Hijab, Niqab or Nothing interview

biko

A pretty interesting interview with three Muslim women about whether it's ok to wear nothing, just a hijab or the full face covering niqab.

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

Jaafa

Pretty good video.

The women in this video clearly have thought a good bit about their choice and that's want you want, you can easily see that none of these women have been forced to make those choices. While I personally wouldn't be for the niqab instead of the hijab, I believe it should be left up to the women to decide that.
The idea that a lot of people propagate is that all women in Islam are forced to where the niqab or Hijab and while there is truth in it, things aren't nearly as clear cut as that.

The lady not wearing any kind of covering chose some poor points to make against the hijab or niqab. She was basically saying 'People here think we're weird and won't talk to us, therefore we should conform'. A lot better arguments than that to be made.

The point about why men don't have any image restrictions on them was brought up and not fully addressed I think. The fact is men are supposed to cover up as much as possible too, and grow some sort of beard.

Lastly I'd like to make the point that a lot of women in Islam who wear the niqab or hijab don't only wear it as a religious obligation, but as a means of presenting a kind of image, and to display their beliefs in a way that is clear but yet doesn't effect or annoy anyone else (for the most part.) I know a lot of women who feel a sort of pride to wear the hijab, just as someone feels pride wearing their national colours or carrying the flag of their country.

dead one

sonia khan wrote:

Does it state in the Koran you're supposed to wear a hijab. I don't think it ... I don't think there's a clear statement, understanding by a lot of I think philosophers of. Islam scholars ... There is no clear understanding on that matter. that is exactly what you need to wear. There is no clear understanding on that matter.

"This paint and perfume, this mirage, a garden’s blooming face
You thought, simpleton, and your cage a downy nesting‐place.

biko

Although the Nothing woman doesn't come across as articulate and well versed as the others I think she has the best point though.
It doesn't clearly state in the Quran to cover the faces of women, and the major point - as long as Muslim women wears the Niqab they will be viewed as different by the host society, in this case Canada.

Jaafa

biko wrote: »

Although the Nothing woman doesn't come across as articulate and well versed as the others I think she has the best point though.
It doesn't clearly state in the Quran to cover the faces of women, and the major point - as long as Muslim women wears the Niqab they will be viewed as different by the host society, in this case Canada.

Your right the quran doesn't state exactly what should be worn. It says:

And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers,

The key part is in bold.

It should be up to the women to decide what is 'apparent of it'. Some may say that is their face, others may feel their beauty is their personality or such. That women chose to wear the niqab as she felt that is what is suitable. The women who wore the hijab because she felt that is what was needed. Whats wrong with them choosing?

Sonia Khan point no matter how eloquently she could have put it still boils down to 'they see us differently therefore we should stop wearing niqab/hijab to make them feel more comfortable'. That's a very poor argument IMO.

dead one

biko wrote: »

Although the Nothing woman doesn't come across as articulate and well versed as the others I think she has the best point though.
It doesn't clearly state in the Quran to cover the faces of women, and the major point - as long as Muslim women wears the Niqab they will be viewed as different by the host society, in this case Canada.

She isn't talking about covering of face... She is talking about Hijab. See, i tell you quran is a message, which is revealed to prophet muhammad. The best way to understand quran, is to look upon life of Prophet Muhammad, his companions, his household. The procedure for offering Prayer isn't mentioned in whole Quran, Where do we get that procedure. We get that Procedure from saying of Prophet or Hadiths. Does it mean, as procedure of Prayer isn't mentioned in quran so there is no need to offer prayer... Sonia khan is just showing her ignorance about Quran and life of Prophet Muhammad and his household... She had used the way of dishonesty by explaining a verse which was revealed in some special context.... She had tried to fool audience.
There is whole chapter in Sahih Bukhari.
http://hijab.pbworks.com/w/page/18210123/Hadith%20of%20Sahih%20Bukhari
http://muslimways.com/search-3.html?ordering=newest&searchphrase=any&searchword=hijab
What sonia khan is saying, if we should start following it, then there is no need to offer prayer, as quran doesn't clearly state how to offer prayer.... There is no need to do Hajj, as procedure of Hajj isn't mentioned in Quran... She is just trying to become to smart to fool innocent mind... Pardon me, i often speak truth, I hope you wouldn't mind.
Can i ask to Sonia khan and her lovers, Are those muslim fool who offer prayer yet quran doesn't give procedure about prayer

biko

Well it seems clear that you deadone don't agree with wearing Nothing since you react so strongly to Miss Khan. So would you have all Muslim women wear the hijab or full face covering niqab/burka.

Would you go as far as the Saudi CPVPV and have moral police arresting women with "tempting eyes"?

"May Allah have mercy on the early immigrant women. When the verse "That they should draw their veils over their bosoms" was revealed, they tore their thick outer garments and made veils from them."
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/032-sat.php#032.4091
Does this mean all Muslim women should cover their face?

In Egypt, perhaps the most liberal Arab country along with Lebanon. Wiki:
In 1923, Hoda Shaarawi made history when, while waiting for the press, she removed her veil in a symbolic act of liberation. The veil gradually disappeared in the following decades, so much so that by 1958 an article by the United Press (UP) stated that "the veil is unknown here."

However, the veil has been having a resurgence since the 1970s, concomitant with the global revival of Muslim piety.
According to The New York Times, about 90 percent of Egyptian women currently wear a headscarf. Small numbers of people wear the niqab. The secular government does not encourage women to wear it, fearing it will present an Islamic extremist political opposition.

Mohammad Tantawi, a leading Islamic scholar in the country and the head of Al-Azhar University, issued a fatwa in October 2009 arguing that veiling of the face is not required under Islam.

theg81der

"and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it," I would read this as except what is natural ie no make up or enhancements?This element of the muslim religion really frightens me. I feel it somehow propages the idea that women are asking for or deserve it if something happens to them. Its just so anti-woman I can`t believe that thse 2 women are not brain washed in some way. They have to wear these garmend to be thougth of in a certain way and to send a message to the world about them - what message? I don`t get anything positive from them it just backs up what I already thought.

dead one

biko wrote: »

Well it seems clear that you deadone don't agree with wearing Nothing since you react so strongly to Miss Khan. So would you have all Muslim women wear the hijab or full face covering niqab/burka.

sorry for being late. Full face covering, it isn't mandatory in Islam. I mean, it is choice of woman who wishes to cover her face or not. On the other hand, hijab is necessary for all muslim women. It is wish of Allah that muslim women cover their body parts properly and muslim women consider it as their religious right. They are commanded by Allah to cover their body parts. Those muslim women, like sonia khan, who don't wish it, it is their personal choice. They don't represent Islam at all. You will find such types of muslim woman in whole world. See, Summiah Khan, she is representing true islamic culture in the program. On the other hand, Sonia is islamilizing her wrong doings which makes her no less than a hypocrite. See, i give you simple example, Suppose i am a heavy drinker, I like wine and beer, and every body knows alcohol isn't allowed in Islam but i Islamilize (legalize) my drinking by picking out of context verses of quran and then try to tell other people, look, look, Alchol is allowed in islam. That is what Sonia is doing. She doesn't like hijab, She wants open dress which might attrack other men, So that her business keep going.

biko wrote: »

Would you go as far as the Saudi CPVPV and have moral police arresting women with "tempting eyes"?

I don't need do anything. I am telling you true side of Islam that is honesty on my part. Where as sonia khan is dishonest as she islamlizing her wrong doings. Saudis don't represent at all. Islam is, Quran and teaching of Prophet of Muhammad. If suadis aren't following islam then you shouldn't pick them as an example to torch your reason. It is an act of childish levity. See, it is same, you like sonia khan and her point of view and i pick action of sonia khan to malign you. What would you say.

biko wrote: »

"May Allah have mercy on the early immigrant women. When the verse "That they should draw their veils over their bosoms" was revealed, they tore their thick outer garments and made veils from them."
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/032-sat.php#032.4091
Does this mean all Muslim women should cover their face?

Saudis government isn't pure islamic government, Some rules of Islam have been implemented there. But that doesn't make Saudis a pure Islamic State. See, i tell you, Saudis, in some aspects, are maligning Islam and it isn't good to pick their example to represent Islam. If you truly want to understand Islam don't look on these governments, Majority of Muslims countries are being ruled by hypocrites and tyrants. They implement what they like in their countries. It isn't good pick such example. I know you've hate in your mind against Islam. but think for a moment, keeping that hate away from your mind. What you are doing is same as, one or bunch of athiest abuse me, and I start abusing whole community of atheism. You're doing the same thing. Please think for a while what you're doing.
You like sonia khan and her points. I have got no problem with it . I have problem with sonia khan when she islamizes her point. Thank you and peace

biko

Perhaps you can clarify for me: which is the best Islamic state and how should women dress, according to you?
If I ask wahabists they will say Saudi Arabia.
If I ask Shia they will say Iran.
If I ask Sunni..., well they are majority and in too many places to count.

dead one

biko wrote: »

Perhaps you can clarify for me: which is the best Islamic state and how should women dress, according to you?

I have got no idea what you are trying prove. I have given you answer, how muslim woman look like... See my above post, I said, Summiah hussain, the woman in Hijab, is truly representing Islam in the video.
For best Islamic state, you're judging book by its cover. If you want to see islam, then see life of Prophet, his teaching and Quran. I mean, if all the muslims in the world, become hypocrites, then you should blame these muslims for their hypocrisy. That will be honesty on your part, on the other hand, You don't blames these states which aren't following Islam, but your attitude in this practice of ignorance is to blame Islam. These states don't represent Islam, in these states, few muslims are practicing muslim, Majority of Muslim in these states, and their actions don't represent islam, as they aren't following islam in their actions.
Muhammad was orphaned at an early age. He once remarked that, "Heaven lies at the feet of mothers." As the father of four daughters in a society that prized sons, he told other fathers that, if their daughters spoke well of them on the Day of Judgment, they would enter paradise."

biko wrote: »

If I ask wahabists they will say Saudi Arabia.
If I ask Shia they will say Iran.
If I ask Sunni..., well they are majority and in too many places to count.

You don't need ask anyone. Ask to your heart, it will guide you. Your heart will tell the truth, i can give you hint, i hope you wouldn't mind. See, truth is, there is prejudice in your heart against Islam, You've irrational fear of Muslims and you see all islam in prism of that fear but that isn't reality. The fear with which your heart is suffering, is result of hypocrisy of media. Media is brainwashing majority of people about Islam. They represent Islam as violent religion by giving out of context verses of Quran. See, the extremistrism with which the world is suffering, it isn't because of Islam, It is because of those who want to occupy muslim lands and their resources and in this whole plan they are using hyena tactics to malign Islam and muslims. The war which you see in the world, it's just will of few men and remember truth is always first causality of war. Be on the side of truth or history will forget you.

nyan warrior

Islam is just organisised sexism. All people are equal regardless of gender. Islam should be forced to accept this and change accordingly

oceanclub

Elsewhere, it seems that some ungrateful women aren't taking too kindly to gangs of men telling them what to wear:

http://bikyamasr.com/53028/egyptian-women-cane-morality-police/?utm_source=Facebook+Resharer&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=WordSocial

Vigilante gangs of ultra-conservative Salafi men have been harassing shop owners and female customers in rural towns around Egypt for “indecent behavior,” according to reports in the Egyptian news media. But when they burst into a beauty salon in the Nile delta town of Benha this week and ordered the women inside to stop what they were doing or face physical punishment, the women struck back, whipping them with their own canes before kicking them out to the street in front of an astonished crowd of onlookers.

P.

dead one

theg81der wrote: »

I feel it somehow propages the idea that women are asking for or deserve it if something happens to them. Its just so anti-woman I can`t believe that thse 2 women are not brain washed in some way. They have to wear these garmend to be thougth of in a certain way and to send a message to the world about them - what message? I don`t get anything positive from them it just backs up what I already thought.

Do you get anything positive when women expose their parts in public? These two women are aware of their dignity, beauty and honor. That's why they have chosen the way of modesty, pity and faithfulness, on the other hand, those women are brainwashed who advertise their parts to get money --- to attract men -- to flourish business. They trade their beauty with their soul. I mean, they sell their soul for their beauty. The beauty of woman, isn't in her display but it lies in her modesty. See, Summiah hussain, She looks like an angel, an angel of modesty, a lake of innocence, A river of virtue, An ocean of purity. She is faithful to her husband, her family, on the other hand, sonia khan, looks like a devil of arrogance, a Valcano of pride which is going to erupt in a moment and ready to corrupt the world with it lava.

theg81der

dead one wrote: »

Do you get anything positive when women expose their parts in public? These two women are aware of their dignity, beauty and honor. That's why they have chosen the way of modesty, pity and faithfulness, on the other hand, those women are brainwashed who advertise their parts to get money --- to attract men -- to flourish business. They trade their beauty with their soul. I mean, they sell their soul for their beauty. The beauty of woman, isn't in her display but it lies in her modesty. See, Summiah hussain, She looks like an angel, an angel of modesty, a lake of innocence, A river of virtue, An ocean of purity. She is faithful to her husband, her family, on the other hand, sonia khan, looks like a devil of arrogance, a Valcano of pride which is going to erupt in a moment and ready to corrupt the world with it lava.

What a load of abosulute sexist rubbish. I have a muslim friend who has thought me alot about modesty she doesn`t wear anything and these arrogant veil snobs give her so much grief she doesn`t even go to mosque here in this country. She thinks alot of the muslim community here are the opposite of what her religion teaches they are very radical and showy, definetely not the modest behaviour I see in my friend.

What parts is the unveil lady exposing exactly? So all the rest of the women who wear what they want are...........what exactly are you saying I am, am I also a devil of arrogance because I don`t hide my face or hair?

Jaafa

theg81der wrote: »

What a load of abosulute sexist rubbish. I have a muslim friend who has thought me alot about modesty she doesn`t wear anything and these arrogant veil snobs give her so much grief she doesn`t even go to mosque here in this country. She thinks alot of the muslim community here are the opposite of what her religion teaches they are very radical and showy, definetely not the modest behaviour I see in my friend.

What parts is the unveil lady exposing exactly? So all the rest of the women who wear what they want are...........what exactly are you saying I am, am I also a devil of arrogance because I don`t hide my face or hair?

I have seen this before and have heard of it from others to. It is an unfortunate rivialy that develops between Muslims, each trying to prove they are somehow better Muslims than others, judging others spreading rumors and strife. It's unacceptable and hypocritical as you say.

That said you must understand that these women have not been brainwashed and frankly it's an insult to them, you'd be a fool to see that obviously they have thought long and hard about their choice and have come to the conclusion that it's the one they want. My mother wears a headscarf, my cousins wear, each of them have expressed their reasons for doing so and it's clearly not due to brainwashing. In fact my two female cousins are sisters, one wears a hijab the other does not. How can you claim brainwashing in that case?

I can see you have reason to hate and so you only see the bad,but you must believe me when I say what happened to friend is the exception not the rule, keep your mind open and be willing to accept that most women in Islam are perfectly happy as they. Islam has given a lot to women, allowing divorce hundreds of years before most European countries for example. Yes abuses happen, yes sexism is there, but so does it happen in Ireland. In Iran, what is considered here in the west to be a fundamentalist country, women are members of parliament, they have run for president, they work as Judges, they have more women in college than men!

No society is perfect, if I were you I'd work to fix the problems in your own before trying to change another.

Mark Hamill

Looking at the video, I have to say how shallow the niqab/hijab reasons are. The niqab/hijab women seem to be under the impression that their character, personality and contribution to society would be negated or obscured by their physical form, and that if they weren't covered up, they wouldn't have a voice or opinions. Why would their contribution to society be undermined if their face or hair could be seen? Why do they see their personality and social presence so much in terms of their physical presence? It all seems to be "I'm so beautiful that I couldn't function if people could see all of me, I need to cover up for people to know the real me". But if the real you, your voice, opinions and contribution to society, isn't dependent on your physical appearance, then cover it up to the point of emphasising it? Its possible to dress conservatively without wearing a tent.

Jaafa wrote:

The women in this video clearly have thought a good bit about their choice and that's want you want, you can easily see that none of these women have been forced to make those choices. While I personally wouldn't be for the niqab instead of the hijab, I believe it should be left up to the women to decide that.
The idea that a lot of people propagate is that all women in Islam are forced to where the niqab or Hijab and while there is truth in it, things aren't nearly as clear cut as that.

Their is a difference between a well articulated response and a well thought out response. These women's responses still fall afoul of the logical inconsistencies of the responses from women who are physically coerced into wearing head coverings.

Jaafa

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Looking at the video, I have to say how shallow the niqab/hijab reasons are. The niqab/hijab women seem to be under the impression that their character, personality and contribution to society would be negated or obscured by their physical form, and that if they weren't covered up, they wouldn't have a voice or opinions. Why would their contribution to society be undermined if their face or hair could be seen? Why do they see their personality and social presence so much in terms of their physical presence? It all seems to be "I'm so beautiful that I couldn't function if people could see all of me, I need to cover up for people to know the real me". But if the real you, your voice, opinions and contribution to society, isn't dependent on your physical appearance, then cover it up to the point of emphasising it? Its possible to dress conservatively without wearing a tent.


Their is a difference between a well articulated response and a well thought out response. These women's responses still fall afoul of the logical inconsistencies of the responses from women who are physically coerced into wearing head coverings.

That's ridiculous in fairness, they never said anything close to that.

Mark Hamill

Jaafa wrote: »

That's ridiculous in fairness, they never said anything close to that.

Yes they did. First the niqab woman described her face covering as helping her present herself "as the sum of her character and personality and contribution to society" and "enabling her to go through a path of spiritual discovery" (35 seconds onwards). Then the hijab woman said her hijab was a message to other people to "judge her based on who she is and what she dose and not how she looks" (1min 35 secs onwards). They consider their physical appearance so dominating in social situations that one covers all but her face, while the other covers all but her eyes.

oceanclub

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes they did. First the niqab woman described her face covering as helping her present herself "as the sum of her character and personality and contribution to society" and "enabling her to go through a path of spiritual discovery" (35 seconds onwards). Then the hijab woman said her hijab was a message to other people to "judge her based on who she is and what she dose and not how she looks" (1min 35 secs onwards). They consider their physical appearance so dominating in social situations that one covers all but her face, while the other covers all but her eyes.

The irony, of course, is that doing these things in an environment where they are not normally done means you're drawing attention to the very things you're trying to hide.

P.

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Looking at the video, I have to say how shallow the niqab/hijab reasons are. The niqab/hijab women seem to be under the impression that their character, personality and contribution to society would be negated or obscured by their physical form, and that if they weren't covered up, they wouldn't have a voice or opinions. Why would their contribution to society be undermined if their face or hair could be seen? Why do they see their personality and social presence so much in terms of their physical presence? It all seems to be "I'm so beautiful that I couldn't function if people could see all of me, I need to cover up for people to know the real me". But if the real you, your voice, opinions and contribution to society, isn't dependent on your physical appearance, then cover it up to the point of emphasising it? Its possible to dress conservatively without wearing a tent.

I have a dirty little habit of telling the truth, I hope you wouldn't mind.
Looking at your society, I have to say, how hollow is it. See, problem is, the reason of hijab aren't shallow, you are living in a shallow society. A society which observes no rules. A society, which at one place, presents women in strips clubs, on the other hands, the same society present women as sex object in mind of youth. These two women, in the video, have submitted to the will of God and submission to the will of God, is the source of all freedom. It liberates their minds, souls, and behaviours from the evil influences of the world. It helps them to overcome oppressive tyrants, unjust laws, lusts, deviation and psychological complexes which enslave their will. Don't you see kingship of lusts and slavery of will of around. Majority of westren movies/daramas contains obscene gestures,explicit language,and graphic images. Media uses face/hair/part of women/men as a mean to to attract customers. You see they control customer's mind by presenting women parts. It's pretty sh!tty business.

Why would their contribution to society be undermined if their face or hair could be seen?

Are you talking about such types of contribution to society, See, how has your society contributed in destroying dignity and honor of women in minds of youth. In order to present face and hair of women, the same society spit on entire existence of women, You say, reason for hijab are shallow, you have your own reason, but you forget an OCEAN SHALLOWNESS IN THE DEEPPER PARTs of your society.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

These women's responses still fall afoul of the logical inconsistencies of the responses from women who are physically coerced into wearing head coverings.

Its seem you've already made up your mind against islam, No woman is coerced in islam. Islam doesn't support coercion. Sonia Khan, she is pure example for this, She is muslim and she has chosen her own way which doesn't represent islam. If women were coerced in Islam then why would Sonia khan misuse Islam.

oceanclub wrote: »

The irony, of course, is that doing these things in an environment where they are not normally done means you're drawing attention to the very things you're trying to hide.
P.

Why are you eager to see hidden things. Why do you have desire to see hidden thing. Can't you control yourself. That is exactly purpose of Hijab. To control lust which forces you to see hidden things.
P;

dead one

theg81der wrote: »

What a load of abosulute sexist rubbish. I have a muslim friend who has thought me alot about modesty she doesn`t wear anything and these arrogant veil snobs give her so much grief she doesn`t even go to mosque here in this country. She thinks alot of the muslim community here are the opposite of what her religion teaches they are very radical and showy, definetely not the modest behaviour I see in my friend.

What parts is the unveil lady exposing exactly? So all the rest of the women who wear what they want are...........what exactly are you saying I am, am I also a devil of arrogance because I don`t hide my face or hair?

You have a muslim friend, She had her own reason to hate Islam and you are seeing Islam in her distorted views. She had her own reasons but it doesn't make her views universal. You are indirectly saying 5 fingers are equal. by this, you are contradicting universality. Muslims are of two types like any community, The Good Muslims and the Bad Muslims. Bad Muslims misuse Islam or don't follow Islam. May be your friend had meet some bad muslims and this situation lead her to blame whole community of Islam. But it doesn't make Islam bad, it is making your friend bad as she is using a very narrow approach . See, i would be foolish if i blame whole community of christian or jews for crimes of single or few christians/ Jews. Please correct yourself.

theg81der wrote: »

What parts is the unveil lady exposing exactly? So all the rest of the women who wear what they want are...........what exactly are you saying I am, am I also a devil of arrogance because I don`t hide my face or hair?

See, for this you've to see dress of Summiah Hussain, I don't know how you look like honestly i don't like the way sonia has presented herself. She looks like a Man, She is looking very arrogant in presenting herself, She even doesn't know what she is talking about, Her arrogance has put veil on her mind, on the other hand, See Summiyah Hussain, words fall from her mouth as flower in the garden. She knows what she is talking about, that is exactly purpose of Hijab, She knows what she is, thanks and peace

old_aussie

dead one wrote: »

She isn't talking about covering of face... She is talking about Hijab. See, i tell you quran is a message, which is revealed to prophet muhammad. The best way to understand quran, is to look upon life of Prophet Muhammad, his companions, his household.

The life of the prophet muhammad, is that the same fella who implemented islam with the aid of the sword and put you to the sword if you refused to convert to islam?

So, if muhammad didn't get his way he killed you, or am i missing something in the religion of love!

dead one

old_aussie wrote: »

The life of the prophet muhammad, is that the same fella who implemented islam with the aid of the sword and put you to the sword if you refused to convert to islam?

So, if muhammad didn't get his way he killed you, or am i missing something in the religion of love!

Ah!!! i see, how did muhammad spread islam in Indonesia and Malaysia, if your above quote is true. He must had some magical staff which controls minds.

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

Looking at your society, I have to say, how hollow is it. See, problem is, the reason of hijab aren't shallow, you are living in a shallow society. A society which observes no rules. A society, which at one place, presents women in strips clubs, on the other hands, the same society present women as sex object in mind of youth.

Firstly, non sequitor. Even if I was living in a shallow society, that wouldn't make the reasons for the hijab any less shallow. Secondly, laws are another word for rules and since my society has laws, which people observe, i dont see how my society observes no rules. Thirdly, youths dont need any help from society to see women as sex objects, if they did, then their would be no need for the niqab/hijab in islamic societies, as no-one would see women as sexual objects in the first place.

dead one wrote: »

These two women, in the video, have submitted to the will of God and submission to the will of God, is the source of all freedom.

Contradiction. You aren't free if you submit your will to someone else' will.

dead one wrote: »

It liberates their minds, souls, and behaviours from the evil influences of the world.

Yes, it liberates them by hiding them under a tent :rolleyes:

dead one wrote: »

It helps them to overcome oppressive tyrants, unjust laws, lusts, deviation and psychological complexes which enslave their will. Don't you see kingship of lusts and slavery of will of around. Majority of westren movies/daramas contains obscene gestures,explicit language,and graphic images. Media uses face/hair/part of women/men as a mean to to attract customers. You see they control customer's mind by presenting women parts. It's pretty sh!tty business.

Are you talking about such types of contribution to society, See, how has your society contributed in destroying dignity and honor of women in minds of youth. In order to present face and hair of women, the same society spit on entire existence of women, You say, reason for hijab are shallow, you have your own reason, but you forget an OCEAN SHALLOWNESS IN THE DEEPPER PARTs of your society.

I'm beginning to regret responding to you (and its only the middle of the first response). You are just making blind assertions that are the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I". The thing is, even if my society was as shallow as a flat plane, that still wouldn't make the hijab/niqab less shallow.

dead one wrote: »

Its seem you've already made up your mind against islam, No woman is coerced in islam. Islam doesn't support coercion. Sonia Khan, she is pure example for this, She is muslim and she has chosen her own way which doesn't represent islam. If women were coerced in Islam then why would Sonia khan misuse Islam.

A "no true scotsman" response that doesn't even have anything to do with what I said. These womens response, coerced or not, still have the same flaws as those of women who were coerced.

dead one wrote: »

Why are you eager to see hidden things. Why do you have desire to see hidden thing. Can't you control yourself. That is exactly purpose of Hijab. To control lust which forces you to see hidden things.
P;

What, by hiding even more things? How does that even begin to make sense? You dont remove the control some mysterious idea has on people (in this case, the female form) by making it more mysterious.

Hobbes

Can I kindly remind people to attack the post, not the poster. Thanks.

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Firstly, non sequitor. Even if I was living in a shallow society, that wouldn't make the reasons for the hijab any less shallow.

Honestly, deep down, you have more shallowness, ask to yourself, if you're shallow inside, how could you recognize what is shallow or not. You've grown in a society which is fake and superficial, The same society has brainwashed you about concept reality and superficiality and You have lost your reason and taken the wrong path. You have taken lies for truth. The thought that you have the right to step out in liberty at any moment will poison your whole existence. You, in your mind think, that reality is superficial and shallow. See, that isn't problem with yourself. The problem is that You've grown in a society which is purely based on superficiality, a society which takes superficiality instead of reality. Take example of women, Aren't women in your society look so superficial. See, Sonia Khan, She is muslim, but, she is inspired by western culture. Doesn't she look superficial, Like I said, she is looking like male member of society. A society where females look like males and males look like female. That is what they call ocean of shallowness. I hope you would understand, I am trying to tell you that when you say reason for hijab are shallow, you're right, that fault isn't with yourself, the fault is with society in which you've been brainwashed. You have taken superficiality thinking it as reality.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Secondly, laws are another word for rules and since my society has laws, which people observe,
i dont see how my society observes no rules.

Your society has laws/rules, but the thoughts of members of this society follow no rules, I am talking about freedom of thoughts. Your thoughts observe no rules and that is dangerous to your society. As you'r seeing consequences of this in your society. "" Man is a thinking creature. Of necessity he forms opinions. If curbs are placed on the independent expression of his views, the content of his thought may remain unchanged, but his ideas will never find expression in his speech and writings. Islam promote freedom of thoughts by removing the curbs. Curbs, imposed by a community or a state, will ultimately produce a society of hypocrites. No sincere person can ever flourish in such a repressive atmosphere. It is only freedom of thought and expression which can save man from hypocrisy". You thoughts observe no rules, it means you've the curbs in your thoughts.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thirdly, youths dont need any help from society to see women as sex objects, if they did, then their would be no need for the niqab/hijab in islamic societies, as no-one would see women as sexual objects in the first place.

Hijab is signal of respect to the desires of men. the moment a man looks at a woman with any brazen or unashamed thought in mind, he should lower his gaze. That is hijab is necessary for youth, who deson't know real status of women. What your youth has been doing in university and colleges, Ask to yourself Mark Hamil. The reason for this, the woman aren't of Summiah Hussain's kind, and they don't know about their real status.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Contradiction. You aren't free if you submit your will to someone else' will.

Ah i see, God's will isn't someone else's will. God knows what slaves human will. God knows what desires put slavery on human's will, that's why he has chosen special dress for female members of his creation.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, it liberates them by hiding them under a tent :rolleyes:

No, it liberates them from your evil desires.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm beginning to regret responding to you (and its only the middle of the first response). You are just making blind assertions that are the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I". The thing is, even if my society was as shallow as a flat plane, that still wouldn't make the hijab/niqab less shallow.

I, in my above quote, have given you clear reason, when you say, the reason for hijab are shallow, Your comment don't have value in the eyes of justice, as you have take superficiality as reality.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A "no true scotsman" response that doesn't even have anything to do with what I said. These womens response, coerced or not, still have the same flaws as those of women who were coerced.

"Coercion", Isn't it popular word these days. It is often said, not least by Western folks, that Moslems women are forced into wearing a hijab/burka/veil and that therefore there should be a lock against this sort of coercion, as in the bans sought by uropean politicians. However, I have never seen any of these debates include an obstruction to shapes of coercive power per se.

So on the other hand, Mooslems women are said to be forced into wearing a veil or , there is exceptionally any question of anyone else being forces into wearing whatever it is that they wear. And yet, if I appeared in work today with a T shirt that read I Am A Wage Slave, I would come up against with legally sanctioned disciplinary action from my employer, and many of those who say against Mooslem women wearing a burka, on account of its relational-ship with force, would say, that in fact I had freely chosen to destroy company rules and that therefore I could have n0 problem if I ended up on the d0le.

And clearly force into wearing particular cloths is by no means the sole manifestation of coercive power in everyday life. Capitalism requests all manner of forcible limits on people’s acti0ns -what they wear, what they say, how they work- on account of the fear of losing one’s livelihood, status and so on.

But the result of any acti0n that goes against these limits is widely represented as the symbol of freedom. More important though is the implicit belief that any action to refrain from contravening these forcible extent is also free choice. I am tend toward to say, therefore, that what ‘lurks undr those shr0uds’ is simply an argument for forcible power in its uropean capitalist shape, in which everyone is held to be where they are honestly on account of the free (market) choices they have made.

If this ‘right’ were to be somehow coerced, it would spell the end of telephones. And beards. And sunglasses.

Let talk in usual way, all, Aren't these factors of coercion in your society

1. Prostitutes/Hooker/Pimps
2. Advertisement of women
3. Women in half naked dresses in the streets
4. Pornographic movies being sold online in chunks

Why don't you write something on prostitution on the other hand you have problem with a piece of cloth.

meglome

dead one wrote: »

I have a dirty little habit of telling the truth, I hope you wouldn't mind.
Looking at your society, I have to say, how hollow is it. See, problem is, the reason of hijab aren't shallow, you are living in a shallow society. A society which observes no rules. A society, which at one place, presents women in strips clubs, on the other hands, the same society present women as sex object in mind of youth. These two women, in the video, have submitted to the will of God and submission to the will of God, is the source of all freedom. It liberates their minds, souls, and behaviours from the evil influences of the world. It helps them to overcome oppressive tyrants, unjust laws, lusts, deviation and psychological complexes which enslave their will. Don't you see kingship of lusts and slavery of will of around. Majority of westren movies/daramas contains obscene gestures,explicit language,and graphic images. Media uses face/hair/part of women/men as a mean to to attract customers. You see they control customer's mind by presenting women parts. It's pretty sh!tty business.

It's interesting how you keep saying you tell the truth. I have no desire to insult you but what you see as truthfulness comes across as arrogance and self-righteousness. Your sweeping generalisations are... well sweeping generalisations. I have travelled the world and there's one thing I'm sure about, that people are people. Strip away some superficial differences and people are the same all over the world. You seem to believe that men will suddenly become beasts by seeing a woman's uncovered head, this is utter nonsense. I very much appreciate the beauty of women, just like a sunset or a great painting. Sure I am sexually attracted to women but that doesn't mean I show any less respect.
Your points might stand up if in Muslim countries woman were treated far better than in western countries but that's not true. In many Muslim countries women can't speak out about the terrible things that can happen to them. In Saudi Arabia women cannot drive a car, even when covered. Is that respect? Because that seems like control to me. It sickens me that a woman who is raped can be treated so badly in your society. I could go on but this isn't a competition, no society is perfect.

According to you... "These two women, in the video, have submitted to the will of God and submission to the will of God, is the source of all freedom." Maybe I've missed something but where does God say that women have to be covered?

I never understood from a logic point of view how some people can set their identity by covering up their identity. It makes no sense.

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

See, Sonia Khan, She is muslim, but, she is inspired by western culture. Doesn't she look superficial, Like I said, she is looking like male member of society. A society where females look like males and males look like female. That is what they call ocean of shallowness. I hope you would understand, I am trying to tell you that when you say reason for hijab are shallow, you're right, that fault isn't with yourself, the fault is with society in which you've been brainwashed. You have taken superficiality thinking it as reality.

The first half of this paragraph is an ad hominem and the only reason I dont label the second half of this paragraph as an ad hominem is that its not clear what you are saying at all. Khan looks superficial? Just because you can see her hair? Doesn't that make you superficial, not her? And, not that she does, what difference would it make that she looks like a male?

dead one wrote: »

Your society has laws/rules, but the thoughts of members of this society follow no rules, I am talking about freedom of thoughts. Your thoughts observe no rules and that is dangerous to your society. As you'r seeing consequences of this in your society. "" Man is a thinking creature. Of necessity he forms opinions. If curbs are placed on the independent expression of his views, the content of his thought may remain unchanged, but his ideas will never find expression in his speech and writings. Islam promote freedom of thoughts by removing the curbs. Curbs, imposed by a community or a state, will ultimately produce a society of hypocrites. No sincere person can ever flourish in such a repressive atmosphere. It is only freedom of thought and expression which can save man from hypocrisy". You thoughts observe no rules, it means you've the curbs in your thoughts.

This is one big contradiction. First you say that my society has rules, but my thoughts have none and that is dangerous to society. But then you say that islam removes "curbs" (rules?) from thoughts and creates full freedom of thought and expression and that this avoid hypocrites and is good. So you are saying that Islam is trying to produce a society like mine, with no thought rules, but its good when islam does it, but not when my society does it. Can you make up your mind.

dead one wrote: »

Hijab is signal of respect to the desires of men. the moment a man looks at a woman with any brazen or unashamed thought in mind, he should lower his gaze. That is hijab is necessary for youth, who deson't know real status of women. What your youth has been doing in university and colleges, Ask to yourself Mark Hamil. The reason for this, the woman aren't of Summiah Hussain's kind, and they don't know about their real status.

Its hardly respect if it denies it. Can you not just educate youths to know the real status of women? Would it not be better for societies to encourage a social growth and maturity in men themselves, instead of expecting women to change themselves, to alter their own identity, to suit men?

dead one wrote: »

Ah i see, God's will isn't someone else's will. God knows what slaves human will. God knows what desires put slavery on human's will, that's why he has chosen special dress for female members of his creation.

You need to justify this more. How is gods will not someone else's will? Even if god was acting in our best interests and was completely right in his actions, it would still be his will that we are submitting to.

dead one wrote: »

No, it liberates them from your evil desires.

But they aren't liberated, they have to constantly alter their identity to hide a part of themselves from me. They must live their public lives according to my "evil" desires. The only way for them to be truly free would be to educate me to control my desires.

dead one wrote: »

I, in my above quote, have given you clear reason, when you say, the reason for hijab are shallow, Your comment don't have value in the eyes of justice, as you have take superficiality as reality.

But you havent explained why, you just assert that I haven't because my society is shallow. But what difference would that make? Hell, coming from a shallow society would enable me to recognise something else shallow easier than you, so I dont see the relevance.

dead one wrote: »

So on the other hand, Mooslems women are said to be forced into wearing a veil or , there is exceptionally any question of anyone else being forces into wearing whatever it is that they wear. And yet, if I appeared in work today with a T shirt that read I Am A Wage Slave, I would come up against with legally sanctioned disciplinary action from my employer, and many of those who say against Mooslem women wearing a burka, on account of its relational-ship with force, would say, that in fact I had freely chosen to destroy company rules and that therefore I could have n0 problem if I ended up on the d0le.

And clearly force into wearing particular cloths is by no means the sole manifestation of coercive power in everyday life. Capitalism requests all manner of forcible limits on people’s acti0ns -what they wear, what they say, how they work- on account of the fear of losing one’s livelihood, status and so on.

But the result of any acti0n that goes against these limits is widely represented as the symbol of freedom. More important though is the implicit belief that any action to refrain from contravening these forcible extent is also free choice. I am tend toward to say, therefore, that what ‘lurks undr those shr0uds’ is simply an argument for forcible power in its uropean capitalist shape, in which everyone is held to be where they are honestly on account of the free (market) choices they have made.

If this ‘right’ were to be somehow coerced, it would spell the end of telephones. And beards. And sunglasses.

As hard as it is to make out what your saying (and its really hard) it seems you are just saying that the west coerces people to wear some clothes, so islam should be able to do it to. How is that a defence?

dead one wrote: »

Let talk in usual way, all, Aren't these factors of coercion in your society

1. Prostitutes/Hooker/Pimps
2. Advertisement of women
3. Women in half naked dresses in the streets
4. Pornographic movies being sold online in chunks

No, at least certainly not in the same way that religion is coerced upon people. No-one participates in these activities or has these activities presented to them (I honestly cant tell which way you are looking at these, are you saying people are coerced into these activities, or that these activities are used to coerce others?) with the emotive or physical pressures that religion uses. Children aren't told from a young age to partake or obtain these things under threat of some illogical physical, or metaphysical, danger to their soul or identities.

dead one wrote: »

Why don't you write something on prostitution on the other hand you have problem with a piece of cloth.

Because it would be irrelevant to the point I'm making here. Id doesn't matter about any other society and how shallow they may be, the hijab/niqab is an incredibly shallow way to look at a womans presence, identity and contribution to society

oceanclub

Back home with the in-laws in Malaysia, I've been trying to gauge, with what percentage of Arab tourist/visitors, how many couples where the women is in niqab, the man is dressed modestly (arms/legs covered as I would if going to a mosque, bearded).

Coming up with none so far.

P.

biko

I would probably go so far as to say that if you wear a face covering dress you're a fundamentalist Muslim as opposed to secular Muslims that don't cover their face or moderate Muslims that just wear a head scarf.
Just like Amish would be fundamentalist Christians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/world/middleeast/11iht-letter.html

Zeinab Magdy, 21, started wearing the veil when she was a senior in high school. “Up until today I really don’t know why I put it on,” she said. “But a lot of it was peer pressure. A lot of people were starting to wear it; it felt like fitting in or belonging.”
She cried profusely the first day she wore it because halfway through the day she wanted to take it off, but felt trapped.
Fearing the social stigma associated with taking off the veil, Ms. Magdy continued to cover her hair for two and a half years, until she summoned the courage to reverse her decision halfway through college. She had joined a creative writing class, and by beginning to discover what she loved to do, she felt more sure of who she wanted to be.
The veil was simply not a part of it, she admits. “I remember the sensation of the air in my hair,” she recalled with a twinkle in her eye.

But now that the vast majority of women in Egypt are in fact veiled, it is no longer a mark of distinction, or even piety. It is not unusual to see a young veiled woman in tight jeans and a catchy top strutting provocatively down the street holding her boyfriend’s hand. And the veil, which represented some measure of respectability, no longer protects or prevents harassment on the street.
This saturation of the veil has also given way for young women to mark their religiosity by putting on the niqab, a full face cover. According to a survey conducted by the Population Council in 2009, about 5 percent of Egyptian women from the ages of 15 to 29 now wear the niqab.
“When you reach a new normal, people begin to distinguish themselves differently,” said Hania Shalaani, an expert in gender studies at the Social Research Center at the American University in Cairo. “Because the veil is no longer a sign of religiosity or respectability, it is expected to see this polarization.”
Manal Mahmoud, 21, a graduate of English studies from Cairo University, wore the veil when she was 14 and upgraded to the niqab at the age of 17.
Ms. Mahmoud said she was against covering her face until five of her friends, who started wearing the niqab one after the other in the span of one month, were criticized and attacked by teachers at school for wearing it. She eventually became convinced that it was the better choice and found that covering her face was a more sincere attempt to obey God than to merely cover her hair.

Paradize

Hijab actually is not just about covering your hair. Hijab is a requirement for both men and woman because it is about ones behaviour, how one talks etc. Both men and women are told to lower their gaze and this is also hijab. There is no doubt that it is a requirement and people who try to seperate the hadith from the quran , this is wrong. The quran tells us to listen to the messenger. If we seperated the hadith from the quran we wouldn't know a lot of things. I personally have no issue with a person who doesn't want to cover her hair but I do have an issue with people who want to prevent a woman from covering.
Peace.

biko

The woman I admire most in Islam is HM Queen Rania of Jordan.
She discusses the veil at 2.30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEC8p5VN1-I

dead one

meglome wrote: »

It's interesting how you keep saying you tell the truth. I have no desire to insult you but what you see as truthfulness comes across as arrogance and self-righteousness.

hiya meglome, it's interesting to see that you have no desire to insult me yet you mentioned it, Do you think i am insulting you, Is truth insulting to you. Am i not speaking truth. Do women in your society not look sex dolls. Ask to yourself, what your youth is doing in colleges and universities. Who is brainwashing them against status of Women. Is that Dead one.

meglome wrote: »

I have travelled the world and there's one thing I'm sure about, that people are people. Strip away some superficial differences and people are the same all over the world. You seem to believe that men will suddenly become beasts by seeing a woman's uncovered head, this is utter nonsense. I very much appreciate the beauty of women, just like a sunset or a great painting. Sure I am sexually attracted to women but that doesn't mean I show any less respect.

Five finger aren't equal. People aren't the same all over the world, when you say people are same you are saying five finger are equal which isn't true.

meglome wrote: »

Your points might stand up if in Muslim countries woman were treated far better than in western countries but that's not true. In many Muslim countries women can't speak out about the terrible things that can happen to them. In Saudi Arabia women cannot drive a car, even when covered. Is that respect? Because that seems like control to me. It sickens me that a woman who is raped can be treated so badly in your society. I could go on but this isn't a competition, no society is perfect.

I ain't saying muslim countries are better than western countries. Majority of these countries are inspired by western culture. Due to western invasion into these countries, these countries have lost their true islamic culture. A culture which preserves rights of Woman. Take example of saudia, saudis are ruled by dictators, there is dictatorship in saudia, that's why what they implement in their country, has got nothing to do with Islam. Islam is quran and the way given by Prophet Muhammad. A person who is muslim and not following Islam. He doesn't represent Islam at all .

meglome wrote: »

According to you... "These two women, in the video, have submitted to the will of God and submission to the will of God, is the source of all freedom." Maybe I've missed something but where does God say that women have to be covered?

"The Noble Qur'an - Al-Ahzab 33:59

O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils)* all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

*the arabic word here is Jalabeeb (plural of Jalbaab), which is the loose outer garment that covers all a woman's body. It says here to use the Jalabeeb to cover all, and scholars say this means to use it to cover her head (agree upon by all scholars) and her face (agreed by many scholars, not all) and one or both eyes, in order for it to be known that she is a free woman and so not to be exposed to any harm."

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Khan looks superficial? Just because you can see her hair? Doesn't that make you superficial, not her? And, not that she does, what difference would it make that she looks like a male?

not because of her hairs, because of her cutting, the way she talk. During her first or second response, we find, her color changes, because she doesn't know how to answer a thing which she doesn't know and she tries to generalize thing by taking help of lies. Isn't it shallowness. Tell if i am wrong.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is one big contradiction. First you say that my society has rules, but my thoughts have none and that is dangerous to society. But then you say that islam removes "curbs" (rules?) from thoughts and creates full freedom of thought and expression and that this avoid hypocrites and is good. So you are saying that Islam is trying to produce a society like mine, with no thought rules, but its good when islam does it, but not when my society does it. Can you make up your mind.

See that's not contradiction, What is purpose of traffic signals on the roads, that is to control traffic. Similarly Islam put signals upon thought, where thoughts follow no rules/signals that is very dangerous for that society. Do you not see your thought following no rules/signals and where your society is going. It is very common to put sex scenes in majority of westren movies. Why what is purpose those scene, Don't get me wrong it's just an example. Do you not feel shame by seeing those scene or you get pleasured. This is how islam cleans the soul of a person by putting signals on thought. I hope you would get my point.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its hardly respect if it denies it. Can you not just educate youths to know the real status of women? Would it not be better for societies to encourage a social growth and maturity in men themselves, instead of expecting women to change themselves, to alter their own identity, to suit men?

This identity is given to women by God, even modern men, who wish open and naked women for their business, can't change this identity. This is how Islam preserve dignity and honor of women in a society. This identity doesn't suit any man, because, you'r a man and you know how you fill hunger of your desires.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You need to justify this more. How is gods will not someone else's will? Even if god was acting in our best interests and was completely right in his actions, it would still be his will that we are submitting to.

He is our creator. He created us with his will and he wants us to live a pious life. A life with full of piousness. He wants to liberate us from evil desires which corrupt human soul. The freedom lies in the path of faithfulness not faithlessness.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But they aren't liberated, they have to constantly alter their identity to hide a part of themselves from me. They must live their public lives according to my "evil" desires. The only way for them to be truly free would be to educate me to control my desires.

See, they are liberated from evil desires which enslaves their will, which corrupts their ego, You'r measuring freedom in term of materialism. That isn't freedom, Freedom is name of control, If you controls yourself against all the evil then you're free, If you control your movies against sex scenes then that is freedom in your media. Freedom is to resist pleasure not to enslave to them. It's very hard to make you understand simple things because you'r take mirage's beauty thinking it as nest.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But you havent explained why, you just assert that I haven't because my society is shallow. But what difference would that make? Hell, coming from a shallow society would enable me to recognise something else shallow easier than you, so I dont see the relevance.

See, simple, don't get me wrong, if you're corrupt then it isn't easy to exactly pin point corruption. Corruption increases with passage of times. You don't know you're shallow inside or you're society is shallow. It's i who is telling you that your society look shallow, and i feel ocean of shallowness in your society.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As hard as it is to make out what your saying (and its really hard) it seems you are just saying that the west coerces people to wear some clothes, so islam should be able to do it to. How is that a defence?

So how is that not a defense, coercion is good if used by westren and not good by if used eastern/Muslims. I smell hypocrisy.

dead one

biko wrote: »

The woman I admire most in Islam is HM Queen Rania of Jordan.
She discusses the veil at 2.30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEC8p5VN1-I

QUEEN RANIA wrote:

Absolutely, you know, very often. But likewise, there are many women like me who do not wear the veil. So, as long as it's a choice.

I have nothing against the veil. And I think that wrongly, many in the West look at the veil as a symbol of oppression.

Now, as long as a woman chooses to wear the veil, because that's her belief and because of her own -- that's a personal relationship with God, so she should be free to dress in whichever way she wants.

And we should be smarter than to apply more meaning to a symbol of clothing than we should, because, you know, all over the world there are many symbols of dress and many ways of prayer, et cetera. We shouldn't judge people through the prism of our own stereotypes.

And I think there has been a stereotype that has developed over -- in the Western world of a women -- a veil means oppression, you know. That is not necessarily the case.

And unfortunately, these stereotypes have been very dangerous between East and West. And we really need to start challenging them, because, you know, they really rob us of accurate perspective.

Biko, that's her personal view, She doesn't choose hijab. But her choice has got nothing to with Islam. Did she say, she was representing Islam in her choice. Islam is quran and way of Prophet, If she is not following then no one is forcing her to follow islam. It is also clear that women in islam aren't coerced. If they were coerced, then you would see Queen Rania in Hijab.

the_syco

dead one wrote: »

A society which observes no rules.

It's sad that the boys and men in these countries with those rules you speak of cannot control themselves if the women are not covered head to toe.

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

not because of her hairs, because of her cutting, the way she talk. During her first or second response, we find, her color changes, because she doesn't know how to answer a thing which she doesn't know and she tries to generalize thing by taking help of lies. Isn't it shallowness. Tell if i am wrong.

But you are the same, you don't know how to answer the question that I asked, so you are generalising and making no sense. You haven't explained how she looks superficial, how she looks like a man or how that makes someone shallow. You argument is actually contradictory to muslim teaching, as the whole point of hijab is to make women be indistinguishable from men (by requiring both men and women to downplay actions and attire that would emphasise the differences between them).

dead one wrote: »

See that's not contradiction, What is purpose of traffic signals on the roads, that is to control traffic. Similarly Islam put signals upon thought, where thoughts follow no rules/signals that is very dangerous for that society. Do you not see your thought following no rules/signals and where your society is going. It is very common to put sex scenes in majority of westren movies. Why what is purpose those scene, Don't get me wrong it's just an example. Do you not feel shame by seeing those scene or you get pleasured. This is how islam cleans the soul of a person by putting signals on thought. I hope you would get my point.

Except you said "Islam promote freedom of thoughts by removing the curbs.", so you are presenting Islam as a society which removes rules, so you are still contradicting yourself. Am I right in saying that English isn't your first language? Try and keep the language simpler: do you think that islam removes rules that western society places on the mind, or do you think that islam puts rules on the mind that western society does not?.

dead one wrote: »

This identity is given to women by God, even modern men, who wish open and naked women for their business, can't change this identity. This is how Islam preserve dignity and honor of women in a society. This identity doesn't suit any man, because, you'r a man and you know how you fill hunger of your desires.

Except that this identity, as detailed by men, is claimed by the same men to actually be coming from god. You see the problem, dont you? Many many islamic nations dont have the requirement or tradition of wearing the full burkha. And the ones that do, are the ones that are, stereotypically, very dominating of their native women. So which is it? God tells women to respect mens desires (desires that god arbitrarily put there in the first place) by completely hiding everything that would actually sate those desires, or have some men bastardised the teachings of god in order to even more dominate their women?

dead one wrote: »

He is our creator. He created us with his will and he wants us to live a pious life. A life with full of piousness. He wants to liberate us from evil desires which corrupt human soul. The freedom lies in the path of faithfulness not faithlessness.

And gods will is still someone elses will. All you are saying here is that we should bow to his will, but thats a different (and contradictory) point to your earlier assertion that submitting to gods will is freedom.

dead one wrote: »

See, they are liberated from evil desires which enslaves their will, which corrupts their ego, You'r measuring freedom in term of materialism. That isn't freedom, Freedom is name of control, If you controls yourself against all the evil then you're free, If you control your movies against sex scenes then that is freedom in your media. Freedom is to resist pleasure not to enslave to them. It's very hard to make you understand simple things because you'r take mirage's beauty thinking it as nest.

Actually your are thinking of freedom materialistically. You are only seeing freedom for women from men acting on their desires (by assuming the burkha stops men from acting on their desires). But the women are still wearing the burkha subject to the possibility of men acting on their desires, so they are still not free from those desires.Basically, if women wear truly free from those desires, then they wouldn't even half to think about them and therefore wouldn't actually need to wear the burkha at all.

dead one wrote: »

See, simple, don't get me wrong, if you're corrupt then it isn't easy to exactly pin point corruption. Corruption increases with passage of times. You don't know you're shallow inside or you're society is shallow. It's i who is telling you that your society look shallow, and i feel ocean of shallowness in your society.

None of which would stop me from recognising shallowness in your society. All this is, is a childish "I know you are, but what am I?" defence. It is incredibly shallow to think, and teach, that women have no hope of presenting their individuality and personality if their individual physical face is on display.

dead one wrote: »

So how is that not a defense, coercion is good if used by westren and not good by if used eastern/Muslims. I smell hypocrisy.

Who said its good to that coercion is used by Western society. Even if it was good, isn't is Islam supposed to be better than the West, why is it happy to fall to the West's way of doing things? This is all hypothetical anyway, as I've already explained that the way the West "coerces" people into the examples you gave is monumentally different from how Islam (and religion in general) coerces.

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

It is also clear that women in islam aren't coerced. If they were coerced, then you would see Queen Rania in Hijab.

The Islam in one country can be massively different from the Islam in another country, and both are different from the true, perfect, Islamic society, which doesn't exist (or do you believe that some society on earth has Islam down perfectly?). Just because one muslim woman isn't coerced (in one particular way, to one particular point of view) doesn't mean that other women aren't.

dead one

the_syco wrote: »

It's sad that the boys and men in these countries with those rules you speak of cannot control themselves if the women are not covered head to toe.

hiya syco,
You didn't understand, Don't get me wrong, It's sad, when society display parts of women to attract customers. Like i said, sex scenes are very common in western movies. What is purpose of those sex scenes in movies. The media uses immodesty of women for its business. I feel pity on your understand. The hijab has got nothing to do with controlling of men . It is device to create respect and modesty in thoughts about Women in long term. It's long term planning to create pure youth on earth. you see corruption in thoughts of youth, it is because immodesty in behavior of women.

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But you are the same, you don't know how to answer the question that I asked, so you are generalising and making no sense. You haven't explained how she looks superficial, how she looks like a man or how that makes someone shallow. You argument is actually contradictory to muslim teaching, as the whole point of hijab is to make women be indistinguishable from men (by requiring both men and women to downplay actions and attire that would emphasise the differences between them).

again you're creating more confusion for yourself. Let see what is meaning of superficial. "Apparent rather than actual or substantial". See, there are trillion of women on earth. These trillion women will feel shame if they expose their parts before men public. That's reality, ask to any good woman, she will tell you, a woman doesn't feel good in exposing her parts to other. Now if a woman feels no shame with binkies/half naked dresses that is superficiality. Majority of women in westren media don't feel shame. See, movies/daramas and culture. This is how sonia khan is superficial. This is how the two other women aren't superficial, they know what they are hiding and why are they hiding. i hope you would get the point.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except you said "Islam promote freedom of thoughts by removing the curbs.", so you are presenting Islam as a society which removes rules, so you are still contradicting yourself. Am I right in saying that English isn't your first language? Try and keep the language simpler: do you think that islam removes rules that western society places on the mind, or do you think that islam puts rules on the mind that western society does not?.

I don't hesitate in telling the truth, that english isn't my first language and you will find serious mistakes in my english and grammar but yet it is understandable. I have used curbs in sense of gutter. you know what is gutter in thoughts, that is hypocrisy/bigotry / prejudice and other deep rooted evil. Islam puts some restriction on thoughts by removing these curb, that is actually what i am saying. These restrictions are signals which control traffic of thoughts, i hope you would understand and i am saying your thoughts don't following such types of signal and your thought break rules creating a society full of bigot/hypocrites.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except that this identity, as detailed by men, is claimed by the same men to actually be coming from god. You see the problem, dont you? Many many islamic nations dont have the requirement or tradition of wearing the full burkha. And the ones that do, are the ones that are, stereotypically, very dominating of their native women. So which is it? God tells women to respect mens desires (desires that god arbitrarily put there in the first place) by completely hiding everything that would actually sate those desires, or have some men bastardised the teachings of god in order to even more dominate their women?

The man was a prophet of God, he had got nothing personal in this business. Before Islam the situation of women was worse, they buried alive their daughter in fear of hunger. He finished these stupid ritual and gave respect to woman by telling that "heaven lies in feet of mother". He told, O people fear God in matters of women. God didn't tell woman to respect men's desires. It's what you're telling. Actually the purpose is hijab is how to get respect/modesty in society. No hijab, full porn, full sex sences in movies. Again, don get me wrong. Why is your media completely brainwashing children about status of women by putting these scenes. almost every movies/dramas got scenes. This is how children are brainwashing by watching these sence again and again. This is how hijab is necessary. Hijab tells women about their real status. Hijab tells women how not to be misused in society

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And gods will is still someone elses will. All you are saying here is that we should bow to his will, but thats a different (and contradictory) point to your earlier assertion that submitting to gods will is freedom.

you're here because of God's will, no God, no will. God isn't someone else. Are you not understanding. It is God who created you so that he can test you, that you follow his will, or take your own will as lord.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually your are thinking of freedom materialistically. You are only seeing freedom for women from men acting on their desires (by assuming the burkha stops men from acting on their desires). But the women are still wearing the burkha subject to the possibility of men acting on their desires, so they are still not free from those desires.Basically, if women wear truly free from those desires, then they wouldn't even half to think about them and therefore wouldn't actually need to wear the burkha at all.

No i am taking freedom in spiritual sense. When you submit to will of God then you are free of all kind of evils which puts chain of slavery upon your desires. The identity of special dress is given by God and that's how those two women are free any types of corruption. You can't hire those women to work in strips clubs, or for sex scenes in movies. They will prefer to give their lives rather doing such stupidity. This is how hijab tells women about their real status in society. The hijab, it is identity which no man can misuuse. Don't you see slavery of desires in the minds of youth. Ask to yourself.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

None of which would stop me from recognising shallowness in your society. All this is, is a childish "I know you are, but what am I?" defence. It is incredibly shallow to think, and teach, that women have no hope of presenting their individuality and personality if their individual physical face is on display.

That's you personal thinking, i have nothing to say about this. But you're misunderstanding that it is choice of woman who wants to hide her face or not. But Islamic way of dress is hijab, that full face covering isn't mandatory.

the_syco

dead one wrote: »

I feel pity on your understand.

If the women are not covered head to toe, it's not the fault of the man that he rapes the woman. If the woman doesn't want to shame her family, she should marry the rapist.

I see the above as a weakness on behalf of the man and boys, and/or their government/religious leaders. I extremely doubt that the Prophet would condone such behaviour.

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

again you're creating more confusion for yourself. Let see what is meaning of superficial. "Apparent rather than actual or substantial". See, there are trillion of women on earth. These trillion women will feel shame if they expose their parts before men public. That's reality, ask to any good woman, she will tell you, a woman doesn't feel good in exposing her parts to other. Now if a woman feels no shame with binkies/half naked dresses that is superficiality. Majority of women in westren media don't feel shame. See, movies/daramas and culture. This is how sonia khan is superficial. This is how the two other women aren't superficial, they know what they are hiding and why are they hiding. i hope you would get the point.

I'll think you'll find that the 3.5 billion women on earth all have different ideas about what constitutes "exposing their parts on public" (plenty have no problem not wearing the veil, plenty have no problem not wearing head scarves at all, some have no problem wearing nothing above their waist, if national geographic is to be believed). You are calling Khan superficial because she doesn't measure herself according to how other people think she should look and cover up. By not covering up to such extreme points, she shows how un-superficial she is. She shows that the she understands that her presence in society can dictated by her personality and her opinions ie more than her superficial appearance, despite the burkha claiming otherwise.

dead one wrote: »

I don't hesitate in telling the truth, that english isn't my first language and you will find serious mistakes in my english and grammar but yet it is understandable. I have used curbs in sense of gutter. you know what is gutter in thoughts, that is hypocrisy/bigotry / prejudice and other deep rooted evil. Islam puts some restriction on thoughts by removing these curb, that is actually what i am saying. These restrictions are signals which control traffic of thoughts, i hope you would understand and i am saying your thoughts don't following such types of signal and your thought break rules creating a society full of bigot/hypocrites.

Ok, I kind of get what you mean by "curb" ("curb", in the way you had used it, can mean restraints, or to restrain), but you are still contradicting yourself, but in a different way. Islam cannot be a society of freedom, if it puts rules on the thoughts of its citizens. Even if you argue that those rules are necessary, it still contradicts the notion of freedom.

dead one wrote: »

The man was a prophet of God, he had got nothing personal in this business. Before Islam the situation of women was worse, they buried alive their daughter in fear of hunger. He finished these stupid ritual and gave respect to woman by telling that "heaven lies in feet of mother". He told, O people fear God in matters of women. God didn't tell woman to respect men's desires. It's what you're telling. Actually the purpose is hijab is how to get respect/modesty in society. No hijab, full porn, full sex sences in movies. Again, don get me wrong. Why is your media completely brainwashing children about status of women by putting these scenes. almost every movies/dramas got scenes. This is how children are brainwashing by watching these sence again and again. This is how hijab is necessary. Hijab tells women about their real status. Hijab tells women how not to be misused in society

I'm not talking about Mohammed, I'm talking about the men who have come since him, and who now claim, after decades or centuries of not requiring it, that hijab implies the veil. Look at pictures of Iran in the 70s, it looks like America in the 70s. The resurgence of fundamentalist interpretations of islamic rules happened across the islamic world in the 70's, as a result of the Arab Oil Embargo of the 70s and the revolution in Iran at the same time, which resulted in billions of dollars going to newly "crowned" fundamentalist rulers of these countries who used the money to spread propaganda and denounce the west in order to dominate their people. The societies who most strongly argue for the burkha, and other fundamentalist interpretations of the koran, are the ones whose entire power base is based on association with the koran, therefore the more control of their citizens (and the less questioning of any of their interpretations of the koran) the better.

dead one wrote: »

you're here because of God's will, no God, no will. God isn't someone else. Are you not understanding. It is God who created you so that he can test you, that you follow his will, or take your own will as lord.

God is a different entity to me, therefore his will is different to my own. You even point out that I can take his will or my will, so I can see you agree in principle, you just dont like the contradiction its creating for you in your other assertions.

dead one wrote: »

No i am taking freedom in spiritual sense. When you submit to will of God then you are free of all kind of evils which puts chain of slavery upon your desires. The identity of special dress is given by God and that's how those two women are free any types of corruption. You can't hire those women to work in strips clubs, or for sex scenes in movies. They will prefer to give their lives rather doing such stupidity. This is how hijab tells women about their real status in society. The hijab, it is identity which no man can misuuse. Don't you see slavery of desires in the minds of youth. Ask to yourself.

But they aren't free spiritually, as they have submitted to anothers will, so they are slaves of it. By submitting to the will of god, you are putting chains upon your desires, remember that the whole point of hijab is for people to rein in their sexual instincts. How can the hijab be any kind of identity? It makes every woman the same as any other woman. If peoples identity wasn't based on how they physically looked, then muslim men would have to wear the burkha too, as they would lose nothing from not wearing it and only emphasise their devotion to hijab. That they dont, and yet assert women should, shows the imbalance in hijab, not to mention the true status of women in fundamentalist society.

dead one wrote: »

That's you personal thinking, i have nothing to say about this. But you're misunderstanding that it is choice of woman who wants to hide her face or not. But Islamic way of dress is hijab, that full face covering isn't mandatory.

Ok, replace "face" with "hair" in the last post, the point is the same. The societies which assert the veil, assert that women have no hope of presenting their individuality and personality without it, the societies which assert the head scarf, do the same for the headscarf. It doesn't matter to what level the covering is asserted, its all still a shallow view that if their body is on view (to some arbitrary degree) that this negates their personality and identity and voice in society. A woman could walk around naked, and it wouldn't do anything to effect her personality or identity in society (it might be a reflection of her personality of identity). And if some people in society cant see that woman's personality or identity because of her nakedness, then that's their fault, their shallowness and their problem to fix, not hers.

Irish_Muslim

My local Imam and islamic teacher here in Dublin gave a year ago a detailed lecture on the concept of Hijab in Islam from Quran & Hadith (two primary sources of islamic law)

I am posting this for anyone interested.

dead one

the_syco wrote: »

If the women are not covered head to toe, it's not the fault of the man that he rapes the woman. If the woman doesn't want to shame her family, she should marry the rapist.

hiya again syco, some time they call me the dead psycho.
What rape has got to do with hijab. Are you saying, a rapist wouldn't rape the woman if she is wearing hijab. See, hijab has got nothing to with rape or whatever. Like i said, it's long term planning to create pure society on earth.

the_syco wrote: »

I see the above as a weakness on behalf of the man and boys, and/or their government/religious leaders. I extremely doubt that the Prophet would condone such behaviour.

Now, you're on the spot, the weakness on behalf of the man and boys. What removes these weakness, that is hijab. I am talking about long term planning. If every mother, who knows her true status in a society, guides her children about true status of woman in a scoeity, then you wouldn't see such weakness on behalf of the man and boys. No one is born with knowedgle, every one learns from same society, If mothers cheat their husband then that is exactly what children will learn, i hope you would get the point.

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'll think you'll find that the 3.5 billion women on earth all have different ideas about what constitutes "exposing their parts on public" (plenty have no problem not wearing the veil, plenty have no problem not wearing head scarves at all, some have no problem wearing nothing above their waist, if national geographic is to be believed). You are calling Khan superficial because she doesn't measure herself according to how other people think she should look and cover up. By not covering up to such extreme points, she shows how un-superficial she is. She shows that the she understands that her presence in society can dictated by her personality and her opinions ie more than her superficial appearance, despite the burkha claiming otherwise.

of the 3.5 billon women on earth, all have honor and dignity in their minds, i am saying again, of these 3.5 billion women, no good women will advertise her body part that she might get attraction of men. Isn't it corruption of intent. See, majority of western or eastern women do makeup, they do all this makeup to cheat public. I mean, majority of women do makeup or advertise to good look. See for example, i like a girl in her makeup or in her artificial dress, but when i come to know that she isn't beautiful in her real status, i get disappointed. I hope you would get this point. Isn't it cheating public by hiding your real face..... on the other hand, in hijab, you look what you're in reality. No cheating, no attraction/cheating of men. This is how, Islam creates a shallow free society. Now, hope you would understand the reason for hijab aren't shallow. Isn't it what they call wishful thinking. In westren, freedom is totally material. Freedom is concept which based on one's wished.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ok, I kind of get what you mean by "curb" ("curb", in the way you had used it, can mean restraints, or to restrain), but you are still contradicting yourself, but in a different way. Islam cannot be a society of freedom, if it puts rules on the thoughts of its citizens. Even if you argue that those rules are necessary, it still contradicts the notion of freedom.

See, what is freedom, if you're freed from all kind of corruption. Isn't it freedom. See, if every man, in a society, is not corrupt. isn't it freedom?. Islam puts some restriction upon thought. What is purpose of those restrictions, to free society from all kinds of corruption. You create traffic signal on the roads, Is purpose of signals to slave traffic. So what freedom are you talking about. Can you please explain. Are you saying, if some men hire few women for growth of their business, Is that freedom. Or woman, with open dresses, who corrupt imagination of youth, Is that freedom. Please explain to me, what do you mean by freedom.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not talking about Mohammed, I'm talking about the men who have come since him, and who now claim, after decades or centuries of not requiring it, that hijab implies the veil. Look at pictures of Iran in the 70s, it looks like America in the 70s. The resurgence of fundamentalist interpretations of islamic rules happened across the islamic world in the 70's, as a result of the Arab Oil Embargo of the 70s and the revolution in Iran at the same time, which resulted in billions of dollars going to newly "crowned" fundamentalist rulers of these countries who used the money to spread propaganda and denounce the west in order to dominate their people. The societies who most strongly argue for the burkha, and other fundamentalist interpretations of the koran, are the ones whose entire power base is based on association with the koran, therefore the more control of their citizens (and the less questioning of any of their interpretations of the koran) the better.

See, the bold font, the societies who are willing to dominate the world by getting resources from muslim world, In order to fill hunger of their dominance, they come with new hyena tactics. you know Iran and American were very Good partner before the Iranian revolution. But why everything changed after the revolution. The revolution revealed true status American and their imperialistic plan with their democratic values. Are you getting me. It was all about Oil. As long as American were getting Oil, they remain good with iranian, but when oil supply of oil stopped they became enemy of Iran and what about Iran and Iraq, who created disturbance in the world, It was American and their hyena tactics and now you are seeing a big riddle on the screen. 9-11. Again the american and the hunger of oil. Now they have cheated their own people, I mean, american fed hunger of oil at the corpses of their own people. It's a dirty politics even it is more dirty what you're saying in this case.

fundamentalist rulers of these countries who used the money to spread propaganda and denounce the west

I hope one day you would find the truth.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

God is a different entity to me, therefore his will is different to my own. You even point out that I can take his will or my will, so I can see you agree in principle, you just dont like the contradiction its creating for you in your other assertions.

God is a different entity when you read God from different minds.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But they aren't free spiritually, as they have submitted to anothers will, so they are slaves of it. By submitting to the will of god, you are putting chains upon your desires, remember that the whole point of hijab is for people to rein in their sexual instincts. How can the hijab be any kind of identity? It makes every woman the same as any other woman. If peoples identity wasn't based on how they physically looked, then muslim men would have to wear the burkha too, as they would lose nothing from not wearing it and only emphasise their devotion to hijab. That they dont, and yet assert women should, shows the imbalance in hijab, not to mention the true status of women in fundamentalist society.

again, what do you mean by freedom. If your innerself is freed from all of kind of corruption, Isn't it freedom. If you're free from greed, lust, envy, bigotry and all kind of other deep rooted corruptions. Isn't it freedom....or you're saying a person, who can't stop himself from visiting strips club, is a free person. Is that freedom are taking about. don't get me wrong it's just an example. What do you mean by freedom....

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ok, replace "face" with "hair" in the last post, the point is the same. The societies which assert the veil, assert that women have no hope of presenting their individuality and personality without it, the societies which assert the head scarf, do the same for the headscarf. It doesn't matter to what level the covering is asserted, its all still a shallow view that if their body is on view (to some arbitrary degree) that this negates their personality and identity and voice in society. A woman could walk around naked, and it wouldn't do anything to effect her personality or identity in society (it might be a reflection of her personality of identity). And if some people in society cant see that woman's personality or identity because of her nakedness, then that's their fault, their shallowness and their problem to fix, not hers.

See, i am using again the same example, Isn't artificiality cheating. The women like sonia khan cheat other by representing themselves in extraordinary manner. You know what i am talking about. Suppose i am ugly, i look ugly and i use makeup inoder to become beautiful. Isn't it cheating. For me beauty doesn't lie in makeup/cheating. It's lies in character of a woman/man.... You're measuring beauty in material terms.... I am measuring beauty for sake of humanity. A woman who isn't cheating humanity with her real face is beautiful, on the other hand, a woman, who is cheating humanity with her superficiality, is spot on face humanity.
Please answer me, Isn't it cheating

oceanclub

of the 3.5 billon women on earth, all have honor and dignity in their minds,

dead one, am curious to know your reaction to the so-called honor killings that have happened, such as the one in Canada:

http://www.khaama.com/afghan-family-commits-honor-killing-in-canada-120

P.

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

of the 3.5 billon women on earth, all have honor and dignity in their minds, i am saying again, of these 3.5 billion women, no good women will advertise her body part that she might get attraction of men. Isn't it corruption of intent. See, majority of western or eastern women do makeup, they do all this makeup to cheat public. I mean, majority of women do makeup or advertise to good look. See for example, i like a girl in her makeup or in her artificial dress, but when i come to know that she isn't beautiful in her real status, i get disappointed. I hope you would get this point. Isn't it cheating public by hiding your real face..... on the other hand, in hijab, you look what you're in reality. No cheating, no attraction/cheating of men. This is how, Islam creates a shallow free society. Now, hope you would understand the reason for hijab aren't shallow. Isn't it what they call wishful thinking. In westren, freedom is totally material. Freedom is concept which based on one's wished.

:eek: I'm sorry, you think that hijab is what women look like in reality? If that was true, then there would be no need to explicitly detail what hijab was, as women, in reality, would already adhere to it.
Besides that, you are still showing the shallowness of hijab. You are still presenting it as the only way for women to really show their physical appearance, free of make up (as if burka wearing women dont wear make up) and that women cant misrepresent themselves without make up. For instance, why do you think that women cant cheat or lie if their face can't be seen? Presumably muslim men must still strike up relationships with burka wearing women and eventually get married and have children, so it seems that attraction is still their without physical appearance. Do you think that a woman can't act differently if she is wearing the burka?

dead one wrote: »

See, what is freedom, if you're freed from all kind of corruption. Isn't it freedom. See, if every man, in a society, is not corrupt. isn't it freedom?. Islam puts some restriction upon thought. What is purpose of those restrictions, to free society from all kinds of corruption. You create traffic signal on the roads, Is purpose of signals to slave traffic. So what freedom are you talking about. Can you please explain. Are you saying, if some men hire few women for growth of their business, Is that freedom. Or woman, with open dresses, who corrupt imagination of youth, Is that freedom. Please explain to me, what do you mean by freedom.

Being allowed and able to do what you want is freedom. Now, I know that people can't have absolute freedom. I recognise that inevitably one mans freedom will infringe on someone else, so, at best, what you are looking for is a system which maximises freedom but which does not aim to give absolute freedom, as that would not work. This is only a problem to those who blindly assert that their system is one of freedom when what they want to say is that their system is the one with the most harmony.

dead one wrote: »

See, the bold font, the societies who are willing to dominate the world by getting resources from muslim world, In order to fill hunger of their dominance, they come with new hyena tactics. you know Iran and American were very Good partner before the Iranian revolution. But why everything changed after the revolution. The revolution revealed true status American and their imperialistic plan with their democratic values. Are you getting me. It was all about Oil. As long as American were getting Oil, they remain good with iranian, but when oil supply of oil stopped they became enemy of Iran and what about Iran and Iraq, who created disturbance in the world, It was American and their hyena tactics and now you are seeing a big riddle on the screen. 9-11. Again the american and the hunger of oil. Now they have cheated their own people, I mean, american fed hunger of oil at the corpses of their own people. It's a dirty politics even it is more dirty what you're saying in this case.

I hope one day you would find the truth.

What has this got to do with my point? Islamic society had long since moved away from fundamentalist interpretations of the koran by the time the 70s came along It was fundamentalist parties that used traditionalist and patriotic values as their driving point to remove the US influence from their countries that brought it back (its a pretty common tactic, use traditionalism and notions that "X is true Islam and true "insert countries name here"" in order to make your country men think you are taking power from foreigner invaders when, in effect, you are just taking power from your country men)

dead one wrote: »

God is a different entity when you read God from different minds.

And? This just makes me right.

dead one wrote: »

again, what do you mean by freedom. If your innerself is freed from all of kind of corruption, Isn't it freedom. If you're free from greed, lust, envy, bigotry and all kind of other deep rooted corruptions. Isn't it freedom....or you're saying a person, who can't stop himself from visiting strips club, is a free person. Is that freedom are taking about. don't get me wrong it's just an example. What do you mean by freedom....

As I have said before, hijab doesn't make you free of any of those things you mention, in fact you are so much enslaved to them, that it can be physically seen - in the rigid, identity devouring clothes that women are made wear.

dead one wrote: »

See, i am using again the same example, Isn't artificiality cheating. The women like sonia khan cheat other by representing themselves in extraordinary manner. You know what i am talking about. Suppose i am ugly, i look ugly and i use makeup inoder to become beautiful. Isn't it cheating. For me beauty doesn't lie in makeup/cheating. It's lies in character of a woman/man.... You're measuring beauty in material terms.... I am measuring beauty for sake of humanity. A woman who isn't cheating humanity with her real face is beautiful, on the other hand, a woman, who is cheating humanity with her superficiality, is spot on face humanity.
Please answer me, Isn't it cheating

And why is the burka an answer to that, even if it were true? Why not just have women not wear any make-up if you are so afraid of artificiality? And what about artificiality in terms of personality? Is that not cheating too? This is just avoiding my point. Some woman's "artificiality" might entice a man to act in some way he otherwise wouldn't, but that's his fault and his problem, not hers.

dead one

oceanclub wrote: »

dead one, am curious to know your reaction to the so-called honor killings that have happened, such as the one in Canada:

http://www.khaama.com/afghan-family-commits-honor-killing-in-canada-120

P.

hiya oceanclub
my below message is true if it wasn't accident.... right...
This is cultural sickness, It has got nothing to do with islam.... You know some people are so sick of culture that they got it as lord. Islam is against such sickness.... I think you don't know afghan people, majority of afghans are very straightforward in when it comes to rules...... They even don't forgive their own children who violate their family rituals.... You know i am talking about family... Family which makes society.... when family becomes threat to society, they don't hesitate in finishing their own family... You will not understand as you live in age of boy friend/girl friend... The afghans are living in family system through ages. It's family what matters to them not their children who abuse on their own family system.....

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

:eek: I'm sorry, you think that hijab is what women look like in reality? If that was true, then there would be no need to explicitly detail what hijab was, as women, in reality, would already adhere to it.

I am talking about hijab, i don't know any goddamn burka... hijab is proper dress... for example see below angel on earth...

Right tell how this woman is cheating other... She is an angel or earth, she knows about herself, She knows how to protect her husband and family.... She will give her life for her dignity and honor... You'can't hire this angel for dirty polictics.... You can't make this angel as girlfriend.... This is no element of showing off her in dressing... You can't hire this angel to advertise her part for some dirty business or sex scence in media....... This is reality, mark hamil.... I have got no idea why would a genius like you want to escape from reality...
now i tell you cheating and shallowness...

You see this is cheating, she is cheating other people by making her look artificial.. This is shallowness... You can hire her for strip club... You can make her girlfriend... You can do whatever you want with.... Why??? because she doesn't know who is she...... She doesn't know what is status in her society...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Besides that, you are still showing the shallowness of hijab. You are still presenting it as the only way for women to really show their physical appearance, free of make up (as if burka wearing women dont wear make up) and that women cant misrepresent themselves without make up. For instance, why do you think that women cant cheat or lie if their face can't be seen? Presumably muslim men must still strike up relationships with burka wearing women and eventually get married and have children, so it seems that attraction is still their without physical appearance. Do you think that a woman can't act differently if she is wearing the burka?

See, we aren't talking about action/character of a woman... We are talking about her physical appearance.... Is she cheating in her physical appearance or not.... A woman can cheat or lie even by wearing hijab but it doesn't change fact that she isn't cheating in her physical appearance.. A women in makeup can cheat or lie but it doesn't change the fact that she has already been cheating in her artificial appearance.... For example, suppose a woman is speaking truth by wearing a transparent dress, who would believe her?... on the other hand, she is clearly cheating the desires of public with her artificial dress.. i hope you would get the point...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Being allowed and able to do what you want is freedom. Now, I know that people can't have absolute freedom. I recognise that inevitably one mans freedom will infringe on someone else, so, at best, what you are looking for is a system which maximises freedom but which does not aim to give absolute freedom, as that would not work. This is only a problem to those who blindly assert that their system is one of freedom when what they want to say is that their system is the one with the most harmony.

See, Islam is a universal religion... It isn't property of my father..... You're right when you said a system which maximises freedom... Islam maximieses freedom... for example...."The main difference between the Islamic and Western views concerning women is that one is norm based and the other that claims to be value-free. The Islamic view offers a model for women to follow which is intended to be universal and normative in its impact. It takes a stand on many aspects of the life of the individual and the community. While women are free to struggle with how they will incorporate these values into their lives and their life styles, general definitions are clearly available as to what constitutes right and wrong and justice from injustice. The Islamic sources outline general principles and guidelines while it is up to the individual to apply these and give them meaning. The Western perspective strongly resists any agreed upon general principles or guidelines for women. It does not see a universal condition affirming model for the life of women. Making any statements about what a women's life should be like is considered as not leaving her free to make up her own mind according to her own conscience with or without reference to any outside source. This very essential difference may become clear when we consider each paradigm's views of society."

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What has this got to do with my point? Islamic society had long since moved away from fundamentalist interpretations of the koran by the time the 70s came along It was fundamentalist parties that used traditionalist and patriotic values as their driving point to remove the US influence from their countries that brought it back (its a pretty common tactic, use traditionalism and notions that "X is true Islam and true "insert countries name here"" in order to make your country men think you are taking power from foreigner invaders when, in effect, you are just taking power from your country men)

I agree with you some extent some people use Islam in their politics to control common folks but five fingers aren't equal.....

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And? This just makes me right.

No, that doesn't make you right, Do you know about Islamic concept of toheed, if you understand toheed, you will find answer for your answer...Moslems believes in toheed whichisn't merely monotheism i.e. belief in one God, but much more.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As I have said before, hijab doesn't make you free of any of those things you mention, in fact you are so much enslaved to them, that it can be physically seen - in the rigid, identity devouring clothes that women are made wear.

offcourse, hijab makes you free of all those thing in a society in long term.... i am using again in long term. It is only cure to the evil of society... if it isn't then give me alternative...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And why is the burka an answer to that, even if it were true? Why not just have women not wear any make-up if you are so afraid of artificiality? And what about artificiality in terms of personality? Is that not cheating too? This is just avoiding my point. Some woman's "artificiality" might entice a man to act in some way he otherwise wouldn't, but that's his fault and his problem, not hers.

i have given you detail answer above.. I don't know anything about burka, we are talking about hijab... It doesn't make women look artificial... There is no attraction in hijab.... When you use artificial mean to make yourself look natural that is artificial and cheating and shallowness.... Mark Hamil, honestly you've no point to resist... or prove me wrong!!!

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

I am talking about hijab, i don't know any goddamn burka... hijab is proper dress... for example see below angel on earth...

Right tell how this woman is cheating other... She is an angel or earth, she knows about herself, She knows how to protect her husband and family.... She will give her life for her dignity and honor... You'can't hire this angel for dirty polictics.... You can't make this angel as girlfriend.... This is no element of showing off her in dressing... You can't hire this angel to advertise her part for some dirty business or sex scence in media....... This is reality, mark hamil.... I have got no idea why would a genius like you want to escape from reality...
now i tell you cheating and shallowness...

You see this is cheating, she is cheating other people by making her look artificial.. This is shallowness... You can hire her for strip club... You can make her girlfriend... You can do whatever you want with.... Why??? because she doesn't know who is she...... She doesn't know what is status in her society...

I was talking about hijab as well (I said burka later, but here I was talking about hijab). My point still stands, because nothing here actually addresses it. If hijab was the way women look in reality, then there would be no need to have explicit rules on hijab, as women would already look that way in the first place.
As for the rest of you post? While you can argue that it is "cheating" by emphasising your benefits with make up, it's also "cheating" to completely hide them away. Also, its pretty obvious that if you don't want to "cheat" with make-up, then simply don't wear make-up. That the implication here is that women have to completely cover up to avoid this cheating, which just begs the question of how men manage to avoid cheating by simply not wearing make up.

dead one wrote: »

See, we aren't talking about action/character of a woman... We are talking about her physical appearance.... Is she cheating in her physical appearance or not.... A woman can cheat or lie even by wearing hijab but it doesn't change fact that she isn't cheating in her physical appearance.. A women in makeup can cheat or lie but it doesn't change the fact that she has already been cheating in her artificial appearance.... For example, suppose a woman is speaking truth by wearing a transparent dress, who would believe her?... on the other hand, she is clearly cheating the desires of public with her artificial dress.. i hope you would get the point...

Well, no I don't, why is it cheating to wear make up? It tells you something about a womans personality by seeing the make up they wear, so by not allowing it, you cant see how they think about themselves, which actually makes it a little harder to perceive their personality. Secondly, the hijab is itself a form of make up, but in this case its to completely hide their appearance (as opposed to emphasise parts of it), so its also cheating to wear it. Your physical appearance is a part of your personality. Adhering to hijab, according to those women in the video, allows them to express their personality the way they want, therefore the hijab is a way to emphasis the parts of themselves they like and hide the parts they dont, just like make up.

dead one wrote: »

See, Islam is a universal religion... It isn't property of my father..... You're right when you said a system which maximises freedom... Islam maximieses freedom... for example...."The main difference between the Islamic and Western views concerning women is that one is norm based and the other that claims to be value-free. The Islamic view offers a model for women to follow which is intended to be universal and normative in its impact. It takes a stand on many aspects of the life of the individual and the community. While women are free to struggle with how they will incorporate these values into their lives and their life styles, general definitions are clearly available as to what constitutes right and wrong and justice from injustice. The Islamic sources outline general principles and guidelines while it is up to the individual to apply these and give them meaning. The Western perspective strongly resists any agreed upon general principles or guidelines for women. It does not see a universal condition affirming model for the life of women. Making any statements about what a women's life should be like is considered as not leaving her free to make up her own mind according to her own conscience with or without reference to any outside source. This very essential difference may become clear when we consider each paradigm's views of society."

Its funny seeing a quote that tries to represent Islam as being the free choice, and the West as being the constrictive choice, when the language used directly contradicts teh point because its nonsense. Women are "free to struggle" in Islam, it says, as if that is any kind of freedom. The West "resists guidelines for women" as if that represents a lack of freedom on women's part. The Islamic model can't claim any model if it expects its citizens to struggle against its imposed values and restrictions.

dead one wrote: »

I agree with you some extent some people use Islam in their politics to control common folks but five fingers aren't equal.....

And? Does this say anything about my original point? That the Islamic societies that most strongly push Hijab (and the most fundamentalist interpretations of it) are societies with a recent resurgence of fundamentalists who used that fundamentalism (under the guise of traditionalism and anti-foreign influence propaganda) to gain control in the first place.

dead one wrote: »

No, that doesn't make you right, Do you know about Islamic concept of toheed, if you understand toheed, you will find answer for your answer...Moslems believes in toheed whichisn't merely monotheism i.e. belief in one God, but much more.

It seems to be the belief that god is absolute, unique and indivisible. Still dont see how it contradicts me.

dead one wrote: »

offcourse, hijab makes you free of all those thing in a society in long term.... i am using again in long term. It is only cure to the evil of society... if it isn't then give me alternative...

It doesn't matter whether you look long or short term, there is still no freedom in hijab. Imagine there was someone who was afraid of going out of their house, afraid of being attacked, afraid of getting lost. So, to avoid having to deal with these fears, they stay at home, all the time. Are they free? Is it freedom to deny your fears by completely removing a facet of your life? Or is true freedom facing those fears and not giving in to them, not living your life subject to them.
If you want an alternative to the hijab, its simple. Just recognise that those evils, dont have any power over you if you dont let them have it. You dont need to do anything, you dont need to avoid anything, just recognise that regardless of what environment you are in and temptations are presented to you, that its up to you to take them or not take them. Deny the possibility of taking them, denies your opportunity to reject them, which denies the whole point of existence (to be tested by god, according to you and islam.).

dead one wrote: »

i have given you detail answer above.. I don't know anything about burka, we are talking about hijab... It doesn't make women look artificial... There is no attraction in hijab.... When you use artificial mean to make yourself look natural that is artificial and cheating and shallowness.... Mark Hamil, honestly you've no point to resist... or prove me wrong!!!

Of course the hijab makes women look artificial, no-one is born wearing a head scarf, its not a naturally occurring biological appendage. You assert that the hijab is necessary to make women look natural, yet hijab is itself an artificial addition to their biological body. Therefore you have a contradiction and and you just demonstrate the shallowness of the hijab again.