Miss USA 2010 - Rima Fakih

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

Family life is extremely important in Islam. Relationships between men and women outside marriage are forbidden and considered a very serious sin. It ranks much higher than being jealous of your neighbour.



That is true, but if you follow the guidance given in the Qur'an you are less likely to find yourself in a situation like this.

But then where is the test? If having relationships outside islam is a very serious sin, then surely it is something which god tests in you? If you go through life both never looking and never being allowed to see members of the opposite sex, then how can you how you would stand up to the test of being faithful to your spouse (or your faith)

irishconvert wrote: »

I think it is fair to say for most people, physical attraction is the primary source of attraction.

I dont know, I'd like to think that it is usually just the first source of attraction (it is for me - I can visually assess someone quicker than I can assess their personality).

carolmon

af_thefragile wrote: »

When Islam came to the Arab lands, slavery was a big norm of that time. If Islam would have had abolished slavery, there would have been a massive rejection and uproar among the people and not many people would have accepted Islam. But Islam bought in many new laws which gave slaves a lot of rights.

My point was that obviously there was instruction/ guidance in the Quran/ Hadiths re slavery which may have been deemed appropriate for that time but whcih must now be seen as obsolete (or do Muslim scholars still recommend that these instructions from Allah be followed today?)


I always thought that Muslims followed literally all aspects of the Quran as the word of God so I was just struck by the mention of slavery as obviously this is not a common practice now, so it must be permissable to ignore some of the Quran that is no longer relevant??

I think it's a very positive thing that there is room for revisiting the Quran and assessing what is appropriate for contemporary times.
I say this particularly in relation to this discussion re women being covered. I

irishconvert

carolmon wrote: »

My point was that obviously there was instruction/ guidance in the Quran/ Hadiths re slavery which may have been deemed appropriate for that time but whcih must now be seen as obsolete (or do Muslim scholars still recommend that these instructions from Allah be followed today?)

There is nothing in the Qur'an which encourages you to take slaves, or which says it is acceptable to have slaves. In fact it is the opposite. There are many verses which encourage and reward you for letting slaves go free. As a result people gradually let slaves go free and by a certain time it was no longer common practice.

carolmon wrote: »

I always thought that Muslims followed literally all aspects of the Quran as the word of God so I was just struck by the mention of slavery as obviously this is not a common practice now, so it must be permissable to ignore some of the Quran that is no longer relevant??

We do follow the Qur'an literally. As I said it does not tell us it is ok to take slaves. You seem to be assuming that the Qur'an says it is ok to have slaves.

carolmon wrote: »

I think it's a very positive thing that there is room for revisiting the Quran and assessing what is appropriate for contemporary times.
I say this particularly in relation to this discussion re women being covered. I

I think your message has been truncated. Perhaps post this again.

philologos

Mark - You claim that averting ones gaze as in the Qur'anic text of necessity means that one must not look at another. However reading the text tells us more about the motivation behind it:

"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.

It doesn't seem as if it is saying that one should avert their gaze, as in not looking at anyone at all. Rather it seems that one should not look upon someone else in a lustful manner, as that will be better in maintaining a purer mind. Contextually you seem to be taking it more at face value perhaps than you ought to.

I do have an issue with the second quote though:

"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

What is shameful about sex? Particularly within a loving marriage?

The emphasis between covering up, and averting ones gaze don't appear to be equal. I think the emphasis should be both between dressing in a modest manner, and not lusting. Islam seems to suggest that the woman should cover up her hair and all other such things just so not to arise lust in a man, however, it is up for the man to control this. I don't see why covering the hair is necessary to do this.

Again, thanking you for the platform!

irishconvert

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why covering the hair is necessary to do this.

Again, thanking you for the platform!

Jackass, what is the Christian view on covering the hair for women (I am assuming you are a practising Christian)? The reason I ask is a lot of older Irish women wear a head scarf. My parents told me that women always used to cover their hair at mass. Also they told me there was segretation at mass, the men would sit on one side and women on the other.

philologos

irishconvert wrote: »

Jackass, what is the Christian view on covering the hair for women (I am assuming you are a practising Christian)? The reason I ask is a lot of older Irish women wear a head scarf. My parents told me that women always used to cover their hair at mass. Also they told me there was segretation at mass, the men would sit on one side and women on the other.

There is no prohibition against having your hair exposed.

In church Paul gave the Corinthian women advice to cover their hair due to the tradition of the time that temple prostitutes would shave their heads. There can be other interpretations as to why Paul asked them to do this. In a few churches today, particularly certain denominations of Protestantism they advocate covering the hair. I've spoken with people who attend churches where this practice continues. However, Paul makes clear that it isn't a commandment of God, but merely a personal recommendation:

1 Corinthians 11:4-16 wrote:

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Yes, I am practising. I'm not a Roman Catholic mind, and practices tend to differ between denominations.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

Mark - You claim that averting ones gaze as in the Qur'anic text of necessity means that one must not look at another. However reading the text tells us more about the motivation behind it:

"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.

It doesn't seem as if it is saying that one should avert their gaze, as in not looking at anyone at all. Rather it seems that one should not look upon someone else in a lustful manner, as that will be better in maintaining a purer mind. Contextually you seem to be taking it more at face value perhaps than you ought to.

To me it says both to avert your gaze ("they should lower their gaze" and to keep away from lustful thoughts ("and guard their modesty"). The surah, at least, seems to recognise that lustful thoughts come from more than just the simple act of seeing someone attractive, they can come from your own imagination.

oceanclub

irishconvert wrote: »

Sure you can look at members of the opposite sex if you need to talk to them, but it should be for valid reasons, e.g. talking to a work colleague.

I can't imagine anything more terrible than not being able to look at a woman simply to appreciate her beauty. Any more than being told I shouldn't be able to look at flowers.

P.

irishconvert

oceanclub wrote: »

I can't imagine anything more terrible than not being able to look at a woman simply to appreciate her beauty. Any more than being told I shouldn't be able to look at flowers.

P.

Do you have a wife/girlfriend? Does she mind you doing this? BTW I am not saying I don't do it, we are all human.

oceanclub

irishconvert wrote: »

Do you have a wife/girlfriend? Does she mind you doing this? BTW I am not saying I don't do it, we are all human.

Yes, and no, I doubt it, since she's made enough comments about Johnny Depp to suggest he's pleasing on her eye.

There is a difference between glancing at a woman and enjoying it, and ogling, mind. I'm not saying it's classy to go around with your wife staring at women, making "harumbah" sounds with your eyes sticking out like Tex Avery cartoons.

P.

irishconvert

oceanclub wrote: »

Yes, and no, I doubt it, since she's made enough comments about Johnny Depp to suggest he's pleasing on her eye.

Ok you are fine with her looking at Johnny Depp, someone she is more than likely never going to meet. But what if she made a comment that one of your friends was really hot, or you noticed her checking him out, or he noticed her checking him out? Would you still be ok with that? It is think kind of situation that the verse is speaking about.

oceanclub

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok you are fine with her looking at Johnny Depp, someone she is more than likely never going to meet. But what if she made a comment that one of your friends was really hot, or you noticed her checking him out, or he noticed her checking him out? Would you still be ok with that? It is think kind of situation that the verse is speaking about.

Er, no, that's a slippery slope argument. Let's quote your original statement again:

"Sure you can look at members of the opposite sex if you need to talk to them, but it should be for valid reasons, e.g. talking to a work colleague."

So, that's was the particular comment in this thread I was responding to: you were saying that someone should absolutely not look at a member of the opposite sex(*) for any reason associated with sexuality or beauty . I'm merely pointing out this is a bit extreme.

You're attempting the slippery slope argument; that because someone can look at a member of the opposite sex in a context of sexuality or beauty, this means that they are always crass or obscene about it. Perhaps there are some people who need hard and fast religious dogma in order to replace the kind of common-sense that socialisation gives most people (as in, don't point at a woman and tell your wife she's hot.)

A bit like saying that, hey, if you let someone drink, they're bound to become an alcoholic.

Oddly enough, the only time my wife ever commented about me checking someone out was when I wasn't. Hung for a lamb.

(*) The irony of course here is that bisexual people either get away with it, or can't look at anyone at all.

(To be honest, I would find the idea of someone actively avoiding looking at me vaguely creepy; as if there were so unsure of their own self-control that it was a choice between that and molesting me. Also you only mention work colleagues; presumably you think men can look at their female friends and vice versa?)

P.

DinoBot

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok you are fine with her looking at Johnny Depp, someone she is more than likely never going to meet. But what if she made a comment that one of your friends was really hot, or you noticed her checking him out, or he noticed her checking him out? Would you still be ok with that? It is think kind of situation that the verse is speaking about.

Strangely enough if your in an honest mature relationship build on love and trust its actually not a problem if your partner makes a comment that one of your friends is hot.

I hate this idea in Islam that you cant even look at the opposite sex just in case a "feeling" happens. This type of behavior is not normal and does not lead to an equal society. It also encourages men to be ultra paranoid with their women.

carolmon

irishconvert wrote: »

There is nothing in the Qur'an which encourages you to take slaves, or which says it is acceptable to have slaves. In fact it is the opposite. There are many verses which encourage and reward you for letting slaves go free. As a result people gradually let slaves go free and by a certain time it was no longer common practice.


We do follow the Qur'an literally. As I said it does not tell us it is ok to take slaves. You seem to be assuming that the Qur'an says it is ok to have slaves.

I'm not assuming the Quran says you should have slaves, I'm saying that there are direct instructions re how to treat them which were contextually based on the norms of that era.

I'm actually pleased to see that Islam can move away from the norms of a previous era and accept the cultural and legal norms 2010 ie I take it the instructions re slavery are now redundant to you in your religious practice?

My point is that there are obviously some points in the Quran not followed now by Muslims because slavery is no longer acceptable/ legal so these instructions are irrelevant.

It gives me hope that there is room for debate on this issue of women covering and that the instructions in the Quran re female modesty will evolve to reflect a modern society.

DinoBot

carolmon wrote: »

I'm not assuming the Quran says you should have slaves, I'm saying that there are direct instructions re how to treat them which were contextually based on the norms of that era.

I'm actually pleased to see that Islam can move away from the norms of a previous era and accept the cultural and legal norms 2010 ie I take it the instructions re slavery are now redundant to you in your religious practice?

My point is that there are obviously some points in the Quran not followed now by Muslims because slavery is no longer acceptable/ legal so these instructions are irrelevant.

It gives me hope that there is room for debate on this issue of women covering and that the instructions in the Quran re female modesty will evolve to reflect a modern society.

But I think the mistake your making is that although muslims may say Islam came to get rid of slavery they will fall short of saying it is haram (unlawful). There are many verses in quran (4:92) which show that having and taking slaves is lawful and although its not practiced today does not mean it cannot be practiced in the future.

The fact that Islam (Quran) does not ban this practice shows that there can be no discussion on this point. It is halal and will remain so.

I think your hope for room on the debate on the issue of women covering evolving is misguided. The only way for Islam to reflect modern society is for muslims to move away from the text of their faith ie. become more secular and less obsessed with the "truth" of every word in quran.
Become less muslim.

I Drink It Up!

She is very pretty. I think her own happiness comes first.

goose2005

The Recliner wrote: »

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

fyp

irishconvert

goose2005 wrote: »

fyp

Have a Kit Kat my friend

Jarndyce

irishconvert wrote: »

Rowley Birkin QC banned

Why do you ban everyone who expresses dissension on this issue? The point made by Rowley Birkin QC is, in my opinion, more probable than not. Yet, he is banned for expressing it? By doing this, you promote intolerance which serves only to undermine your Islamic beliefs.

Splendour

donaghs wrote: »

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

Maybe she was born into a Muslim family but not necessarily a practicing Muslim. There are many Irish people who, when filling out a census form, will tick 'Roman Catholic' in the Religious section when in fact they are not practicing Catholics at all...

hivizman

Splendour wrote: »

Maybe she was born into a Muslim family but not necessarily a practicing Muslim. There are many Irish people who, when filling out a census form, will tick 'Roman Catholic' in the Religious section when in fact they are not practicing Catholics at all...

There's a Wikipedia article on Rima Fakih, which notes that "Fakih and her family are Muslim, but they also celebrate elements of Christianity, such as Christmas" (references are given to various newspaper reports). She was born in Lebanon, and attended Catholic schools there and in the USA, after she and her family emigrated.

Is she a "practising Muslim"? This will to some extent be a definitional issue, and I am sure that some Muslims will state that, simply through appearing in a beauty pageant, she has taken herself outside Islam. Others, though, would ask whether she prays, fasts, gives in charity and otherwise does good deeds. Rima Fakih herself is reported to have said that she and her family are Muslims and respect the religion, but they may not be as strict as many people and do not define themselves by their religion; they view themselves as more "spiritual" than "religious" and appreciate all religions.

irishconvert

Jarndyce wrote: »

Why do you ban everyone who expresses dissension on this issue? The point made by Rowley Birkin QC is, in my opinion, more probable than not. Yet, he is banned for expressing it? By doing this, you promote intolerance which serves only to undermine your Islamic beliefs.

Please read the charter regarding arguing with moderation decisions on threads if you don't want to join him

panda100

Beauty pageants ultimately represent sexist ideals and expectation for women worlwide so I am not fan of them at all.

I cannot see this as a progressive step for for Islam. The Western media is hailing Miss USA as some sort of role model for the modern Muslin women, who shy away from seemingly archaic,oppressive Islam ideals to the fake,waxed,hair extensioned,diet obsessed Western female. I don't see the step from the Islamic Burka to the Western Bikini as a progressive step.

I appreciate that religious beliefs are personal but the fact that Miss USA won't discuss her muslim heriatge is ludicrous. Why is she not sticking up for her religion when she lives in a country so steeped in Islamaphobia? Why is she not condemning the media she is so celebrated in for her breasts and body, for the large part they played in demonising women of her colour,creed and religion?

oceanclub

panda100 wrote: »

I don't see the step from the Islamic Burka to the Western Bikini as a progressive step

I appreciate that religious beliefs are personal but the fact that Miss USA won't discuss her muslim heriatge is ludicrous.

Where do you get the impression she hasn't discussed it? On Wikipedia, it mentions that she has brought up in in interviews.

And for her trouble, she has been criticised by both Islamophobes on one side who think she's a third-columnist undermining the American way of life, and Muslims on the other who condemn her - even liberal commentators like Muslim scholar Ghazal Omid wrote "To say that she is a Muslim is inaccurate. No Muslim woman can call herself a ... Muslim and be on stage with her bikini".

It's perfectly natural when you're being attacked on all sides to perhaps want to shut up and not get into any more trouble.

P.

panda100

oceanclub wrote: »

Where do you get the impression she hasn't discussed it? On Wikipedia, it mentions that she has brought up in in interviews.


It's perfectly natural when you're being attacked on all sides to perhaps want to shut up and not get into any more trouble.

P.

I got the impression from this thread where others said she had chosen not to discuss her faith?

Also one quick google quotes her as saying 'I am Miss USA and not Miss religion USA' which is absolutely fair enough. Miss USA is paid to shut up,stay out of trouble and look pretty. She is not paid to talk on moral issues and religion.

irishconvert

panda100 wrote: »

I appreciate that religious beliefs are personal but the fact that Miss USA won't discuss her muslim heriatge is ludicrous. Why is she not sticking up for her religion when she lives in a country so steeped in Islamaphobia? Why is she not condemning the media she is so celebrated in for her breasts and body, for the large part they played in demonising women of her colour,creed and religion?

Why should she be expected to act as a spokesperson for Muslims? She obviously is not best placed to speak about Islam given the pagent she took part in. It would be hypocritical of her to defend Islam given she has done something which is goes against the very core teachings of Islam.

panda100

irishconvert wrote: »

Why should she be expected to act as a spokesperson for Muslims? She obviously is not best placed to speak about Islam given the pagent she took part in. It would be hypocritical of her to defend Islam given she has done something which is goes against the very core teachings of Islam.

No, your right, as Miss USA she shouldn't be expected to act as a spokesperson for Islam, as its a beauty contest and you win for your looks and not your intellect or principles.

I just think its a shame that she will undoubtedly be the most prominent young female Muslim in US and worldwide media this year,yet she will do nothing to stem Islamaphobia that Muslims face every day. When I was in London last month I saw Muslim women being verbally abused on the street for choosing to wear a burka. Its a pity that nudity and appearances is the only way young Muslim women can have a voice in Western establishment media.

oceanclub

panda100 wrote: »

Its a pity that nudity and appearances is the only way young Muslim women can have a voice in Western establishment media.

The "only" way? One of the main UK newspaper columnists is the hardly-elderly columnist, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. BBC's (formerly C4's) Zeinab Badawi is a Muslim.

It's a bit disingenuous (to say the least) to take a single woman - whose highlighting in the media is precisely because Muslim beauty queens are such a rarity - and extrapolate that to say that it's the most common way that they appear in the media.

I posted a while back that I - a non-Muslim - managed to get the editor of Metro Eireann to agree to allow a second Muslim columnist there to balance out Liam Egan's rantings. A free gig for a newspaper, and no-one contacted me about this.

I've also posted that a Sunday Times editor has complained that he used Liam as a source because, again, he finds it impossible to get anyone to provide a more moderate source of information. To have a voice in the media, you have to use your mouth.

P.

aidan24326

irishconvert wrote: »

Why should she be expected to act as a spokesperson for Muslims? She obviously is not best placed to speak about Islam given the pagent she took part in. It would be hypocritical of her to defend Islam given she has done something which is goes against the very core teachings of Islam.

But would it not be more accurate to say that she simply isn't a muslim? As she clearly isn't living her life in the way a practising muslim is supposed to. So that surely makes the whole thing a non-issue.

irishconvert

aidan24326 wrote: »

But would it not be more accurate to say that she simply isn't a muslim? As she clearly isn't living her life in the way a practising muslim is supposed to. So that surely makes the whole thing a non-issue.

It is not up for us to say if someone is a Muslim or not. Nobody is perfect and follows Islam 100%. If she says the is a Muslim then who are we to disagree, that is up to Allah to decide.

aidan24326

irishconvert wrote: »

It is not up for us to say if someone is a Muslim or not. Nobody is perfect and follows Islam 100%. If she says the is a Muslim then who are we to disagree, that is up to Allah to decide.

That's well and good, but I don't see how meaningful that actually is. I also know of people who call themselves catholic yet don't appear to actually prectise much of what would be considered catholic teachings. Surely that's just convenient cherry-picking of the bits you like? Attaching a label to oneself is rather meaningless if you don't actually live up to it, something this girl is clearly doing (at least to some extent). Just an opinion.

oceanclub

aidan24326 wrote: »

That's well and good, but I don't see how meaningful that actually is.

On the other hand, for example, there are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who don't considered Catholics to be Christians (go figure). Allowing someone else to define what religion you are is futile, since there's always going to be
someone who considers themselves a true believer and you a heretic.

Note that in this lengthy discussion, no-one has thought it important to discuss whether or not Rima is actually a good person.

P.

irishconvert

oceanclub wrote: »

On the other hand, for example, there are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who don't considered Catholics to be Christians (go figure). Allowing someone else to define what religion you are is futile, since there's always going to be
someone who considers themselves a true believer and you a heretic.

Note that in this lengthy discussion, no-one has thought it important to discuss whether or not Rima is actually a good person.

P.

I thought that was a given. You have to be a good person to win Miss America, saving children and all that!

irishconvert

aidan24326 wrote: »

That's well and good, but I don't see how meaningful that actually is. I also know of people who call themselves catholic yet don't appear to actually prectise much of what would be considered catholic teachings. Surely that's just convenient cherry-picking of the bits you like? Attaching a label to oneself is rather meaningless if you don't actually live up to it, something this girl is clearly doing (at least to some extent). Just an opinion.

What do you want us to do here? Tear her apart?

aidan24326

irishconvert wrote: »

What do you want us to do here? Tear her apart?

Not at all. I don't think she did anything at all wrong. I do think it rather sad that there should be any implication that she did. This idea in islam that a woman should keep herself covered up so as to prevent men from going wild with lust is surely one of the most twisted in all of organised religion. And you can dress it up whatever way you like.

irishconvert

aidan24326 wrote: »

Not at all. I don't think she did anything at all wrong. I do think it rather sad that there should be any implication that she did. This idea in islam that a woman should keep herself covered up so as to prevent men from going wild with lust is surely one of the most twisted in all of organised religion. And you can dress it up whatever way you like.

Everybody is supposed to dress modestly, men and women. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact it is probably the view of most people's grandparents, and even parents in this country. You body is something so beautiful and special that is is reserved only for your husband or wife to see. How you can have a problem with that. Do you think taking off clothes = liberation?

oceanclub

irishconvert wrote: »

Everybody is supposed to dress modestly, men and women.

Well, according to your religion, adherents of your religion must dress modestly, but there's no rule saying everyone must.

In fact it is probably the view of most people's grandparents, and even parents in this country.

I imagine that most parents in this country have at some stage gone on holiday and worn swimming trunks or a bikini, so I certainly don't think they would agree with your particular brand of modesty (it being a subjective term).

P.

Dublin_Gunner

Could it not be more simply the case that she may be a non-practising Muslim? (if such a person is allowed to exist).

I'm sure, like most other religions, certain Muslims will chose which elements of the Muslim faith they do not entirely agree with, and base their life, and how they conduct themselves as such.

Some Muslims may look down on her for doing what she has done, and others may commend her for going and winning such a non-Muslim type of event.

The girl is beautiful, as all can see, and she obviously knows this. She has made her choice, while in a predominantly non-Muslim country, to conduct herself in a more non-Muslim fashion.

Surely, just because she does not cover up head to toe, does not mean she cannot be a Muslim?

If a non-Muslim woman was to go to certain predominantly Muslim countries she would be expected to conduct herself in such a way as to not cause any offence. i.e cover up for one.

Is it such a stretch of the imagination to think the opposite may hold true for a Muslim woman in a non-Muslim country - where seeing woman completely cover up may be deemed offensive?

Therefore, for her to fit in and not cause offence, she ditches that one element of her faith.

aidan24326

irishconvert wrote: »

Everybody is supposed to dress modestly, men and women. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact it is probably the view of most people's grandparents, and even parents in this country. You body is something so beautiful and special that is is reserved only for your husband or wife to see. How you can have a problem with that. Do you think taking off clothes = liberation?

I think taking off clothes = perfectly natural. It's just the human body, and if there was a god he surely wouldn't want us to be embarrassed by what he created.

And if what you say was the view of some of our grandparents generation also, that is because they too were brainwashed by their religious masters.

Jarndyce

aidan24326 wrote: »

I think taking off clothes = perfectly natural. It's just the human body, and if there was a god he surely wouldn't want us to be embarrassed by what he created.

And if what you say was the view of some of our grandparents generation also, that is because they too were brainwashed by their religious masters.

Exactly.

@irishconvert
Who said everyone is supposed to dress modestly???

hivizman

Jarndyce wrote: »

@irishconvert
Who said everyone is supposed to dress modestly???

Apologies to irishconvert - so as not to take the thread further off-topic, I've bumped up an older thread "Men - Dressing like Muslims" and included a discussion of why Muslim men are supposed to dress modestly, and what this may involve.

Mr. CooL ICE

Would muslims not consider making an exception to a muslim taking part in a beauty simply in the spirit of competition?

Take combat sport as an example. In most religions and societies, fighting is generally immoral. However, there are plenty of boxers and MMA fighters who practise religion and fight, not because they like beating people up, but because they like the competitiveness.

Beauty pagaents and combat sports aren't the best comparison, but they are both forms of competition which do offend many people. But the participants don't do this to offend people; they just want to be the winners. Just food for thought...



I haven't read the thread thoroughly, so my apologies if this point has already been made...

A Primal Nut

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok, let me try to answer your original question again. Allah is not saying a purer person is one who avoids looking at the opposite sex. The verse is simply a warning that one can go astray by doing this, it can fill your mind with impure thoughts, which may lead to other sins. If a man, for example, is always looking at women other than his wife, then it is possible he may develop feeling for another woman which could result in an affair. So Allah is giving us guideance here on how to avoid getting into this situation.

BTW, I am not a scholar, this is my understanding of this verse.

What if you are unmarried and perhaps looking for a wife? Is it ok to look at a pretty girl then? Or do all marriages have to be arranged?

hivizman

A Primal Nut wrote: »

What if you are unmarried and perhaps looking for a wife? Is it ok to look at a pretty girl then? Or do all marriages have to be arranged?

The two are not inconsistent. Although arranging a marriage should involve the parents or guardians of the potential husband and wife, even those who believe that women should not normally show their faces to "non-mahram" (unrelated) men allow an exception for the man to see the face of the potential bride.

In practice, particularly in non-muslim countries, muslim men will look at muslim women. However, the injunction to "lower the gaze" means that such looks should not be persistent or have sexual overtones. If a man sees a woman that he fancies, he should approach the woman's father or guardian so that any subsequent interaction is formal and chaperoned.

There's a very funny book from the woman's perspective by Shelina Zahra Janmohamed called Love in a Headscarf: Muslim Woman Seeks the One (Aurum Press, 2009), which has been mentioned in this forum before. This book gives a good idea of how compromises between a dating culture and an arranged marriage culture emerge in practice.

hivizman

LordChessington wrote: »

Would muslims not consider making an exception to a muslim taking part in a beauty simply in the spirit of competition?

Take combat sport as an example. In most religions and societies, fighting is generally immoral. However, there are plenty of boxers and MMA fighters who practise religion and fight, not because they like beating people up, but because they like the competitiveness.

Beauty pagaents and combat sports aren't the best comparison, but they are both forms of competition which do offend many people. But the participants don't do this to offend people; they just want to be the winners. Just food for thought...

Competition in itself is neither good or bad, it depends on what the competition is about. Sports competitions, even combat sports, may be acceptable. For example, there are traditions that report on archery and wrestling competitions taking place with the approval of Muhammad, and horse racing is a traditional Arab sport that many Muslims from the Middle East are involved in. Generally, sports activities that help to keep you fit and/or help to train you to defend the Muslim community are OK.

Recently, with the World Cup, there was some discussion among Muslim scholars about whether playing or watching football was acceptable. The more liberal view is that soccer is fine so long as players don't expose their "awrah" (the part of the body from the navel down to the knees), games don't keep people away from religious obligations such as prayer and fasting, and playing for/supporting teams does not lead to disorder. However, more conservative scholars argued that there is no evidence that the companions of Muhammad played football, and that all team sports are prone to encourage factionalism and disorder. Watching the World Cup would inevitably take people away from learning about Islam and doing good deeds.

Last month, the Muslim lifestyle magazine EMEL did a feature on Muslim footballers, including interviews, and there are extracts on its website. On the other hand, a frequently-heard YouTube preacher, Abu Mussab Wajdi Akkari of the Jeddah Da'wah Institute, has set out various conservative views - for example, watching a football game may make you miss a lecture on Islam! Sadly, however, some extremists seem to take the ultra-conservative fatwas seriously, so it was reported that two people were executed last month in Somalia by Islamist warlords for trying to watch the World Cup on television.

hivizman

hivizman wrote: »

However, more conservative scholars argued that there is no evidence that the companions of Muhammad played football,

How conservative are these guys? I mean if they take things that literally what about all sorts of modern stuff the companions couldn't have had? Are they bad too?

hivizman

bluewolf wrote: »

How conservative are these guys? I mean if they take things that literally what about all sorts of modern stuff the companions couldn't have had? Are they bad too?

There are certainly some scholars who are, in my opinion, bizarrely conservative. Such scholars tend to use two lines of argument. The first appeals to the concept of bida, or innovation. Muhammad is reported to have said "Beware of matters newly begun, for every matter newly begun is innovation, every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the hellfire."

However, are all innovations necessarily reprehensible? The general consensus is that innovations in "matters of religion" are unacceptable, since the Qur'an states (Surat al-Ma'idah 5:3) "This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." Hence anything subsequently added to religious practice cannot be acceptable, or it would suggest that Islam was not, as the verse states, perfect.

An example of this is the Mawlid, or celebration of the birthday of Muhammad. There is no evidence that Muhammad himself, or his Companions or Successors, celebrated this occasion (indeed, celebrating birthdays is a relatively recent cultural phenomenon). So some scholars claim that the Mawlid is an innovative religious ceremony, and hence not permitted. Other scholars don't regard the Mawlid as a religious activity, and therefore allow it. Innovations that have no overtones of religion, and do not relate to matters specifically prohibited in the Qur'an or Sunnah, are considered by the vast majority of scholars to be perfectly fine. So football may be an innovation, but unless it offends against other Islamic precepts, it should not be prohibited. For further details on bida, see this article.

The other line of argument that conservative scholars take is that Muslims should not imitate non-Muslims (disbelievers, or kuffar). The prohibition against imitating non-believers is based on Muhammad's saying (hadith) that "whosoever imitates a group of people becomes one of them" (Musnad of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, 50/3; Sunan of Abu Dawud, 5021), and on the hadith: "Don't resemble the Jews and the Christians," which is included in the Sunan of Al-Tirmidhi.

Some of the more conservative scholars seem to take this to extremes, their standard argument being "Non-Muslims do X, Muslims should not imitate non-Muslims, so Muslims should do something very different from X." For example, most non-Muslim men are clean-shaven, so Muslim men should grow beards so as not to imitate non-Muslims. This non-imitation argument is also used to oppose the Mawlid: Christians celebrate the birthday of Jesus (Christmas Day), so Muslims should not celebrate the birthday of Muhammad (and by extension should not celebrate any birthday) because this would be imitation of non-believers.

I came across a fatwa on football attributed to a Sheikh Abdallah al-Najdi, which takes this idea of not imitating non-Muslims to extremes. For example, the fatwa suggests: "Don't play soccer with four lines [surrounding the field], since this is the way of the non-believers, and the international soccer rules require drawing [these lines] before playing." I suspect, to be frank, that this fatwa is a spoof rather than genuine, but it's certainly amusing to read as an example of how the precept "do not imitate non-Muslims" can be taken to ridiculous extremes.

oceanclub

Via a Malaysian tweeter, here's another take on it:

http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Muslim-women-fed-up-tell-men-to-lower-their-gaze.aspx

RNS) It was a moment Laila Al-Marayati wishes she had back.

Standing outside the Islamic Center of Southern California in Los Angeles following Friday prayers, a male worshipper approached and chastised her for not wearing a headscarf.

"If you were a true Muslim," he snapped, "you would keep your hair covered."

Al-Marayati, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles-based Muslim Women's League, was taken aback and too shocked to be able voice her anger.

Looking back, she wishes she could have given him a piece of her mind.

"And if you were a true Muslim," she would have told him, "you wouldn't be staring at me."

P.

hivizman

I came across the following extract from a speech by the Indian muslim writer and speaker Dr Zakir Naik:

Let us analyze, what does Our Creator, Almighty God, have to say about modesty. Allah says in the Qur'an, in Surah Nur, Chapter 24, verse 30:
Say to the believing man that he should lower his gaze and guard his modesty.

Allah first speaks about the modesty for the man and then for the woman. Whenever a man looks at a woman, any brazen thought comes in his mind, he should lower his gaze. There was a muslim who was staring at a girl for a long time. I told him, "brother! What are you doing, it is haraam to stare at a woman!" He told me, "our beloved Prophet [saws] said, 'the first glance is allowed, the second is prohibited', I have not yet completed half my glance!" What did the Prophet [saws] mean when he said the first glance is allowed the second is prohibited? What he meant was, if you unintentionally look at a woman, do not intentionally look at her to feast on her beauty. That does not mean that you can look at a woman for ten minutes without blinking and say, "I have not completed my glance"!

Perhaps the man who criticised Laila al-Marayati for not covering her hair was still on his first glance?

By the way, Zakir Naik was banned from entering the UK last month - see this BBC report.

irishconvert

hivizman wrote: »

By the way, Zakir Naik was banned from entering the UK last month - see this BBC report.

Yes, what a joke this is. For anyone who has access to Peace TV, the Muslim TV channel run by Zakir Naik, they will know this is a disgraceful decision by the home secretary.