Very young girls wearing the hijab

Spirogyra

Hi was on the bus today and there was 2 girls, somewhere around 5,6 or 7, both wearing hijab. Felt it was making them stand out, separating them from their peers and the wider world. It was making them look and probably feel different and they were just very little girls. I felt a little bit sad. They were not sexual.to anybody but paedophiles. Is it mainstream Muslim opinion that they should be veiled so young?.

confusedquark

The mainstream opinion is that girls should wear a headscarf from puberty onwards. Some parents do make younger girls wear it (and some younger girls want to wear it of their own accord, e.g. to emulate their mothers) - from the point of view of getting girls used to it beforehand so it won't be a difficult adjustment for them later on.

I don't see it as something that separates them from their peers (or indeed the wider world). There's nothing wrong with people looking different - we're all unique and different for one reason or another. Appearances only become an issue when people treat others differently because of them, and the young girls themselves probably wouldn't consider the headscarf as anything unusual, because that's what they've grown up around. Wearing a headscarf doesn't restrict them from interacting with the world and just being the little girls that they are - it's just one part of them.

Lingua Franca

There's lot of Muslims where I live and I've never seen a little girl in a headscarf, it's always teens onwards and even then it's matter of choice, many don't. There was a little Muslim girl at my daughter's 12th birthday party and I only knew because she asked me to order her a halal pizza. The majority of the Muslims here are of Turkish or Morrocan origin, though, and I know that at least for the Turks that they're not at all strict.

Maybe the little girls just wanted to look like mummy today. Some of those headscarfs are absolutely beautiful.

confusedquark

I suppose I should clarify that I meant "mainstream opinion" as far as the religious teaching goes - opinions of parents/cultures and adherence to the teaching does obviously vary.

Spirogyra

I think it made them stand out and probably makes them more likely to be bullied. And they are going to grow up thinking of themselves as sex objects, thinking of males as predators. Why not teach men to respect women and control themselves ?.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with people looking different - we're all unique and different for one reason or another. Appearances only become an issue when people treat others differently because of them

You do realise that this is an argument against hijab, right?

eviltwin

My son is in Junior Infants with one little girl who wears a headscarf..it was a bit strange at first because its not something you normally see but no one bats an eyelid now. And afaik the kids don't care, my son has never mentioned it anyway.

Lingua Franca

It may make them stand out in Western countries and sadly also make them more likely to be bullied as well, but make them think of themselves as sex objects? That's quite a leap. Does a 5 year old western girl putting on make up think of herself as a sex object, or is she just playing dress up and trying to emulate the women around her?

confusedquark

Spirogyra wrote: »

I think it made them stand out and probably makes them more likely to be bullied. And they are going to grow up thinking of themselves as sex objects, thinking of males as predators. Why not teach men to respect women and control themselves ?.

They might be more likely to be bullied, but surely then it's the bullying that needs to be dealt with. If right-wingers become more prominent in Ireland in years to come and start attacking women in hijab, do we just dwell over the fact that they are wearing hijab and suggest they shouldn't have been wearing it? Conversely, I think it's a good idea for kids in school to personally know girls who wear hijab - it's a good place to foster understanding and respect of our differences.

Sooner or later, most girls/women do come to the realisation that they are viewed as sex objects by a certain proportion of men, but as the previous poster highlights, that realisation doesn't come in the innocence of childhood, and when it later does, there's no harm in girls being vigilant - because even though male predators are thankfully a rare breed, every girl (whether in a hijab or not) needs to know that they are out there.

Yes, we absolutely should teach men to respect women and control themselves, and every man who learns that lesson will be one less potential sexist/pervert/wife-beater/predator, but despite our best efforts, we won't be able to tame all men, and girls will always be at some level of risk. And hijab isn't just to protect girls from perverts and predators, it's also to protect them from pre-marital relationships (which are disliked in Islam). And it's not just girls that have to follow the rules, boys are also instructed in Islam to lower their gaze (ie not gawk at girls) and limit their interactions with the fairer gender to when only absolutely necessary.

Spirogyra

Does covering the hair really alleviate male lust though, I've heard an Islamic scholar say that the only people interested in a womans hair are other women.

confusedquark

I'm not sure which scholar would have said that, but I don't agree with that statement. Yes women are a lot more in tune with subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) changes in the appearances of one another, but hair are a big part of a woman's beauty and attraction.

Secondly, hijab isn't just the headscarf - the headscarf is one part of hijab/dressing modestly, which also includes covering up much of their body, and wearing loose-fitting clothes to hide their various curves. All that does reduce male lust.

Marion Morrison

I thought the reason women valed themselves was to gain and retain respect.

i.e. you vale what should be treated as sacred and with special respect.

It's not that long ago that Catholic women in the west also wore head coverings for the same reason. Tabernacles also used to be vailed for the same reason.

Defender OF Faith

Spirogyra wrote: »

I think it made them stand out and probably makes them more likely to be bullied. And they are going to grow up thinking of themselves as sex objects, thinking of males as predators. Why not teach men to respect women and control themselves ?.

Spirogyra wrote: »

Does covering the hair really alleviate male lust though, I've heard an Islamic scholar say that the only people interested in a womans hair are other women.

In The Name of Allah, The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful;

muslim women do not wear the Hijab to alleviate the lust of man they wear it because #1 God ordered them to do so:

“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, headcover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)"

This same massage is directed toward men,
"Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Allah is aware of what they do."
(24:29/30)
The Muslim man will never look at a women as a sex object as the Prophet instructed him and directed him in numerous Hadiths to be respectful of women and control his desires and weaknesses:
The Prophet (saws) said:
"Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not hurt (trouble) his neighbor. And I advise you to take care of the women, for they are created from a rib and the most crooked portion of the rib is its upper part; if you try to straighten it, it will break, and if you leave it, it will remain crooked, so I urge you to take care of the women." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 114)

‘Among the Muslims the most perfect, as regards his faith, is the one whose character is excellent, and the best among you are those who treat their wives well.’ Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 628

"Women are but the sisters of man the one who honour them is honourable and those who humiliate them are but wicked" Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal

To the Muslim women or girl the Hijab is an act of truthfulness so everybody will know that "I am a Muslim women and am proud of being a Muslim women"

It's also a warning telling everybody that what stand before you is a women that knows her value, and knows her worth. She is not a toy so don't even try and play with her. She knows that the only person in Islam god directly gave glad tiding was a women,that In Islam the rights of the mother is 3 times to the rights of the father,that In Islam we believe that paradise is under the feet of the mothers.

The last sermon the prophet gave in his life enforced and highlighted the rights of women in which he said:
"O People, it is true that you have certain rights over your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under God's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers"
The reason some Muslim parents may veil their children at a young age is to teach them such values such as once the child hit puberty the Hijab would not be difficult for them to wear.

If you are a Christian I would like to also remind you that the concept of the Hijab or a veil should not be a strange one to you as the bible states:
"For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head."
1 Corinthians 11:6
However the Islamic meaning and value behind the Hijab is much more deeper then a simple order.

Spirogyra

How can you be so sure Defender of the Faith that God really spoke to Mohammad? How do you know that it is the truth? what role have the billions of other planets in Gods creation? what is Islams view on these ?.

mickmurphy18

while i have no problem with any person wearing what they like whenever they like for whatever reason they like . what really gets me is these women can drive a car with their faces completely covered with just a tiny little slit so they can see . if i drive down the road wearing a balaklava iv 3 or 4 garda cars on my tail . double standard i want equality for all

Tom Dunne

mickmurphy18 wrote: »

while i have no problem with any person wearing what they like whenever they like for whatever reason they like . what really gets me is these women can drive a car with their faces completely covered with just a tiny little slit so they can see . if i drive down the road wearing a balaklava iv 3 or 4 garda cars on my tail . double standard i want equality for all

The Muslim headscarf and the veil are two very different things, with the former being the topic of this discussion, not the latter.

Defender OF Faith

Spirogyra wrote: »

How can you be so sure Defender of the Faith that God really spoke to Mohammad? How do you know that it is the truth? what role have the billions of other planets in Gods creation? what is Islams view on these ?.

To answer this question fully would deviate us from the topic of this thread, however if you were to translate the meaning of the word Islam into English it would mean: surrender, submission, obedience, sincerity and finally to be in peace with whatever God gave you. It takes these 5 word to describe Islam in English and as you can see Islam is all about God.
"Say (O Muhammed): verily my prayer, my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allah the Lord of mankind. He has no partner. And of this I have been commanded, and I am the first of the Muslims"
(Chapter 7 162-163)
Islam does not want people to follow it blindly and hence many verses in the Quran invite people to reflect,think and use their intellect to find god and the truth, the sentence "Men of understanding" appear several times in the Quran.
No author of a book in this world can write a book and tells you it's free from mistake the Quran however dares you to find a mistake,
"Do they not consider the Quran carefully? Had it been from other than Allah they would surely have found therein many a contradiction" (121:82)

If you were to take the books of all the world religions and dump them into the sea, the Quran will be the only book that will survive as it's the only scripture that has been and continue to be fully memorized letter by letter and word by word in the heart of the Muslims.
"Verily, it is We Who have sent down the Quran and surely we will guard it from corruption"(14:9)
It's a clear fact that more then 1400 years have elapsed and not a single word of this Quran has been changed. On the contrary all the other holy books have been corrupted in the form of additions of subtractions or alternations in the original text.

"And verily it's an honourable well-fortified and respected book. Falsehood cannot come to it from before it or behind it: it is sent down by the All-Wise,worthy of all praise. Nothing is said to you (O Muhammed) except what was said to the messengers before you. Verily, your lord is the Possessor of Forgiveness, and (also) the Possessor of Painful Punishment"(41:43)

The truth will not come to you. You will need to go and seek it, pray to God that he guide you to his path sincerely, walk up at night and say "Oh God if you are really out there lead me to you and take my hand toward you".
we as Muslim say in our prayer 17 times a day "Guide us (Oh God) to the straight path"(Chap 1 vers.6) If you do this sincerely then I can guarantee you that you will find the truth.
"As for those who strive hard in our cause, we will surely guide them to our path. And verily, Allah is with the good doers"(29:69)

If you are interested to know more about Islam I suggest the following sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s2UTAtSKd0
http://www.onereason.org/islam-unveiled/why-islam/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOwA0v026wY

donaghs

Making younger girls wear headscarves at ages where most traditionally didn't, is a noticeable recent trend in Islam worldwide:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/nov/23/muslim-girls-wearing-hijab

The author of the Guardian article, Baher Ibrahim, is a Muslim and a doctor from Egypt. Interesting final paragraph: "Finally, I am sure that when this article is translated into Arabic and posted on Egyptian websites, the usual flood of comments will ensue; how I am anti-hijab, how I want to strip Egyptian and Muslim women of their modesty, how I want Muslim women to "walk around naked like western women", and so on. I tell them my view on the hijab is irrelevant. The issue at hand is: what exactly is the point of imposing a scarf on a little girl, and why is it becoming more common?"

I suspect he's holding back from giving his own opinion, maybe hoping the question itself might make people draw back from following a new trend unquestioningly.

In my own view, this is just a small part of what some call the "mainstreamization" of more fundamental views of Islam like Salafism and Wahhabism. In order to seem more religious or "pure", people seek out the strictest interpretations/guidelines possible. e.g. banning music, dogs, etc. Of course, not that the everyone calling themselves a Sunni Muslim has made this change, but that there has been a "shift" in attitudes in that direction.

---

To take a global view you could say that there was a revival of religion/religiosity around the 1970s. From the rise of Hindu movements, the BJP in India, Born Again Christianity/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Great_Awakening and also with Islam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_revival.
(I know some mods will point out that wikipedia isnt a "reputable" source but its a very handy one-stop shop for a quick summary - we can all read deeper elsewhere).

But what makes the Islamic revival different is the unique character of Islam in Saudi Arabia, and the impact its oil-wealth boom had on spreading their version of Islam worldwide.

Added to this, people in the Middle East became disillusioned with the failures of secular Arab nationalist regimes. The West/US often gets the blame for promoting extreme Islam as part of its Cold War agenda. But outside of assisting General Zia in Pakistan, and movements in neighbouring Afghanistan, I can't see the evidence of this.

Spirogyra

If you were to take the books of all the world religions and dump them into the sea, the Quran will be the only book that will survive as it's the only scripture that has been and continue to be fully memorized letter by letter and word by word in the heart of the Muslims.

Defender if the Faith, that is true now, but wasn't a lot of the origninal Quaran lost, for that very reason, that it was an oral tradition, not written down for a hundred years and a lot of the 'Oralists' were warriors who were killed in war... I have a link where one can read more about this, but I'm afraid that posting it would lead to a banning, it shouldn't but I fear it might...thanks Donagh,,,

Defender OF Faith

Spirogyra wrote: »

Defender if the Faith, that is true now, but wasn't a lot of the origninal Quaran lost, for that very reason, that it was an oral tradition, not written down for a hundred years and a lot of the 'Oralists' were warriors who were killed in war... I have a link where one can read more about this, but I'm afraid that posting it would lead to a banning, it shouldn't but I fear it might...thanks Donagh,,,

Its seems that the link you have read mislead you I would like to see it so I can clear your doubts.
Mohammed (PBUH) was illiterate and could not read nor write, initially the prophet forbad his companion from writing the Quran to encourage memorizing it however later during his life a group of his companions know as "the writers/scribes of revelations" numbering between 23 to 43 men had the duty of writing down the revelation/Quran.

The Quran remained preserved in the heart of his companion and in the various hides that were used to write the revelation, until the time of the 1st Caliph Abu Bakr.
During his short reign, many of the companions whom memorized the Quran were killed during the Ridda wars, and thus in fear of the Quran being lost in the heart of those killed he decided to collect the Quran into a single book to preserve it (by gathering the various papers and scripts the Quran was written in those were possessed by a number of people) this task was given to Zayd ibn Thabit.

Zayd finally accepted the task and, according to him,
"started locating the Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart)". Being very strict in his collection of the Quran and even though he had memorized it he refused to write a verse unless 2 of the companion testified that they heard it from the prophet.

The original book that was compiled by Zayd Ibn Thabit was with Abu Bakr during his rule, it was written on palm leaves. After Abu Bakr passed away it was handed down to Umar and then to Hafsa the daughter of Umar Ibn Al Khattab after Umar death, the wife of the Prophet had the book in her possession until the Caliphate of Uthman Ibn Affan.

This with regard to the Quran as a book, however another reason the Quran was well preserved is because those who were teachers of the Quran would have an ijazah and this system continues on still today, a teacher of the Quran must have this as it certify that this named person had read the Quran correctly from cover to cover through face to face interaction with his teacher who would then give him an Ijazah to teach and read the Quran, testifying that you -the student- have recited the Quran to me in the exact same way my teacher had recited it to me, he should then be able to trace this chain of narration back to one of the prophet companion before finally the prophet him self.
Currently in the Muslim world the person with the closest chain of narration to the prophet is a women called Um Alsaad from Egypt with only 27 people between her and the prophet.

I also suggest that you would read the Quran for yourself first before you read articles, or listen to people that criticize the Quran. It doesn't really make sense for people to criticize or listen to the criticism of a book they haven't even read, unfortunately this is the attitude most people have with regard to the Quran.
If you do not have access to a copy your local mosque will be more then happy to provide you with one.

Source:http://ibnalhyderabadee.wordpress.com/2006/04/11/legacy-of-abu-bakr-compilation-of-the-quraan/

Spirogyra

I also suggest that you would read the Quran for yourself first before you read articles, or listen to people that criticize the Quran. It doesn't really make sense for people to criticize or listen to the criticism of a book they haven't even read, unfortunately this is the attitude most people have with regard to the Quran

Actually I've had the Quaran in my house for years. I've not read it from start to finish but I've read a lot of it...

confusedquark

donaghs wrote: »

In my own view, this is just a small part of what some call the "mainstreamization" of more fundamental views of Islam like Salafism and Wahhabism. In order to seem more religious or "pure", people seek out the strictest interpretations/guidelines possible. e.g. banning music, dogs, etc. Of course, not that the everyone calling themselves a Sunni Muslim has made this change, but that there has been a "shift" in attitudes in that direction.

Is a parent "imposing" a crucifix on a child a small part of what some call the "mainstreamization" of more fundamental views of Christianity? ... Parents are entitled to bring up their children, and to introduce their religion to their children however they see fit - and not every decision a parent makes for their child is driven by a "strictest interpretation" of their religion. There can be practical reasons behind certain decisions as well, e.g. to help a girl become comfortable wearing the headscarf beforehand so that it's not a big adjustment for her later on. Personally I might not agree with that parenting philosophy, but somebody doing that for their child isn't following more fundamental views of Islam, because the fundamentals are pretty clear and unambiguous on the topic - it's simply not necessary before puberty, so any parent who does do it isn't following any strict interpretation, that's just their choice and they'll have their individual reasons for deciding so.

schtinggg

mickmurphy18 wrote: »

while i have no problem with any person wearing what they like whenever they like for whatever reason they like . what really gets me is these women can drive a car with their faces completely covered with just a tiny little slit so they can see . if i drive down the road wearing a balaklava iv 3 or 4 garda cars on my tail . double standard i want equality for all

Like those signs that tell you to remove your motorcycle helmet when you go into a bank.......?

donaghs

confusedquark wrote: »

Is a parent "imposing" a crucifix on a child a small part of what some call the "mainstreamization" of more fundamental views of Christianity? ... Parents are entitled to bring up their children, and to introduce their religion to their children however they see fit - and not every decision a parent makes for their child is driven by a "strictest interpretation" of their religion. There can be practical reasons behind certain decisions as well, e.g. to help a girl become comfortable wearing the headscarf beforehand so that it's not a big adjustment for her later on. Personally I might not agree with that parenting philosophy, but somebody doing that for their child isn't following more fundamental views of Islam, because the fundamentals are pretty clear and unambiguous on the topic - it's simply not necessary before puberty, so any parent who does do it isn't following any strict interpretation, that's just their choice and they'll have their individual reasons for deciding so.

If lots of parents began a new trend of "imposing" crucifixes on children, where previously it was not common, then yes, you could indeed say that. Less conspicuous perhaps, but even still. But that's just a speculative IF, and this thread is about what's happening in real life.

confusedquark

donaghs wrote: »

If lots of parents began a new trend of "imposing" crucifixes on children, where previously it was not common, then yes, you could indeed say that. Less conspicuous perhaps, but even still. But that's just a speculative IF, and this thread is about what's happening in real life.

And my point was IF making young girls wear a headscarf was a "more fundamental view" of Islam, only then could you use it as an example of more fundamental views becoming mainstream. But it simply isn't - it's not a strict interpretation, the fundamentals are pretty clear and unambiguous on the topic. It's much akin to children taking part in Ramadan fasting (often with mini-fasts) before puberty when they don't have to.

katydid

Spirogyra wrote: »

I think it made them stand out and probably makes them more likely to be bullied. And they are going to grow up thinking of themselves as sex objects, thinking of males as predators. Why not teach men to respect women and control themselves ?.

If they were to be bullied because of their headscarves, that is something that should be taken very seriously by society in general. It is certainly not a reason for them not to wear the scarves.

I agree with the other point you make, and it applies to Muslim women and girls of all ages. It is ridiculous that they submit to such misogyny. Mind you, more ridiculous that Muslim men don't see that in promoting this idea, they are admitting that they are so weak that are unable to control themselves in the presence of women.

katydid

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

o
This same massage is directed toward men,
"Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Allah is aware of what they do."
(24:29/30)

So why don't Muslim men cover their bodies in the same way women do?

Defender OF Faith

katydid wrote: »

So why don't Muslim men cover their bodies in the same way women do?

To answer your question you first need to understand the actual meaning of the word Hijab along with the criteria for observing the Hijab.

The term hijab in Arabic literally means "a screen or a curtain" and it's an obligation on both men and women in Islam the criteria for each however does differ.

According to Qur’an and Sunnah there are basically six criteria for observing hijab:

1. Extent:
The first criterion is the extent of the body that should be covered. This is different for men and women. The extent of covering obligatory on the male is to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees. For women, the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and the hands up to the wrist. If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body. Some scholars of Islam insist that the face and the hands are part of the obligatory extent of ‘hijab’.
All the remaining five criteria are the same for men and women.
2. The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.
3. The clothes worn should not be transparent such that one can see through them.
4. The clothes worn should not be so glamorous as to attract the opposite sex.
5. The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.
6. The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers’ religions.

In conclusion Muslim men also have their own Hijab to observe.

katydid

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

To answer your question you first need to understand the actual meaning of the word Hijab along with the criteria for observing the Hijab.

The term hijab in Arabic literally means "a screen or a curtain" and it's an obligation on both men and women in Islam the criteria for each however does differ.

According to Qur’an and Sunnah there are basically six criteria for observing hijab:

1. Extent:
The first criterion is the extent of the body that should be covered. This is different for men and women. The extent of covering obligatory on the male is to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees. For women, the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and the hands up to the wrist. If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body. Some scholars of Islam insist that the face and the hands are part of the obligatory extent of ‘hijab’.
All the remaining five criteria are the same for men and women.
2. The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.
3. The clothes worn should not be transparent such that one can see through them.
4. The clothes worn should not be so glamorous as to attract the opposite sex.
5. The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.
6. The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers’ religions.

In conclusion Muslim men also have their own Hijab to observe.

Men only have to cover from the navel to the knee?Why don't men have to cover as much as women? A man's chest and shoulders can be pretty attractive to women.
If it's about resisting the attraction of the opposite sex, surely women can be as attracted to the parts of the male body not covered up as men are attracted by women's bodies?

And how come we regularly see men in tight jeans and tee-shirts being trailed along by their wives in full niqab? The clothes those men wear aren't lose, they certainly reveal the figure, and are designed to make the men look attractive.

It seems there's definitely one law for men and one for women in Islam.

Defender OF Faith

katydid wrote: »

Men only have to cover from the navel to the knee?Why don't men have to cover as much as women? A man's chest and shoulders can be pretty attractive to women.
If it's about resisting the attraction of the opposite sex, surely women can be as attracted to the parts of the male body not covered up as men are attracted by women's bodies?

katydid wrote: »

It seems there's definitely one law for men and one for women in Islam.

It seems that your are working on a principle of absolute equality, you are also assuming that Islam is the only religion that calls for women to cover their body. Let me remind you that before the sexual revolution in the 1960's women dressed in a way very similar to the Muslim women today, simply without the veil in wide non-promiscuous clothing, that covered their entire body.

There is a Museum in Britain I cant exactly remember its name that have a display of women clothing from the early 1700 to today, and one thing is very clear that women clothing over time were getting tighter and tighter exposing more flesh.
This began happening in the 1940s when women clothes began to shorten reaching for the first time a level below the knee, then the sexual revolution in the 1960 came along resulting in clothes that expose the legs,thighs and breasts of women.

Even the swim suit for women had undergone such a change during the early 19 century a women was arrested in Australia for wearing a swim suit the exposed her arms which was seen at the time as shameful and dishonorable.

Then the Bikini came along a piece of clothing that never existed in the history of mankind. The word Bikini it self is interesting, as it's coined after a place called Bikini were nuclear tests were conducted hence it was called Bikini, because it was expected for it to be like a bomb in society since people will not accept it. Only 15 years later at the start of the Sexual R. did people began accepting it due to the heavy marketing & propaganda aimed at making young women wear this piece of cloth, such as Brian Hyland top seller song at the time Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie; about a 5 year old to shy to wear a Bikini for her to finally have an epiphany stripping away her shame and come in front of the clapping crowd wearing it.

Notice how I highlighted the word "Women" in those sentences I hope it's clear to you that those people are not interested in Men exposing their chest,shoulders or legs nothing so far have been aimed or marketing at making men clothes more revealing, all the attention have been directed toward you my sister because these people know well and clear that if you want to corrupt and change a society the best place to start is its women.

Islam however unlike Christianity is unaffected by these Social changes and revolutions, in Islam absolute equality between the Sexes is doing is like equating between two people of different abilities which is clearly injustice.
A women is pregnant 9 month of the year a man is not, every month she suffers through a period of menstruation during which her physiology,mood and hormones changes. Islam recognizes these difference and that's why in the Quran Allah says

And do not wish for that by which Allah has made some of you exceed others. For men is a share of what they have earned, and for women is a share of what they have earned. And ask Allah of his bounty. Indeed Allah is ever, of all things, Knowing.
(4;34)

There are matters a man will never exceed women in, the rights of the mother is 3 times to the rights of the father. In Islam we believe that paradise is under the feet of the mothers. in Islam the prophet told that if a man raise his daughter righteously he is promised paradise.
You will not find me a single institution in earth that gives a women a holiday during her menstrual cycle, however the greatest pillar of Islam specifically the 5 daily prayer are dropped from a women during her menstrual period.

And We have enjoined upon man [care] for his parents. His mother carried him, [increasing her] in weakness upon weakness, and his weaning is in two years. Be grateful to Me and to your parents; to Me is the [final] destination.
31;15-14


However when it comes toward religious duty and laws they are equal, a women will fast Ramadan just like a man,make pilgrimage just like him whatever righteous deed she do she will be rewarded no less then a man. a women is given inheritance in Islam in a way that brings most justice to both her and the man and is allowed and encouraged to seek an education, have a say in the running of society and vote just like the man, something the western women struggled to obtain until the last century.


"and how ever does righteous good deed, male of female, and is a true believer such will enter paradise and not the least injustice, even the size of a speck on the back of a date-stone will be done to them.
But if they endeavor to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them but accompany them in [this] world with appropriate kindness and follow the way of those who turn back to Me [in repentance]. Then to Me will be your return, and I will inform you about what you used to do."4;26

Similarly the criteria of the Hijab, only 1 criteria as I mentioned differ between men and women and that's the first criterion,the extent of the body that should be covered, and as you can see women from the beginning of history were always dressed in a more covering way then men, so Islam did not come with something new saying that women should cover more then men.
Islam reinforced and introduced the most modest and Honorable dress code for both Men and Women, reconsigning that each is inherently different and play a different role in society and since Islam does not recognize absolute equality between men and women there are special instances where men are treated differently then women and women different then men in a way the will bring most justice to both.

katydid wrote: »

And how come we regularly see men in tight jeans and tee-shirts being trailed along by their wives in full niqab? The clothes those men wear aren't lose, they certainly reveal the figure, and are designed to make the men look attractive.

Am not sure how regularly do you see this since tight jeans are Islamically Haram and hence he would be committing a sin by wearing them I my self agree with you and consider men who do this very hypocritical to be themselves wearing tight outfit while telling their wife to wear the Hijab.

katydid

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

It seems that your are working on a principle of absolute equality, you are also assuming that Islam is the only religion that calls for women to cover their body. Let me remind you that before the sexual revolution in the 1960's women dressed in a way very similar to the Muslim women today, simply without the veil in wide non-promiscuous clothing, that covered their entire body.
There is a Museum in Britain I cant exactly remember its name that have a display of women clothing from the early 1700 to today, and one thing is very clear that women clothing over time were getting tighter and tighter exposing more flesh.
This began happening in the 1940s when women clothes began to shorten reaching for the first time a level below the knee, then the sexual revolution in the 1960 came along resulting in clothes that expose the legs,thighs and breasts of women.

Even the swim suit for women had undergone such a change during the early 19 century a women was arrested in Australia for wearing a swim suit the exposed her arms which was seen at the time as shameful and dishonorable.
Then the Bikini came along a piece of clothing that never existed in the history of mankind. The word Bikini it self is interesting, as it's coined after a place called Bikini were nuclear tests were conducted hence it was called Bikini, because it was expected for it to be like a bomb in society since people will not accept it. Only 15 years later at the start of the Sexual R. did people began accepting it due to the heavy marketing & propaganda aimed at making young women wear this piece of cloth, such as Brian Hyland top seller song at the time Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie; about a 5 year old to shy to wear a Bikini for her to finally have an epiphany stripping away her shame and come in front of the clapping crowd wearing it.

Notice how I highlighted the word "Women" in those sentences I hope it's clear to you that those people are not interested in Men exposing their chest,shoulders or legs nothing so far have been aimed or marketing at making men clothes more revealing, all the attention have been directed toward you my sister because these people know well and clear that if you want to corrupt and change a society the best place to start is its women.

Islam however unlike Christianity is unaffected by these Social changes and revolutions, in Islam absolute equality between the Sexes is doing is like equating between two people of different abilities which is clearly injustice.
A women is pregnant 9 month of the year a man is not, every month she suffers through a period of menstruation during which her physiology,mood and hormones changes. Islam recognizes these difference and that's why in the Quran Allah says

And do not wish for that by which Allah has made some of you exceed others. For men is a share of what they have earned, and for women is a share of what they have earned. And ask Allah of his bounty. Indeed Allah is ever, of all things, Knowing.
(4;34)

There are matters a man will never exceed women in, the rights of the mother is 3 times to the rights of the father. In Islam we believe that paradise is under the feet of the mothers. in Islam the prophet told that if a man raise his daughter righteously he is promised paradise.
You will not find me a single institution in earth that gives a women a holiday during her menstrual cycle, however the greatest pillar of Islam specifically the 5 daily prayer are dropped from a women during her menstrual period.

And We have enjoined upon man [care] for his parents. His mother carried him, [increasing her] in weakness upon weakness, and his weaning is in two years. Be grateful to Me and to your parents; to Me is the [final] destination.
31;15-14


However when it comes toward religious duty they are equal a women will fast Ramadan just like a man,make pilgrimage just like him whatever righteous deed she do she will be rewarded no less then a man.

"and how ever does righteous good deed, male of female, and is a true believer such will enter paradise and not the least injustice, even the size of a speck on the back of a date-stone will be done to them.
But if they endeavor to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them but accompany them in [this] world with appropriate kindness and follow the way of those who turn back to Me [in repentance]. Then to Me will be your return, and I will inform you about what you used to do."4;26

Similarly the criteria of the Hijab, only 1 criteria as I mentioned differ between men and women and that's the first criterion,the extent of the body that should be covered, and as you can see women from the beginning of history were always dressed in a more covering way then men so Islam did not come with something new saying that women should cover more then men, Islam reinforced and introduced the most modest and Honorable dress code for both Men and Women reconsigning that each is inherently different and play a different role in society and as I mention earlier since Islam does not recognize absolute equality between men and women there are instances where men are treated differently then women and women different then men in a way the will bring most justice to both.


Am not sure how regularly do you see this since tight jeans are Islamically Haram and hence he would be committing a sin by wearing them I my self agree with you and consider men who do this very hypocritical to be themselves wearing tight outfit while telling their wife to wear the Hijab.

Yes, I am starting from the principle of absolute equality. Why wouldn't I? Men and women are absolutely equal. Being different doesn't mean not being equal. What has happened in the past regarding women's clothing is irrelevant. This is the 21st century. But, as you said yourself, Islam doesn't regard men and women as equal...

I am well aware that Islam is not the only religion that differentiates between men and women in this way. We are not talking about those other religions; we are talking about Islam. I would say exactly the same thing about fundamentalist Christians like the Amish, who insist on a much stricter covering for women than for men.

I regularly see Muslim men dressed this way. In fact I saw it just today (not a tee shirt, obviously) in the supermarket. A man in a close fitting pair of trousers and a jacket, followed by a woman in hijab (not niquab, but a long, ankle length coat and her hair fully covered with a scarf). I would respect the men if they covered themselves in the same way as the women, but I have little respect for people who expect other people to dress in a way they are not prepared to dress. Ditto for Amish men whose idea of modest dressing is wearing a hat, while their women wear long skirts and scarves.

Lingua Franca

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

such as Brian Hyland top seller song at the time Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie; about a 5 year old to shy to wear a Bikini for her to finally have an epiphany stripping away her shame and come in front of the clapping crowd wearing it.

[citation needed]

Defender OF Faith

Lingua Franca wrote: »

[citation needed]

How old do you think this girl is? to me she looks 5 maybe even younger.Being a Musical video I think the best way to cite this would be to provide evidence that include Hyland himself from which I drew my conclusion from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge9Ou3-YyqU

Defender OF Faith

katydid wrote: »

Yes, I am starting from the principle of absolute equality. Why wouldn't I? Men and women are absolutely equal. Being different doesn't mean not being equal..

Then you are doing your self great injustice I dont think you read my answer probably as I explained it clearly how absolute justice is very unjust however in case you did not understand allow me please to strike a parable;

Lets say I have two men, one that cannot see and is blind and the other can. I put these two men in a race using a principle of absolute Justice I equate between them in the distance they need to run taking every other factor into consideration however I put an obstacle in front of the man that can see and working in a principle of absolute Justice I placed it in front of the blind man as well is it fair?
Of course you will say it's not. Take two student a primary school and a 3rd level student put them in the same room in the same condition and give them both the same test is it fair? again obviously it's not the 3rd level student are far above that of his companion, as I have said and I repeat absolutely equating between two people of different abilities is doing them injustice exactly like the man and women.

The following is taken from my previous answer which I invite you to read again in light of the above;

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

in Islam absolute equality between the Sexes is doing is like equating between two people of different abilities which is clearly injustice.
A women is pregnant 9 month of the year a man is not, every month she suffers through a period of menstruation during which her physiology,mood and hormones changes. Islam recognizes these difference and that's why in the Quran Allah says

And do not wish for that by which Allah has made some of you exceed others. For men is a share of what they have earned, and for women is a share of what they have earned. And ask Allah of his bounty. Indeed Allah is ever, of all things, Knowing.
(4;34)

There are matters a man will never exceed women in, the rights of the mother is 3 times to the rights of the father. In Islam we believe that paradise is under the feet of the mothers. in Islam the prophet told that if a man raise his daughter righteously he is promised paradise.
You will not find me a single institution in earth that gives a women a holiday during her menstrual cycle, however the greatest pillar of Islam specifically the 5 daily prayer are dropped from a women during her menstrual period.

And We have enjoined upon man [care] for his parents. His mother carried him, [increasing her] in weakness upon weakness, and his weaning is in two years. Be grateful to Me and to your parents; to Me is the [final] destination.
31;15-14


However when it comes toward religious duty and laws they are equal, a women will fast Ramadan just like a man,make pilgrimage just like him whatever righteous deed she do she will be rewarded no less then a man. a women is given inheritance in Islam in a way that brings most justice to both her and the man and is allowed and encouraged to seek an education, have a say in the running of society and vote just like the man, something the western women struggled to obtain until the last century.


"and how ever does righteous good deed, male of female, and is a true believer such will enter paradise and not the least injustice, even the size of a speck on the back of a date-stone will be done to them.
But if they endeavor to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them but accompany them in [this] world with appropriate kindness and follow the way of those who turn back to Me [in repentance]. Then to Me will be your return, and I will inform you about what you used to do."4;26

Similarly the criteria of the Hijab, only 1 criteria as I mentioned differ between men and women and that's the first criterion,the extent of the body that should be covered, and as you can see women from the beginning of history were always dressed in a more covering way then men, so Islam did not come with something new saying that women should cover more then men.
Islam reinforced and introduced the most modest and Honorable dress code for both Men and Women, reconsigning that each is inherently different and play a different role in society and since Islam does not recognize absolute equality between men and women there are special instances where men are treated differently then women and women different then men in a way the will bring most justice to both.

katydid wrote: »

I am well aware that Islam is not the only religion that differentiates between men and women in this way. We are not talking about those other religions; we are talking about Islam. I would say exactly the same thing about fundamentalist Christians like the Amish, who insist on a much stricter covering for women than for men.

I didn't mention any other religion in my comment, it was society that I was referring to that up to 1960 differentiated between men and women regarding the way each of them dress, however with regard to the covering as you know since Mankind itself advanced we gradually began covering up our privates and body more and more, not so long ago men wore nothing but a piece of cloth to cover their privates, even today when you see tribes in the Amazon and the simple way they dress with some of the practically naked you will automatically view this as a sign of their backwardness as compared to the modern society.
The way Muslims view the Hijab concept is that it provided the pinnacle of this evolution and advancement and what the western society is trying to do now is bring us back to the stone age were people wore very little to cover themselves.

katydid wrote: »

I regularly see Muslim men dressed this way. In fact I saw it just today (not a tee shirt, obviously) in the supermarket. A man in a close fitting pair of trousers and a jacket, followed by a woman in hijab (not niquab, but a long, ankle length coat and her hair fully covered with a scarf). I would respect the men if they covered themselves in the same way as the women, but I have little respect for people who expect other people to dress in a way they are not prepared to dress.

If god commanded the Muslim man to dress in the same way as the women then we will however as I mentioned and explained in Islam both sexes are treated in a special way with regard to the extent of the body area they need to cover.

However I do not understand how are you bothered by this when you are not Muslim women, don't you think your judgement is rather subjective based on the continuously changing moral and standards of today's society? as before the 1900 your question would be viewed as absurd, why do women have to dress more then men? why don't you ask the Muslim women if they feel the same way regarding this matter, do they really feel bothered that God ordered them to cover up more body parts then the fellow man? I think you will get a much better and full fulling answer then the one I tried to provide.

Below I link a video of British Muslim women discussing the true challenges behind the women Hijab and attempting to clear misconceptions and doubts, that you might find helpful

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlr5MkCp8uw

Lingua Franca

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

How old do you think this girl is? to me she looks 5 maybe even younger.Being a Musical video I think the best way to cite this would be to provide evidence that include Hyland himself from which I drew my conclusion from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge9Ou3-YyqU

I'm sorry, are you saying that a television show's producer had some influence on a songwriter in some bizarro time travelling incident?

It's very interesting that that is your conclusion, but since you've made a rather enormous leap of logic here let me help you out a bit.

The song was written Paul Vance and Lee Pockriss, it was only sung by Brian Hyland. What you have linked is not "a musical video", it's being performance on the Dick Clark Show which was produced by Louis M Hayward and Charles Reeves and would have had many directors.

Which of The Dick Clark Show personnel are you claiming conspired with Vance and Pockriss to write a song about bikini clad 5 year olds?

Defender OF Faith

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I'm sorry, are you saying that a television show's producer had some influence on a songwriter in some bizarro time travelling incident?

It's very interesting that that is your conclusion, but since you've made a rather enormous leap of logic here let me help you out a bit.

The song was written Paul Vance and Lee Pockriss, it was only sung by Brian Hyland. What you have linked is not "a musical video", it's being performance on the Dick Clark Show which was produced by Louis M Hayward and Charles Reeves and would have had many directors.

Which of The Dick Clark Show personnel are you claiming conspired with Vance and Pockriss to write a song about bikini clad 5 year olds?

Am sorry I was not aware of that I 'll make sure I verify my information again,however the lyrics of the song implied the subject was a child which I could be a suspect of Bias saying this after watching the video also I think you might have misunderstand me as I did not mean that the producers had any influence on the song writers and am sorry if you got the massage that way.

I though it was a song written by Hyland and then preformed using a child on TV to get his massage across, also for the producers to use and choose a 5 year old child in a performance that matches the song being sung on a show broadcasted on T.v is a clear image and symbol intended that if a 5 year old child is not shy to wear a Bikini why should you?

Anyway thanks for adding a valuable piece of information into my memory bank, I wouldnt like this thread to drift to far off the main topic the reason I used this song was simply as an example of many that were aimed at making the Bikini accepted into society as it's today

Lingua Franca

You are getting your rather odd opinion confused with fact.

I didn't look at that video and see a five year old "having an epiphany and stripping away her shame" or think the producers were pushing any particular message, any more than I would see a 5 year old in a niqab and think she was trying to hide her sexuality from men.

Frankly, I find both of those massive leaps of logic equally disturbing and I am now wondering what message you are trying to push with your 55 year old video clip.

Defender OF Faith

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You are getting your rather odd opinion confused with fact.

I didn't look at that video and see a five year old "having an epiphany and stripping away her shame" or think the producers were pushing any particular message, any more than I would see a 5 year old in a niqab and think she was trying to hide her sexuality from men..

You will of course say this now, it's a further proof that the clip has done its job in making you as an audience feel complete apathy about a child wearing what was at the time this song came out a Bikini which was a very controversial piece of cloth, hence it's also clear as daylight what this performance purposely aimed to do at the time, that's regarding my 1st supposedly massive leap in logic by thinking the producers were pushing any particular massage.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Frankly, I find both of those massive leaps of logic equally disturbing and I am now wondering what message you are trying to push with your 55 year old video clip.

As for my so called 2nd massive leap in logic by saying the 5 year old striped her shame away again in the context of the performance I dont understand how is this a massive leave in logic? the girl was clearly very shy to begin with and toward the end of the video she was no longer shy to be in hear Bikini.

Please take the effort to understand what other try to say before jumping to such conclusions, also a 55 year old video clip? how did you jump into such massive conclusion?

Lingua Franca

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You will of course say this now, it's a further proof that the clip has done its job in making you as an audience feel complete apathy about a child wearing what was at the time this song came out a Bikini which was a very controversial piece of cloth,

It's job was to promote apathy? And here was me thinking it was simple to encourage greater viewing figures for the show by showcasing a popular novelty song of the time.

hence it's also clear as daylight what this performance purposely aimed to do at the time, that's regarding my 1st supposedly massive leap in logic by thinking the producers were pushing any particular massage.

To the twisted mind seeing sex everywhere, even in little girls, sure it's clear as daylight

As for my so called 2nd massive leap in logic by saying the 5 year old striped her shame away again in the context of the performance I dont understand how is this a massive leave in logic? the girl was clearly very shy to begin with and toward the end of the video she was no longer shy to be in hear Bikini.

Uh, no. I was crystal clear that the second leap of logic I was referring to was the OP seeing a little girl in a hijab as hiding her sexuality. Reading comprehension is very important in debate, you should work on your skills.

Please take the effort to understand what other try to say before jumping to such conclusions,

:pac:

also a 55 year old video clip? how did you jump into such massive conclusion?

I'm not quite sure to be honest, but it might have had something to do with the clip having been recorded in 1960.


Don't bother trying to school me any more, pal, I'm getting fed up with pointing out that 5 year old girls aren't sex objects.

Defender OF Faith

Lingua Franca wrote: »

It's job was to promote apathy? And here was me thinking it was simple to encourage greater viewing figures for the show by showcasing a popular novelty song of the time.

Then you cant get more superficial then that. If you really believe that the performance made at that time, toward an audience of that time was simply to show cast a popular song then you are very naive my friend.
You keep failing to understand what I meant in context of the performance being released in 1960 showcasting a girl wearing something very controversial at the time. Today someone viewing this video like your self will obviously see it as nothing more then a song due to the simple fact that a Bikini now days have been accepted into society.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Uh, no. I was crystal clear that the second leap of logic I was referring to was the OP seeing a little girl in a hijab as hiding her sexuality. Reading comprehension is very important in debate, you should work on your skills.

Then you might want to work in your written skills to convey your massage in a "crystal clear" manner as you claim, these are the two comments you made preceding mine

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I'm sorry, are you saying that a television show's producer had some influence on a songwriter in some bizarro time travelling incident?

It's very interesting that that is your conclusion, but since you've made a rather enormous leap of logic here let me help you out a bit.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You are getting your rather odd opinion confused with fact.

I didn't look at that video and see a five year old "having an epiphany and stripping away her shame" or think the producers were pushing any particular message, any more than I would see a 5 year old in a niqab and think she was trying to hide her sexuality from men.

Frankly, I find both of those massive leaps of logic equally disturbing and I am now wondering what message you are trying to push with your 55 year old video clip.

It's clear that non of them refers to the OP, adding to that my replay to the OP comment was made more then 20 days ago, am very unlikely to remember what the OP said, and hence assumed the comment was yours, a simple sentence like "As the OP said" would have made it "crystal clear" then.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Don't bother trying to school me any more, pal, I'm getting fed up with pointing out that 5 year old girls aren't sex objects.

School you? I haven't been trying to school you, just clarifying my comments regarding a statement I made, if anything your point makes the video even more direct in its massage to its audience during the 1960s obviously no one will consider a 5 year old wearing a Bikini as a sex object so why should you?, if an innocent 5 year old is portrayed wearing a cloths people were considering immoral and dishonourable at the time then a female living during that time is more likely to think "hey a 5 year old is wearing that why cant I?"

I invite you to reflect and re-read the lyrics of the song putting your self in the shoes of a women living at the time, and am not sure how familiar are you with the Music industry but know and without exception that there's not a single song that's made just for the sake of being a song a massage of some sort that the writter wants to direct to his audience is always included it can either be obvious or hidden but you need to look beyond the superficial to see it and understand.

donaghs

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

It seems that your are working on a principle of absolute equality, you are also assuming that Islam is the only religion that calls for women to cover their body. Let me remind you that before the sexual revolution in the 1960's women dressed in a way very similar to the Muslim women today, simply without the veil in wide non-promiscuous clothing, that covered their entire body.

I think we can sum up this long post by saying that in the past in "western society", like in "Islamic societies" today, women had less freedom about what they could wear. In fact in both cases, less rights in general. Thankfully that has changed in western society. These freedoms do mean that people may dress in ways which other find inappropriate - but society finds its balance as to what it deems acceptable (does it harm the person, or anyone else, etc).

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Islam however unlike Christianity is unaffected by these Social changes and revolutions, in Islam absolute equality between the Sexes is doing is like equating between two people of different abilities which is clearly injustice.
A women is pregnant 9 month of the year a man is not, every month she suffers through a period of menstruation during which her physiology,mood and hormones changes.

I don't think Christianity hasn't changed that much in its attitude to women - rather that the society around it has been moving away Christian dogma since the Enlightenment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

There are matters a man will never exceed women in, the rights of the mother is 3 times to the rights of the father. In Islam we believe that paradise is under the feet of the mothers.

That sounds a little vague when applying to legal rights?

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

in Islam the prophet told that if a man raise his daughter righteously he is promised paradise.

Surely the right thing to do, regardless of enticements?

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Similarly the criteria of the Hijab, only 1 criteria as I mentioned differ between men and women and that's the first criterion,the extent of the body that should be covered...

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Am not sure how regularly do you see this since tight jeans are Islamically Haram and hence he would be committing a sin by wearing them I my self agree with you and consider men who do this very hypocritical to be themselves wearing tight outfit while telling their wife to wear the Hijab.

Any actual quotes from the Koran specifying the type of covering and extent of hijabs? Any quotes relating to tight jeans/similar legwear?

Defender OF Faith

donaghs wrote: »

I think we can sum up this long post by saying that in the past in "western society", like in "Islamic societies" today, women had less freedom about what they could wear. In fact in both cases, less rights in general. Thankfully that has changed in western society. These freedoms do mean that people may dress in ways which other find inappropriate - but society finds its balance as to what it deems acceptable (does it harm the person, or anyone else, etc).

Only in the case of the western women were less right where being received, while in the Islamic society women were enjoying all the rights the western women struggled to obtain and more I dont think I have not delved into this in detail, and if you would like to understand more please ask as a common misconception is that Islam oppresses women and does not give her the rights a western women have.

donaghs wrote: »

I don't think Christianity hasn't changed that much in its attitude to women - rather that the society around it has been moving away Christian dogma since the Enlightenment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Sorry I should of clarified this a bit more Christianity as a religion is the same however the people practising it have changed the way they practice the religion.

donaghs wrote: »

That sounds a little vague when applying to legal rights?

and that's what I meant my friend legally and under law they are both the same however there are matters were they differ in the reward or blessing given to each and this is an example of such and that's why God have said

.And do not wish for that by which Allah has made some of you exceed others. For men is a share of what they have earned, and for women is a share of what they have earned. And ask Allah of his bounty. Indeed Allah is ever, of all things, Knowing.

donaghs wrote: »

Surely the right thing to do, regardless of enticements?

indeed it's, a similar massage is repeated regarding the parents in the quran it says

"And your Lord has decreed that you not worship except Him, and to parents, good treatment. Whether one or both of them reach old age [while] with you, say not to them [so much as], "uff," and do not repel them but speak to them a noble word.And lower to them the wing of humility out of mercy and say, "My Lord, have mercy upon them as they brought me up [when I was] small." 17:24

To treat your parents well is the right thing to do regardless of the enticements however in Islam these are not only enticements they are also orders from God and his prophet, hence a Muslim have both a religious and a moral duty to treat his parents well and rise his daughter righteously, especially when they get old and short-tempered. In old age people do tend to make unusual demands and claims and one might slack in his duties toward his parents but then he remembers that the prophet have said:

“Goodness towards (one’s) parents is the greatest obligatory act.”
Mizanul Hikmah, Volume 10, Page 709

“One, who follows the orders of Allah with regards to obeying parents, shall have two doors of Paradise opened up for him. And if there happens to be only one parent, one door of Paradise shall open up for him.”
Kanzul `Ummal, Volume 16, Page 67

“One who performs Hajj on behalf of his parents and repays their debts shall be raised by Allah on the Day of Judgement amongst the righteous ones.”
Kanzul `Ummal, Volume 16, Page 468

“One who pleases his parents has verily pleased Allah, and one who has angered his parents has verily angered Allah.”
Kanzul `Ummal, Volume 16, Page 470

This is a selection of many Hadith regarding the right of parents in Islam they are there to offer a Muslim help,support and comfort in this temporary life to rise his daughter righteously and be dutiful to his parents because number one god and his prophet ordered him to do.

donaghs wrote: »

Any actual quotes from the Koran specifying the type of covering and extent of hijabs? Any quotes relating to tight jeans/similar legwear?

Although I do not know what good will these quotes do you since you are not a Muslim however I really appreciate your interest to learn and understand.

Regarding the covering and extent of Hijab for women, Quran 23:31
"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and protect their private and not show off their adornment except only that which is apparent(Like both eyes and outer pams of hands)and to draw their veils all over Jububihinnna(ie:their bodies,face,necks and bosoms)....."
This with regard to the extent, wearing a tight covering would reveal her figure and hence would not be considered the Islamic Hijab described in the verse above.

Tight jeans or any similar clothing reveals the body and the figure of the person wearing them, if worn in some men might also be attractive to the opposite sex, hence they conflict the 2nd 3rd and 4th criterias of the Hijab I mentioned in my previous post.

These Criteria for the Hijab are the general rules regarding the Muslim dress code in Islam that the scholars of Islam do not dispute in, these rules were derived from the prophet dress code and the dress code of his wives and companions.

katydid

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Only in the case of the western women were less right where being received, while in the Islamic society women were enjoying all the rights the western women struggled to obtain and more I dont think I have not delved into this in detail, and if you would like to understand more please ask as a common misconception is that Islam oppresses women and does not give her the rights a western women have.


......
This is a selection of many Hadith regarding the right of parents in Islam they are there to offer a Muslim help,support and comfort in this temporary life to rise his daughter righteously and be dutiful to his parents because number one god and his prophet ordered him to do.


Although I do not know what good will these quotes do you since you are not a Muslim however I really appreciate your interest to learn and understand.

Regarding the covering and extent of Hijab for women, Quran 23:31
"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and protect their private and not show off their adornment except only that which is apparent(Like both eyes and outer pams of hands)and to draw their veils all over Jububihinnna(ie:their bodies,face,necks and bosoms)....."
This with regard to the extent, wearing a tight covering would reveal her figure and hence would not be considered the Islamic Hijab described in the verse above.

Tight jeans or any similar clothing reveals the body and the figure of the person wearing them, if worn in some men might also be attractive to the opposite sex, hence they conflict the 2nd 3rd and 4th criterias of the Hijab I mentioned in my previous post.

These Criteria for the Hijab are the general rules regarding the Muslim dress code in Islam that the scholars of Islam do not dispute in, these rules were derived from the prophet dress code and the dress code of his wives and companions.

Just because Muslim women might at one time in history have had more rights than Christian women doesn't say much; Christian women had very little rights for many centuries. But that is the past. Now they have equal rights, and Muslim women don't. It is not a misconception that Islam oppresses women, it is a fact; is it not the case that a woman's word is not worth the same as a man's in an Islamic court, for example?

Yes, people have changed the way they practice Christianity because, with a greater understanding of concepts like equality, they recognise that women are equal to men, and they interpret the scripture in that context. They know, for example, that some of the things the scripture says were written in a different time where there was a different understanding of the role of women. The fundamentals of Christianity; accepting that Christ was the savior and loving one another, have not changed one whit.

I doubt if anyone is disputing that Islam, like any religion or value system, exhorts its followers to treat family members with respect. It's just part of treating everyone with respect. What is your point? Men treat women with respect and women treat men with respect. There are no special rewards for doing so, it's just what people should do.

You speak of the criteria for hijab, but you don't explain why it's ok for a woman to be covered head to toe while her husband can walk around in a tee shirt and jeans, tight or not tight. Is it because Islam considers men so weak willed that they are unable to control themselves in the presence of an attractive woman, while women are the stronger ones? Sounds like it to me.

Defender OF Faith

First I would like to thank you for your continual discussion and questioning of Islamic matter, however I advice you not to use the affirmative when speaking about Islam since you are and please do not take offence to this, do not have a degree in Islamic scholarship, sciences of the Hadith or Arabic to affirm any statement you make against Islam as a religion.

We Muslim believe that Islam is perfect in every way of life, since it's the true path toward God and God will only select the best path for his creation and in light of this anything you feel might be wrong with Islam which am sure you arrived upon due to misunderstanding and reading misleading Islamic sources, can be explained very clearly and logically using authentic Islamic sources so feel free to ask and don't feel like you are disrespecting me or my religion by asking. If one wears the perfect dress in a party what effect will the smirks of others have on him?

I shall begin my replay In The Name of Allah, The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful;

katydid wrote: »

Just because Muslim women might at one time in history have had more rights than Christian women doesn't say much; Christian women had very little rights for many centuries. But that is the past. Now they have equal rights, and Muslim women don't. It is not a misconception that Islam oppresses women, it is a fact; is it not the case that a woman's word is not worth the same as a man's in an Islamic court, for example?

It's not only Christian women that had little rights it's women in the western society in general.

I can simply finish my answer by saying go ask the Muslim women if she is being oppressed, Women are converting to Islam at such rapid rates that they outnumber men 4 to 1, reports a study on female converts to Islam titled “Women and Conversion to Islam: The American Women’s experience.”
Why would these females convert to a religion that oppresses them? unless of course you are gravely misunderstanding something.

Here is an excerpt from one woman named Elizabeth Lmgart Ancherage who was examined in the study and explains why Islam grants women freedom:

“In Islam, we have the right to have property, we inherit, we keep our last names, and we don’t have to take our husbands identities. In Christianity people just don’t understand how the Bible sees women, and I think people really should be working into that, and see how Christians think of women. Muslim women had rights and they can own property and that stuff, Christians were debating if we had so.”

But what's interesting that you try to support your statement by saying that "a woman's word is not worth the same as a man's in an Islamic court"
which and please do not take it as an insult shows your lack of knowledge and ignorance regarding the matter as it's a deep issue that am providing an article written by an Islamic scholar for you to understand if you have the time to read otherwise I will present it here in brief details taking the main points from the article.

"The only verse in the entire Qur'an to equate the testimony of two women to that of one man is the so-called verse of debt (ayat al dayn), which occurs in Qur'an 2:282

The Qur'an's mention of testimony in relation to transactions was revealed to advise Muslims on how they might reduce the possibility of misunderstandings arising among themselves. Therefore, the entire matter of testimony was revealed to humanity by way of instruction. Obviously, instruction is one thing, while binding legal precepts are another matter entirely.

The verse goes on to explain the reason for seeking testimony from two women in place of the testimony of one man, by saying "...so that if one of them should make a mistake, the other could remind her" (2:282).

Thus, the verse indicates clearly that there are differences in the ability of women to serve, under the prevailing social conditions, as competent witnesses and givers of testimony in cases involving financial transactions. The relevant wording implies, that in general, transactions were not often matters of concern to women at that time. It also indicates that the actual witness would be one woman, even though her testimony might require the support of another woman who would "remind" her if necessary. Thus, one woman acts as a guarantor for the accuracy of the other's testimony."

Obviously, then, the two are not on the same level, for one witness is supposed to be knowledgeable and aware of that to which she is testifying. As such her testimony is legally acceptable. The other witness is considered merely a guarantor, for the basis of all legal testimony is that it should aid the judge in reviewing the case as if he/she had been an actual witness thereof.

Article: http://www.alhewar.com/TahaTestimony.htm

katydid wrote: »

Yes, people have changed the way they practice Christianity because, with a greater understanding of concepts like equality, they recognise that women are equal to men, and they interpret the scripture in that context. They know, for example, that some of the things the scripture says were written in a different time where there was a different understanding of the role of women.The fundamentals of Christianity; accepting that Christ was the savior and loving one another, have not changed one whit.

This is not really Christianity then, but rather a new modernised version of the religion and that's the weakness of Christianity that it's easily changed by social pressure and revolutions, the Christians changed their attitude regarding clear biblical verses that do not need interpretation, the true time when Christians used to follow the Bible began disappearing since the era when Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto, where we find Christianity described as a dying religion.

This probably started in the 19th cen. & almost until the beginning of the 20th cen. as Christianity stopped to be a leader religion that could bring people or drive them & did not do anything in the religious side,but easily adapted to the modern era in other words Christianity as a spiritual religion for a group of people is dying as by the virtue of its establishment.
We find that it can not withstand the social revolution for it's clear in the bible that Fornication is an abomination yet after the 1960 sexual revolution it became accepted among the Christians them self similarly eating swine and being drunk with wine and condemnation of homosexuality.

Its Islam with a strong faith that it can withstand any changes in the world. The teachings of Islam has survived and withstand the most difficult situations.

katydid wrote: »

You speak of the criteria for hijab, but you don't explain why it's ok for a woman to be covered head to toe while her husband can walk around in a tee shirt and jeans, tight or not tight. Is it because Islam considers men so weak willed that they are unable to control themselves in the presence of an attractive woman, while women are the stronger ones? Sounds like it to me.

Sister have you read your bible? have you? because it seems to me that you have not let see what the Bible say about the way a man should treat you as a women and how should you dress:

1 Corinthians 11:6-9
For if a woman does not cover herself, she should have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved, she should be covered.
For a man should not have his head covered, as he is God’s image and glory, but the woman is man’s glory.For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. And what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man

Matthew 15:21-26
Leaving there, Jesus now went into the region of Tyre and Si′don.And look! a Phoe·ni′cian woman from that region came and cried out: “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David. My daughter is cruelly demon possessed. But he did not say a word in answer to her. So his disciples came and began to urge him: “Send her away, because she keeps crying out after us.” He answered: “I was not sent to anyone except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But the woman came and did obeisance* to him, saying: “Lord, help me!” In answer he said: “It is not right to take the bread of the children and throw it to the little dogs.”

Leviticus 12:5
“‘If she should give birth to a female, she will then be unclean for 14 days, just as she would be during her menstruation. She will continue cleansing herself from the blood for the next 66 days.

Hence according to your Bible a man should not cover his head because he's created in God image, and that you my sister were created for his sake.
I mean come on, what kind of non sense is this? it's the pinnacle of injustice and inequality that extend far beyond clothing and what each sex should wear.
You attack Islam and claim that men are weak and cannot control themselves you ask why is it ok for women to cover and men not which is a rather silly question as I have already explained please re-read my answer and the first answer I gave to the OP regarding the way a Muslim man should treat women, you also claim that Islam oppresses women read your bible and tell me now which religion oppress women.

katydid

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

since you are and please do not take offence to this, do not have a degree in Islamic scholarship, sciences of the Hadith or Arabic to affirm any statement you make against Islam as a religion.

W

I shall begin my replay In The Name of Allah, The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful;


It's not only Christian women that had little rights it's women in the western society in general.

I can simply finish my answer by saying go ask the Muslim women if she is being oppressed, Women are converting to Islam at such rapid rates that they outnumber men 4 to 1, reports a study on female converts to Islam titled “Women and Conversion to Islam: The American Women’s experience.”
Why would these females convert to a religion that oppresses them? unless of course you are gravely misunderstanding something.

Here is an excerpt from one woman named Elizabeth Lmgart Ancherage who was examined in the study and explains why Islam grants women freedom:

“In Islam, we have the right to have property, we inherit, we keep our last names, and we don’t have to take our husbands identities. In Christianity people just don’t understand how the Bible sees women, and I think people really should be working into that, and see how Christians think of women. Muslim women had rights and they can own property and that stuff, Christians were debating if we had so.”

B

"The only verse in the entire Qur'an to equate the testimony of two women to that of one man is the so-called verse of debt (ayat al dayn), which occurs in Qur'an 2:282

T
Thus, the verse indicates clearly that there are differences in the ability of women to serve, under the prevailing social conditions, as competent witnesses and givers of testimony in cases involving financial transactions. The relevant wording implies, that in general, transactions were not often matters of concern to women at that time. It also indicates that the actual witness would be one woman, even though her testimony might require the support of another woman who would "remind" her if necessary. Thus, one woman acts as a guarantor for the accuracy of the other's testimony."

Obviously, then, the two are not on the same level, for one witness is supposed to be knowledgeable and aware of that to which she is testifying. As such her testimony is legally acceptable. The other witness is considered merely a guarantor, for the basis of all legal testimony is that it should aid the judge in reviewing the case as if he/she had been an actual witness thereof.

Article: http://www.alhewar.com/TahaTestimony.htm





This is not really Christianity then, but rather a new modernised version of the religion and that's the weakness of Christianity that it's easily changed by social pressure and revolutions, the Christians changed their attitude regarding clear biblical verses that do not need interpretation, the true time when Christians used to follow the Bible began disappearing since the era when Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto, where we find Christianity described as a dying religion.

This probably started in the 19th cen. & almost until the beginning of the 20th cen. as Christianity stopped to be a leader religion that could bring people or drive them & did not do anything in the religious side,but easily adapted to the modern era in other words Christianity as a spiritual religion for a group of people is dying as by the virtue of its establishment.
We find that it can not withstand the social revolution for it's clear in the bible that Fornication is an abomination yet after the 1960 sexual revolution it became accepted among the Christians them self similarly eating swine and being drunk with wine and condemnation of homosexuality.

Its Islam with a strong faith that it can withstand any changes in the world. The teachings of Islam has survived and withstand the most difficult situations.


Sister have you read your bible? have you? because it seems to me that you have not let see what the Bible say about the way a man should treat you as a women and how should you dress:

1 Corinthians 11:6-9
For if a woman does not cover herself, she should have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved, she should be covered.
For a man should not have his head covered, as he is God’s image and glory, but the woman is man’s glory.For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. And what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man

y that extend far beyond clothing and what each sex should wear.
You attack Islam and claim that men are weak and cannot control themselves you ask why is it ok for women to cover and men not which is a rather silly question as I have already explained please re-read my answer and the first answer I gave to the OP regarding the way a Muslim man should treat women, you also claim that Islam oppresses women read your bible and tell me now which religion oppress women.

No offence taken; I don't need a degree in Islamic studies to know that women are not considered equal to men in Islam. I gave you a specific example of how Islam seems women as less than men - in the case of testimony in court. Your convoluted attempt to explain about the law around debt is patent nonsense; for whatever reason, it is saying that the word of a woman alone, in certain situations, is not to be trusted, while the word of a man is. It is certainly an interpretation of Islam practiced in certain Islamic countries#, as you will see here.

http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/publications/legal-commentary/1000000261-gender-inequality-and-discrimination-the-case-of-iranian-women.html

I realise that what happens in places like Iran is an interpretation of Islam, and not necessarily what Islam says, but you have confirmed that Islam does indeed state that a woman's word is worth less than a man's.

The fact that women had little rights in the past is irrelevant. In most countries they have now, EXCEPT in Islamic countries. The fact that these women don't say they are being oppressed doesn't mean they are being treated equally.



I don't attack Islam and claim men are weak. I'm putting it forward as a possibility to explain why Islam doesn't feel the need for men to cover themselves in the same way as women. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that it considers women to be stronger willed than men, and better able to resist the attractions of the opposite sex. If men are strong willed, surely they can manage to engage with a woman without having uncontrollable sexual desire? Millions of men the world over manage to work and live side by side with women every day without falling into such a state.

The modernisation of Christianity is its strength. It values every member exactly equally under God. There is no male or female, black or white. We are all God's children. All that has changed is that we understand that certain things were written at a time when society had a different understanding of the relationship between men and women. For most Christians, that has changed. But it has not affected their understanding of their faith. As I have already said, what is says in the scripture about such matters as dress are not essential to what Christianity is about. These are just superficial things.

What I DO take offence to is you calling me "sister" when you don't regard me as equal to you. I have a brother, he respects and values me, and knows I am his equal.

Tom Dunne

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

First I would like to thank you for your continual discussion and questioning of Islamic matter, however I advice you not to use the affirmative when speaking about Islam since you are and please do not take offence to this, do not have a degree in Islamic scholarship, sciences of the Hadith or Arabic to affirm any statement you make against Islam as a religion.

And I would like to point out that you do not get to dictate who can say what, only moderators, Cmods and Admins can.

If you have an issue with a post, report it. Otherwise, please refrain from issuing instructions to other posters.

/mod

Defender OF Faith

katydid wrote: »

No offence taken; I don't need a degree in Islamic studies to know that women are not considered equal to men in Islam. I gave you a specific example of how Islam seems women as less than men - in the case of testimony in court. Your convoluted attempt to explain about the law around debt is patent nonsense; for whatever reason, it is saying that the word of a woman alone, in certain situations, is not to be trusted, while the word of a man is. It is certainly an interpretation of Islam practiced in certain Islamic countries#, as you will see here.

http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/publications/legal-commentary/1000000261-gender-inequality-and-discrimination-the-case-of-iranian-women.html

I realise that what happens in places like Iran is an interpretation of Islam, and not necessarily what Islam says, but you have confirmed that Islam does indeed state that a woman's word is worth less than a man's.

I lost you once you said that, as it's a clear indication that you have not read the Article I have provided nor attempted to understand what I said. Please read it when you find the time it's not a convoluted attempt to explain anything it's stating fact drawing evidence from the Quran and Hadith so that it may clarify your doubts and that of others.
The document you posted however claiming that the people behind it are following a different interpretation of Islam clearly states the following:

This commentary can serve as a useful tool for policy makers and academics in understanding gender inequality under Iranian laws.

Iranian laws are not Islamic laws you can not sherry picks part of the Islamic Sharia and implement in a way that suits your agenda it while ignoring other part as in the Quran it clearly states:

So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part? Then what is the recompense for those who do that among you except disgrace in worldly life; and on the Day of Resurrection they will be sent back to the severest of punishment. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.
2:85

katydid wrote: »

The fact that women had little rights in the past is irrelevant. In most countries they have now, EXCEPT in Islamic countries. The fact that these women don't say they are being oppressed doesn't mean they are being treated equally.

After the fall of the last Islamic Caliphate in 1924, Islamic rulings and law have and to this day have never been fully implemented in any of the modern Muslim countries today, even Saudi Arabia are following their own agenda mixed with Islamic law to gain the support of the Muslims.

That's why I bring the past when Islamic law was actually being fully practised, unlike today were the injustice of culture and tribalism have been mixed and presented to some as Islamic law, in some Muslim countries today such as what the Taliban have and are doing in Pakistan right now, shooting women that wants an education because of "Islamic law" Ironically Islamic law is completely innocent of such action as Islam is the only religion that called and call for the education of women.

katydid wrote: »

The modernisation of Christianity is its strength. It values every member exactly equally under God. There is no male or female, black or white. We are all God's children. All that has changed is that we understand that certain things were written at a time when society had a different understanding of the relationship between men and women. For most Christians, that has changed. But it has not affected their understanding of their faith. As I have already said, what is says in the scripture about such matters as dress are not essential to what Christianity is about. These are just superficial things.

Values every member equally under god? did you not read the Biblical verses I presented?, and I do not understand how you as a Christian, can dare and call your own holy book, that contain the words of Christ and God according to the Christian teachings as superficial.
Were these not the commands of Jesus and God? whether it's that society or this the of God law and command should never change and if they were to change he would send a new prophet with new commands, because God is Fair and Wise.
It would not be just to expect one society to follow a set of rule designed specifically for them and their social condition, and 2000yr later expect that one to follow the same rule, Glorified and Exalted may he be from any evil associated to him, however as we believe as Muslim that there is no prophet after Muhammed (PBUH) Islam the universal massage for humanity came to correct these rules and beliefs it's a religion that even thousands of years from now will remain unchanged because it does not need to change unlike Christianity.

katydid wrote: »

What I DO take offence to is you calling me "sister" when you don't regard me as equal to you. I have a brother, he respects and values me, and knows I am his equal.

That's fine if you do not want me to refer to you in such a matter. Us Muslim and you can see as you read through this forum refer to each other formally by saying brother or sister rather then Mr/sir/Madam since we all came from one father and mother Adam and eve, hence we are brothers in humanity.

However you accused me of not regarding you as an equal which makes me wonder have you been reading anything I have said so far were did I say "I dont view you as my equal"? our prophet have said

"Women are but the sisters of man the one who honour them is honourable and those who humiliate them are but wicked" Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal


And in my holy book it says:
"The believers, men and women, are helpers, supporters and friends of one and other; they enjoin good and forbig people from evil; they perform prayer give Zakat and obey Allah and his messenger. Allah will have his mercy on them. Surely Allah is All-Might, All-Wise" 9:71

Madam my religion teaches and preaches that you are my equal, it even gives you more rights then me in certain areas, it's your own Bible that preaches otherwise.

Defender OF Faith

Tom Dunne wrote: »

And I would like to point out that you do not get to dictate who can say what, only moderators, Cmods and Admins can.

If you have an issue with a post, report it. Otherwise, please refrain from issuing instructions to other posters.

/mod

I usually avoid interacting with Mods as it saves me alot of trouble but I felt I needed to clarify something specially since your a Mod in the Islamic forum.

To begin with I apologies it was not my intention to dictate what other can say, you can say whatever you like however my advice when it comes to discussing Islamic law and quoting the scripture and Hadith is to not speak affirmatively without being qualified to do so, as the previous poster stated affirmatively that "Islam oppresses women" rather then saying "I think Islam oppresses women" presenting evidence that she her self did not understand because she lacks the qualification to do so.

There is a whole science in Islam and volumes upon volumes have been written on the acceptable ways and methods one should take when interpreting the scriptures & Hadith, that people spend years to study, and hence it's not correct even for a Muslim without a qualification to present a verse and say "well this verse says X so Y is true" based on his own limited opinion,knowledge & research specially when it comes to verses that are not clear in their meaning, what he can say instead that "The verse says X so Y is true because such and such scholar of Quran/Hadith have said " presenting that scholar evidence,because in the Quran it says

"And ask the people of knowledge and reminder if you do not know" 21:7

"O you who believe Ask not about things which if made plain to you may cause you trouble. But if you ask about them while the Quran is being revealed they will be made plain to you. Allah has forgiven that, and Allah is The Most forgiving, Most Forbearing." 5:100

In the future however I will avoid giving this advice as you please and just clarify things myself, I just though it would be a nice thing to say because once you affirm a statement in an area you have no qualification in then get proven otherwise it's not a very nice situation to be in.

katydid

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I lost you once you said that, as it's a clear indication that you have not read the Article I have provided nor attempted to understand what I said. Please read it when you find the time it's not a convoluted attempt to explain anything it's stating fact drawing evidence from the Quran and Hadith so that it may clarify your doubts and that of others.
The document you posted however claiming that the people behind it are following a different interpretation of Islam clearly states the following:

This commentary can serve as a useful tool for policy makers and academics in understanding gender inequality under Iranian laws.

Iranian laws are not Islamic laws you can not sherry picks part of the Islamic Sharia and implement in a way that suits your agenda it while ignoring other part as in the Quran it clearly states:

So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part? Then what is the recompense for those who do that among you except disgrace in worldly life; and on the Day of Resurrection they will be sent back to the severest of punishment. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.
2:85



After the fall of the last Islamic Caliphate in 1924, Islamic rulings and law have and to this day have never been fully implemented in any of the modern Muslim countries today, even Saudi Arabia are following their own agenda mixed with Islamic law to gain the support of the Muslims.

That's why I bring the past when Islamic law was actually being fully practised, unlike today were the injustice of culture and tribalism have been mixed and presented to some as Islamic law, in some Muslim countries today such as what the Taliban have and are doing in Pakistan right now, shooting women that wants an education because of "Islamic law" Ironically Islamic law is completely innocent of such action as Islam is the only religion that called and call for the education of women.


Values every member equally under god? did you not read the Biblical verses I presented?, and I do not understand how you as a Christian, can dare and call your own holy book, that contain the words of Christ and God according to the Christian teachings as superficial.
Were these not the commands of Jesus and God? whether it's that society or this the of God law and command should never change and if they were to change he would send a new prophet with new commands, because God is Fair and Wise.
It would not be just to expect one society to follow a set of rule designed specifically for them and their social condition, and 2000yr later expect that one to follow the same rule, Glorified and Exalted may he be from any evil associated to him, however as we believe as Muslim that there is no prophet after Muhammed (PBUH) Islam the universal massage for humanity came to correct these rules and beliefs it's a religion that even thousands of years from now will remain unchanged because it does not need to change unlike Christianity.



That's fine if you do not want me to refer to you in such a matter. Us Muslim and you can see as you read through this forum refer to each other formally by saying brother or sister rather then Mr/sir/Madam since we all came from one father and mother Adam and eve, hence we are brothers in humanity.

However you accused me of not regarding you as an equal which makes me wonder have you been reading anything I have said so far were did I say "I dont view you as my equal"? our prophet have said

"Women are but the sisters of man the one who honour them is honourable and those who humiliate them are but wicked" Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal


And in my holy book it says:
"The believers, men and women, are helpers, supporters and friends of one and other; they enjoin good and forbig people from evil; they perform prayer give Zakat and obey Allah and his messenger. Allah will have his mercy on them. Surely Allah is All-Might, All-Wise" 9:71

Madam my religion teaches and preaches that you are my equal, it even gives you more rights then me in certain areas, it's your own Bible that preaches otherwise.

Yes, I DID read what you said. You said that in the matter of debt, Islam doesn't recognise the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man. What else is there to say? It clarifies it perfectly.

Iranian laws are based on an interpretation of Islam; you can certainly say that they are not the only interpretation, but Iran chooses to subjugate women based on Islamic scripture.

I don't disbelieve Christian scripture, but I interpret it intelligently. Some parts of it are timeless, others reflect the society in which they were written. Some parts contradict other parts. A thinking Christian will read scripture contextually, focusing on the important essence of the message and not worrying about minutiae. Any human text contains important material and less important material. The point is to be able to understand that and not take everything literally.

It's not that I don't want you to call me "sister". I just find it an insulting phrase, as brothers are supposed to respect their sisters. You clearly don't respect women, as you argue for their subservient role in Islam, so calling someone you don't respect with a term of respect is hypocritical and insulting. I would be honoured to be called "sister" by someone who considered me his equal.

You can claim that true Islam respects women but you yourself quoted a text that showed that it doesn't. If you were to say, as I do, that such statements should be contextualised and that today women are totally equal to men in every way, then we are singing off the same hymn sheets, so to speak...

It's good that you condemn the atrocities carried out towards women in so-called "Islamic" countries, but you still defend inequalities like the differences in the wearing of hijab. You continue, for example, to avoid answering my questions about why men don't cover themselves in the same way as women, if men and women are equal.

Defender OF Faith

katydid wrote: »

You can claim that true Islam respects women but you yourself quoted a text that showed that it doesn't. If you were to say, as I do, that such statements should be contextualised and that today women are totally equal to men in every way, then we are singing off the same hymn sheets, so to speak...

katydid wrote: »

Yes, I DID read what you said. You said that in the matter of debt, Islam doesn't recognise the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man. What else is there to say? It clarifies it perfectly.

This is what I have said please show me where did I say that.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

"The only verse in the entire Qur'an to equate the testimony of two women to that of one man is the so-called verse of debt (ayat al dayn), which occurs in Qur'an 2:282

The Qur'an's mention of testimony in relation to transactions was revealed to advise Muslims on how they might reduce the possibility of misunderstandings arising among themselves. Therefore, the entire matter of testimony was revealed to humanity by way of instruction. Obviously, instruction is one thing, while binding legal precepts are another matter entirely.

The verse goes on to explain the reason for seeking testimony from two women in place of the testimony of one man, by saying "...so that if one of them should make a mistake, the other could remind her" (2:282).

Thus, the verse indicates clearly that there are differences in the ability of women to serve, under the prevailing social conditions, as competent witnesses and givers of testimony in cases involving financial transactions. The relevant wording implies, that in general, transactions were not often matters of concern to women at that time. It also indicates that the actual witness would be one woman, even though her testimony might require the support of another woman who would "remind" her if necessary. Thus, one woman acts as a guarantor for the accuracy of the other's testimony."

Obviously, then, the two are not on the same level, for one witness is supposed to be knowledgeable and aware of that to which she is testifying. As such her testimony is legally acceptable. The other witness is considered merely a guarantor, for the basis of all legal testimony is that it should aid the judge in reviewing the case as if he/she had been an actual witness thereof.

Article: http://www.alhewar.com/TahaTestimony.htm

katydid wrote: »

Iranian laws are based on an interpretation of Islam; you can certainly say that they are not the only interpretation, but Iran chooses to subjugate women based on Islamic scripture.

No they don't. They choose to subjugate women based on their own will and desire, and hence why they call it Iranian law and not Islamic law because they themselves know it's not Islamic, and that there is not a single interpretation of the Quran or hadith where you can draw a conclusion such as subjugating women

katydid wrote: »

I don't disbelieve Christian scripture, but I interpret it intelligently. Some parts of it are timeless, others reflect the society in which they were written. Some parts contradict other parts. A thinking Christian will read scripture contextually, focusing on the important essence of the message and not worrying about minutiae. Any human text contains important material and less important material. The point is to be able to understand that and not take everything literally.

Then are you really a Christian? I mean it does not make sense to claim to follow a religion when you don't even believe in its scriptures, you also believe that it's a human text which mean it's prone to mistake then dont you think that Christian concepts such as Christ divinity & crucifixion , the Original sin, the trinity could possibly be mistakes due to Christian miss-interpretation of the Bible?

katydid wrote: »

It's not that I don't want you to call me "sister". I just find it an insulting phrase, as brothers are supposed to respect their sisters. You clearly don't respect women, as you argue for their subservient role in Islam, so calling someone you don't respect with a term of respect is hypocritical and insulting. I would be honoured to be called "sister" by someone who considered me his equal.

I dont think you have really been reading what I said, as I honestly dare you to pick out one thing I have said in my previous replies, and you can look at the time they have been edited in case you think I have re edited them where I argued such case.

All this time I was arguing about how Islam up lifted women and gave them their full rights, how women in Islam are considered a valuable contributors to society, how Islam honoured the women and gave her rights triple that of the man in some cases, A Muslim will kneel down to his mothers feet in humility because his prophet told his paradise is under her feet do you honestly think I would do that if I considered them sub-servants?
Seriously how can I argue for a subservient role of women in Islam while saying this?

katydid wrote: »

It's good that you condemn the atrocities carried out towards women in so-called "Islamic" countries, but you still defend inequalities like the differences in the wearing of hijab. You continue, for example, to avoid answering my questions about why men don't cover themselves in the same way as women, if men and women are equal.

well let me ask you this first as it will help me in answering your question.

Why do women in the west where they have been equated with men cover their breasts and men don't if they are as the west claim equal?

katydid

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

This is what I have said please show me where did I say that.




No they don't. They choose to subjugate women based on their own will and desire, and hence why they call it Iranian law and not Islamic law because they themselves know it's not Islamic, and that there is not a single interpretation of the Quran or hadith where you can draw a conclusion such as subjugating women


Then are you really a Christian? I mean it does not make sense to claim to follow a religion when you don't even believe in its scriptures, you also believe that it's a human text which mean it's prone to mistake then dont you think that Christian concepts such as Christ divinity & crucifixion , the Original sin, the trinity could possibly be mistakes due to Christian miss-interpretation of the Bible?


I dont think you have really been reading what I said, as I honestly dare you to pick out one thing I have said in my previous replies, and you can look at the time they have been edited in case you think I have re edited them where I argued such case.

All this time I was arguing about how Islam up lifted women and gave them their full rights, how women in Islam are considered a valuable contributors to society, how Islam honoured the women and gave her rights triple that of the man in some cases, A Muslim will kneel down to his mothers feet in humility because his prophet told his paradise is under her feet do you honestly think I would do that if I considered them sub-servants?
Seriously how can I argue for a subservient role of women in Islam while saying this?



well let me ask you this first as it will help me in answering your question.

Why do women in the west where they have been equated with men cover their breasts and men don't if they are as the west claim equal?

You said "The verse goes on to explain the reason for seeking testimony from two women in place of the testimony of one man, by saying "...so that if one of them should make a mistake, the other could remind her" (2:282)." That is a clear admission that the testimony of a woman is not worth the same as that of a man, since it is not required of a man to have another man "to remind" him. If Islam does not regard the testimony of a woman to be of equal value to that of a woman, it clearly doesn't regard women as equal.

As you rightly pointed out, there are many instances of inequality of women in Christian scripture; the difference is that most Christians don't take it literally, but contextualise it to the time in which it was written. If you can tell me that most Muslims contextualise their scripture in a similar way, and recognise this as not applying in the 21st century, then please tell me.

I have read everything you have said; you argue one thing, and you provide testimony that disproves what you say. You refuse to explain why men and women are treated differently when it comes to hijab, other than to cite the scripture without contextualisation.

Women in the west cover their breasts because it is a tradition that has existed for a long time, even before the Christian era. There is no religious prohibition on it.

Christianity will also argue that they put women on a pedestal, and they will cite the Virgin Mary as an example. But in some branches of Christianity, this veneration of an ideal woman is contradicted by the treatment of women. The Roman Catholic church is a good example; Mary is idealised, but ordinary women are not granted equality within the denomination. But Roman Catholicism is one branch of Christianity, it is not representative of Christianity. Other Christian denominations treat women with total equality. What interpretation of Islam does?