvert

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting. Could I ask why?

I have thoughts of my own about it, but I'd like to hear it from an Islamic point of view.

Well it should be obvious but taking part in a competition where the woman has to expose her body and walk around in swimwear is extremely unislamic and goes against all the rules about dressing modestly.

g5fd6ow0hseima

irishconvert wrote: »

Well it should be obvious but taking part in a competition where the woman has to expose her body and walk around in swimwear is extremely unislamic and goes against all the rules about dressing modestly.

You are joking, right?

philologos

Dax Crooked Ventilate wrote: »

You are joking, right?

Why would it be a joke? - If the Qur'an suggests that ones beauty is to be kept for ones husband, then of course the more orthodox Muslims in this forum will agree that it isn't entirely Islamic or Qu'ranic by any means to wear immodest clothing.

It was the response I was expecting from irishconvert. I was surprised at first to see how many Muslims praised her win, as opposed to those who opposed it. Perhaps that is just the media being selective though.

irishconvert

Jakkass wrote: »

Why would it be a joke? - If the Qur'an suggests that ones beauty is to be kept for ones husband, then of course the more orthodox Muslims in this forum will agree that it isn't entirely Islamic or Qu'ranic by any means to wear immodest clothing.

It was the response I was expecting from irishconvert. I was surprised at first to see how many Muslims praised her win, as opposed to those who opposed it. Perhaps that is just the media being selective though.

What is your view on it Jackass? Do you see any harm in women taking part in these competitions?

irishconvert

Dax Crooked Ventilate wrote: »

You are joking, right?

Do you have a question to ask or a point to make?

g5fd6ow0hseima

irishconvert wrote: »

Do you have a question to ask or a point to make?

More a point to make, that being that through religious indoctrination, you are offended / displeased by what some women thousands of miles away from you is wearing. Slightly pathetic, dont you think?

Tell me, what would you prefer? Vehement subjugation?

g5fd6ow0hseima

Jakkass wrote: »

If the Qur'an suggests that ones beauty is to be kept for ones husband

I die a little inside reading this kind of stuff....

The Recliner

Dax Crooked Ventilate wrote: »

More a point to make, that being that through religious indoctrination, you are offended / displeased by what some women thousands of miles away from you is wearing. Slightly pathetic, dont you think?

Tell me, what would you prefer? Vehement subjugation?

Dax Crooked Ventilate wrote: »

I die a little inside reading this kind of stuff....

As you are clearly not here to discuss Islam you can have a 2 week holiday from the forum

philologos

irishconvert wrote: »

What is your view on it Jackass? Do you see any harm in women taking part in these competitions?

Sure.

My view is that it is appropriate for women to dress modestly according to my beliefs, but not only this, but that men need to control whatever lusts and the like that may arise if women do not dress modestly in public. I think this is fair to assume the other way around as well.

One would have to think about the purpose of why these events take place in the first place to see if they have the right motivation, and other such things.

It isn't as simple as saying that the women should only cover up, but there is a responsibility for males to moderate whatever feelings of lust that might potentially arise in them also, and of course vice versa. If we are to live as God wants us to live, it means taking responsibility for ourselves, and for what impact our actions might have on others.

DinoBot

Jakkass wrote: »

I was surprised at first to see how many Muslims praised her win, as opposed to those who opposed it. Perhaps that is just the media being selective though.

The number of religious moderates are growing in Islam. As someone more intelligent than me said,

"Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance." -Sam Harris

Agree 100%, any Muslim with even 1% knowledge of Quran can see this is against their religion. Its the moderates that make religion seem harmless.

wes

DinoBot wrote: »

"Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance." -Sam Harris

The same Sam Harris who called for nuking the Middle East? I don't think someone who supports mass murder is any position to claim any kind of authority on moderation of any kind. TBH, honest somone calling for a nuclear first strike, is no better than the crazy Islamists inciting murder against innocent people.

DinoBot

wes wrote: »

The same Sam Harris who called for nuking the Middle East? I don't think someone who supports mass murder is any position to claim any kind of authority on moderation of any kind. TBH, honest somone calling for a nuclear first strike, is no better than the crazy Islamists inciting murder against innocent people.

I never claimed to be a fan of his or agree with everything he says. On this I do.

evercloserunion

This is interesting, if the woman is a Muslim then what was her rationale for entering the competition? Surely the Muslims who praise her have their own reasons why they think it acceptable. What do they say?

Is there room at all for allowing dressing like this? It's not like she was dressing like a pornstar. I'd say her dress was quite reasonable by Western standards. Is not not like biblical condemnation of homosexuality, while a hell of a lot of Christians have no problem with homosexuality?

wes

DinoBot wrote: »

I never claimed to be a fan of his or agree with everything he says. On this I do.

Fair enough, just considering his own past comment, I don't think him any kind of judge of moderation of any kind.

irishconvert

evercloserunion wrote: »

Is there room at all for allowing dressing like this?

Not at all. Put it this way, if you can't go into a mosque dressed like this, then you shouldn't be anywhere else in public dressed in the same way.

evercloserunion wrote: »

It's not like she was dressing like a pornstar. I'd say her dress was quite reasonable by Western standards.

It doesn't make any difference, we are talking about Islamic conduct here, not western standards. It is clearly way beyond the bounds of what Muslim women should dress like.

Zombrex

wes wrote: »

The same Sam Harris who called for nuking the Middle East?

Off topic but Sam Harris never called for nuking the middle east.

What he did say was that if an fanatical Islamic regime ever got ICBMs the possibilities of a cold war with such a group if they were happy to die for their religious aims while taking the rest of us with them, was unlikely and we would have to consider a nuclear first strike.

Harris's point was that M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) only works as a deterrent if the other side actually don't want to be destroyed. If the other side are happy to become religious martyrs then it becomes useless and the lessons learned from the cold war no longer apply.

Whether you agree with Harris or not on this point at least try and present it accurately.

philologos

Sam Harris is surely irrelevant to the discussion.

irishconvert: About Islam, then. Would I be correct to say that there is uneven emphasis applied between 1) to dress modestly, and 2) for those onlookers to control any desires that they might have in Islam? For example, there seems to be much more emphasis, at least from my perspective to control any desires that you might have, than to dress modestly. Or is it that dressing immodestly will naturally cause onlookers to have inappropriate desires?

Thanks for the platform as always

wes

Wicknight wrote: »

Whether you agree with Harris or not on this point at least try and present it accurately.

Alright fair enough, I still stand by what I said regarding his call for a nuclear first strike, and I believe all the stuff surrounding it, is just excuses for killing a lot of people. Anyway, your right, its off topic.

Anyway back on topic, CNN asked if Miss USA is a Hizbollah spy :rolleyes:

http://i.imgur.com/1A02h.jpg

Saw that posted by someone on facebook earlier, pointing out CNN bout of idiocy. They have changed the title of the story now, but it is nothing short of absurd to ask if Miss USA is a spy for a conservative Islamic movement, without a shred of evidence, just because a few delusion nutters on the web had made such absurd claims without any proof.

donaghs

During the week it looked as if there was another twist in the plot (against America ) when it was revealed that Ms Fakih had been a pole dancer. I thought this would also really get the fanatics knickers in a twist.

But it turns out it wasn't actually true, it was a one-off event for a radio station, she was snapped in that pose, and had her clothes on.

Since she doesn't discuss religion herself, and clearly has nothing to nothing to do with Hezbelloh, its much ado about nothing? Apart from her good looks.

wes

donaghs wrote: »

Since she doesn't discuss religion herself, and clearly has nothing to nothing to do with Hezbelloh, its much ado about nothing? Apart from her good looks.

Well, it everyone else how is making her Religion a big deal. When, you have major US New network, accuse her of having links with Hizbollah, then it makes it impossible to not discuss it.

irishconvert

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Harris is surely irrelevant to the discussion.

irishconvert: About Islam, then. Would I be correct to say that there is uneven emphasis applied between 1) to dress modestly, and 2) for those onlookers to control any desires that they might have in Islam? For example, there seems to be much more emphasis, at least from my perspective to control any desires that you might have, than to dress modestly. Or is it that dressing immodestly will naturally cause onlookers to have inappropriate desires?

Thanks for the platform as always

Not true. The Qur'an tells us to lower our gaze when we encounter members of the opposite sex.

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do." Surah 24, verse 30.

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss. " - Surah 24, verse 31

irishconvert

Enough of the Sam Harris discussion please guys, back on topic.

Thanks.

Rowley Birkin QC

Maybe she was born a Muslim, realised that all religion is an unmitigated pile of tosh and, free from the constraints of hideously outdated dogma based on millennia old works of fiction, decided to get on with her life.

irishconvert

Rowley Birkin QC banned

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do." Surah 24, verse 30.

Can you explain why this is so? I mean, to me, it would make more sense to say that the purist person is he who doesn't need to avert his gaze, as his self control is strong enough that he can see something sexual without getting aroused, ie that he is pure enough within than nothing without can effect him, if he doesn't choose to let it.

irishconvert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

irishconvert wrote:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do." Surah 24, verse 30.

Can you explain why this is so? I mean, to me, it would make more sense to say that the purist person is he who doesn't need to avert his gaze, as his self control is strong enough that he can see something sexual without getting aroused, ie that he is pure enough within than nothing without can effect him, if he doesn't choose to let it.

Do you know of such a pure person? Someone who is not affected in the slighest when they see a beautiful woman, or some naked flesh?

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

Do you know of such a pure person? Someone who is not affected in the slighest when they see a beautiful woman, or some naked flesh?

No, but thats not what I asked. I asked if its the purest person is not the person who can look at an attractive person and not be affected at all. Or to put it another way, is it not purer of a person (so to speak) for them to be able to see an attractive member of the opposite sex and not react in a bad way?

The way I see it, avoiding arousing imagery and situations doesn't reflect on someones purity very well. It is very easy to not be affected by these things if they are never encountered, the measure of someones purity is how they react when they do.