Miss USA 2010 - Rima Fakih

craggles · 21-05-2010 06:22PM

irishconvert wrote: »

Rowley Birkin QC banned

But that was an opinion! You can't ban someone for having an opinion you don't agree with, can you?

af_thefragile · 21-05-2010 06:23PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, but thats not what I asked. I asked if its the purest person is not the person who can look at an attractive person and not be affected at all. Or to put it another way, is it not purer of a person (so to speak) for them to be able to see an attractive member of the opposite sex and not react in a bad way?

The way I see it, avoiding arousing imagery and situations doesn't reflect on someones purity very well. It is very easy to not be affected by these things if they are never encountered, the measure of someones purity is how they react when they do.

Well God has made man attracted to the opposite sex. Beauty of the opposite sex has one of the most powerful effects on humans. Especially for males when they see a beautiful female. And this is what the advert agencies make such good use of. Using beautiful women to sell their product and their product sells!

Looking at a beautiful person (of the opposite sex) and not getting aroused is not a sign of purity but more a sign of there's something wrong with your brain. It is a deep inherent nature of man to get attracted to the opposite sex. If it wasn't for this then people wouldn't get married and have children.

Attraction of the opposite sexes is a good thing. It allows people to bond together to form strong relationships and makes them happy and content. And like everything in religion, there are limitations on this as well. In Islam (and most other religions) it says you can only enjoy all of this with your wife and no one else.

irishconvert · 21-05-2010 10:57PM

craggles wrote: »

But that was an opinion! You can't ban someone for having an opinion you don't agree with, can you?

Banned for discussing moderation in the forum - charter rule 16

philologos · 22-05-2010 11:28AM

irishconvert wrote: »

Not true. The Qur'an tells us to lower our gaze when we encounter members of the opposite sex.

Yes, but the Qur'an also seems to advocate that women should be making the primary effort to dress modestly so as to prevent lust from men. Rather than that men should be equally involved in this process.

I mean to Christians covering the hair wouldn't be an intrinsic part of dressing modestly, as it would be the norm in the Islamic world. At the same time, there would be a limit as far as what dress is appropriate or not, but there seems to be a lot more emphasis on people controlling their desires.

Matthew 5:28 wrote:

But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

irishconvert wrote: »

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do." Surah 24, verse 30.

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss. " - Surah 24, verse 31

OK, but it appears even in this passage that there is an uneven emphasis on it. There is far more concerning how appropriately women should dress than men.

irishconvert · 23-05-2010 12:19AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Can you explain why this is so? I mean, to me, it would make more sense to say that the purist person is he who doesn't need to avert his gaze, as his self control is strong enough that he can see something sexual without getting aroused, ie that he is pure enough within than nothing without can effect him, if he doesn't choose to let it.

Irishconvert wrote:

Do you know of such a pure person? Someone who is not affected in the slighest when they see a beautiful woman, or some naked flesh?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, but thats not what I asked. I asked if its the purest person is not the person who can look at an attractive person and not be affected at all. Or to put it another way, is it not purer of a person (so to speak) for them to be able to see an attractive member of the opposite sex and not react in a bad way?

The way I see it, avoiding arousing imagery and situations doesn't reflect on someones purity very well. It is very easy to not be affected by these things if they are never encountered, the measure of someones purity is how they react when they do.

Your view is to assume that it is somehow unpure to be attracted by seeing a member of the opposite sex. It is perfectly natural to feel something if you see a pretty woman for example. For this reason we are told to lower our gaze.

Mark Hamill · 23-05-2010 01:35AM

af_thefragile wrote: »

Well God has made man attracted to the opposite sex. Beauty of the opposite sex has one of the most powerful effects on humans. Especially for males when they see a beautiful female. And this is what the advert agencies make such good use of. Using beautiful women to sell their product and their product sells!

Looking at a beautiful person (of the opposite sex) and not getting aroused is not a sign of purity but more a sign of there's something wrong with your brain. It is a deep inherent nature of man to get attracted to the opposite sex. If it wasn't for this then people wouldn't get married and have children.

Attraction of the opposite sexes is a good thing. It allows people to bond together to form strong relationships and makes them happy and content. And like everything in religion, there are limitations on this as well. In Islam (and most other religions) it says you can only enjoy all of this with your wife and no one else.

Getting aroused at a member of the opposite sex is neither a good or a bad thing, it is simply a biological response. What is good or bad is what you do as a result of that biological response. I am questioning why it is considered pure (or purer) to avoid the biological response rather than be able to encounter the biological response and still retain control of your faculties.

Mark Hamill · 23-05-2010 01:52AM

irishconvert wrote: »

Your view is to assume that it is somehow unpure to be attracted by seeing a member of the opposite sex.

That is not my view at all. That is actually my understanding of the Islamic view, as described by the surah you quoted earlier (and the rules for men and women needing to cover up). However the surah and the rules make no sense to me. They reward you for avoiding any testing of your purity, for preventing you from any real situations where you would need to avert your gaze or guard your modesty.

irishconvert wrote: »

It is perfectly natural to feel something if you see a pretty woman for example. For this reason we are told to lower our gaze.

Why are you told to avoid something natural by the one who made it natural for that something to happen?

irishconvert · 23-05-2010 02:32AM

irishconvert wrote: »

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do." Surah 24, verse 30.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Can you explain why this is so? I mean, to me, it would make more sense to say that the purist person is he who doesn't need to avert his gaze, as his self control is strong enough that he can see something sexual without getting aroused, ie that he is pure enough within than nothing without can effect him, if he doesn't choose to let it.

Ok, let me try to answer your original question again. Allah is not saying a purer person is one who avoids looking at the opposite sex. The verse is simply a warning that one can go astray by doing this, it can fill your mind with impure thoughts, which may lead to other sins. If a man, for example, is always looking at women other than his wife, then it is possible he may develop feeling for another woman which could result in an affair. So Allah is giving us guideance here on how to avoid getting into this situation.

BTW, I am not a scholar, this is my understanding of this verse.

carolmon · 23-05-2010 10:51AM

irishconvert wrote: »

Not true. The Qur'an tells us to lower our gaze when we encounter members of the opposite sex.

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do." Surah 24, verse 30.

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss. " - Surah 24, verse 31

Sorry if this is off topic, it's just something that really struck me on reading the above quote.

The above is obviously still used to dictate norms of proper islamic dress in present times as it's being quoted in that context (correct me if I have misread or misunderstood)

Yet in the middle of this quote we have the following "the slaves whom their right hands possess"

Does Islam still believe in slavery?

Or is it seen as something that was common practice in previous times but is now today obviously unacceptable?

If Islam can disregard some previously accepted norms why does it still cling to ancient concepts re how women dress?

irishconvert · 23-05-2010 12:20PM

carolmon wrote: »

Sorry if this is off topic, it's just something that really struck me on reading the above quote.

The above is obviously still used to dictate norms of proper islamic dress in present times as it's being quoted in that context (correct me if I have misread or misunderstood)

Yet in the middle of this quote we have the following "the slaves whom their right hands possess"

Does Islam still believe in slavery?

Or is it seen as something that was common practice in previous times but is now today obviously unacceptable?

If Islam can disregard some previously accepted norms why does it still cling to ancient concepts re how women dress?

Slavery was common in Arabia at the time. There were lots of bad practises before Prophet Muhammed came along, e.g. if a baby girl was born people would bury it alive as they wanted boys. The Prophet Muhammed stopped much of this. He also encouraged people to free slaves. There are parts in the Qur'an where people are told to free slaves. BTW, we still have slavery today in the west, we just call it by different names.

Mark Hamill · 23-05-2010 04:05PM

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok, let me try to answer your original question again. Allah is not saying a purer person is one who avoids looking at the opposite sex. The verse is simply a warning that one can go astray by doing this, it can fill your mind with impure thoughts, which may lead to other sins. If a man, for example, is always looking at women other than his wife, then it is possible he may develop feeling for another woman which could result in an affair. So Allah is giving us guideance here on how to avoid getting into this situation.

I see what you are saying, but it seems to be overkill. You aren't told to avert your eyes when someone wealthier than you passes you on the street, should you become jealous and act on it. Given that so much of the world can function without the need to have members of the opposite sex avoiding each other, it seems like this rule is more of, at least, erring massively on the side of caution.
Also, its a little simplistic and naive too, to think that no attraction can form without physical appraisal. Attractions can occur on more just a phyiscal level, they have to, otherwise a mulsim person would not know if they are attracted to a prospective partner until they are married.

irishconvert wrote: »

BTW, I am not a scholar, this is my understanding of this verse.

You are closer to an islamic scholar than I am

.

af_thefragile · 23-05-2010 09:32PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I see what you are saying, but it seems to be overkill. You aren't told to avert your eyes when someone wealthier than you passes you on the street, should you become jealous and act on it. Given that so much of the world can function without the need to have members of the opposite sex avoiding each other, it seems like this rule is more of, at least, erring massively on the side of caution.
Also, its a little simplistic and naive too, to think that no attraction can form without physical appraisal. Attractions can occur on more just a phyiscal level, they have to, otherwise a mulsim person would not know if they are attracted to a prospective partner until they are married.
.

I'm not a scholar either, and if you hear some of the answers given by some of the renowned scholars of Islam on these topics, you'll get a much more comprehensive answer to your questions. This is only my interpretation of things and it shouldn't be taken as the word.

It wasn't that there was absolutely zero interaction between the men and women in Islamic lands. It says women must dress modestly, not in a provocative way and men must not "take pleasure" by lusting over women. Women played quite a big role in the early Islamic times atleast.
Also a lot of people did and do get married after meeting eachother and when both people agree to get married. Islam doesn't say men and women shouldn't meet or talk to one another. It just says you shouldn't have any physical relationship outside of marriage (no fornication or adultery).

And the spiritual aspect of life played a much bigger role in people's life back in the days. Following the word of God was the priority and people lived according to it without any questioning. As this world is only temporary and you will be rewarded in the next world... you get the idea.
There are many places where Islam doesn't sound rational. And its a test of faith. How much can a man sacrifice for the love of God. After all one of the meanings of Islam is submission.

And muslims weren't grim oppressed people either. They were some of the happiest and satisfied people (women included), they still are. Not getting into the whole debate of women in Islam vs. the west. Women in Islam shouldn't be objectified. They shouldn't be judged on physical beauty alone. It says a man must judge a women upon virtue first, character second and beauty comes third, similar goes for judging men. Its a bit more fair to judge a women on the basis of virtue and character than beauty alone.

And just to add a note on the slavery thing.
When Islam came to the Arab lands, slavery was a big norm of that time. If Islam would have had abolished slavery, there would have been a massive rejection and uproar among the people and not many people would have accepted Islam. But Islam bought in many new laws which gave slaves a lot of rights. This was unheard of before. The masters had to treat their slaves well and look after then properly and any form of violence towards slaves was prohibited. These are among just a few of the many laws regarding slavery. Also slaves were consider equal to all other humans in front of God. Freeing slaves was greatly encourages and was also a way for people to redeem for their sins. So although Islam didn't completely abolish slavery, it did make big changes to the practices and the status of slaves. The prophet Muhammad's adopted son was a freed slave, so was one of his closest companion a freed Black slave. He himself also freed like some 30 or so slaves.

carolmon · 23-05-2010 10:41PM

irishconvert wrote: »

Slavery was common in Arabia at the time. There were lots of bad practises before Prophet Muhammed came along, e.g. if a baby girl was born people would bury it alive as they wanted boys. The Prophet Muhammed stopped much of this. He also encouraged people to free slaves. There are parts in the Qur'an where people are told to free slaves. BTW, we still have slavery today in the west, we just call it by different names.

do you have any quotes from the Qur'an or Hadiths re slavery? I would be really interested to see the position Islam took on this issue.

Re your comment "BTW, we still have slavery today in the west, we just call it by different names"
Can you elaborate?
What is your definition of slavery today by a different name?

af_thefragile · 24-05-2010 12:19AM

carolmon wrote: »

do you have any quotes from the Qur'an or Hadiths re slavery? I would be really interested to see the position Islam took on this issue.

Re your comment "BTW, we still have slavery today in the west, we just call it by different names"
Can you elaborate?
What is your definition of slavery today by a different name?

Wikipedia but it'll get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery

mehfesto · 24-05-2010 10:54AM

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok, let me try to answer your original question again. Allah is not saying a purer person is one who avoids looking at the opposite sex. The verse is simply a warning that one can go astray by doing this, it can fill your mind with impure thoughts, which may lead to other sins. If a man, for example, is always looking at women other than his wife, then it is possible he may develop feeling for another woman which could result in an affair. So Allah is giving us guidance here on how to avoid getting into this situation.

This kinda makes sense ('kinda' in the way that it's essentially a new concept for me, really), I understand the gist of it, but can I ask a few questions to understand it better?

1. Looking at the opposite sex is a necessity of life - eg. conversation. When talking with someone you only get half the story from what they say, you would need eye-contact/to be able to gauge body contact to really understand them. Surely this is not a 'blanket-rule', then. I take it then that there are instances when it is inappropriate rather than always? If so, what are these instances?

2. Homosexuals. They are permitted to look at those they are attracted to without warning. Is this not unfair?

Cheers

irishconvert · 24-05-2010 11:13AM

mehfesto wrote: »

This kinda makes sense ('kinda' in the way that it's essentially a new concept for me, really), I understand the gist of it, but can I ask a few questions to understand it better?

1. Looking at the opposite sex is a necessity of life - eg. conversation. When talking with someone you only get half the story from what they say, you would need eye-contact/to be able to gauge body contact to really understand them. Surely this is not a 'blanket-rule', then. I take it then that there are instances when it is inappropriate rather than always? If so, what are these instances?

Sure you can look at members of the opposite sex if you need to talk to them, but it should be for valid reasons, e.g. talking to a work colleague. Also a man and woman should not be alone together if they are not married.

mehfesto wrote: »

2. Homosexuals. They are permitted to look at those they are attracted to without warning. Is this not unfair?

The verses I quoted tell the believeing men and women to lower their gaze. It doesn't specify if they should lower their gaze when looking at the opposite or same sex, so it would apply to homosexuals also.

Mark Hamill · 24-05-2010 03:05PM

af_thefragile wrote: »

It wasn't that there was absolutely zero interaction between the men and women in Islamic lands. It says women must dress modestly, not in a provocative way and men must not "take pleasure" by lusting over women. Women played quite a big role in the early Islamic times atleast.
Also a lot of people did and do get married after meeting eachother and when both people agree to get married. Islam doesn't say men and women shouldn't meet or talk to one another. It just says you shouldn't have any physical relationship outside of marriage (no fornication or adultery).

Actually it says you should avert your gaze (see the surah irishconvert quoted). It would seem a bit hard to me to interact with someone if you dont even look at them.

af_thefragile wrote: »

And the spiritual aspect of life played a much bigger role in people's life back in the days. Following the word of God was the priority and people lived according to it without any questioning. As this world is only temporary and you will be rewarded in the next world... you get the idea.
There are many places where Islam doesn't sound rational. And its a test of faith. How much can a man sacrifice for the love of God. After all one of the meanings of Islam is submission.

God tests faith by giving irrational rules and punishes when people question them? He rewards blind acceptance and discourages rational questioning? If nothing else, it leaves massive space for abuse of power.

af_thefragile wrote: »

And muslims weren't grim oppressed people either. They were some of the happiest and satisfied people (women included), they still are.

So? Besides ignorance being bliss, and the measure of someones happiness with an ideology or set of rules being in no way a measure of their veracity or fairness, it simply isn't true, not any more any way

af_thefragile wrote: »

Not getting into the whole debate of women in Islam vs. the west. Women in Islam shouldn't be objectified. They shouldn't be judged on physical beauty alone. It says a man must judge a women upon virtue first, character second and beauty comes third, similar goes for judging men. Its a bit more fair to judge a women on the basis of virtue and character than beauty alone.

Why, one is as much a genetic fluke as the other two?

af_thefragile wrote: »

And just to add a note on the slavery thing.
When Islam came to the Arab lands, slavery was a big norm of that time. If Islam would have had abolished slavery, there would have been a massive rejection and uproar among the people and not many people would have accepted Islam. But Islam bought in many new laws which gave slaves a lot of rights. This was unheard of before. The masters had to treat their slaves well and look after then properly and any form of violence towards slaves was prohibited. These are among just a few of the many laws regarding slavery. Also slaves were consider equal to all other humans in front of God. Freeing slaves was greatly encourages and was also a way for people to redeem for their sins. So although Islam didn't completely abolish slavery, it did make big changes to the practices and the status of slaves. The prophet Muhammad's adopted son was a freed slave, so was one of his closest companion a freed Black slave. He himself also freed like some 30 or so slaves.

So god had no problem telling everyone that they needed to start covering up, that members of the opposite sex were no longer allowed see certain body parts, but he was afraid that if he told them to abolish slavery, they would ignore him? Seems quite weak, especially coming froma god who had no problem telling them if they didn't convert that they would spend an eternity in hell.

irishconvert · 24-05-2010 03:17PM

Mark, you are welcome to post in this forum and ask questions if you are interested in Islam, but I have to ask what your real motives are? Your response to af_thefragile is dangerously close to breaking the charter. If you are trying to express your scepticism of Islam to af_thefragile I suggest you take it to PM.

irishconvert · 24-05-2010 03:34PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I see what you are saying, but it seems to be overkill. You aren't told to avert your eyes when someone wealthier than you passes you on the street, should you become jealous and act on it.

Family life is extremely important in Islam. Relationships between men and women outside marriage are forbidden and considered a very serious sin. It ranks much higher than being jealous of your neighbour.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Given that so much of the world can function without the need to have members of the opposite sex avoiding each other, it seems like this rule is more of, at least, erring massively on the side of caution.

That is true, but if you follow the guidance given in the Qur'an you are less likely to find yourself in a situation like this.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Also, its a little simplistic and naive too, to think that no attraction can form without physical appraisal.
Attractions can occur on more just a phyiscal level, they have to, otherwise a mulsim person would not know if they are attracted to a prospective partner until they are married.

I think it is fair to say for most people, physical attraction is the primary source of attraction.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are closer to an islamic scholar than I am .

I still have a big L plate on my back

Mark Hamill · 24-05-2010 05:16PM

irishconvert wrote: »

Mark, you are welcome to post in this forum and ask questions if you are interested in Islam, but I have to ask what your real motives are?

I would think my motives are quite transparent. I am simply questioning aspects of islam brought up in this thread that I dont understand.

irishconvert wrote: »

Your response to af_thefragile is dangerously close to breaking the charter.

Which part?

irishconvert wrote: »

If you are trying to express your scepticism of Islam to af_thefragile I suggest you take it to PM.

Surely it would be better put in a suitable thread here on the islamic forum, where multiple muslims could respond to my point? If it is not this thread, then we can make a new one. What is the point in this forum if islam cannot be discussed here?

Mark Hamill · 24-05-2010 05:16PM

irishconvert wrote: »

Family life is extremely important in Islam. Relationships between men and women outside marriage are forbidden and considered a very serious sin. It ranks much higher than being jealous of your neighbour.

That is true, but if you follow the guidance given in the Qur'an you are less likely to find yourself in a situation like this.

But then where is the test? If having relationships outside islam is a very serious sin, then surely it is something which god tests in you? If you go through life both never looking and never being allowed to see members of the opposite sex, then how can you how you would stand up to the test of being faithful to your spouse (or your faith)

irishconvert wrote: »

I think it is fair to say for most people, physical attraction is the primary source of attraction.

I dont know, I'd like to think that it is usually just the first source of attraction (it is for me - I can visually assess someone quicker than I can assess their personality).

carolmon · 24-05-2010 05:34PM

af_thefragile wrote: »

When Islam came to the Arab lands, slavery was a big norm of that time. If Islam would have had abolished slavery, there would have been a massive rejection and uproar among the people and not many people would have accepted Islam. But Islam bought in many new laws which gave slaves a lot of rights.

My point was that obviously there was instruction/ guidance in the Quran/ Hadiths re slavery which may have been deemed appropriate for that time but whcih must now be seen as obsolete (or do Muslim scholars still recommend that these instructions from Allah be followed today?)

I always thought that Muslims followed literally all aspects of the Quran as the word of God so I was just struck by the mention of slavery as obviously this is not a common practice now, so it must be permissable to ignore some of the Quran that is no longer relevant??

I think it's a very positive thing that there is room for revisiting the Quran and assessing what is appropriate for contemporary times.
I say this particularly in relation to this discussion re women being covered. I

irishconvert · 24-05-2010 11:59PM

carolmon wrote: »

My point was that obviously there was instruction/ guidance in the Quran/ Hadiths re slavery which may have been deemed appropriate for that time but whcih must now be seen as obsolete (or do Muslim scholars still recommend that these instructions from Allah be followed today?)

There is nothing in the Qur'an which encourages you to take slaves, or which says it is acceptable to have slaves. In fact it is the opposite. There are many verses which encourage and reward you for letting slaves go free. As a result people gradually let slaves go free and by a certain time it was no longer common practice.

carolmon wrote: »

I always thought that Muslims followed literally all aspects of the Quran as the word of God so I was just struck by the mention of slavery as obviously this is not a common practice now, so it must be permissable to ignore some of the Quran that is no longer relevant??

We do follow the Qur'an literally. As I said it does not tell us it is ok to take slaves. You seem to be assuming that the Qur'an says it is ok to have slaves.

carolmon wrote: »

I think it's a very positive thing that there is room for revisiting the Quran and assessing what is appropriate for contemporary times.
I say this particularly in relation to this discussion re women being covered. I

I think your message has been truncated. Perhaps post this again.

philologos · 25-05-2010 11:08AM

Mark - You claim that averting ones gaze as in the Qur'anic text of necessity means that one must not look at another. However reading the text tells us more about the motivation behind it:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do." Surah 24, verse 30.

It doesn't seem as if it is saying that one should avert their gaze, as in not looking at anyone at all. Rather it seems that one should not look upon someone else in a lustful manner, as that will be better in maintaining a purer mind. Contextually you seem to be taking it more at face value perhaps than you ought to.

I do have an issue with the second quote though:

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss. " - Surah 24, verse 31

What is shameful about sex? Particularly within a loving marriage?

The emphasis between covering up, and averting ones gaze don't appear to be equal. I think the emphasis should be both between dressing in a modest manner, and not lusting. Islam seems to suggest that the woman should cover up her hair and all other such things just so not to arise lust in a man, however, it is up for the man to control this. I don't see why covering the hair is necessary to do this.

Again, thanking you for the platform!

irishconvert · 25-05-2010 11:51AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why covering the hair is necessary to do this.

Again, thanking you for the platform!

Jackass, what is the Christian view on covering the hair for women (I am assuming you are a practising Christian)? The reason I ask is a lot of older Irish women wear a head scarf. My parents told me that women always used to cover their hair at mass. Also they told me there was segretation at mass, the men would sit on one side and women on the other.

philologos · 25-05-2010 12:00PM

irishconvert wrote: »

Jackass, what is the Christian view on covering the hair for women (I am assuming you are a practising Christian)? The reason I ask is a lot of older Irish women wear a head scarf. My parents told me that women always used to cover their hair at mass. Also they told me there was segretation at mass, the men would sit on one side and women on the other.

There is no prohibition against having your hair exposed.

In church Paul gave the Corinthian women advice to cover their hair due to the tradition of the time that temple prostitutes would shave their heads. There can be other interpretations as to why Paul asked them to do this. In a few churches today, particularly certain denominations of Protestantism they advocate covering the hair. I've spoken with people who attend churches where this practice continues. However, Paul makes clear that it isn't a commandment of God, but merely a personal recommendation:

1 Corinthians 11:4-16 wrote:

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Yes, I am practising. I'm not a Roman Catholic mind, and practices tend to differ between denominations.

Mark Hamill · 25-05-2010 12:13PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Mark - You claim that averting ones gaze as in the Qur'anic text of necessity means that one must not look at another. However reading the text tells us more about the motivation behind it:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do." Surah 24, verse 30.

It doesn't seem as if it is saying that one should avert their gaze, as in not looking at anyone at all. Rather it seems that one should not look upon someone else in a lustful manner, as that will be better in maintaining a purer mind. Contextually you seem to be taking it more at face value perhaps than you ought to.

To me it says both to avert your gaze ("they should lower their gaze" and to keep away from lustful thoughts ("and guard their modesty"). The surah, at least, seems to recognise that lustful thoughts come from more than just the simple act of seeing someone attractive, they can come from your own imagination.

oceanclub · 25-05-2010 01:53PM

irishconvert wrote: »

Sure you can look at members of the opposite sex if you need to talk to them, but it should be for valid reasons, e.g. talking to a work colleague.

I can't imagine anything more terrible than not being able to look at a woman simply to appreciate her beauty. Any more than being told I shouldn't be able to look at flowers.

P.

irishconvert · 25-05-2010 02:29PM

oceanclub wrote: »

I can't imagine anything more terrible than not being able to look at a woman simply to appreciate her beauty. Any more than being told I shouldn't be able to look at flowers.

P.

Do you have a wife/girlfriend? Does she mind you doing this? BTW I am not saying I don't do it, we are all human.

oceanclub · 25-05-2010 02:32PM

irishconvert wrote: »

Do you have a wife/girlfriend? Does she mind you doing this? BTW I am not saying I don't do it, we are all human.

Yes, and no, I doubt it, since she's made enough comments about Johnny Depp to suggest he's pleasing on her eye.

There is a difference between glancing at a woman and enjoying it, and ogling, mind. I'm not saying it's classy to go around with your wife staring at women, making "harumbah" sounds with your eyes sticking out like Tex Avery cartoons.

P.

Miss USA 2010 - Rima Fakih

Comments