A non-Muslim woman's view on hijab

the_new_mr

Salam to all!

Just reading on another forum there and I found the following post from a thread where someone is asking questions about hijab and I thought you guys might like to read it. It's the opinion of a non-Muslim woman on hijab. Thought it's pretty good and is similar to what I was saying before in another thread. Anyway, enough from me.

I have Muslim friends and they can wear it if they want too and not if they don't like it. But it is a religious obligation to wear it if you are religious. I think they are fine. I wore it too once out of solidarity when a Muslim girl was attacked at my University. It is very comfortable and in my view attractive, the point is there too. You know being judged on your personality not on your looks and being modest. So actualy there is lot of feminism out there in Islam. You don't get a job because you are a tall, blonde with big boobs, but if you are qualified. When a girl gets married she can according to Islam keep her family name and spends her earned money only on her and the man provides for the family. I like that woman our less under social pressure in Islam of having different relationships all the time, being used. They get married once and the partners grow so close that it is for life. It is not like lets have a baby first and than we will see...lol..
Those are some things I value as a feminist.

metrovelvet

Women from all cultures feel pressure to do what will please and allure the men within those cultures, whether it be a hijab or a boob job.

DinoBot

metrovelvet wrote:

Women from all cultures feel pressure to do what will please and allure the men within those cultures, whether it be a hijab or a boob job.

Thats a very good point and I think one that is always missed. At the end of the day its always said its the womans choice but there is such pressure from family and culture that I dont think choice comes into it.

You only see choice when the woman is no longer in a country where every woman wears it :rolleyes:

mickoneill30

Dunno. I've been to two predominantly muslim countries. I didn't take any numbers but the majority of women wear the hijab, the next major group seemed to wear no head scarf and the minority were the ones that just show their eyes.

wes

metrovelvet wrote:

Women from all cultures feel pressure to do what will please and allure the men within those cultures, whether it be a hijab or a boob job.

At least with the Hijab, they can get rid of it, without major surgery.

DinoBot

wes wrote:

At least with the Hijab, they can get rid of it, without major surgery.

Yeah, but the reason is the same, acceptance.

All people are the same, they want the same things out of life its just expressed different from culture to culture.

kmick

Original Poster wrote:

I have Muslim friends and they can wear it if they want too and not if they don't like it. But it is a religious obligation to wear it if you are religious. I think they are fine. I wore it too once out of solidarity when a Muslim girl was attacked at my University. It is very comfortable and in my view attractive, the point is there too. You know being judged on your personality not on your looks and being modest. So actualy there is lot of feminism out there in Islam. You don't get a job because you are a tall, blonde with big boobs, but if you are qualified. When a girl gets married she can according to Islam keep her family name and spends her earned money only on her and the man provides for the family. I like that woman our less under social pressure in Islam of having different relationships all the time, being used. They get married once and the partners grow so close that it is for life. It is not like lets have a baby first and than we will see...lol..
Those are some things I value as a feminist.

This is so wrong on so many levels I don’t even know where to start. Is this what passes as intelligent commentary these days.

First of all the way it is written and the spelling is atrocious. Now this is a minor point but if a person wants to be taken seriously at a minimum they need to use a spell checker.

Original Poster wrote:

You know being judged on your personality not on your looks and being modest.

Just because you have a scarf on your head will not affect how people will see you. The kind of person who judges you by the way you look is that kind of person regardless. And this point about a scarf being modest. Can anyone explain this to me. It covers your hair. What is immodest about hair?

Original Poster wrote:

You don't get a job because you are a tall, blonde with big boobs, but if you are qualified.

The only place you get a job on the basis of big boobs and blonde hair is page 3 on the sun. I have never ever worked with someone who was under qualified but had gotten the jobs on their looks. It just does not happen in professional working environments.

Original Poster wrote:

It is not like lets have a baby first and than we will see...lol..

People have been having babies since time began - since surprise surprise, before religion, before cogent thought, before language even. Some people have babies for the wrong reason - e.g. they may hope it will stabilise a rocky relationship. However most people who put even 5 seconds of thought into having children take their responsibility seriously. What this has to do with wearing a Hijab is beyond me.

If we are going to discuss issues like the Hijab can we promote intelligent thought rather than this kind of mindless nonsense.

Schuhart

kmick wrote:

First of all the way it is written and the spelling is atrocious. Now this is a minor point but if a person wants to be taken seriously at a minimum they need to use a spell checker.

I think you are making a sound case with passion, and I agree with your conclusion. But you lose it with this comment. If you are interested in hearing someones views you'll let such minor things pass without comment.

kmick

Schuhart wrote:

I think you are making a sound case with passion, and I agree with your conclusion. But you lose it with this comment. If you are interested in hearing someones views you'll let such minor things pass without comment.

You and I may be interested in hearing peoples views regardless. But many people will disregard badly written, poorly spelled writing. For you and I it may be minor but the point I am making is that people will use any excuse they can to tear you down. Do not give them that excuse. Its like turning up for an interview in shorts and no t-shirt and then demanding the interviewer gives you a fair hearing. They may go through the motions but you wont get the job.

PoleStar

I always find it ironic that people refer to the "feminism" in Islam i.e. the hijab protects females from being judged on their looks.

This is irony at its best as I see it. The hijab is there to protect women from being judged by looks alone? Or is it that the hijab protects MEN from having to control themselves and not judge a woman by her looks.

metrovelvet

wes wrote:

At least with the Hijab, they can get rid of it, without major surgery.

Yes, if they have the choice and that is the issue.

DinoBot

the_new_mr wrote:

................They get married once and the partners grow so close that it is for life.

.... and they all live happily ever after :rolleyes:

I think the title of the thread should be changed to:

"A childs view of the hijab, as seen through rose tinted glassess"

InFront

That's very unfair, I thought it was a good point.

I have to say that if girls find the criticism of their choice to observe hijab a little patronising, and indeed ironic, I think I can see why. My mother and my sister observe hijab, and they wouldn't be what you'd call uneducated. I don't see why it bothers some people.

How is telling a woman 'you should not wear that' or making assumtions about a woman because of her choice to do so 'feminist'??

kmick you don't really explain your problem with hijab. On the other thread you called it 'stone age'. From a Muslim point of view, the treatment and objectification of women in western liberal standards can also be perceived as 'stone age', it's something that often happened before Islam was brought to an area.
If I had a daughter I think I would be worried about how young girls in particular can be expected to behave (sometimes) here in Dublin.
The best attitude towards women in any society, be it a Muslim or a Western society (or both) is simply to respect them.

Stark

kmick wrote:

Its like turning up for an interview in shorts and no t-shirt and then demanding the interviewer gives you a fair hearing. They may go through the motions but you wont get the job.

I'd give them the job if they were hot

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

kmick you don't really explain your problem with hijab.

In fairness, what I took out of kmick’s post was the conclusion

If we are going to discuss issues like the Hijab can we promote intelligent thought rather than this kind of mindless nonsense.

I took that to be a comment that recognises that there are any amount of reasonable points that can be made in defence of the practice – including your point to the effect that women can surely decide what they think for themselves without needing our advice.

The quoted opinion can be easily picked apart as superficial. For example, the author says one of the things she likes about the Hijab is she thinks it’s attractive – hardly a coherent opinion from someone trying to argue that the benefit is not being judged on your looks. Also, the line

When a girl gets married she can according to Islam keep her family name and spends her earned money only on her and the man provides for the family.

simply does not add up from someone claiming to be a feminist. I can see that a person committed to tradition wife-and-mother gender roles lauding the idea that wives are absolved of all financial responsibilities. A feminist, truly, would regard the institutionalisation of gender roles implicit in this concept as anathema.

I note this quote came from another discussion board. As we know, we’re anonymous here. For all you know I could have horns and a tail. I suspect the author of the material quoted by the OP is not actually a non-Muslim woman, and is certainly not a feminist. The mindset expressed sounds like it comes from someone with a different mindset.

On the core issue, I’d take your view that ultimately women can and will do what they want is a given. What might be intelligently discussed is what doctrine suggests the Hijab is supposed to symbolise (which might or might not relate to why women choose to wear it) and whether the ideas contained in that doctrine have any validity. Taking a point from above, if the doctrine is that this has to do with modesty, it is reasonable to ask what’s so frighteningly immodest about hair.

HelterSkelter

kmick wrote:

You and I may be interested in hearing peoples views regardless. But many people will disregard badly written, poorly spelled writing. For you and I it may be minor but the point I am making is that people will use any excuse they can to tear you down. Do not give them that excuse. Its like turning up for an interview in shorts and no t-shirt and then demanding the interviewer gives you a fair hearing. They may go through the motions but you wont get the job.

The person could have a learning disability such as dyslexia and have problems spelling. Does that mean their opinion should be disregarded? If a person with a stutter was speaking to you would you disregard their opinion in the same manner?

Hobbes

kmick wrote:

First of all the way it is written and the spelling is atrocious. Now this is a minor point but if a person wants to be taken seriously at a minimum they need to use a spell checker.

This isn't the Spell Czechs forum and there will less of attacking peoples writing styles. Thanks.

kmick

InFront wrote:

kmick you don't really explain your problem with hijab. On the other thread you called it 'stone age'.

I think you missed my point. My observation was that the original posters claim that there were some interesting points in the post was in my humble opinion untrue. The article was puerile and childish. I have no particular issue with Hijab. I just think if we are going to have a discussion about it lets try and keep it intelligent. Can you show me my post where I called the Hijab stoneage? I think my actual quote was

"Most Islamic thinking on things seems to be stone age from a western liberal point of view. Women within Islam generally seem content however so lets leave them to it."

kmick

HelterSkelter wrote:

The person could have a learning disability such as dyslexia and have problems spelling. Does that mean their opinion should be disregarded? If a person with a stutter was speaking to you would you disregard their opinion in the same manner?

I did not say their opinion should be disregarded. I said some people would disregard it. I actually took the time to reply to a number of the points made if you did not notice.

Karl Hungus

I would agree with kmick that whoever wrote what The New Mr. is quoting sounds very childish and naive. I mean, just read this:

You know being judged on your personality not on your looks and being modest.

People will judge you based on your looks if you wear a hijab, but because the garment is all they can see, it's that which they will judge you on. To believe otherwise is wishfull thinking at best, and sheer stupidity at worst.

People will see a person in a Hijab and judge them to be "Oppressed" or a "Religious Zealot" or many other things that aren't particularly favourable. You'd be objectified as a good little muslim by some, or something to fear by others. The sad fact of the matter is that you wouldn't be judged on your personality, because I'd imagine there's a lot of people who wouldn't even speak to someone in a hijab.

the_new_mr

metovelvet wrote:

Women from all cultures feel pressure to do what will please and allure the men within those cultures, whether it be a hijab or a boob job.

DinoBot wrote:

Thats a very good point and I think one that is always missed. At the end of the day its always said its the womans choice but there is such pressure from family and culture that I dont think choice comes into it.

You only see choice when the woman is no longer in a country where every woman wears it :rolleyes:
...

Yeah, but the reason is the same, acceptance.

All people are the same, they want the same things out of life its just expressed different from culture to culture.

If I may be so lazy as to quote myself from another thread.

the_new_mr wrote:

although the Quran is clear on the fact that hijab is a religious obligation, women are usually left to decide for themselves. If a woman decides to wear it because of social pressures then she is not wearing it to please God and there are likely woman who are doing this but this is completely against the spirit of Islam. One meaning of Islam is submission to God. Wearing hijab for anyone or anything other than for God goes against this very idea.

The idea that most women wear the hijab because they want to be socially accepted is very weak and is going as far as to question their intention (which is very wrong). And just for the record, I personally don't know of any cases of women who took off their hijab upon arriving in a non-Muslim country. And although I'm sure these cases exist, I'm sure they are few or I would have heard about it.

I noticed that a lot of people confused the quote I made with being my own text. Perhaps a little more concentration wouldn't go amiss?

kmick wrote:

I have never ever worked with someone who was under qualified but had gotten the jobs on their looks. It just does not happen in professional working environment.

It seems to me that, with respect, you are living in a dream world. All you have to do is visit a non-Muslim feminist website and you'll see most of them encouraging women to wear casual clothes that cover up their body and not wear much makeup etc etc. There are plenty of cases where a woman who did this later got the sack. And what about cases where there are two women with equal qualifications? You know it's happened where the more attractive woman has got the job.

InFront wrote:

How is telling a woman 'you should not wear that' or making assumtions about a woman because of her choice to do so 'feminist'??

Very good point there. After all, isn't feminism about women's choice? And isn't it also ironic that most of the people here criticising the hijab are men?

Schuhart wrote:

For all you know I could have horns and a tail.

Yes, and I suspect you do

Schuhart wrote:

I suspect the author of the material quoted by the OP is not actually a non-Muslim woman, and is certainly not a feminist.

Leave your conspiracy theories at the door. If you must assume this then at least discuss the points being made and keep in mind that they are the opinions of literally millions of Muslim women and use that as a base for discussion if anonymous text don't please you.

More laziness ahead now as I quote myself from another thread once again.

the_new_mr wrote:

My friend told me about a woman he knew who converted to Islam. He saw her again within two weeks of when she converted and she was wearing hijab. My friend was little surprised and a bit curious as he said that it usually takes a little while before a convert gets used to the idea of hijab. The woman replied that she felt more free than before by wearing the hijab. She went on to explain that it's like having a remote control in her hand so she could decide what other people see of her. So she could say "This is a man I don't know, I'll only show him my face and hands. This is a close relative, I can show him my hair. This is my husband, I'll show him whatever I want."

Karl Hungus wrote:

People will judge you based on your looks if you wear a hijab, but because the garment is all they can see, it's that which they will judge you on.

This is a valid point on its own but I think you're missing the point that the person was trying to make. It seems to me that she was implying that you're not judged on your level of attractiveness. The fact that some people may judge someone because they're wearing hijab (and this is even something that happens in Muslim countries as well by the way) is something they should take care of on a personal level and is similar in some way to people judging others by the slogan on someone's t-shirt.

Karl Hungus wrote:

To believe otherwise is wishfull thinking at best, and sheer stupidity at worst.

Don't judge a book by its cover and didn't Jesus (peace be upon him) say "Judge not lest you be judged."?

Karl Hungus wrote:

The sad fact of the matter is that you wouldn't be judged on your personality, because I'd imagine there's a lot of people who wouldn't even speak to someone in a hijab.

Yes, this is a sad fact but one that can hopefully be overcome through discussion and general dialog.

the_new_mr

I'd posted this poem before on here but I thought it's quite suitable for the current discussion.

Object of Despair
by Fahim Firfiray (Abu Omar)

Emma is a lawyer
And so is Aisha too
Colleagues going into court
At circa half past two

Its 1 O'clock right now
They grab a bite before the trial
They chat about this and that
Conversing with a smile

Aisha is in full hijab
With a loose all over suit
Emma's in her business wear
With accessories taboot

Emma's really quite bemused
At Aisha's godly ways
She looks Aisha in the eyes
And very firmly says

You're a smart girl Aisha
Why do you wear that across your hair?
Subjugated by "man"-kind
An object of despair

Take it off my sister
Let your banner be unfurled
Don't blindly follow all around
DECLARE YOUR FREEDOM TO THE WORLD

Aisha is amazed
But not the least bit shy
She bravely puts her milk shake down
And gives Emma the reply

My dear sister Emma,
Why do you dress the way you do?
The skirt you're wearing round your waist,
Is it really you?

Now that we've sat down,
I see you tug it across your thighs,
Do you feel ashamed?
Aware of prying eyes?

I see the way you're sitting,
Both legs joined at the knees,
Who forces you to sit like that?
Do you feel at ease?

I'll tell you who obliges you,
To dress the way you do,
Gucci, Klein and St. Laurent,
All have designs on you!

In the main, it's men my friend,
Who dictate the whims of fashion,
Generating all the garb,
To incite the basest passion

"Sex Sells" there is no doubt,
But who buys with such great haste,
The answer is the likes of you,
Because they want to be embraced......

They want to be accepted,
On a level playing field
Sure, with brain and intellect
But with body parts revealed

Intelligence and reason
Are useful by and by
But if you want to make a mark
Stay appealing to the eye

You claim your skirt is office like
A business dress of sorts
Would we not laugh at Tony Blair
If he turned up in shorts?

His could be the poshest pants
Pinstripe from Saville Rowe
But walking round like that my friend
He'd really have to go

Why do you douse yourself with creams
To make your skin so milky?
Why do rip off all your hair
To keep your body silky?

A simple shower's all you need
To stay respectable and clean
The time and money that you spend
Is really quite obscene

Why do you wake up at dawn,
To apply a firm foundation,
Topped with make up and the like,
In one chaotic combination?

And if you should have to leave the house
Devoid of this routine
Why do you feel so insecure
That you should not be seen?

Be free my sister Emma
Escape from your deep mire
Don hijab today my friend
And all Islam's attire

Avoid all those sickly stares
Or whistles from afar
Walk down the street with dignity
Take pride in who you are

Strength lies in anonymity
Be a shadow in the crowd
Until you speak and interact
When your voice will carry loud

You're a smart girl Emma
Wear this across your hair
Don't be subjugated by "man"-kind
An object of despair

To use your very words my friend
Let your banner be unfurled
Don't blindly follow all around
DECLARE YOUR FREEDOM TO THE WORLD

Karl Hungus

the_new_mr wrote:

This is a valid point on its own but I think you're missing the point that the person was trying to make. It seems to me that she was implying that you're not judged on your level of attractiveness. The fact that some people may judge someone because they're wearing hijab (and this is even something that happens in Muslim countries as well by the way) is something they should take care of on a personal level and is similar in some way to people judging others by the slogan on someone's t-shirt.

"Not being judged on your level of attractiveness" is an extremely loaded statement though.

There is a huge difference between someone who would choose to judge a woman on her personality, and someone who must judge a woman on her personality because any alternative is denied to them. The second example could be equally as shallow and judgemental as anyone else, just simply having the freedom to judge denied.

metrovelvet

InFront wrote:

How is telling a woman 'you should not wear that' or making assumtions about a woman because of her choice to do so 'feminist'??

If I had a daughter I think I would be worried about how young girls in particular can be expected to behave (sometimes) here in Dublin.
.

There are strands of feminism which can be as puritanical as Christian fundamentalism or Islam.

There was a radical feminist professor in my college who told the women in her political theory class that wearing a skirt was practising internalised oppression.

The fact is women are judged by their looks. A woman who does not wear a hijab will get judged by those in her culture. A woman who wears a thong and has her ass hanging out of her jeans will also receive a judgement.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

And isn't it also ironic that most of the people here criticising the hijab are men?

Its ironic that most of the discussion here on both sides seems to be between men. As I’ve said, I don’t see a point on focussing on an individuals decision. It’s the validity of the doctrine that I’m more interested in.

the_new_mr wrote:

Leave your conspiracy theories at the door.

I think its quite clear that the identity of the author is questionable, and the person may not even be a woman.

the_new_mr wrote:

If you must assume this then at least discuss the points being made and keep in mind that they are the opinions of literally millions of Muslim women and use that as a base for discussion if anonymous text don't please you.

In honesty, I don’t know them to be the views of millions of Muslim women. Maybe they are – but I simply don’t know and I’d query what you are basing this on. But I’ll accept the quote in the original post on the basis of it being what you guess a woman might say if she wished to participate in discussion. I’ll also take it that, by raising it, you are inviting my view. Hence, bearing in mind InFront’s sensible comment to the effect that ultimately women don’t need our advice, I’m taking this to be a situation where I’m being asked to express an opinion on what I think of that quote.

I firstly think the view is just confused, as while pretending that adoption of the Hijab is about being modest, the author says she thinks its looks attractive as if this is a reason for wearing it.

The author seems to set a high value on traditional family roles of wife/homemaker husband/provider. That’s a fine ethic, and generations of humans have happily and successfully fulfilled those roles. Someone might well coherently argue for a continuation of traditional gender roles. That’s a wide debate, and clearly not what we are engaged in specifically here. But I think the important point is such an argument is not feminism.

By all means, wear a Hijab to express commitment to the idea that women have a very different role in life to men that, ultimately, involves submission to a husband. Indeed, in a book I read recently about the psychology of religion, a reason frequently given for the attraction of Islam by American women converts was the value placed on the homemaker role. But let’s not be confused about what we are saying here by pretending this is feminism.

Just anticipating a potential wrong turning, at the risk of flogging the point to death, bear in mind that promotion of gender equality is not just about granting women rights. It’s also about men and women sharing responsibilities previously regarded as the preserve of one or other gender. Hence, absolving one or other party to a marriage of a specific responsibility might well be justified from the perspective of someone wanting to promote traditional values, and good luck to them. But its just plain wrong to describe this as promotion of gender equality.

The attitude expressed about sex in the quote seems adolescent. Again, sexual continence is a fine ethic for people who wish to practice it. However, I felt the sentiment expressed had more to do with fear and ignorance than a positive assertion of a value.

the_new_mr wrote:

I'd posted this poem before on here but I thought it's quite suitable for the current discussion.

I think I’ve said it before, and I’ll certainly say it again. The poem sets up a straw man. Even taking it superficially, women don’t typically wear shorts skirts in the workplace in my experience. Women uninterested in personal appearance just dress blandly and get on with their lives.

metrovelvet

Actually, modern feminism acknowledges the value in a woman adopting the traditional role also, but again as long as it is her CHOICE.

kmick

the_new_mr wrote:

All you have to do is visit a non-Muslim feminist website and you'll see most of them encouraging women to wear casual clothes that cover up their body and not wear much makeup etc etc. There are plenty of cases where a woman who did this later got the sack.

I would like a concrete example rather than the kind of fly by night, my friend told me or I heard through a great aunt kind of evidence. This is what I am pointing out consistently - that your level of argument is very basic (with the greatest respect).

the_new_mr wrote:

And what about cases where there are two women with equal qualifications? You know it's happened where the more attractive woman has got the job.

To be honest if two people have exactly the same qualifications then the person who is better looking has an advantage. That is the way of the world. Don't know what the Quoran says about beauty but in the rest of the world beauty is admired not frowned upon.

Schuhart

metrovelvet wrote:

Actually, modern feminism acknowledges the value in a woman adopting the traditional role also, but again as long as it is her CHOICE.

You are making a fair point, and a necessary clarification.

Would it be fair to say that the choice element means that the traditional role is not assumed to automatically belong to the mother. There's an openess to the possibility of a couple deciding that their circumstances mean the husband is better placed to stay in the home, or that they each take a turn in home for a sustained period.

The ethic expressed in the quote in the OP would suggest that the husband is being remiss in such a situation and the wife is taking on a responsibility that she should be insulated from. As you say, fine if someone chooses that outlook. But not exactly a guideline for society.

metrovelvet wrote:

To be honest if two people have exactly the same qualifications then the person who is better looking has an advantage.

Indeed and, while acknowledging the Pastafarian belief that God gave fashion to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia, the matter of looking the part is something that, to a greater or lesser extent, everyone has to deal with.

DinoBot

the_new_mr wrote:

The idea that most women wear the hijab because they want to be socially accepted is very weak and is going as far as to question their intention (which is very wrong).

Well I was at mosque today and I saw 4yr and 6yr old girls wearing hijab. I dont see choice there. Are they being modest inorder to get a job ? Maybe they have decided to

"Don't blindly follow all around
DECLARE YOUR FREEDOM TO THE WORLD "

I cant see how when they grow up they will have any choice over it !!

metrovelvet

I do see little girls in NYC wearing them and think its a little bizarre. At the same time Ive also been in the manicurists in NYC and have had a 6 year old girl sitting next to me. Perhaps this is a globalisation of pushing girls to grow up faster?

Oh and I never said this:

Originally Posted by metrovelvet
To be honest if two people have exactly the same qualifications then the person who is better looking has an advantage.

the_new_mr

Karl Hungus wrote:

...and someone who must judge a woman on her personality because any alternative is denied to them

That's the idea

Karl Hungus wrote:

The second example could be equally as shallow and judgemental as anyone else, just simply having the freedom to judge denied.

They will still have to make some kind of judgment. The difference is that the factors are different.

metrovelvet wrote:

There was a radical feminist professor in my college who told the women in her political theory class that wearing a skirt was practising internalised oppression.

Agree with that. Yvonne Ridley made the point saying that she was always taught that the shorter a woman's skirts was, the more independent she was. She says that she has now turned that opinion on its head.

Schuhart wrote:

As I’ve said, I don’t see a point on focussing on an individuals decision. It’s the validity of the doctrine that I’m more interested in

So, you're planning to single-handedly prove Islam wrong are you? Illusions of grandeur here perhaps? And, may I ask, who are you to say so? I don't mean this to sound offensive but don't you think that this is arrogant?

Schuhart wrote:

I think its quite clear that the identity of the author is questionable, and the person may not even be a woman.

Possibly. But then, how do I know you don't have horns and a tail? As I said anyway, the identity of the person who wrote that text isn't important.

Schuhart wrote:

In honesty, I don’t know them to be the views of millions of Muslim women.

Well, you'll have to take my word for it on that one. Alternatively, you could always go and read the views of some Muslim women on the net and see how they defend it even more passionately than I do.

Schuart wrote:

I’ll also take it that, by raising it, you are inviting my view.

Well, to be honest, I didn't think that me posting that text would get much response. I just posted it here mainly because I thought the Muslims here might find it interesting to read and as food for thought and pretty much nothing else. Still, if it's started a discussion (and since this is a discussion board) then why not?

Schuhart wrote:

But I think the important point is such an argument is not feminism.

Well, first you must define what feminism is. I'll come to that a little later on.

Schuhart wrote:

By all means, wear a Hijab to express commitment to the idea that women have a very different role in life to men that, ultimately, involves submission to a husband.

You still insist on rewording it? That's not why women wear it and you know it.

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, in a book I read recently about the psychology of religion, a reason frequently given for the attraction of Islam by American women converts was the value placed on the homemaker role.

No doubt. I have a theory (or is it hypothesis?). The reason the feminist movement started in the first place was because women wanted to be equal with men, right? That's completely fair and is their right but what really caused the commotion in the first place was that women who stayed at home as homemakers were seen as doing the 'lesser' job. Indeed, until today, this problem is still existent.

Just the other week I was watching "According to Jim". Funny show. Anyway, in that show, Jim made out that he was the more important one in the family when it came to making financial decisions because he was the one making the money which was to great offense to his wife. She said that even though she had wanted to do stay at home, she didn't like the fact that she wasn't being appreciated. She then went on to start selling all her stuff which included Jim's favourite chair (apparently it was her's and she brought it in with her when they bought the house together). In the end, Jim acknowledged that her role in the family was just as important and he said that he was so sorry... then the show ended giving you a warm and fuzzy feeling inside as is always the case with shows like that

Anyway, the point to all this waffling is that this is a typical situation. Whereas in Islam, although a woman may work if she wants to, her position in the household is far more respected as it should be. An often used Arabic phrase for the woman of the house is "Queen of the palace". The man of the house doesn't usually have the same phrase associated to him.

Schuhart wrote:

bear in mind that promotion of gender equality is not just about granting women rights. It’s also about men and women sharing responsibilities previously regarded as the preserve of one or other gender.

I think this is as a result of women having their roles undermined in the past and we are now seeing the backlash.

Schuhart wrote:

But its just plain wrong to describe this as promotion of gender equality.

Let's say gender equity then.

metrovelvet wrote:

Actually, modern feminism acknowledges the value in a woman adopting the traditional role also, but again as long as it is her CHOICE.

Most definitely.

kmick wrote:

I would like a concrete example rather than the kind of fly by night, my friend told me or I heard through a great aunt kind of evidence. This is what I am pointing out consistently - that your level of argument is very basic (with the greatest respect).

Did a quick google. How about this post from a feminist blog?

Who benefits?

Or this article? Or this post on a blog? Unfortunately, that last one is from a man but the ideas are very valid.

kmick wrote:

That is the way of the world.

What a morbid and unfair attitude. Survival of the fittest is it? Let the beautiful people win because they look more pleasing the eye?

kmick wrote:

Don't know what the Quoran says about beauty but in the rest of the world beauty is admired not frowned upon.

A well known saying from a well known authentic hadith of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) is "God is beautiful and He loves beauty." Just because a woman is beautiful doesn't mean she has to show it to everyone. One often used analogy is that Islam views a woman like a pearl. Precious and to be protected.

DinoBot wrote:

Well I was at mosque today and I saw 4yr and 6yr old girls wearing hijab. I dont see choice there. Are they being modest inorder to get a job ? Maybe they have decided to

"Don't blindly follow all around
DECLARE YOUR FREEDOM TO THE WORLD "

I cant see how when they grow up they will have any choice over it !!

Girls are not supposed to wear it until they reach the age of puberty and that's that. Anyone who forces their girls to do so at a younger age is asking something of them that they are not required to do.

And don't you think it's insulting to the intelligence of women to say that they don't have a choice?

And what were you doing in the mosque anyway DinoBot?

Schuhart

metrovelvet wrote:

Oh and I never said this:

Originally Posted by metrovelvet
To be honest if two people have exactly the same qualifications then the person who is better looking has an advantage.

My profound apologies – the perils of cutting and pasting. That quote was actually from kmick.

the_new_mr wrote:

So, you're planning to single-handedly prove Islam wrong are you? Illusions of grandeur here perhaps? And, may I ask, who are you to say so? I don't mean this to sound offensive but don't you think that this is arrogant?

As far as I’m concerned religion is a human invention so, no, I don’t see myself or anyone else as arrogant when they question these inherited traditions. Religion implicitly acknowledges that average people like us can demonstrate its errors. That’s why concepts like heresy and apostasy exist.

the_new_mr wrote:

But then, how do I know you don't have horns and a tail?

I’ve never denied it.:eek:

the_new_mr wrote:

As I said anyway, the identity of the person who wrote that text isn't important.

I’m happy to proceed on that basis, but would point out that you started by announcing this to be the view of a non-Muslim woman which suggests you initially felt this to be important.

the_new_mr wrote:

Alternatively, you could always go and read the views of some Muslim women on the net and see how they defend it even more passionately than I do.

If I check on the net I’ll certainly find women defending the practice. I’ll also find women decrying it and, for example, complaining about the Turkish Prime Minister’s wife wearing a veil while accompanying her husband on official visits abroad. I’m not necessarily saying I agree with that complaint, but I’d take it the practice has far more significance for Turkish women than for me. Suffice it to say, it’s not an issue on which there is consensus among either women in general or Muslim women in particular.

the_new_mr wrote:

You still insist on rewording it? That's not why women wear it and you know it.

In fairness, I don’t know why women wear it. I expect some women wear it because they accept it as a religious obligation. Some may do it to show that there are proud of their heritage in a context where Islam is being criticised. Others may find their families approve of the practice and wearing it avoids conflict in the home. Perhaps some do it because they didn't have a chance to wash their hair last night, and I'd guess that's not exhausting the possible reasons someone could have.

But on the question of submission to husbands, I take it we accept that strand is present in Islam. I 've nothing to hand, but I could come up with the inevitable fatwas from islamonline.net if the need arises.

the_new_mr wrote:

Let's say gender equity then.

We can call it gender equity, but I’ve a fear that we’re only looking for a phrase that seems to say equality but doesn’t. I see two concepts.

There is, on the one hand, the concept that traditional gender roles should be held in equal esteem. If I was labelling that agenda, I’d simply call it something like ‘traditional values’. On the other hand, there’s gender equality. That’s the removal of any artificial barrier to one or other gender adopting a particular role. If memory serves, Plato considers this in the context of the ideal republic. In answer to the question should women participate in military training, the argument concludes that they should even if, on average, they might be less useful as soldiers. Why? Because otherwise security becomes a gift of men to women, and a principle of dependency is formed.

I’m not particularly getting into the topic of gender roles here as, obviously, it’s vast. I’m just underlining that point that ‘gender equity’ as you use the term and ‘gender equality’ are two quite different propositions. I’m not sure anything is made clearer by calling both of these different things ‘feminism’.

InFront

Don't really have time to reply properly, but just happened to notice a special feature on hijab on islamonline earlier available here which has information from the most basics to hijab and law, and more complicated questions.

And even better page is an article from a Muslim woman (well we should have a bit more female input!) here where she describes why she chooses the headscarf

the_new_mr

Good call InFront. I've been quite uncomfortable with the lack of female input on this thread and while I'm more than happy to defend my sisters around the world right to wear hijab, a word from one of them is worth at least 100 of mine or anyone else's. Nice links.

Schuhart wrote:

As far as I’m concerned religion is a human invention so, no, I don’t see myself or anyone else as arrogant when they question these inherited traditions.

I know that's what you think but this forum isn't for that.

Schuhart wrote:

Religion implicitly acknowledges that average people like us can demonstrate its errors. That’s why concepts like heresy and apostasy exist.

No idea what you're on about there. Just because heresy and apostasy exist doesn't mean that a religion (as if to personify it here) acknowledges that average people like us can demonstrate errors because, I believe, that Islam has no errors. In fact the very idea of apostasy means that someone is not practicing that religion anymore. It means that they have left what is defined in that religion.

And anyway, if you are of that opinion then I won't force mine on you but there's no point for you to try to force yours on me or anyone else here. I refer you back to this post.

Schuhart wrote:

I’m happy to proceed on that basis, but would point out that you started by announcing this to be the view of a non-Muslim woman which suggests you initially felt this to be important.

Well, originally I felt it was a big part of it but now that I have you doubting the source then I said to myself that we may as well just concentrate on the text. And my reasoning for that is that there are a number of Muslim women who would give the reasons mentioned in the text and more (as InFront has demonstrated).

Schuhart wrote:

Suffice it to say, it’s not an issue on which there is consensus among either women in general or Muslim women in particular.

That may be the case but a large number of Muslim women all over the world wear hijab. Even most of the women who don't wear it admit that they really feel they should and have their own personal struggle with it and want to wear it some day.

Schuhart wrote:

In fairness, I don’t know why women wear it.

Your very next sentence...

Schuhart wrote:

I expect some women wear it because they accept it as a religious obligation.

This is it. I think you can strike out "some" and put "most". Any other reason is simply additional... like a bonus. And if any other reason is the primary reason then I believe that woman should renew her intention as to why she is doing it for it is an act of worship.

Al-Nour:31
"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed."

Schuhart wrote:

I’m not sure anything is made clearer by calling both of these different things ‘feminism’.

Without getting into the whole gender equality thing, I think it's fair to say that both of what you mentioned can be called feminism if there are women who call themselves feminists saying either of these things.

At the end of the day, men and women are different. We all know that. We've all known it since we were little kids. But are they equal? In God's eyes, there is no question that the answer is a resounding YES.

But, unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. If men of the world gave women the respect they deserve (and I speak of men in Muslim countries as well as men in the west and the rest of the world), then perhaps a lot of women wouldn't feel insecure.

You have a situation where women see that they aren't being treated with respect. So, they ask themselves "how can we get respect?" and come to the conclusion that the best way to do this is by being the exact same as men. If a woman wants to work then she should. If she wants to stay home then she should. Personally speaking, I think the family should come first and not be jeopardised by both parents working but if it can be done then why not? Obviously, in some cases, both parents must work in order to support the home.

I'd like to know how it is that if society promotes the idea that it's perfectly okay for women to be scantily clad in music videos, to dress to show more and more of their figure and skin and generally be what men want them to be (or perhaps more accurately, dress and behave how men want them to) then how is this respecting women? We live in a world where magazines like Playboy are seen as "okay" and simply part of the entertainment industry. Why should we accept this rubbish? I repeat the words of my feminist friend from this blog. Who benefits?

And then there's rotten inequality when it comes to how men and women are viewed when it comes to relationships. Everybody knows Christina Aguilera here I assume. The following is an extract from one of her songs.

If you look back in history
It's a common double standard of society
The guy gets all the glory the more he can score
While the girl can do the same and yet you call her a whore
I don't understand why it's okay
The guy can get away with it the girl gets named

Disclaimer: I'd just like to take this opportunity to say that the only reason I know of the above lyrics is because it was on a tv show. I don't listen to Christina Aguilera

She's spot on! But I don't agree with her solution. I would say go the other way. If a man sleeps around, call him a slut and lower your level of respect for him. I'm sad to say that the situation isn't much better in a lot of Muslim countries and is one of the most serious problems that most Muslim societies face today. It's not usually as extreme as "sleeping around". But if a young man has a girlfriend, people often say "He's just young and will come out of it when he gets older" but if a girl has a boyfriend it's usually a family scandal.

So, in this respect, hijab is pure feminism. A woman is saying to the society: "I won't wear things just because you want me to wear them, I'm going to cover myself up because only my husband has the right to see me. You're going to have to judge me by my personality, mind and skills because that's all you're going to see of me. I am my own person and I won't be what you want me to be."

DinoBot

the_new_mr wrote:

Girls are not supposed to wear it until they reach the age of puberty and that's that. Anyone who forces their girls to do so at a younger age is asking something of them that they are not required to do.

And don't you think it's insulting to the intelligence of women to say that they don't have a choice?

Well you see thats why I dont really write too much on this topic. I have discussed this to death over the years and its very difficult to get anywhere. You see most people like to speak of the ideal, like you saying there is choice, while the reality is what you see. You said "Girls are not supposed to wear it until they reach the age of puberty" but thats the "IDEAL". The "REALITY" is what you see in Mosque.

The "Ideal" is that woman have choice, "reality" is that there is alot of pressure on the men to have their wives and daughters cover up........ I know this first hand so dont state quoting quran :-) Ideal is nice to know but I think if more muslims started to look at how Isam is practiced it would lead to a better disscussion.

the_new_mr wrote:

And what were you doing in the mosque anyway DinoBot?

Im not an outsider looking in ;-)

The Corinthian

One thing that a lot of people seem to be missing out on is the cultural or ethnic dimension to the hijab. After all, when they go abroad Scots are hardly 'fitting in' when they wear kilts and so it can be argued that the wearing of the hijab is as much as cultural or ethnic identity as a religious one - a theory strengthened if you consider the huge variations in Muslim female coverings, from full-body burka's through to those who will wear none or even instead wear a wig (something that many orthodox Jewish women have been doing for a log time) - variations that are based largely upon the where the women in question are from. And religious interpretation, of course.

It's very easy to confuse the Islamic faith with its Arabocentric origins. The principle language of faith is Arabic, the historical origins are Arabic, even many of the religious observances are not uncommon to pre-Islamic and non-Islamic Arabic cultures. As such it is understandable that many women would genuinely want to wear it as it is, after all, part of their cultural identity, just as much (if not more so) as kilts are for Scots.

kmick

the_new_mr wrote:

Did a quick google. How about this post from a feminist blog?

To be honest having read the first page of this there is not much coherent thought there either. It varies between 'we should wear what we like' to 'we should not wear what men like' and any other point in between. However it does not go any way to showing me this...

the_new_mr wrote:

All you have to do is visit a non-Muslim feminist website and you'll see most of them encouraging women to wear casual clothes that cover up their body and not wear much makeup etc etc. There are plenty of cases where a woman who did this later got the sack.

the_new_mr wrote:

What a morbid and unfair attitude. Survival of the fittest is it? Let the beautiful people win because they look more pleasing the eye?

You are taking me out of context. What I said was that if two people have 'exactly' the same qualifications and one is better looking and gets the job on this basis; they have got the job because they have an 'advantage' over the other person. That advantage is beauty, which is recognised as 'positive' concept world wide and in every religion.

Thanks for the debate - however I think it has done little to dispel my very loosely held views that the debate on religions and their good and bad elements is conducted at a very basic level in society.

metrovelvet

The irony of the hijab is that like any kind of veil or covering it draws attention to the very thing its trying to hide,so what it actually ends up doing is OVER ertoticising women's hair.

Its like girls who wear a bucket of makeup on their face to hide their bad skin, it only draws attention to it.

No doubt this started out with practical purposes -a head covering protects the skin and hair from the hot middle eastern sun- and has evolved into a matrix of cultural significance.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

I've been quite uncomfortable with the lack of female input on this thread

Indeed, as it would be interesting to see an exchange of views between women who place a positive value on the practice and women who see it as anathema.

the_new_mr wrote:

I know that's what you think but this forum isn't for that.

Indeed, but I have no other way of responding to your query about ‘arrogance’ other than to state plainly that I don’t see how this concept applies to one human querying an institution founded by another human.

the_new_mr wrote:

Just because heresy and apostasy exist doesn't mean that a religion (as if to personify it here) acknowledges that average people like us can demonstrate errors

Its evidence of someone claiming the right to intermediate between you and God, and placing a sanction on anyone who tries to dissent. No religious authority figure of any faith can explain how what he’s saying is different to turtles all the way down, a proposition readily understood by anyone. The reason religious dissent is suppressed is because it cannot be answered.

the_new_mr wrote:

Even most of the women who don't wear it admit that they really feel they should and have their own personal struggle with it and want to wear it some day.

That could well be true, however you’ll understand that we really need some evidence to so quickly jump from ‘some’ to ‘most’. I think it might also be helpful to report that some women seem to be in situations that might intimidate them into wearing it, just to acknowledge there's a little more to this issue than basking in the glow of wholesome womanhood.

the_new_mr wrote:

Everybody knows Christina Aguilera here I assume.

Indeed, but I doubt if she foresaw that her lyrics would be used to defend the idea that a woman should wrap herself in a blanket in front of every man except her husband, who, of course, can have multiple wives.

the_new_mr wrote:

So, in this respect, hijab is pure feminism.

Only in the sense of feminism being redefined to mean something other than what it is. Can I start calling myself a theist, by redefining the term to mean someone who thinks God is a human construct?

metrovelvet wrote:

No doubt this started out with practical purposes -a head covering protects the skin and hair from the hot middle eastern sun- and has evolved into a matrix of cultural significance.

Some have suggested that it has quite a different origin.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

Religion implicitly acknowledges that average people like us can demonstrate its errors. That’s why concepts like heresy and apostasy exist

If your statement were correct then by default Islam implicitly acknowledges its errors – but what errors? I don't know how you come to that conclusion, it just sort of, popped into the reply like an accepted fact. I'm sure we've had such a debate previously (!) lets just agree that the above shouldn't be, or isn’t, taken as accepted fact. God doesn't make errors. If you're a non-Muslim, I presume you might disagree, but as the_new_mr said, that's simply because you've (i.e. 'one has') decided not to embrace Islam.

Terms like apostasy don’t imply a fault with Islam. They exist because there are almost always people who reject truth - for a very different example: Jewish Holocaust denial exists. Does this mean that history inherently perceives an error in saying the Holocaust happened? No, of course not. It just means that some people inevitably deny the truth. That doesn't detract from the Holocaust. (sorry about the grim example, first one to mind).
Apostasy doesn’t detract from Islam, it just means some people deny it.

It's [Hijab] not an issue on which there is consensus among either women in general or Muslim women in particular. In fairness, I don’t know why women wear it. I expect some women wear it because they accept it as a religious obligation. Some may do it to show that there are proud of their heritage in a context where Islam is being criticised. Others may find their families approve of the practice and wearing it avoids conflict in the home. Perhaps some do it because they didn't have a chance to wash their hair

Yes, Hijab is a religious obligation, so there are positives that come with that, that's the universal reason.

Apart from the immediate religious obligation, I don't think anyone can really pin-point the other benefits as universal for all, but they certainly are there and have been mentioned already.

Just in relation to ‘force’, Muslims, like anybody, can make mistakes. Any swing away from what Allah wills is a wrongdoing, a sort of deviation. Sometimes there is deliberate wrongdoing, or else someone has been misinformed. It happens at a personal level, it happens right up to Government level. I think it is important to differentiate between this wrongdoing, and Islam. True Islam is from Allah, wrongdoing is down to human weakness.
So as you say, yes we presume that sometimes there must be cases where women are forced to the Hijab… but who gets the blame for that - Islam? I don't see how. The person causing the problem? Yes, that makes more sense. Allah sets the standard, we obey or we don't. Obviously it would be great if we could all honour Him perfectly; unfortunately for us we all make mistakes. Islam cannot be accountable if one of us upsets Allah - that wouldn't make any sense, it's our choice, we take the blame ourselves.

(Eventually) my point is that if people sometimes get it wrong about Hijab, it doesn't detract from the inherent correctness of Hijab and all of the benefits that belong to it. It just means that someone has unfortunately got it wrong. Should that ruin Hijab for everybody else? As kmick said earlier, most people seem perfectly happy with it, where’s the problem?

...gender equality. That’s the removal of any artificial barrier to one or other gender adopting a particular role.

Yeah but meanings of that are really broad. I mean it would depend on what the artificial barrier is, and what particular role is in question.
What is gender equality? I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with the notion of men and women should be 'the same'. Why are we different? For procreation and nothing else? If a woman is the very equal of a man except in anatomy, doesn't that just revert the definition of womanhood back to the role as a childbearer? Doesn't that also mean that man, is only actually defined by his sexual functions?
That sounds like a terrible definition of what it means to be a man, and what it means to be a woman. Yet this is what gender equality suggests.

Why can't we just accept our differences, and be comfortable with them? Should we all be the same? Doesn't that just erode womanhood? And manhood too? What is left to set us apart as we were created? I am reminded of this quote from the_new_mr's link (University of Texas, Gender Equality)

Other feminine roles have been reduced as well, making women feel powerless. It seems like the only way for them to gain power is through sex. For example, at Harvard University, a new magazine, whose creators are female, will feature Harvard women posing nude. Why would women at one of the most prestigious universities in the world and who presumably have everything going for them want to pose nude? Because it is the only way they can distinguish themselves from men.

Originally posted by DinoBot
You see most people like to speak of the ideal, like you saying there is choice, while the reality is what you see. You said "Girls are not supposed to wear it until they reach the age of puberty" but that’s the "IDEAL". The "REALITY" is what you see in Mosque.

As has been said, Islam does not instruct little 4 and 6 year old girls to adapt Hijab unless you know differently? If some parents instruct it, it’s their decision.
Here is an interesting link that deals with the difference between force and obligation:

"What those writers say about forcing hijab on Muslim women is a false allegation put forward by some Westerners against Islam and the Muslim woman. The main objective behind such allegation is to encourage the Muslim woman to break the laws of the Muslim family and disobey her parents. It is not a call for liberation or giving Muslim women their rights.

Allah Almighty has entrusted parents with their children. Parents bear the responsibility to raise up their children in the Islamic way. If they do that, they will be blessed in this life and in the Hereafter, and if they don't, they will get bad result during their life and in the Hereafter. In Islam, parents are not to force their children to do anything that is considered against the law of the Shari`ah. That is why Islam has ordered parents to take care of their children and to bring them up according to the Islamic manners.

Hijab is an obligation from Allah on Muslim women. The obligation is referred to in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. The Muslim woman must wear it and the Muslim parents should encourage their daughters to wear it."

See how he says 'encourage', of course we must strongly encourage it, because it is an instruction from God. But ultimately, it can’t be forced on someone.

Just to go back to those young girls, are you sure that they were forced to wear Hijab? I have no reason to defend their parents, but as everyone who has sisters or little girls around the house knows, they enjoy dressing up like adults, especially at that age. Little girls sometimes ask to play with their mothers' jewelry; they want to have the same profession as their Dad, or their Mother. As their elders, children just want to behave like their parents and inherit knowledge - that's how they learn (we all learned) to grow up. Six year old girls try to emulate their mothers.

So even though she doesn't understand the meaning of it, I don't think there is harm in allowing a girl to put on a headscarf if she really wants to do it to be like her mother, maybe just for the visit to the mosque. I would have thought it (hopefully) encourages a positive attitude to Hijab, and makes it something special for her visit - if she wants it. Motivation is surely one of the most important tools of parenting, what better way to teach children than to motivate them? I wonder if those girls would usually dress like that? Anyway that's just one theory, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions in either direction.

Originally posted by Schuhart
Indeed, but I doubt if she foresaw that her lyrics would be used to defend the idea that a woman should wrap herself in a blanket in front of every man except her husband, who, of course, can have multiple wives

It's not a blanket, it's Hijab, and it’s for God. It doesn't have to be 'every man except her husband', and as you already know, 'having multiple wives' does not reflect the reality or the complexity of that situation, it seems like a bit of a cheap shot.

I'd never really thought about the hijab before. A simple headscarf hardly seems that oppressive. And some of the ones I've seen can be very pretty indeed. It's interesting to see the feminist slant on it and some of the opinions... they certainly seem to make sense to me. One kuwaiti girl I know says it saves on bad hair days

I suppose it all comes down to why each woman wears it in the first place. If they all have the attitude of being comfortable with it and happy with how they can pick and choose who they show what to and being modest, good for them. If they're getting in trouble - so to speak - with family members etc for not wearing it, well then we have a different story.
But then that applies to anything, doesn't it. Like makeup. I like wearing makeup once in a while (read: a long while ) just to dress up or whatever. But the moment someone says I have to wear it day to day, I'll dig my heels in.
So um yeah, there's another non-muslim women's opinion for you all, dunno if it's any use to anyone.

Speaking of headscarves in general, did irish women from a few decades ago not always wear them here...?

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

If your statement were correct then by default Islam implicitly acknowledges its errors – but what errors?

So it joins that long list of error free religions that contradict each other. Bearing in mind the extent of disagreement within each faith, never mind between faiths, I simply cannot understand how an assertion of perfection can be seriously presented.

Consider the context. I’m being described as arrogant for questioning Islam. Apparently, my accusers feel their belief system is error free. Where should that charge of arrogance truly lie?

InFront wrote:

Apostasy doesn’t detract from Islam, it just means some people deny it.

Apostasy is one of the techniques used by religion to frustrate questioning and discussion. It protects itself by placing a taboo over the questioning of the faith. The comparison to Holocaust denial is just irrelevant.

InFront wrote:

True Islam is from Allah, wrongdoing is down to human weakness.

This is a word game played before. It consists of redefining ‘Islam’ to mean a sort of Platonic ideal, and the human implementation is just an imperfect Earthly reflection. Let me clarify that I’m interested in the Earthly reflection.

Plato does, of course, use the image of the cave to communicate an idea of human understanding. Outside the light shines. We stand in a cave with our backs to it watching shadows playing on the wall, thinking that is reality. In that situation, religion isn’t the light. It’s one of the shadows.

InFront wrote:

if people sometimes get it wrong about Hijab, it doesn't detract from the inherent correctness of Hijab and all of the benefits that belong to it.

Indeed, but there still has to be acknowledgement of that aspect of the faith that leads to a woman being shot for not covering enough of her hair. From what we can gather, her assailant did not justify his actions on the basis of an excessively literal reading of ‘The God Delusion’.

InFront wrote:

As kmick said earlier, most people seem perfectly happy with it, where’s the problem?

No problem whatsoever. If large numbers of
women freely choose a subservient role and what to follow a belief system that values that choice and provides symbols to wear that reflect it, I’ve no trouble at all. I just think we have to be open about that being what we are saying.

InFront wrote:

What is gender equality?

The whole issue of equality is too vast to deal with here, but I don’t see it as requiring anyone to have surgery. I’m more interested in just establish that, generally, Islamic values are not about gender equality. Doing my best to meet you half way, I might describe it as being very positive about different genders having very different roles. But that’s something else. (If I wasn’t trying to meet you half way I’d describe it as ‘women should be as equal as they can be, poor dears’.)

InFront wrote:

It's not a blanket, it's Hijab, and it’s for God.

Indeed, but if she forgot her Hijab a blanket could do the job just as well. I’m sure God would pay exactly the same amount of attention to it.

InFront wrote:

It doesn't have to be 'every man except her husband',

So true. She can strut her stuff out in front of her father and her sons, too.

Do you really think your statement makes any material difference to the situation?

InFront wrote:

and as you already know, 'having multiple wives' does not reflect the reality or the complexity of that situation, it seems like a bit of a cheap shot.

A cheap shot that Islam leaves open for me. Sounds to me like a candidate for Ijtihad, but seeing as how the doctrine is absolutely error free I suppose that’s out of the question.

bluewolf wrote:

some of the ones I've seen can be very pretty indeed.

I like the fact of some actual humanity entering the discussion. So it makes me reluctant to say it, but I have to ask if this is not exactly what the hijab is supposed to be masking. According to the lads, its all about religion and hiding what you’ve got.

bluewolf wrote:

One kuwaiti girl I know says it saves on bad hair days

I’ve frequently suspected this. Thanks for adding some reality to the discussion.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

So it joins that long list of error free religions that contradict each other.

No, it is the true religion, there is no long list. But no doubt there is a long list of points where Islam is not in agreement with other traditions and beliefs, these are the points where other faiths, specifically Judaism and Christianity move away from Islam, though we've still got areas of shared beliefs.

Bearing in mind the extent of disagreement within each faith, never mind between faiths, I simply cannot understand how an assertion of perfection can be seriously presented.

As Muslims we don't subscribe to these differences, so I don't see how we can be expected to explain them, or how they would ever detract from perfection in Islam, not beeing Islamic beliefs?

Consider the context. I’m being described as arrogant for questioning Islam. Apparently, my accusers feel their belief system is error free.

Can I ask do you believe that about atheism? I don't know anyone who ever thinks themselves wrong when it comes to their faith - how could it remain their faith when it is actually a doubt to them?

Apostasy is one of the techniques used by religion to frustrate questioning and discussion.

No, Islam isn't a conspiracy theory, you need to have a word for the rejection of iman (the sincere, inner faith) and denial of Allah, this is what the experts describe as 'kufr', which suggests apostasy. There is no ulterior motive or hidden agenda. If Allah wanted to cease any questioning and discussion, why wouldn't he just have taken away our ability to consider these very questions?

The comparison to Holocaust denial is just irrelevant.This is a word game played before. It consists of redefining ‘Islam’ to mean a sort of Platonic ideal, and the human implementation is just an imperfect Earthly reflection.

Yes the Holocaust comparison is quite a bad one, it's just the central point that is important: just because some people deny a truth, it doesn't actually detract from the truth.
Some people reject Islam, reject iman - that doesn't mean that Islam is false, it just shows that some people don't believe in it.
Islam is the faith that we are all expected to follow as best we can inshallah (if it is God's will), and sure, deviation away from that is a human weakness or lack of knowledge. You obviously find that frustrating, but I'm not sure what other way there is to say it.

Plato does, of course, use the image of the cave to communicate an idea of human understanding. Outside the light shines. We stand in a cave with our backs to it watching shadows playing on the wall, thinking that is reality. In that situation, religion isn’t the light. It’s one of the shadows.

Not exactly, in Islam we do have the Qur'an, which to continue your cave allegory, allows Muslims access out of the cave into the openness. The Qur'an is the direct word from Allah, it consists of the Ghayb (the unseen) that He has chosen to reveal for us. So watching shadows on the wall in Plato's cave is not an appropriate metaphor for Islam.
Does atheism, or someone like Richard Dawkins, claim to be the visionary who stumbles out into the light to the higher truth? Isn't it a more valid thing to say that atheists are still inside the cave, denying the existence of such an outdoors - because they cannot see it, cannot imagine it, and insisting that they are all the better for it?

Indeed, but there still has to be acknowledgement of that aspect of the faith that leads to a woman being shot for not covering enough of her hair.

What woman? If that happened, there's no defending it; I don't see how such acts which are as illegal as they are immoral can be blamed on Islam when they are clearly the not Islamic.
Another unfortunate example I'm afraid but again it's the concept that matters - if someone is shot in the street, do you blame the shooter or do you blame the law that forbids it?
So Islam cannot be held accountable for killing a woman who doesn't observe Hijab - Islam doesn't warrant it.

From what we can gather, her assailant did not justify his actions on the basis of an excessively literal reading of ‘The God Delusion’.

You think he took it from the Qur'an? Can you quote the instruction?

The whole issue of equality is too vast to deal with here, but I don’t see it as requiring anyone to have surgery. I’m more interested in just establish that, generally, Islamic values are not about gender equality. Doing my best to meet you half way, I might describe it as being very positive about different genders having very different roles.

Well I think that sums up what I understand the Muslim outlook to be - but 'Allahu Alam' (God knows best). So if that were your definition I think we agree on it, different genders, while equal in the eyes of God, have differing roles in life.

You also say that women should be as equal as they can be. Well, I don't think I really disagree with you, but it depends on the meaning. Do you mean "the same" in that they are the very same except for in anatomy? Or does the similarity end when you take into account that there are more subtle, emotional and characteristic differences between men and women? It's a big difference, but it's also a huge issue, and there are no easy answers.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

No, it is the true religion, there is no long list.

There’s some guys on the Christianity forum you should meet.

InFront wrote:

As Muslims we don't subscribe to these differences, so I don't see how we can be expected to explain them, or how they would ever detract from perfection in Islam, not beeing Islamic beliefs?

Are you suggesting that there’s uniformity of belief with Islam? (Incidently, when I said disagreement within faiths as well as between faiths, I was suggesting that in addition to the obvious divergence between, say, Islam and Christianity, Muslims don’t all agree on what Islam is, Christians don’t all agree on what Christianity is. I might not have made that clear enough.)

InFront wrote:

Can I ask do you believe that about atheism?

I might be totally wrong, and even now Satan might be heating a poker to get it good and hot for me when I arrive. But I don’t see the point in following an elaborate fantasy to pretend I’m not facing an unknown. I think I’ve said either in this thread or a recent one that quite possibly the Quran is the exact word of God. I just think the chance is so low that it can be discounted. Ditto for the Bible or any other theist source book you’d care to mention.

There’s an essential uncertainty in human existence. I’ve said in other forums that I see the atheist leap of faith is to assume its better to face that than pretend it’s otherwise. That could be wrong. Maybe we’re better off pretending.

InFront wrote:

If Allah wanted to cease any questioning and discussion, why wouldn't he just have taken away our ability to consider these very questions?

I really don’t know. For the same reason he gave women bodies that have to be hidden?

InFront wrote:

Some people reject Islam, reject iman - that doesn't mean that Islam is false, it just shows that some people don't believe in it.

That statement is utter consistent. The act of rejecting a religion does not show it to be false. What should set some alarm bells ringing is how religion reacts both to that rejection and simply to honest questions.

InFront wrote:

Isn't it a more valid thing to say that atheists are still inside the cave, denying the existence of such an outdoors - because they cannot see it, cannot imagine it, and insisting that they are all the better for it?

As I see it, atheists are in the cave like everyone else, staring at the wall. We’re just saying “these are only shadows, how do we get out of here?” Maybe if we shut up and stared at the shadows for long enough they’d change colour, and we’d stop being bothered. That seems to work for everyone else.

InFront wrote:

What woman? If that happened, there's no defending it; I don't see how such acts which are as illegal as they are immoral can be blamed on Islam when they are clearly the not Islamic.

I’m being too oblique – it’s a reference to some religious nut shooting a government minister in Pakistan. Indeed, there’s no reason for mainstream Islam to have to defend such actions or anything like that. I see it in the same way as if an evangelical Christian maintains his faith is wonderfully uplifting, that its fair to point to, say, Ted Haggard and reflect on how he must surely have read the bible more than once and it hardly made him a paragon of virtue. What’s the point of that? To challenge an easy consensus of apathy that, without such challenges, would pretend that religion spreads sweetness and light in every corner of the world.

InFront wrote:

Do you mean that women are the very same except for in anatomy? Or that there are more subtle, emotional and characteristic differences between men and women? It's a big difference, but it's also a huge issue, and there are no easy answers.

I’m garbling my points, and I can see I phrased that poorly. I’d see the Islamic value as (summarising into one phrase) being very positive about different genders having very different roles, and not really being concerned about equality. Maybe you shouldn’t be. Maybe that’s a good thing. I’m just pointing out that this seems to be the value because there seems to be a reluctance sometimes to frankly acknowledging it.

Just so I don’t seem evasive, clearly I don’t see this as a positive value. Some women don’t agree with my outlook, and choose Islam because they want a philosophy that values that homemaker role. I’ve never been drawn to the idea that the gift of God is a quiet woman in a well kept house. But I’m already sharing a disordered house with a loud woman, so I really shouldn’t object to someone achieving their own version of Nirvana.

I see the core principle of equality as being one that does not make any assumptions based on gender. That’s not to say that differences don’t exist, or natural inclinations might not lead people in certain directions. But I don’t see why birth into one or other gender necessarily has to limit someone’s options, other than in respect of simple and obvious physical limitations of what a male or female body is equipped to do.

That’s the ideal, but I don’t see that ideal as something fixed or even something that we fully understand. Bear in mind, I don’t think any deity has given us the final word on anything. We are still writing the story.

the_new_mr

kmick wrote:

You are taking me out of context. What I said was that if two people have 'exactly' the same qualifications and one is better looking and gets the job on this basis; they have got the job because they have an 'advantage' over the other person. That advantage is beauty, which is recognised as 'positive' concept world wide and in every religion.

In fairness kmick, I don't think I took you out of context. You're saying that with all things being equal, a more beautiful person should get the job because, in your own words, "that is the way of the world".

metrovelvet wrote:

The irony of the hijab is that like any kind of veil or covering it draws attention to the very thing its trying to hide,so what it actually ends up doing is OVER ertoticising women's hair.

In your opinion. And by the way, hijab doesn't just mean covering the hair. It's about dressing modestly in general.

Schuhart wrote:

Only in the sense of feminism being redefined to mean something other than what it is.

There's no redefinition here. It's already been established that feminism can mean a couple of things.

And are you a feminist who is a female? No, I don't think you are. Perhaps, though, you could take up your point with someone who does classify themselves as a female feminist and does consider hijab an important part of her feminism. Maybe you could have a talk with Yvonne Ridley whenever you get the chance.

InFront wrote:

Just to go back to those young girls, are you sure that they were forced to wear Hijab? I have no reason to defend their parents, but as everyone who has sisters or little girls around the house knows, they enjoy dressing up like adults, especially at that age. Little girls sometimes ask to play with their mothers' jewelry; they want to have the same profession as their Dad, or their Mother. As their elders, children just want to behave like their parents and inherit knowledge - that's how they learn (we all learned) to grow up. Six year old girls try to emulate their mothers.

So even though she doesn't understand the meaning of it, I don't think there is harm in allowing a girl to put on a headscarf if she really wants to do it to be like her mother, maybe just for the visit to the mosque. I would have thought it (hopefully) encourages a positive attitude to Hijab, and makes it something special for her visit - if she wants it. Motivation is surely one of the most important tools of parenting, what better way to teach children than to motivate them? I wonder if those girls would usually dress like that? Anyway that's just one theory, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions in either direction.

Excellent point! I'd say there are a lot of girls that like to wear hijab when they go to the mosque. It's just part of the "day out" experience for most of them. And of course, if they are being forced then that's plain wrong but as has already been mentioned a number of times here, you can't blame a religion for the actions of its followers.

Schuhart wrote:

Where should that charge of arrogance truly lie?

Well, I said you were being arrogant for believing that you can single-handedly disprove Islam. I believe Islam is error free and you don't. That's a difference of opinion and I'm ready to accept it as that. Perhaps you should think of doing the same?

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, but there still has to be acknowledgement of that aspect of the faith that leads to a woman being shot for not covering enough of her hair.

Once again, don't blame a religion for the actions of a crazy few.

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, but I doubt if she foresaw that her lyrics would be used to defend the idea that a woman should wrap herself in a blanket in front of every man except her husband, who, of course, can have multiple wives.

Two things to say to this:

1.: How does her foreseeing this have anything to do with the discussion at hand?

2.: The discussion of having more than wife has already been discussed here on this forum before in a number of other threads and is off-topic in this one. You have done these kind of quick fire attacks before. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable Schuhart. You tend to do this often. I remind you of rule #1 of the forum charter which you have just breached. Consider this an official warning and I bring your attention to the recently amended forum article 1a.

Funnily enough, I was at a talk the other day in a small mosque where a scholar was talking about two main topics. The first was about building bridges with those whom a rift has built up or with people in the west. The second topic was about rights in marriage and the discussion soon ended up being about polygany. Anyway, the scholar made a very good point. He said that if someone is intent on marrying another woman and says the main reason he's doing it is to follow the sunna (the tradition of the Prophet) then he should consider marrying an old widow or divorcee who needs companionship in their old age and a carer for her children since the majority of the Prophet's marriages were as such.

Schuhart" wrote:

bluewolf wrote:

One kuwaiti girl I know says it saves on bad hair days

I’ve frequently suspected this. Thanks for adding some reality to the discussion.

Yeah, thanks for the input Bluewolf.

But I must add, I think the Kuwaiti girl in question was more than likely just trying to add some humour to the matter and is very unlikely to be her prime motivation. If it is, then as already mentioned, she should renew her intention.

Schuhart wrote:

For the same reason he gave women bodies that have to be hidden?

Not all the time.

Schuhart wrote:

What should set some alarm bells ringing is how religion reacts both to that rejection and simply to honest questions.

I think you have the wrong idea about questions in Islam. Questions are allowed. You often tend to attack Islam and take the mickey which nobody reacts well to. If you have an honest question then you deserve to have it answered. But if you have your questioned answered and you don't like the answer then you can either pursue the question further if you feel you need to clarify your question or add another factor or two to the question, or you may pursue the question with a different person or just decide it's not for you and leave it at that. It's your decision. Once again, I bring your attention to this thread.

Schuhart wrote:

I’m being too oblique – it’s a reference to some religious nut shooting a government minister in Pakistan. Indeed, there’s no reason for mainstream Islam to have to defend such actions or anything like that.

If that is your opinion then why say what you said earlier?

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

It's already been established that feminism can mean a couple of things.

I think we’ve moved passed being lost in terminology. My concern was using language in a way that cloaks meaning rather than clarifies what is being said. I’m stating the split, as I see it, as being between people who feel it is important that distinctions in socially determined gender roles are maintained and those who don’t. Calling the maintenance of distinct gender roles ‘feminism’ and pointing out that many women support the maintenance of distinct gender roles does not, IMHO, clarify that distinction.

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, I said you were being arrogant for believing that you can single-handedly disprove Islam.

I’m not confident you’re digesting the significance of what it takes to say something is error free.

the_new_mr wrote:

I believe Islam is error free and you don't.

You can, of course, assert that Islam is error free. I can, of course, respond that Islam has several conflicting variants so that statement is meaningless. Clearly, whether any dialogue results depends entirely on whether there’s an appetite for discussion.

the_new_mr wrote:

That's a difference of opinion and I'm ready to accept it as that. Perhaps you should think of doing the same?

If that’s all there was, I’d be fine. All that drags me in are statements that make no sense, like Islam being asserted to be error free. Asserting Islam to be a matter of faith causes me no problems.

the_new_mr wrote:

How does her foreseeing this have anything to do with the discussion at hand?

Because I’d suspect (not having discussed the matter directly with her) that her complaint about different standards applying to the behaviour of women actually means things like the expectation that women should cover themselves lest they provoke a man’s lust.

the_new_mr wrote:

You have done these kind of quick fire attacks before.

If referring to something that’s a part of Islam, however many embarrassed explanations try to mitigate it, constitutes a ‘quick fire attack’, then I expect that I’ll be experiencing 1a fairly shortly. I look forward to it because, without over-dramatising the significance of the discussions here, in miniature it sort of makes my point about the reaction of religion to dissent. And don’t worry, I won’t leap to the conclusion that just because one Muslim bans me from a board it means that every Muslim wants to suppress free speech. After all, I’d quite possibly find an amount of common ground with Irshad Manji.

the_new_mr wrote:

he should consider marrying an old widow or divorcee who needs companionship in their old age and a carer for her children since the majority of the Prophet's marriages were as such.

Is there a smiley that expresses stunned silence?

the_new_mr wrote:

I think you have the wrong idea about questions in Islam.

No, I think I’ve got it pretty clear. Only ask questions that don't really matter.

the_new_mr wrote:

If that is your opinion then why say what you said earlier?

I can’t put it any better than I did.

Hobbes

Schuhart wrote:

And don’t worry, I won’t leap to the conclusion that just because one Muslim bans me from a board it means that every Muslim wants to suppress free speech.

That is why I am here, so you don't have to think that way.

Look you have a question you ask it. You may not like the answer, the answer can be attempted to be clarified for you, again you may not like the answer. The answer may even be wrong or contradictory to what you believe and your welcome to agree to disagree.

But that is where it stops.

As mentioned Rule #1 is the forum is not for Muslims to defend their faith from attack. You have many other forums to continue such discourse if you so wish.

Your writing style is somewhat aggressive (intentional or not who knows) and as mentioned you do tend to draw other subjects which are better suited for separate threads rather then derailing the thread.

Please take this into consideration in the future. Thanks.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

Calling the maintenance of distinct gender roles ‘feminism’ and pointing out that many women support the maintenance of distinct gender roles does not, IMHO, clarify that distinction.

If you read my posts carefully, you'll find that I didn't say that. What I said was that, although I do believe that men and women are better suited to certain tasks (in general I might add) that doesn't mean that a woman shouldn't work if she wants to. And the point I was making was that wearing hijab is a statement of women's rejection of the disgusting objectification of women in these modern times.

Schuhart wrote:

I’m not confident you’re digesting the significance of what it takes to say something is error free.

I know how it looks to you but if you don't agree with me on that then I won't hold that against you. You're free to your own opinion.

Schuhart wrote:

You can, of course, assert that Islam is error free. I can, of course, respond that Islam has several conflicting variants so that statement is meaningless. Clearly, whether any dialogue results depends entirely on whether there’s an appetite for discussion.

I see it as very simple.

Let's set down a few assumptions that I'd like you to take on board for the sake of discussion. Assume that there is a God. Also assume that He is perfect and that His judgement and knowledge is perfect and infinite. Now, assume that He sent books of revelation to mankind. Mankind is not perfect. There's no need for an assumption for that... it's a fact. Why would you expect the followers of something (even if it's perfect) to perform it in a perfect manner?

So, I believe that Islam, the religion as God intended it to be is perfect. If we don't follow it correctly then that's our fault. Also, if we don't understand or agree with certain aspects then I believe that there are two possibilities. One is that we aren't interpreting the text correctly. Another possibility is that our mind is not capable of grasping the wisdom. Now, obviously if you're an atheist then this whole thing falls down but at least I might have gone some way to helping you understand what we (and most other theists) believe.

Schuhart wrote:

Because I’d suspect (not having discussed the matter directly with her) that her complaint about different standards applying to the behaviour of women actually means things like the expectation that women should cover themselves lest they provoke a man’s lust.

I think you must have mis-typed that statement because it reads like you're agreeing with me.

Anyway, I think that her point is very solid and sound and I'm glad on one level that someone as famous as her is making it. The only problem is that we are on different sides of the spectrum. Also, I was making my point with reference to promiscuity and how it's not right that men can get away with it and be called studs but when women do it they're called sluts. If I had my way, the term stud would be reserved for football boots and men who sleep around would be called sluts.

Schuhart wrote:

If referring to something that’s a part of Islam, however many embarrassed explanations try to mitigate it, constitutes a ‘quick fire attack’, then I expect that I’ll be experiencing 1a fairly shortly. I look forward to it because, without over-dramatising the significance of the discussions here, in miniature it sort of makes my point about the reaction of religion to dissent. And don’t worry, I won’t leap to the conclusion that just because one Muslim bans me from a board it means that every Muslim wants to suppress free speech. After all, I’d quite possibly find an amount of common ground with Irshad Manji.

Let's be clear on something Schuhart. We're not trying to get you banned. We're not suppressing free speech either. But you know the charter and you frequently break the rules in it. The charter is written the way it is to stop trolls from having an open season on attacking Islam left, right and center. The only reason that you're allowed to make some of the comments you do is because you've already been identified as not being one of the aforementioned trolls and that your post may actually have some intellect behind them.

As Hobbes kindly pointed out:

Hobbes wrote:

Look you have a question you ask it. You may not like the answer, the answer can be attempted to be clarified for you, again you may not like the answer. The answer may even be wrong or contradictory to what you believe and your welcome to agree to disagree.

But that is where it stops.

I know you have some problems with some aspects of Islam and you don't have to agree with anything that I or anyone else here says. But if ask and you get your answer and you don't like it then you should just leave it at that. If the answer provokes another question in your mind then, by all means, ask again. But debating about Islam in this manner is really quite pointless.

So, in short, stay as long as you keep within the rules of the charter.

Schuhart wrote:

I can’t put it any better than I did.

Alright but I think the members of this forum deserve an explanation for your behaviour on this particular topic. At one point, you said:

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, but there still has to be acknowledgement of that aspect of the faith that leads to a woman being shot for not covering enough of her hair.

but then later said:

Schuhart wrote:

I’m being too oblique – it’s a reference to some religious nut shooting a government minister in Pakistan. Indeed, there’s no reason for mainstream Islam to have to defend such actions or anything like that.

If you already thought he was a nut then why imply that it was "an aspect of the faith" that lead that person to shoot the woman not wearing hijab?

Dontico

kmick wrote:

This is so wrong on so many levels I don’t even know where to start. Is this what passes as intelligent commentary these days.

First of all the way it is written and the spelling is atrocious. Now this is a minor point but if a person wants to be taken seriously at a minimum they need to use a spell checker.

boards.ie doesnt have a spell checker. how one spells has little to do with if thier point is correct or valid.
your spelling may be correct but your points are silly.

if women are allowed wear make, ugg boots, high heals and other pointless clothes, why not allow them to wear head scarves or what ever.

allow, approve, what ever.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Why would you expect the followers of something (even if it's perfect) to perform it in a perfect manner?

No, but I’d expect just an element of recognition of what an assertion of perfection entails.

the_new_mr wrote:

But debating about Islam in this manner is really quite pointless.

That may be true. I find I’ve the same bemused feelings as some of the atheists who invest an amount of their lives in the Creationist thread on the Christianity forum, admittedly more pointless and less varied than this place. Why do I bother? But then something gets posted. Without circling, because anyone can just reread the thread, I read the start of this one and actually said ‘I’m just not getting involved’. But then the Unwarranted Supposition Detector swings into the red zone and I just have to go off again.

the_new_mr wrote:

your posts may actually have some intellect behind them.

I doubt that, but I do admire your faith on this point.

the_new_mr wrote:

If you already thought he was a nut then why imply that it was "an aspect of the faith" that lead that person to shoot the woman not wearing hijab?

I’ve done some breathing exercising and I’m listening to Fleetwood Mac so that I’m as mellow as can be while trying, at the same time, to communicate this with some bit of coherence.

I’m totally open to the idea that someone could say the Hijab has a life affirming meaning for them. Clearly that doesn’t mean they have to take responsibility for the actions of others possibly using the same symbol in a more negative manner. But it seems to me that, as much as is possible, we have to grasp the totality of a topic as much as we can.

I mentioned that matter of some Turkish women complaining about their Prime Minister’s wife wearing Hijab while on official visits. On one level, I’d wonder what the problem is. If she’s a Muslim and the Hijab’s her thing there’s no particular reason for her to stop because of her husband’s job.

Yet, I’d also wonder why some Turkish women might have such an objection and if the source of that objection should not be identified and considered. Just dismissing it as ‘oh, they must have met some people who really didn’t understand it’ seems too quick.

I don’t know if that makes what I’m getting at any clearer. No, I’m not suggesting that you or anyone else has to stand over or be seen as a party to someone who wants to intimidate people to follow their line. At the same time, I feel more is needed than simply saying ‘just because they’ve got the wrong idea is no concern of mine’. That just seems too dismissive of the idea that the symbol you value might be tarnished by some things that are not so positive.

But I must add, I think the Kuwaiti girl in question was more than likely just trying to add some humour to the matter and is very unlikely to be her prime motivation. If it is, then as already mentioned, she should renew her intention.

Yes of course, it was just a little joke. I can't remember what we were talking about in general at the time anyway.