Promiscuous women cause earthquakes...

irishconvert wrote: »

There is. We are supposed to wear non-revealing clothing and we have to have a bushy beard. Doesn't really stimulate lust in women I'm sure you agree

Well, do you?

Splendour wrote: »

Well, do you?

I don't have a beard.

irishconvert wrote: »

I don't have a beard.

Why not? You said you are 'supposed to wear a bushy beard and non revealing clothing'. Why don't you do this? Is this written in the Koran that a man should do this?

Freiheit wrote: »

Brenda Power wrote a good article in todays Sunday Times, stating that it's not Hunky Dorys and Breasts that oppress women, it's the concept that femininity is something which should be hidden, that is oppression and the verse quoted mandates this. Totally anachronistic.

Is women taking clothes off = equality for women? If so, why do men not have to do the same then?

hivizman wrote: »

Here's a link to Brenda Power's article.

Just read the article. She talks about the burqa clad women and makes assumptions about why she is wearing it. But why in God's name didn't she talk to the woman and ask her? Why does nobody ever ask the woman wearing the burqa why she is wearing it?

irishconvert wrote: »

Is women taking clothes off = equality for women? If so, why do men not have to do the same then?

I agree with that women being free to take their clothes off does not equate to equality for women. IMO, it actually shows women as second class citizens as, have you've pointed out, men, in general, are not expected to take their clothes off. How many Page 3 Male pinups are there? Would there be a national outrage if men appeared in tabloids showing all their bits n bobs :rolleyes:? You can bet your bottom dollar there would be!

Equally, if as you say Irishconvert, you're supposed to wear a bushy beard and loose clothing and you don't, this then too is unfair and hypocritical don't you think?

irishconvert wrote: »

Until a sister answers I did a quick google and found this link
http://www.artofseductions.com/top-100-things-that-attract-women-to-men/

Hair comes in 40th place. A beard is not even on the list of 100 items so it is safe to assume a beard has a negative affect on attraction.

Does it say in the Koran that you have to wear a bushy beard?

Willow Rough Windbreak wrote: »

Yeah, but going by what your interpretation of the verse in question, this isnt something particular to islam whatsoever, in fact, it's universal. There are not many people on this earth who would wish for everybody to be naked in daily life. In fact, I would expect every police force in the world to reprimand me for walking down the street in the nude - even the most liberal societies on this earth do not condone this pointless, attention seeking behaviour. Please give me an example of where gross indecency is not a crime.

Please correct me on this, but you seem to equate gross indecency with lack of clothing.

And stemming from this, do you feel that this verse in any way relates to the contemporary practise of islamic women wearing veils? Perhaps you could find the correct verse for me.

Now, Can you answer me this: where in the world do women openly flaunt their nakedness? The first thing that will come to your mind is that of pornography. Now, pornography is not something which is pushed in our faces. I see nothing wrong with pronography in the sense that I am not exposed to it, however, if I wanted to access it, I could. But then again, a love scene in a film bay be seen as pornography in your eyes - but not in my eyes. Those scenes are usually quiet fitting - given that we're humans and all



Norms arrise, develop and evolve over time. I fail to see how social norms from the 6th century can still hold relevant in today's world without a harsly repressive society upholding them for the sake of 'tradition'.

My mother appearing on playboy? Well, she is a bit old for that. If I had a wife, I would feel very inadequate to be honest. It would demonstrate to me that I am unable to fulfill her desires - possibly proof that im not the 'one' for her and the relationship would most likely crumble. However, to hold the opinion that a women can not show her naked body as a result of her own clearly thought, conscious decision is the essence of intolerant.

I must say that I do see nakedness as quite tastless at times (FHM magazines etc), but a world where a women could not dress according to her own desires, such as wearing a bikini on a warm summers day, is not one in which I would want to live. Plain and simple.

For those who believe women should 'totally cover up', there's nothing I can say. My mind is baffled as to how people can think like that.

I'd say most Muslim women want to wear the Hijab. In Ireland certainly they have a choice (well I'm sure there are some who'd be ostrasised by their community) whether to wear it or not and are perfectly happy to. Any Muslim girls I know seem happy enough to wear it. Sometimes I envy them- no bad hair days.

You were the one making the point about free choice.

Willow Rough Windbreak wrote: »

However, to hold the opinion that a women can not show her naked body as a result of her own clearly thought, conscious decision is the essence of intolerant.

There

Splendour wrote: »

What makes a woman think that wearing a veil is pleasing to Allah?

There was a long thread on the topic of veiling on this forum last year, which contains relevant verses from the Quran and also relevant hadiths: see link.

To sketch out the argument, the general consensus among Muslim scholars (although there are exceptions) is that the verse quoted earlier in this thread (Surat An-Nur 24:31), combined with various statements of Muhammad, means that women are expected to cover their hair and all of their body except for their face and hands. Given that this is considered to be a requirement derived from the Qu'ran and the Sunnah of the Prophet, observant women believe that following such a requirement will be pleasing to Allah, and will be rewarded on the Day of Reckoning (and failure to cover will be displeasing to Allah, and will be reckoned as a sin on the Day of Reckoning).

Some scholars go further, and based on various other hadiths they conclude that covering the face in the presence of unrelated men is also required. An intermediate position is that covering the face, while not a strict requirement, is mustahab (desirable or recommended: this means that covering will be rewarded, but not covering the face will not be accounted for as a sin). Women who accept the teaching of these scholars therefore believe that covering the face in the presence of unrelated men is pleasing to Allah.

Freiheit wrote: »

Your engaging in hyperbole Irish Convert. I believe in freedom of women to express themselves in ways that is true for them, not as dictated by a 6/7th century Bedouin.

But what if the way that a woman wants to express herself is by covering herself in a manner that she believes is "pleasing to Allah", as revealed to the person she believes is Allah's last and final messenger?

Freiheit:65699372 wrote:

I find the Islamic doctrine on women, in terms of veiling, but not just veiling hugely offensive and anachronisitic.

In my current job, I have dealings with many young British Muslims, both male and female, as well as young Muslims from other parts of the world. What strikes me most is the wide diversity of views and practices, even by people who consider themselves to be practising Islam. Some women don't cover their heads, possibly because they believe that veiling is out of date and has no place in Western societies. Others who don't cover their heads are responding to parental or peer pressure that regards covering as something that might draw unwanted attention to Muslim women (with the possible risk of violence in extreme situations). Women from the Middle East tell me that they dress less conservatively in the West (at home, they are likely to cover their heads, wear long and loose garments, and even wear face veils, but they see that as simply conforming to local social expectations), but even here there's a range from covering the head but wearing "Western" clothes to not covering and dressing in ways indistinguishable from non-Muslim women. Of those born in the West, there are a few who cover their heads, and a very small minority who wear abayas (long loose over-garments). Muslim women from Malaysia almost always cover their heads, but again there is a range of clothing styles, from rather elegant trouser suits to loose ankle-length dresses.

The point is that there is no single monolithic "Islamic doctrine on women", only a wide range of local practices (often culturally influenced), and different interpretations of the verses and hadiths that provide guidance on what women should wear.

Freiheit wrote: »

It restricts women and prevents them from fulfilling their potential as people on many levels.

In some cases, you are correct here, but again we have to be careful not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" and be intolerant from the opposite side. There may be many ways in which women can fulfil their potential, all of which involve some forms of compromise and possibly missing out on fulfilment in other aspects of life.

freiheit wrote: »

Of course most Muslim women are happy to cover, theyre conditioned to do such, from the cradle to the grave........but I stress conditioned.

Yes, many Muslim women don't have much experience of alternatives to how they have been brought up, but Muslim women in the West, particularly those who are now two generations or more away from their immigrant ancestors, are much more aware of alternatives, and more prepared to make positive choices (whether or not to cover, for example) rather than simply following what their parents have taught.

What I find interesting is the behaviour of Western converts to Islam - research has shown that female converts are more likely than not to embrace "Islamic dress", including covering their heads and wearing long, loose garments. Indeed, several female converts go in for face veiling. This cannot be the result of "conditioning" (though those hostile to face veiling might assert that they have been "brainwashed" into veiling).

hivizman wrote: »

Some scholars go further, and based on various other hadiths they conclude that covering the face in the presence of unrelated men is also required. An intermediate position is that covering the face, while not a strict requirement, is mustahab (desirable or recommended: this means that covering will be rewarded, but not covering the face will not be accounted for as a sin). Women who accept the teaching of these scholars therefore believe that covering the face in the presence of unrelated men is pleasing to Allah.

Thanks hivizman, from what I understand the law from Muhammad is not the reason women over their faces but rather men's interpretation of the law, or embellishing of it.

Splendour wrote: »

Thanks hivizman, from what I understand the law from Muhammad is not the reason women over their faces but rather men's interpretation of the law, or embellishing of it.

Yes, in this particular case some of the hadiths come from wives or companions of Muhammad rather than from Muhammad himself.

In general, Sharia is no exception to the general situation that laws themselves, and how they are applied, come about through human interpretations. In the case of Sharia, I recently came across (though I can't now find the reference, alas) the view that Sharia, as the Law of Allah, is the ideal to which human interpretations are just approximations. To claim that a particular interpretation is the Sharia is therefore an arrogant claim that particular scholars advancing that interpretation are the equals of Allah in identifying the law. This doesn't mean that we go to the other extreme and say that any interpretation is acceptable, because an interpretation that contradicts the unanimous consensus (ijma) of the scholars would be very difficult to defend.

In the case of veiling, some Islamic scholars give more weight to certain hadiths that other scholars think are either "weak" or open to alternative interpretations. Hence there is a consensus that women should cover their awrah, interpreted (following Surat An-Nur 24:31) as their entire head and body except their faces and hands. The exception for faces and hands comes from a hadith reported by Abu Dawud (Book 32, No. 4092): "Narrated Aisha (the Prophet's wife): Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) turned his attention from her. He said: 'O Asma, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this', and he pointed to her face and hands."

For those interested in how advocates of face veiling use Qu'ranic verses, hadiths and the interpretations (tafseer) of early Muslim scholars, here is a link to a short pro-niqab document:

The Obligation of Veiling the Face and Hands

A contrary view is expressed in this short article.