Miss USA 2010 - Rima Fakih

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???