PDA

View Full Version : Why aren't the Nun's considered Opressed?



S.Belle
09-16-2010, 03:02 AM
I personally dont seem to understand why people claim that the Muslim women are being "forced" and "oppressed" to cover their bodies, while a Christian nun is considered "pure" and "pious". If you look at the way a Muslimah covers her body and a Nun covers her body it is the SAME. Every part of the Muslimah's body and the nun body is covered maybe not in the same manner but those parts being the hair, neck, arms, legs,etc. they are covered.
And even in the Christian pics of the Virgin Mary (Maryam), she is covered with a scraf (aka hijab)

I just dont understand nuns and Muslimah both cover so if you are saying that a Muslimah is oppressed because she follows her religion and covers her body then it is only fair that you say a Christian nun is also oppressed because she too is following her religion and covering her body....right?

I am not attacking Christanity I just want people to look and understand that the Nun's and the Muslimah's attire are basically the same. Just because one is Christian and the other Muslim isnt a excuse because both are covered in the same manner and both are following their religion.
With that being said why in society is the Muslimah looked at as oppressed while the Nun isnt? Does that make sense?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
ghost
09-22-2010, 12:44 PM
tactics sister, tactics

firsty, neither the Muslim or Christian woman is oppressed, they both choose to do what they do.

and you're right when you say that (for argument sake) if the Muslim woman is oppressed, then the nun is even more oppressed. in a world which allows and promotes sexual freedom, the nun is not allowed any of that. no sir.

when someone chooses to wear a mini skirt and a tight top, they're expressing their freedom
however if someone chooses to cover themselves up as a Muslim it's oppression.

the propoganda machine aka the media are the one who are propogating this hate. it all comes down to money and power, people only watch and buy the news if there's something unusual on the news, or if there's something which scares them on the news. think about it, a religion of 1 billion+ strong, who hate us and the way we live, who hate our freedom. who hate freedom full stop. who oppress and beat their women, who are allowed multiple wives and who blow themselves up with the promise of even more women in paradise bla bla bla bla bla.

and that is what they're broadcasting, again and again. back when the world wars were going on, everyone knew about wartime propoganda and the effect it has on the psyche. the thing is today the war is still going on but this time it's against us and the propoganda is more advanced this time. how else can you justify the invasion of Islamic countries if you can't paint them as the enemy in the first place? what do you think the reaction would be if the US/UK alliance were to invade tomorrow say, switzerland.

they can't.

if they wanted to, they'd have to paint switzerland as the bad guy first, get everyone on their side and then attack them so everyone will agree that the swiss, the neutral barbarians that they are must die. all the meantime switzerland are sipping on their not too hot and not too cold tea made from ph-neutral ingredients wondering just what the neutral-hell is going on. so switzerland fight to defend their country. and then when the occupational soldiers die, the media continue '10 DEAD IN SWISS SUICIDE ATTACK!!' they're just defending their country. but when swiss soldiers die nothing is said.

the Muslim vs Christian woman dress is just part of that propoganda. think about this:

you own a business. and this business sells i dunno, paper. you are the biggest provider of paper in the world. now, all of a sudden a new paper company turns up, and this paper company is fast taking over the paper business. you have to do something otherwise your company is over, it's finished. so first you compete with them, then when you can't win you use whatever immoral and unethical tactics you can against them. they won't do the same to you because they have standards, they have rules and laws which they won't sell for anything.

the western governments have to do this. they have no choice. otherwise they will lose everything to Islam. and they're doing it and they're suceeding. if you met a random person in the street, it is more likely than not that they have at least one negative stereotype of Islam imprinted in their mind. at least one.

back in the day wars were won and lost with swords, bows and arrows. then guns. then aircraft. now wars are won and lost with a combination of the previous but with the addition of the biggest and most effective weapon - lies through propogation of the media.


when people are scared, they will believe what you tell them to believe




i know the reply is long however the hijab issue is part of something much bigger. dividing and conquering is another tactic for control. keep the faith, Allah is the best of Protectors.


switzerland lol
Reply

Salahudeen
09-22-2010, 01:16 PM
It's all brainwashing to make people hate Islam and think it's a religion of oppression therefore it's justified to attack Islam and people won't care.
Reply

cat eyes
09-22-2010, 01:53 PM
and nuns can't even marry imagine that. that must be torture
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
LauraS
09-22-2010, 03:19 PM
Nuns choose that way of life I suppose, they obviously decide they'd rather be a nun than marry. :S They're like super Christians rather than just ordinary Christian women lol.
Reply

ghost
09-22-2010, 03:25 PM
Originally Posted by cat eyes
and nuns can't even marry imagine that. that must be torture
if they were forced to be celibate then you may have a point. however, they chose the celibate lifestyle.
Reply

cat eyes
09-22-2010, 03:32 PM
Originally Posted by ghost
if they were forced to be celibate then you may have a point. however, they chose the celibate lifestyle.
yeah thats why i said it must be torture
Reply

S.Belle
09-22-2010, 05:20 PM
wow that was a long post bro ghost lol but I get what you are saying
I just want people to understand that Muslim women choice to wear hijab because we are obeying what Allah(swt) told us to do and not because a man pressed us to wear. Some people fail to understand that and they criticize Muslim women who wear it while they dont criticize nun's.....it's a double standard
but like you said people will belive anything when they are scared
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-22-2010, 09:06 PM
Originally Posted by Mila
I personally dont seem to understand why people claim that the Muslim women are being "forced" and "oppressed" to cover their bodies, while a Christian nun is considered "pure" and "pious". If you look at the way a Muslimah covers her body and a Nun covers her body it is the SAME.
There are several reasons. I'll start with the biggest reason:

1) Ignorance. Most people tend to make assumptions of what life is like for another person by connecting it with something out of their own life. They're used to seeing nuns wearing habits and so think nothing of it. But it is new to many people to see other women dressed differently than themselves. They can't imagine that anyone would actually choose to do so, so they imagine something different, that they were forced to do so. They are ignorant of the real reason and so invent a reason of their own -- "the only way I would ever dress like that is if I was forced into it."

2) Spurious reports. This is really a different type of ignorance. Information is received in which it is reported that Muslim women are "forced" to wear the veil. Then women are shown in that same report dressed that way, and it is taken as confirmation. This despite the fact that no women is actually asked if she would rather not wear it. In other words, the fear of oppressively forcing this on others is fed, but the fear is based on an untested hypothesis, which may in fact not be true at all.

3) The reality of social pressure. These come in many varieties. I know of Muslims women who, as a rule don't wear the veil, but feel obliged to in certain circumstanes. Likewise there are even non-Muslim women who we have seen have in certain circumstances felt obliged to wear a veil. In most of these question there was no force involved, there was just the pressure of comforming to social customs. But for people from western cultures that put a high value on individual liberty, even social pressure can be seen (rightly or wrongly) as a type of oppression.

4) Confirmed reports. While not the rule, there are instances where women who had not sought to cover their heads were forced to do so. To refuse and to resist was to put one's self at risk of consequences as simple as being asked to leave to as severe as imprisonment. It doesn't matter how rare such incidents are, bring Islamaphobia in to play at the same time and a single event can be projected to apply across the board.


----edit----

Let me add to the above. You should also relax. Most know that outside of a few isolated places that Muslims women choose to dress as they dress. And we know that Muslim women are no more oppressed in that regard than are nuns who choose to wear a habit.
Reply

czgibson
09-22-2010, 09:28 PM
Greetings,

This is an interesting comparison that I hadn't really thought of before. I can definitely see a similarity in the modest dress of nuns and muslimahs.

It's worth pointing out, though, that not everybody thinks of nuns as being simply "pure" and "pious". Some people think nuns are crazy for living the way they do; some people think they are losers who could not cope in the real world, and I'm sure there are lots of other opinions too. My partner went to a school staffed by nuns, and, while she is still a Christian today, she has strong memories of some formidable nuns who certainly didn't seem very "pious" at the time.

I think one reason people don't seem to think of nuns as being oppressed is that they have chosen the life the lead, just as muslimahs are meant to choose to dress in a modest way in accordance with the Islamic teachings.

Peace
Reply

Yanal
09-22-2010, 11:07 PM
:sl:
I personally dont seem to understand why people claim that the Muslim women are being "forced" and "oppressed" to cover their bodies, while a Christian nun is considered "pure" and "pious".
Its as if looking at the argument we might have had during our young stages of life with some friends that "My Father is better than your Father". Likewise this argument comes up.

If you look at the way a Muslimah covers her body and a Nun covers her body it is the SAME. Every part of the Muslimah's body and the nun body is covered maybe not in the same manner but those parts being the hair, neck, arms, legs,etc. they are covered.
And even in the Christian pics of the Virgin Mary (Maryam), she is covered with a scraf (aka hijab)
Some people don't look at it like that,unfortunately.

I just dont understand nuns and Muslimah both cover so if you are saying that a Muslimah is oppressed because she follows her religion and covers her body then it is only fair that you say a Christian nun is also oppressed because she too is following her religion and covering her body....right?
Correct.

I am not attacking Christanity I just want people to look and understand that the Nun's and the Muslimah's attire are basically the same. Just because one is Christian and the other Muslim isnt a excuse because both are covered in the same manner and both are following their religion.
Correct.

With that being said why in society is the Muslimah looked at as oppressed while the Nun isnt? Does that make sense?
Could it be that a Nun chooses to devote herself into her religion while a Muslimah is ordered by Allaah?Some Christians might give that as an answer.
Reply

ghost
09-22-2010, 11:28 PM
Could it be that a Nun chooses to devote herself into her religion while a Muslimah is ordered by Allaah?Some Christians might give that as an answer.
The Muslimah also chooses to devote herself to Allah. She also chooses to devote herself into her religion, this is the reason she dresses the way she does. The exact same reason why the nuns do what they do. They both do the same thing for the same reasons.

Not many people understand this which is why we have the double standard, also see the post up above by Grace Seeker.
Reply

Yanal
09-22-2010, 11:33 PM
Originally Posted by ghost
The Muslimah also chooses to devote herself to Allah. She also chooses to devote herself into her religion, this is the reason she dresses the way she does. The exact same reason why the nuns do what they do. They both do the same thing for the same reasons.

Not many people understand this which is why we have the double standard, also see the post up above by Grace Seeker.
:sl:

But does the God that Christians believe in command all Christian Women to dedicate themselves as Nuns?(even I don't know,do they?).
Reply

manaal
09-23-2010, 05:11 AM
ALL nuns don't cover themselves up. There are nuns of some denominations who don't.

There are many reasons a nun cannot be compared with a Muslimah and why it is easy for Christians to justify that we are oppressed and nuns aren't.

  • Nuns know what they are getting into when they choose their lifestyle. And it is CHOICE.
  • All Christian women are not required to become nuns and cover themselves up. They choose to become one when they grow up. Muslimahs are born into the religion and have to follow the rules of dress with no exceptions.
  • Muslimahs have no choice when it comes to dress code, but christian women do.
  • They are also many el-stupido Muslimahs out there who love to tell the world that it is their choice how they want to dress. This makes the rest of look oppressed.
  • Non Muslims in general believe that the Afghani Burkha made famous by the Taliban nut cases is the dress code for Muslimahs. (I think the Taliban believe that too).
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-23-2010, 04:47 PM
Originally Posted by Yanal
:sl:

But does the God that Christians believe in command all Christian Women to dedicate themselves as Nuns?(even I don't know,do they?).
No. This is a choice that nuns make, and not even all nuns dress in the traditional black and white habit. Many orders of nuns dress in simple but modest clothing that can be bought right off the rack. By their dress alone you would never know that they were a nun.
Reply

LauraS
09-23-2010, 06:13 PM
Originally Posted by Yanal
:sl:

But does the God that Christians believe in command all Christian Women to dedicate themselves as Nuns?(even I don't know,do they?).
Heehee no, because in a couple of generation there'd be no Christians at all. :P

Originally Posted by manaal
[*] Non Muslims in general believe that the Afghani Burkha made famous by the Taliban nut cases is the dress code for Muslimahs. (I think the Taliban believe that too).[/LIST]
That's the thing, I think people see the situation for women in Afghanistan and apply it to all Muslims.
Reply

abdussattar
09-24-2010, 04:01 PM
Well I didnt read all the previous posts, but my reply to this question would be,

Simple, because they are not muslims.
Reply

M.I.A.
09-24-2010, 04:06 PM
nuns are not opressed because they dont have husbands.
the media cant blame anybody for the way they are.
Reply

S.Belle
09-24-2010, 04:47 PM
Originally Posted by abdussattar
Well I didnt read all the previous posts, but my reply to this question would be,

Simple, because they are not muslims.
LOL while this is true it still should not be an excuse
Reply

glo
09-24-2010, 07:34 PM
I don't think of hijabis or nuns as oppressed - assuming that they have chosen their way of life willingly and joyfully. Both, I guess, should do so for one reason only - to serve and love God!

That's not to say there there might not be some hijabis and nuns who are forced or coerced to lead the life they lead and dress the way they do.
Personally, I think those women are in the minority - but if any exist, then I would call them oppressed!

Basically, we would have to know each individual case to know for sure.
To call all hijabis oppressed and all nuns not, or vice verse, would be silly and naive.
Reply

LauraS
09-24-2010, 09:03 PM
Originally Posted by abdussattar
Well I didnt read all the previous posts, but my reply to this question would be,

Simple, because they are not muslims.
Maybe you should read the rest of the posts then...
Reply

Salahudeen
09-24-2010, 10:00 PM
Once when my mum was wearing hijaab a non muslim lady said to her "It's ok dear you're in England you don't have to wear that now you can take it off nothing will happen you're safe here" my mum just burst out laughing ;D
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-24-2010, 10:30 PM
In the part of the USA where I live there are many different groups in which the women wear headcoverings similar to the hijaab, so one could not tell just by the dress whether the individual is a Muslim, one of several different Christian groups or something else.

(But one thing we do know --they are all oppressed. :p)
Reply

Danah
09-24-2010, 10:50 PM
I heard that "some" Christian women wear hijab when they go to church, I wonder why they are following "Bible teaching" only inside the church and then take it off when they leave the church.
Now are they considered to be oppressed inside church because they follow their bible teaching?? :?


Are we Muslims considered oppressed because we choose to follow Quran teaching and Allah's commands??
What a crazy world, double standards :hmm:
Reply

LauraS
09-24-2010, 11:14 PM
Originally Posted by squiggle
Once when my mum was wearing hijaab a non muslim lady said to her "It's ok dear you're in England you don't have to wear that now you can take it off nothing will happen you're safe here" my mum just burst out laughing ;D
lol! That is quite funny. :P
Reply

sabr*
09-24-2010, 11:14 PM
As-Salāmu `Alaykum (السلام عليكم):

Very good thread. Very thought provoking.

The Catholic Nuns head covering is called proper-Serre-tete which means cover the head in French and the breast plate is called the habit. There is always a double standard when one attacks someones culture and way of life.


Reply

S.Belle
09-25-2010, 12:50 AM
Originally Posted by squiggle
Once when my mum was wearing hijaab a non muslim lady said to her "It's ok dear you're in England you don't have to wear that now you can take it off nothing will happen you're safe here" my mum just burst out laughing ;D
wow LOL that had to be super AKWARD
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-25-2010, 05:07 PM
Originally Posted by Danah
I heard that "some" Christian women wear hijab when they go to church, I wonder why they are following "Bible teaching" only inside the church and then take it off when they leave the church.
Now are they considered to be oppressed inside church because they follow their bible teaching?? :?
There are a whole host of different practices among Christian groups. For those that wear a headscarf when they go to church but not outside the church, their understanding is that there is no Biblical requirement to always be covered. Rather, their understanding is that it is specifically during worship that a woman needs to have her head covered. That understanding is based on the following passage:
1 Corinthians, chapter 11

3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
You may have also noticed that Christian women have more than one way of covering their head. Some Christian women cover their head with a scarf that for all of my ability to distinguish between them looks exactly and is worn in the same manner as a hijab. (In fact, our daughter gave my wife some hijabs for when we attended mosque with her, and I really don't think that there is any difference between an hijab and any other headscarf, though I would like to be educated on the difference if there is one.) Others have much less covering and where what has the appearance of a lace doily pinned to the crown of their head. And still others go in for bonnets. Here is a link to a company that sells "Christain covering needs" if you want to see the variety in use.


And, as you have also probably noticed, there are those who cover their heads all the time. The following is the argument that some make, notice it too is based on the same 1 Corinthians 11 passage and the addition of another line, "pray without ceasing" or "pray continually", found in 1 Thessalonians 5:17:
1 Corinthians 11 definitely includes public worship, but it does not say that this is the only place it [covering the head] is to be practiced. We are commanded in Scripture to pray without ceasing, not just pray in church. The early church practiced the use of the headcovering throughout the week, not just on Sunday. The Christian woman is to have her head covered anytime she approaches God, at home or in public worship. The man is to have his head uncovered when he prays at home or in public.
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-26-2010, 05:41 AM
I think that many nuns ARE oppressed.
Reply

Junon
09-26-2010, 02:57 PM
Salaam

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I think that many nuns ARE oppressed.
STOP THE PRESS!

An atheist says nuns are oppressed

In other news

Pope admits: Yes I may be a Catholic . . .
Bear admits: Ok I may of defecated in the woods . . .
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-26-2010, 03:48 PM
lol, well yes, it should be obvious. Yet the question assumes nuns are not oppressed, as if it is fact.
Reply

جوري
09-26-2010, 04:00 PM
Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam



STOP THE PRESS!

An atheist says nuns are oppressed

In other news

Pope admits: Yes I may be a Catholic . . .
Bear admits: Ok I may of defecated in the woods . . .
lol.. that was quite funny..

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
lol, well yes, it should be obvious. Yet the question assumes nuns are not oppressed, as if it is fact.
It is an assumption based on facts.. I remember in grad school, some guy was commenting on Burka clad women, how they frighten and disgust him and then proceeded to make it better by saying he just felt sorry for them to the agreement of his posse, and I asked him of Latvian nuns elicit the same reaction from him, and he had to think about that one for a while and flustered around a bit before changing the subject!
Do you represent the average Joe for your opinion here on nuns/ and/or Muslim women to have weightiness in the scheme of things?
Reply

Predator
09-26-2010, 04:24 PM
We are officially in the season of Bikini Christianity, and Muslims are targeted for not dressing sexually like the followers of Paul, and the Western society. Christianity has given birth to the social corruptions by offering a "free ticket to Heaven". There is no other explanation for the high rate of crime, murder, rape, and fornication. All of these evils destroy the possibility of world peace, and the reason why Christians sin because they believe Jesus "died for their sins".


The Christian women are commanded to dress modestly in accordance with Biblical teachings
(Deutronomy 22:5, 1 Tim. 2:9, 1 Pet. 3:3-4)

Here is what the Bible says to Christian woman:


Deutronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

(1Timothy 2:9)
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,

(1Peter 3:3-4)

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. (1Peter 3:3-4)


 

Islam is the religion that prevents rape; it upholds the dignity and honor of women by commanding them to cover themselves. Women in Islam are not oppressed, but only the Christian women are oppressing themselves by dressing half-naked.

The Christian missionaries are converting Muslim woman to the bikini, and have her (God forbid) getting raped by men who lust on sex and money. The only solution is wearing the Islamic dress, and thereby accepting Islam as the Divine Truth.

The missionaries want our sisters to walk around exposing themselves shamelessly in the same manner that kafir women do. They want our sisters to leave their homes and wander the streets. They want us to disbelieve in the Revelation and they want to extinguish the light of truth that is Islam. and in the process call us to the hellfire

Christian women are sex objects in the West, and Christianity promotes the freedom to "dress how you feel like" and "eat what you feel like".

God says they will never get away with causing social corruption. (Al-Quran 29:2)

In a city somewhere in this world, you walk along a street or streets to see nothing but bars, night clubs, houses of prostitution, and alcoholics. Is this Christianity? Is this religion? Where do these phenomena lead? Who are the victims? How many are the victims of this "anything" civilization, the civilization of night clubs, the civilization of alcohol? Where is this civilization taking man, this civilization of anything and everything?History bears ample testimony to the fact that the main cause of the downfall of any nation is its wasteful and luxurious living. The nations rise when their members live simple and hard life free from all kinds of ostentation but when they are given to luxuries the springs of creative energy dry in them and they fall down like a house of cards. The love for fashion especially among women plays an important part in the ruin of any society. The love for ostentation living in women makes them forgetful of their main duties and responsibilities as the guardians of the family and they are drawn to clubs in order to display their fashion and beauty to the people who become a source of attraction for them. This leads to corruption and ultimately corrodes the foundation of society.

Amazingly, the Bible rebukes today’s Christians in the following verses:
'For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. (1 Peter 4:3)

But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. (Ephesians 5:3)

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. (1 Corinthians 5:1)

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. (1 Corinthians 6:18)

We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. (1 Corinthians 10:8)

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7)


Christianity is a religion of false hopes by saying "amen" with no action. and We leave the Christian woman her own choice, either she accepts Islam or remains naked.
 
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-26-2010, 09:30 PM
In my statement that I think some nuns are indeed opressed, I actually wasn't even thinking about the habbit (or whatever they call it) that they wear. I was just thinking about nuns in general, and yes there is often opression there.

As to the fancy outfits, I think people should be allowed to wear whatever they want. I am ok with everything from fully covered to fully naked. I don't think anybody should have the right to tell people how to dress. I do think t hat sometimes people are pressured one way or the other though. And regardless of what direction it is, it can amount to opression. Muslimas should not be forced to wear bikinis. Women who'd prefer to wear bikinis should not be forced to wear muslim garb, etc.

I would really like to see a conversation on this topic between a muslim and a nudist. Two complete opposites of the spectrum, and I bet they both have a lot of misconceptions about the other (the muslima being thought of as oppressed by the nudist, and the nudist being thought of as sexualized by the muslims - usually neither is true).
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-27-2010, 04:28 AM
Originally Posted by Airforce
[CENTER]We are officially in the season of Bikini Christianity, and Muslims are targeted for not dressing sexually like the followers of Paul, and the Western society.
Huh???

Are you suggesting that Paul taught his followers to dress sexually?????

And who made it "official"? You?
Reply

Ramadhan
09-27-2010, 06:01 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
the nudist being thought of as sexualized by the muslims
nope, they (the nudists) just have no value of their own bodies.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-27-2010, 06:05 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Huh???

Are you suggesting that Paul taught his followers to dress sexually?????

And who made it "official"? You?
Maybe it's because Paul abrogated all old laws that jesus observed including dressing.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-27-2010, 08:41 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Maybe it's because Paul abrogated all old laws that jesus observed including dressing.
I don't think you really believe that and are just trying to be funny. But from what airforce wrote, I'm wondering if he might actually believe that Paul taught his followers to dress sexually?
Reply

Ramadhan
09-27-2010, 09:42 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I don't think you really believe that and are just trying to be funny.
It's the answer that I frequently get from discussing with christians.
Whenever asked why are current christians not doing/observing the things which jesus pbuh did, they regularly explain that is because Paul interpretation is that Jesus abrogated the old covenant, although jesus pbuh himself said that he did not come t abolish the laws and the prophets.

since christians do not have to observe the old covenant, each successive generations of christians then created their own standards of what is ethical and moral, disregarding their own scriptures and completely casting aside everything that jesus did and taught.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-27-2010, 09:56 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
It's the answer that I frequently get from discussing with christians.
Whenever asked why are current christians not doing/observing the things which jesus pbuh did, they regularly explain that is because Paul interpretation is that Jesus abrogated the old covenant, although jesus pbuh himself said that he did not come t abolish the laws and the prophets.

since christians do not have to observe the old covenant, each successive generations of christians then created their own standards of what is ethical and moral, disregarding their own scriptures and completely casting aside everything that jesus did and taught.
hmmm...Who are these Christians? I've read all sorts of different theological positions presented as Christian on this board, but I don't recall ever reading a post in which the Paul is interpreted to mean that we should be dressed more sexually than the Old Covenant, even if that covenant were to be abrogated.


BTW, do you remember what Jesus said he came to do with respect to the law and the prophets? (It's LAW, singular, not plural, that's an important distinction and that particular phrase has a very specific meaning.)
Reply

Asiyah3
09-27-2010, 10:32 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I would really like to see a conversation on this topic between a muslim and a nudist. Two complete opposites of the spectrum, and I bet they both have a lot of misconceptions about the other (the muslima being thought of as oppressed by the nudist, and the nudist being thought of as sexualized by the muslims - usually neither is true).
Will a nudist understand the meaning of modesty? I think not.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-27-2010, 11:16 AM
Originally Posted by Runaway
Will a nudist understand the meaning of modesty? I think not.
I don't know about a nudist. But if you recall one of the things the early European explorers discovered was that while many of the tribes they came across in their voyages around the world were scantily dress, they sill had quite strict moral codes and a highly evolved sense of modesty. For some cultures to show the ankle might be seen as scandolous and a huge violation of societal standads, while they would be totally unconcerned about appearing naked from the waist up.
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-27-2010, 11:27 AM
Clarify for me. Do you mean modesty or do you mean shame? Modesty is the opposite of pride and I see no reason why the nudist would necessarily be prideful. Unashamed of their body, yes. Possibly they feel shame about other aspects of life though.

And being a nudist by no means makes one not value their body (@ Naidamar above).
Reply

Asiyah3
09-27-2010, 11:33 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Clarify for me. Do you mean modesty or do you mean shame?

Modesty is the opposite of pride and I see no reason why the nudist would necessarily be prideful. Unashamed of their body, yes. Possibly they feel shame about other aspects of life though.
Modest clothing in Islam and shame.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-27-2010, 12:17 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
And being a nudist by no means makes one not value their body (@ Naidamar above).
It's the natural law:
things are cheap when it's easy to have them or they are available in great numbers, things have no value when they are available for free
Reply

جوري
09-27-2010, 02:49 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
It's the natural law:
things are cheap when it's easy to have them or they are available in great numbers, things have no value when they are available for free
I think the concept can still be easily understood by most westerners.. I mean they came up with 'Why pay for the cow when you can get the milk for free' so surely it shouldn't be as shocking as they pretend.. but perhaps they only pretend to alienate and portray Muslims as some sort of archaic non-progressive 'race' or something..

:w:
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-27-2010, 05:58 PM
Naidamar,

That is your muslim view, but it isn't shared by the nudist. A nudist simply does not see it the way you do so I hope you don't believe he/she goes nude as some sort of prideful display or as a display of imodesty or indecency. She does not feel devalued by walking around nude. She feels liberated.

We are all born naked and most nonhuman animals stay that way. Clothing was first worn for protection against the elements and for sanitary reasons (which is a fair concern regarding nudists). The taboo of nudity derived from there via various cultures, some of which as a previous poster mentioned have very different nudity taboos (walking around topless but covering the feet or whatever). It is cultural, not inborn.

I submit that the stronger the taboo is the more exciting and "naughty" breaking it will be. I am not a nudist, but I know some and I have been to nude beaches and resorts. I was amazed at just now NOT sexual it all is, and how quickly the taboo fades away and how natural it feels to be naked. But I recognize it isn't for everyone. I don't make a habit of it myself.

As muslims, it may be too much to ask you folks to understand where the nudist mindset is coming from, just as it may be too much to ask some westerners to understand where the muslim mindset is coming from. And so miconceptions, tribalism, and even bigotry can develop even amongst well meaning people of both groups. But I don't think this has to be so.

My post above was an expression of a desire to see people from such opposite ends of the spectrum, muslimas who cover their entire bodies and nudists who leave their entire body uncovered, actually bridge this gap. If they can do it then the rest of us have no excuse not to. Most of us fall somewhere in between these two extremes (muslimas who wear hajib only or who do not wear hajib but otherwise dress conservatievly, western women who wear business attire, or shorts and tshirts, or belly shirts, or bikinis). .
Reply

GreyKode
09-27-2010, 06:35 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Naidamar,

That is your muslim view, but it isn't shared by the nudist. A nudist simply does not see it the way you do so I hope you don't believe he/she goes nude as some sort of prideful display or as a display of imodesty or indecency. She does not feel devalued by walking around nude. She feels liberated.

Does a person feel libertated when his private parts (which are in general ugly, could be dirty and smelly, just trying to provoke your imagination) are exposed for of everone?

We are all born naked and most nonhuman animals stay that way.
We should urinate and defacate in public as well, same as babies and animals. We could bury our own doppings too, so there won't be any sanitary issues.

The way our bodies and animals' are such that the private parts are to an extent hidden


I submit that the stronger the taboo is the more exciting and "naughty" breaking it will be. I am not a nudist, but I know some and I have been to nude beaches and resorts. I was amazed at just now NOT sexual it all is, and how quickly the taboo fades away and how natural it feels to be naked. But I recognize it isn't for everyone. I don't make a habit of it myself.




This is a classic example of desensitization, your senses are becoming dead. Same goes for a killer, the more he kills the more it seems natural to him.
Reply

جوري
09-27-2010, 06:40 PM
Originally Posted by GreyKode
Does a person feel libertated when his private parts (which are in general ugly, could be dirty and smelly, just trying to provoke your imagination) are exposed for of everone?

:haha:



I really don't know why bidets aren't standard in the western world :eek:
Reply

Junon
09-27-2010, 09:20 PM
Salaam

In the real world could you imagine dealing with nudists on a day to day basis at your work, home, school and the immense problems that would cause, seriously +o(

Im reminded of this saying from Mark Twain

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
Reply

manaal
09-28-2010, 08:19 AM
:offtopic:

Read the Thread Title Please!
Reply

Danah
09-28-2010, 06:13 PM
Originally Posted by manaal
:offtopic:

Read the Thread Title Please!
I agree!
because I start feeling disgusting of reading some comments here +o( I didn't know that some people can go that far with nudity!!!!
Alhumdulilah that I was not aware of such "thoughts" :mmokay:
Reply

GreyKode
09-28-2010, 06:44 PM
Originally Posted by Danah

I agree!
because I start feeling disgusting of reading some comments here +o( I didn't know that some people can go that far with nudity!!!!
Alhumdulilah that I was not aware of such "thoughts" :mmokay:
If the moderators think my post is inappropriate then I apologize, please delete whatever you think is offensive.
Some people try to argue against the most basic instinctive behaviour and the fitrah that ALLAH(swt) has put into humans, and start claiming that it is not scientific and that it is only supported by some culture of some norm or some opinion.
Reply

Predator
09-28-2010, 07:13 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Huh???

Are you suggesting that Paul taught his followers to dress sexually?????

And who made it "official"? You?
Paul made it official by contradicting himself regarding the women's head covering:


1 Corinthians 11:5-15

5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved.

6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,

15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.


So What is Paul trying to tell us here?

In 1 Corinthians 11:5 above, he clearly tells us that women must cover their heads.


11:6, he is telling us that for those women who refuse to cover their heads, they must get their hair shaven or cut off.

So, so far, covering the head INCLUDES covering the hair, and not just the scull, in case some smart Christian wants to explain this away.

Now, Paul goes again and confirms the head covering (i.e., wearing scarves) for women in 1 Corinthians 11:13, and he was so sure about it, that he even asked for people's common sense ("Judge for yourselves") to prove that women must not at all uncover their heads when they pray to GOD Almighty.

Then in 1 Corinthians 11:16, he tells us that the woman's long hair is her covering?!

I thought women had to cover their heads, including their hairs as clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 11:6!!

And he was so sure about it and he so believed in it that he challenged the people's common sense by saying "Judge for yourselves".

So is he saying that women with short hair (perhaps?!) must cover their heads when they go to church or pray to GOD, and women with long hair (perhaps?!) don't have to cover their hair ?

If this is so, then what the hell is the purpose of this nonsense??!!


So WHAT IS THIS RETARD SAYING HERE?! He is not making any sense what so ever!!
Reply

جوري
09-28-2010, 09:42 PM
Originally Posted by GreyKode
If the moderators think my post is inappropriate then I apologize, please delete whatever you think is offensive.
Some people try to argue against the most basic instinctive behaviour and the fitrah that ALLAH(swt) has put into humans, and start claiming that it is not scientific and that it is only supported by some culture of some norm or some opinion.

I thought your post was to the point and very apropos to the previous comment made..

:w:
Reply

B_M
09-29-2010, 03:37 AM
In my opinion any woman with a head covering, I don't think it expresses oppression but exemplifys discipline. I think its a shame that many Catholic Nuns don't wear veils anymore as they used to, like Muslimahs do today. But it just shows how the Western World has become. There's not even Nuns around now, like there once was. But I agree with what others have said in this thread, that people have assumptions of oppression because of ignorance. They don't know.





Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam



STOP THE PRESS!

An atheist says nuns are oppressed

In other news

Pope admits: Yes I may be a Catholic . . .
Bear admits: Ok I may of defecated in the woods . . .
LOL!!!!
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-29-2010, 06:37 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


I thought your post was to the point and very apropos to the previous comment made..

:w:
It was deleted before I could see it, but do you people really think nudism is off topic here? This whole thread is about people covering their bodies, and being told they are oppressed for doing so. Well that is only one side of the coin....
Reply

Danah
09-29-2010, 08:55 AM
Originally Posted by GreyKode
If the moderators think my post is inappropriate then I apologize, please delete whatever you think is offensive.
Some people try to argue against the most basic instinctive behaviour and the fitrah that ALLAH(swt) has put into humans, and start claiming that it is not scientific and that it is only supported by some culture of some norm or some opinion.
No brother, I was not talking about your post

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
It was deleted before I could see it, but do you people really think nudism is off topic here? This whole thread is about people covering their bodies, and being told they are oppressed for doing so. Well that is only one side of the coin....
No,it was not deleted
And I was shocked that there are some people who compare animals to human beings in regards to nudity!
are you degrading your humanity that much man?
Reply

abdussattar
09-29-2010, 09:30 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
We are all born naked and most nonhuman animals stay that way
Humans and Animals = same? :?


Edit:- Animals dont even marry...
Reply

Ansariyah
09-29-2010, 10:22 AM
I kno im gonna sound biased when I say thıs but ın my eyes a Muslımah ın Hijab looks stronger then a nun- we are more fearless, we wıll not gıve u the other cheek to slap, ıf u mess wıt us u betta kno we wıll slap u back, otherwise we are humble.:peace:

When I see nuns walkıng down the streets and a Muslımah, a Muslıma has the weıght of the world on her shoulder, shes beıng called oppressed, terrorıst, but stıll keeps her head high.

How many nuns do u see ın Universıty buıldıngs studyıng to become engıneers, doctors, Teachers? Something worth pondering over...
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-29-2010, 01:47 PM
I posted this

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
As muslims, it may be too much to ask you folks to understand where the nudist mindset is coming from, just as it may be too much to ask some westerners to understand where the muslim mindset is coming from. And so miconceptions, tribalism, and even bigotry can develop even amongst well meaning people of both groups. But I don't think this has to be so.
An example of misconception is this

Originally Posted by Greycode
Does a person feel libertated when his private parts (which are in general ugly, could be dirty and smelly, just trying to provoke your imagination) are exposed for of everone?
As I said above, the cleanliness issue is objectively rational, but the rest of this is bias and misconception. Yes he does feel liberated when his "ugly" (your view) private parts are free. He does not see them as being exposed "for everyone" but liberated for himself. Many nudists also consider being forced to wear clothing, to appease what they see as the baseless shame of majority society (their view, not mine, though I can see where they are coming from), to be a bit oppressive.

And a good example of said bigotry is this

Originally Posted by GreyKode
This is a classic example of desensitization, your senses are becoming dead. Same goes for a killer, the more he kills the more it seems natural to him.
Equating a nudist with a killer? Really? Do you think that is any less bigoted than equating muslims with terrorists?

Originally Posted by Junon
In the real world could you imagine dealing with nudists on a day to day basis at your work, home, school and the immense problems that would cause, seriously

Im reminded of this saying from Mark Twain

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
The way you feel about this is the same way many feel about people walking around in black robes covering their entire body and face. It is cultural norms at play in both cases, and both cause problems when planted in the opposite society. The parallel is striking, and as I see it the only real difference (other than in direction of the extremism) is that when taken too far one objectively poses a cleanliness issue and the other objectively poses a security issue.

Originally Posted by Danah
because I start feeling disgusting of reading some comments here I didn't know that some people can go that far with nudity!!!!
It is no more extreme than the muslimas who dress in full body and face covering. Both are extreme and the reaction you are feeling is evoked by both. I think you and the nudist can overcome this and come to accept each other. As I said:

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
My post above was an expression of a desire to see people from such opposite ends of the spectrum, muslimas who cover their entire bodies and nudists who leave their entire body uncovered, actually bridge this gap. If they can do it then the rest of us have no excuse not to. Most of us fall somewhere in between these two extremes (muslimas who wear hajib only or who do not wear hajib but otherwise dress conservatievly, western women who wear business attire, or shorts and tshirts, or belly shirts, or bikinis). .
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-29-2010, 01:49 PM
Originally Posted by Yanoorah
I kno im gonna sound biased when I say thıs but ın my eyes a Muslımah ın Hijab looks stronger then a nun- we are more fearless, we wıll not gıve u the other cheek to slap, ıf u mess wıt us u betta kno we wıll slap u back, otherwise we are humble.:peace:

When I see nuns walkıng down the streets and a Muslımah, a Muslıma has the weıght of the world on her shoulder, shes beıng called oppressed, terrorıst, but stıll keeps her head high.

How many nuns do u see ın Universıty buıldıngs studyıng to become engıneers, doctors, Teachers? Something worth pondering over...
I would agree with you that the typical muslima shows more independence than the typical nun who wears a habit. I think this is mostly because habits have gone out of style and only the ultraconservative nuns wear them now, and the ultraconservative women in both religions tend to be the most oppressed.
Reply

Asiyah3
09-29-2010, 02:14 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
and the other objectively poses a security issue.
Peace,

How is a woman who covers her face a security issue? What does it matter if she shows her face or not? Isn't your argument a bit too far-fetched?

Do you find a man covering his face nose to neck with a scarf in winter a security threat? I don't.

Would you feel the same way if you grew up in a family where your mother and sisters wear a face-covering?
Reply

GreyKode
09-29-2010, 02:20 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I posted this


Equating a nudist with a killer? Really? Do you think that is any less bigoted than equating muslims with terrorists?

You completely missed the point, why don't you ponder on what say before responding?, you didn't think and so you automatically contrasted this with the example of equating muslims with terrorists, although they are completely unrelated. Although nudists hurt society, my example wasn't meant to equate anybody with a killer, I was simply referring to the desensitization that happens when you do something frequently, your senses become numb, so in theory this applies to anything including killing, that is all I meant.

It is cultural norms at play in both cases, and both cause problems when planted in the opposite society.
It is no more extreme than the muslimas who dress in full body and face covering. Both are extreme and the reaction you are feeling is evoked by both. I think you and the nudist can overcome this and come to accept each other. As I said:
Great, except that France claims to be a liberal society, nudists ok and they do exist as well as in the UK, and so niqabis should be ok. So where is the problem now?
Reply

جوري
09-29-2010, 03:46 PM
Originally Posted by GreyKode
Does a person feel libertated when his private parts (which are in general ugly, could be dirty and smelly, just trying to provoke your imagination) are exposed for of everone?


Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
It was deleted before I could see it, but do you people really think nudism is off topic here? This whole thread is about people covering their bodies, and being told they are oppressed for doing so. Well that is only one side of the coin....

That is the original comment..
I can't compare apples and oranges... I really don't think there is anything 'natural' about regressing to an animal like state.. if we desire to be labeled human, then we must accept the human condition, the human condition isn't found licking oneself in public, nor displaying oneself in public, or dropping ones load on the street, or hunting for food in that traditional animal sense, or copulating on the streets although I understand that, it happens, I can draw no polarity to being covered up or covered up incompletely.. (nudism) simply doesn't exist on that spectrum on the other end, because I don't consider something that humans would do.. I consider it something animals would do and be ok with.. from the minute we are born we are wrapped in blankets and wear beanie caps to retain our body heat, so the state of nakedness would in fact be a danger to a newborn if you consider it 'natural' since even the 'brown fat' we are born with can't protect us against the element save for a number of hours if at all.. Naked isn't a 'natural state' it is an animal state.. and if I desire a life amongst humans then there is no room for that, and no room for that to be made an object of comparison for any sort of a point..

all the best
Reply

S.Belle
09-29-2010, 04:30 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
It was deleted before I could see it, but do you people really think nudism is off topic here? This whole thread is about people covering their bodies, and being told they are oppressed for doing so. Well that is only one side of the coin....
Ok i could see what you mean a nudist may think that their rights are not being met when society tells them that they must not be nude in public and they themselves may feel oppressed or looked at as opressed but rape crimes would soar and i dont think children should see all that nudity.....all kinds of rules would be broken and the world would just be a big jungle full of naked animals (including humans we would just go loco lol)
Reply

tango92
09-29-2010, 04:33 PM
from what i know (and dont ask how) most nudists are fat old men and women who have lost all libido. i think a nudist lifestyle is a pointer towards deeper psychological issues. especially considering how dull ones life must be at 60+. although thats just my opinion
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-29-2010, 05:55 PM
Originally Posted by Runaway
Peace,

How is a woman who covers her face a security issue? What does it matter if she shows her face or not? Isn't your argument a bit too far-fetched?

Do you find a man covering his face nose to neck with a scarf in winter a security threat? I don't.
Actually, if a man walked into a bank, even in the middle of winter, dressed as you described he would indeed be considered a security threat.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-29-2010, 06:02 PM
Originally Posted by Airforce
So is he saying that women with short hair (perhaps?!) must cover their heads when they go to church or pray to GOD, and women with long hair (perhaps?!) don't have to cover their hair ?
No.


If this is so, then what the hell is the purpose of this nonsense??!!


So WHAT IS THIS RETARD SAYING HERE?! He is not making any sense what so ever!!
Some of Paul's writing can be confusing, but that doesn't necessarily make it nonsense. Do you really care to know, or are content with having called Paul a retard?
Reply

جوري
09-29-2010, 06:44 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
or are content with having called Paul a retard?
Not so much a retard as he was a calculating charlatan!
whatever his teachings were, the shorn and/or covered women seem to be confined to convents!

all the best
Reply

Asiyah3
09-29-2010, 06:48 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Actually, if a man walked into a bank, even in the middle of winter, dressed as you described he would indeed be considered a security threat.
In banks or government buildings etc. a female employer can check the situation for security reasons.

Any other reasons for "security issue"?
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-29-2010, 11:22 PM
Originally Posted by GreyKode
Great, except that France claims to be a liberal society, nudists ok and they do exist as well as in the UK, and so niqabis should be ok. So where is the problem now?
It may surprise you to hear it, but I agree with you 100% about the french ban being wrong. Primarily because it singles out muslims due to their religion/culture. I can however see legitimate security concerns about having people walk around obscuring their faces and and bodies. A muslima should not expect, for example, to walk into an airport or a bank in full garb with only an eye slit and expect not to be thought of as a risk. And a muslima should not get away with not having her face on her driver's license photo or get away with not showing it when showing ID is appropriate.

Sure, you can have a female worker check the identity of the woman, but who is to pay for that? Why should the bank, or whoever else bare that expense and bother? And even if they do the risk remains in that such an inspection could not always be carried out quickly. I strongly support a muslima's right to wear a veil anywhere I can wear a ski mask, but she should have no special rights beyond mine just because of her religion.

Certainly the security risk issue is not going to apply all the time or to more moderate muslimas who just wear hair coverings etc, but the same can be said for nudists and the sanitary issue, which isn't going to apply all the time or to nudists who are clean or who wear minimal clothing.
Reply

Junon
09-30-2010, 01:56 AM
Salaam

Again you skip over the immense problems nudists would cause at society at large, for example sexual harrassment? Again I come back to Mark Twains qoute. In fact nudists can be a source of immense uncessary expense as is demonstrated by the case of the 'naked rambler'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough

Sure, you can have a female worker check the identity of the woman, but who is to pay for that? Why should the bank, or whoever else bare that expense and bother? And even if they do the risk remains in that such an inspection could not always be carried out quickly. I strongly support a muslima's right to wear a veil anywhere I can wear a ski mask, but she should have no special rights beyond mine just because of her religion.
Please, the security issue is a non issue, plenty of middle east deal with this day in and day out, and on the question of 'expenses' I dont mind contributing to it if it leads to a harmonious society.

Im glad to say that society at large seems to have a more tolerant attitude than yourself for accomodating other peoples religious beliefs, but then thats hardly surprising, you are an atheist after all.
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-30-2010, 03:00 AM
Junon, I really don't have anything to say to your post above. It runs in a complete circle on itself. Read it and then watch it loop around and read it again. You speak bigotry and then complain about same.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-30-2010, 07:53 AM
For atheists (well atheists on this board at least), I get the sense that everyone is free to do ANYTHING they want to do as long as it does not physically harm other person.
So, they have no problem with nudity in public, which, at the first glance, is not physically harmful.
The sociological, psychological and communal grave effects etc are not even considered.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
09-30-2010, 02:28 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I would agree with you that the typical muslima shows more independence than the typical nun who wears a habit. I think this is mostly because habits have gone out of style and only the ultraconservative nuns wear them now, and the ultraconservative women in both religions tend to be the most oppressed.
says the atheist.
Reply

جوري
09-30-2010, 02:30 PM
I believe the women who wear burka are the most liberated and strong willed, not only do they have to fight with their family and friends who wonder why they have chosen that lifestyle when they can get away with the bear minimum, but they also have to go against a world which is very unforgiving and relentless of them.. sob7an Allah
Reply

aamirsaab
09-30-2010, 02:58 PM
You can't really judge if someone is oppressed based purely on their dress sense/uniform.

Similarly, a uniform does not denote oppression neccessarily.

The man is not trying to keep playas down if he asks you to wear a suit.

p.s; people, usually female, wear veils at weddings and funerals --> does not equate to oppression
p. p.s: Most asian ladies (i.e hindu, sikh, muslim) wear some kind of hijab-esque style haid dress --> also not oppresion.
Reply

Ansariyah
09-30-2010, 06:49 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I would agree with you that the typical muslima shows more independence than the typical nun who wears a habit. I think this is mostly because habits have gone out of style and only the ultraconservative nuns wear them now, and the ultraconservative women in both religions tend to be the most oppressed.

You say that ultraconservative women are the most oppressed, but if they chose to be ultraconservative, then it means they are exercising the freedom to reject your secular culture and live the way they want to be. Many ultraconservative women are highly educated, but just because we choose not to put ourselves on display doesn't mean we are oppressed, it means we are confident enough to live the way we choose to live and practice our beliefs, which is Islam.
Reply

B_M
10-01-2010, 12:13 AM
Originally Posted by Yanoorah
I kno im gonna sound biased when I say thıs but ın my eyes a Muslımah ın Hijab looks stronger then a nun- we are more fearless, we wıll not gıve u the other cheek to slap, ıf u mess wıt us u betta kno we wıll slap u back, otherwise we are humble.:peace:

When I see nuns walkıng down the streets and a Muslımah, a Muslıma has the weıght of the world on her shoulder, shes beıng called oppressed, terrorıst, but stıll keeps her head high.

How many nuns do u see ın Universıty buıldıngs studyıng to become engıneers, doctors, Teachers? Something worth pondering over...
That's true. I agree with that.

But I can see it like this too.. Both look stronger within their own religions. A Nun looks the most obedient out of all Christianity.. to take a vow of poverty, celibacy and charity... especially in a Western World that thrives on sex, greed and selfishness.. maybe, yeah times have changed and it's not really the same as it used to be, how Nuns had to teach in the Catholic Schools, and in that same building is where they called home, living in tiny covenants, in a smaller section of the building, not being able to marry, all the charitable work, etc.

However being a Muslimah in this day and age, clearly, as you said, are looked upon as 'terrorısts' and 'oppressed' beacuse of the false assumptions people have. Which is really not fair.

And it is kinda shameful that Nuns wearing head coverings are seen as more modest and are respected more opposed to Muslimahs because of some misunderstanding, when both should be recognized for the same modesty. And its funny that certain Christians/people feel the way the do about head coverings when the Bible says the same thing. Just like 'not eating pork' is stereotyped into a Islamic tradition, again, when the Bible says the same thing.

I don't know, lol. Crazy misunderstood world?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-01-2010, 06:09 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
It may surprise you to hear it, but I agree with you 100% about the french ban being wrong. Primarily because it singles out muslims due to their religion/culture. I can however see legitimate security concerns about having people walk around obscuring their faces and and bodies. A muslima should not expect, for example, to walk into an airport or a bank in full garb with only an eye slit and expect not to be thought of as a risk. And a muslima should not get away with not having her face on her driver's license photo or get away with not showing it when showing ID is appropriate.



Originally Posted by Runaway
In banks or government buildings etc. a female employer can check the situation for security reasons. Any other reasons for "security issue"?

What people need to understand is that the wearing of the veil does not present a security risk that is any greater than not wearing one. Simply being present is a security risk, and it has nothing to do with religion or politics, it is simply that each individual who walks into a building is at some level a security risk. The question that must be asked by the manager/operator is whether or not he is willing to assume that risk. And most often, in hopes of profit and recognizing the need to interact with the public they take that risk. But even as they take that risk, they also try to limit their risk exposure, and one of the ways they do that is by making it so that those who might do something find either impediments to doing so or that their own risk in doing something that would have a negative impact on the business is great enough that it isn't worth them doing anything. Security cameras, for instance, are a part of that protection, not because they can actually stop a crime, but because they increase the likelihood of the criminal getting caught and thus serve as a deterant. Wearing a hijab that simply covers the hair but not the face is unlikely to be seen as any greater of a security risk than a hat. But wearing a veil that completely obscures the face changes the viability of the most frequently employed means of deterrance. Without that deterence in effect, the comfort level of a business owner to someone walking in to his/her business whose face cannot be seen is going to be replaced by a heightened sense of anxiety. It has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with no knowing who is "hiding" behind the veil and what their intentions might be.
Reply

Pygoscelis
10-01-2010, 01:43 PM
Yes, and as I said, she can wear a burka when and where I can wear a ski mask. I am not allowed to walk into a bank wearing a ski mask. There is a legitimate security issue.
Reply

Muhaba
10-01-2010, 02:14 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I believe the women who wear burka are the most liberated and strong willed, not only do they have to fight with their family and friends who wonder why they have chosen that lifestyle when they can get away with the bear minimum, but they also have to go against a world which is very unforgiving and relentless of them.. sob7an Allah

I agree. The fact is that Muslim women who wear hijab today are oppressed by society which tries to take away the freedom to wear the hijab / niqab. For hijabis it's so difficult finding work wearing the hijab / niqab. In france women aren't allowed to wear niqab. In Turkey and some other countries women can't cover their heads in schools. That's terrible oppression. Hijabi / Niqabi women must really work hard to stop all this oppression.
Reply

Kashnowe
10-04-2010, 07:26 PM
i wanted to chime in with responding to a few quotes from previous posters
"Islam is the religion that prevents rape; it upholds the dignity and honor of women by commanding them to cover themselves. Women in Islam are not oppressed, but only the Christian women are oppressing themselves by dressing half-naked. "
Islam does not prevent rape any mroe than any other religion of peace. Covering a body does not cover up the fact that their is a naked human under the clothes. a man is still required to control himself. if he can not control his lusts that is HIS problem not the woman's. FREE WILL people!!!

"It's the natural law:
things are cheap when it's easy to have them or they are available in great numbers, things have no value when they are available for free "

so if i walk into a store and see gold jewlery on display, and no one is looking, i am free to take it? if you see a scantily clad woman that does not mean she is asking to be taken or that she deserves to be raped. who says because a woman is wearing a mini skirt that she is free? is she not s till a child of Allah? does the Quran not say Allah is merciful? its a shame you think this way.

"How many nuns do u see ın Universıty buıldıngs studyıng to become engıneers, doctors, Teachers? Something worth pondering over.."

well you see nuns study to become nuns because they dont want to be an engineer or doctor. thats the whole point. so what is your point?

if someone tells me "wear a burka or i will kill you" and i choose to wear the burka, that doesn't exactly mean i freely chose to wear it free from opression.
yes i chose to wear it. i could have chosen not to wear it. but then i would be dead. this is the concept non-muslims are concerned about. do you really think a woman in the burka will say " oh yes i chose to wear this because my husband said if i didn't he would kill me, isn't it loveley i was given a choice? " no. they leave that part out....

if you think a woman chooses to dress that way you are fooling yourself.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-04-2010, 07:49 PM
Originally Posted by Kashnowe
if you think a woman chooses to dress that way you are fooling yourself.
Your solid points about there being no excuse for rape regardless of how a woman dresses not withstanding, the reality is that in fact there are women who have no one telling them how to dress except for their own conscious who chose, as an act of their own free will and devotion, to wear a hijab, a niqab or a burka. One can hardly call those women oppressed.

And there are women who would like to wear them that are sometimes told by others that they cannot.

Therefore, it seems to me that you cannot tell whether or not a woman is oppressed by observing how she is dressed, one way or the other.
Reply

S.Belle
10-04-2010, 07:50 PM
Originally Posted by Kashnowe
i wanted to chime in with responding to a few quotes from previous posters
"Islam is the religion that prevents rape; it upholds the dignity and honor of women by commanding them to cover themselves. Women in Islam are not oppressed, but only the Christian women are oppressing themselves by dressing half-naked. "
Islam does not prevent rape any mroe than any other religion of peace. Covering a body does not cover up the fact that their is a naked human under the clothes. a man is still required to control himself. if he can not control his lusts that is HIS problem not the woman's. FREE WILL people!!!
True but it seems like it would but easier for a man ( muslim and non muslim) to control himself if what he lusts for or maybe doesnt know he likes until he sees it is not shown in front of him so openly (like some men are attracted to certain parts of a woman body that the hijab covers). For example a person who is on a diet, it is easier for them not to eat sweets or fats if they do not go into a bakery or a fast food place but put them in that in that situation then they are most likely going to order something fatty (that is unless they have enough self control but some people do not hence rape crimes)
Also did you know that rape crimes are lower in muslim countries?
is she not s till a child of Allah?
Allah does not begot nor is he begotten

if someone tells me "wear a burka or i will kill you" and i choose to wear the burka, that doesn't exactly mean i freely chose to wear it free from opression.
yes i chose to wear it. i could have chosen not to wear it. but then i would be dead. this is the concept non-muslims are concerned about. do you really think a woman in the burka will say " oh yes i chose to wear this because my husband said if i didn't he would kill me, isn't it loveley i was given a choice? " no. they leave that part out....

if you think a woman chooses to dress that way you are fooling yourself.
First off it is not a man (being a husband or father) who has commanded that women should cover their bodies but rather God. If a man was to even say cover yourself it is because he is reminding his wife what Allah (swt) has told women that they must cover.
Reply

Asiyah3
10-04-2010, 07:54 PM
Originally Posted by Kashnowe
if you think a woman chooses to dress that way you are fooling yourself.
Who on Earth are you to decide what I can dress and what not, and call my husband a killer? Understand that I am free to dress as I wish. If you wish to dress half-naked, be my guest, but you have absolutely no right to impose it on me!

You know absolutely nothing about Islam and Muslim women.
Reply

Danah
10-04-2010, 08:19 PM
Originally Posted by Runaway
Who on Earth are you to come here and decide what I can dress and what not, and call my husband a killer? Understand that I am free to dress as I wish. If you wish to dress half-naked, be my guest, but you have absolutely no right to impose it on me!

You know absolutely nothing about Islam and Muslim women.
Can't agree more!!!
seriously, I don't know how some people give themselves the right to decide on the place of others :hmm:
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
10-04-2010, 08:47 PM
Peace Kashnowe

Originally Posted by Kashnowe
i wanted to chime in with responding to a few quotes from previous posters
"Islam is the religion that prevents rape; it upholds the dignity and honor of women by commanding them to cover themselves. Women in Islam are not oppressed, but only the Christian women are oppressing themselves by dressing half-naked. "
Islam does not prevent rape any mroe than any other religion of peace. Covering a body does not cover up the fact that their is a naked human under the clothes. a man is still required to control himself. if he can not control his lusts that is HIS problem not the woman's. FREE WILL people!!!.
The individual you quoted indeed is correct! Islam prevents all those acts that are taken place that you mentioned but the desires of one is what that doesnt prevent one unless they control them, So you got it the wrong way round. If a man is required to control himself then a women in the same way is required to dress appropriately.

Originally Posted by Kashnowe
"It's the natural law:
things are cheap when it's easy to have them or they are available in great numbers, things have no value when they are available for free "

so if i walk into a store and see gold jewlery on display, and no one is looking, i am free to take it? if you see a scantily clad woman that does not mean she is asking to be taken or that she deserves to be raped. who says because a woman is wearing a mini skirt that she is free? is she not s till a child of Allah? does the Quran not say Allah is merciful? its a shame you think this way.
No firstly that would be called "Stealing"! lol you mentioned "Scantily clad women" clearly that proves no respect for that typa women itself, how can you say shes not asking to be taken, you dont even know her intentions. However, she could prevent further action from being taken if she dressed appropriately and as Grace Seeker mentioned i quote him "
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
the reality is that in fact there are women who have no one telling them how to dress"
Originally Posted by Kashnowe
"How many nuns do u see ın Universıty buıldıngs studyıng to become engıneers, doctors, Teachers? Something worth pondering over..".

well you see nuns study to become nuns because they dont want to be an engineer or doctor. thats the whole point. so what is your point?

if someone tells me "wear a burka or i will kill you" and i choose to wear the burka, that doesn't exactly mean i freely chose to wear it free from opression. .....
Originally Posted by Kashnowe
yes i chose to wear it. i could have chosen not to wear it. but then i would be dead. this is the concept non-muslims are concerned about. do you really think a woman in the burka will say " oh yes i chose to wear this because my husband said if i didn't he would kill me, isn't it loveley i was given a choice? " no. they leave that part out.....
if you think a woman chooses to dress that way you are fooling yourself.[/QUOTE]

Seriously?!?!?!
I wear the Hijaab and i dont wear it because im forced to wear it, in fact nobody told me to wear it and it was my own decision!

I think you should stop judging people!

Peace
Reply

Kashnowe
10-04-2010, 09:24 PM
my understanding is the non_Muslim view is more concerning the oppression and lesser value placed on the whole truth of "being female" due to laws expressly written in the Quran concerning females. and the inconsistencies between behavior and attitudes which stand as the status quo right now today yesterday and tomorrow. which relates to attitudes of a woman is impure if scantily clad. if you imply that if two people fornicate out of wedlock, the woman shall be stoned to death and the man gets to live then thats where everyone else in the world gets upset. its the big picture attached to obvious differences in opinion.

to me each side has valid points and that is my life's biggest challenge along with understanding astronomy ;) also: the chicken or the egg? israel or palestine? Jesus or Mohammed?

americans who became a nation based highly on the feeling of a NEED for freedom of religion to truly live in PEACE. because obviously the way they were living just WASN'T WORKING FOR THEM. they were BEING KILLED. with that freedom then, and only then can you grant rights to ALL which is EQUAL and FAIR. which is very opposite of a Muslim following the Muslim law which says you don't have the freedom to CHOOSE. thats the opression. unless you are Muslim of course.



the sad truth is people of every faith dont' always follow the law and the way these people are judged is NEVER equal if you are Muslim. true intention of character and faith does not always rule the physical actions of the body. people make mistakes. the way the western world reacts to Muslim laws shows me that they don't think every Muslim is evil and does all these things like threaten to kill their wife if she (insert sin here). they do get angry when the majority either condones or does nothing to stop the violence and cruelty. becase the defense is based on religion. not democratic voting of opinion and common interest. its forced upon the society. in saudi arabia you will be killed for many things that we consider basic human rights. this does not come anywhere close to freedom or fairness or justice or reason to us. thats the whole problem in the world today two completely opposite opinions festering and rotting at the same pace. because this is a loosing battle as long as any society is around that murders its members. neither side is winning anything neither side is right. people are being killed for showing their face. that does not go along with any law of nature present anywhere else in the universe except for a black hole.





runaway i never said anything about your husband. i wold hope if you made the mistake of wearing a mini shkirt and going to a night club your husband would see the falibility in you as you are human and no one is perfect except for God. i would hope he would welcome you back home with open arms and work with you til death to rehbilitate your mind and your spirit to once again be pure in faith and actions. and if you fell again i would pray he would be there to lift you up and dress your wounds once more. i also wish the society you live in would encourage him to do so and not impose unjust laws.



i can not decide how you dress and i would never wish to decide how anyone dresses. i was merely stating my opinion. i never said you must accept or agree with it. i wish you to be free as i am free. if you are free to dress as you can i am happy for you. many are not able to do so claiming a religion with no choice and no freedom to question it.



many women in america are controlled by their husband, they are threatened, beaten, killed by their controlling husbands. this is an anciet global phenomenon. but in america the majority does not agree condone or promote such evils.



the difference between here and saudi arabia is the government doesn't value the man's opinion or life over the woman's.



the biggest and oldest feud in the world is between men and women.



who am i? im a person. i'm an individual. i control my own thoughts. i control my own actions. i have my own opinions. i form my own opinions from what i gather from my five senses. to each his own.
Reply

Kashnowe
10-04-2010, 09:43 PM
the reason rape is lower in muslims countries is probably because it is not nearly reported as much because of fear of being killed for being alone with a man. obviously the woman knows her side of the story will not matter.

everyone judges everyone. if by judge you mean analyze and form an opinion and consesnus about something. its the nature of existence to judge everythign and everyone one. the mere act of thinking is judging. if people did not judge the word "opinion" would not exist. there would be no such thing as right or wrong. there would be nothing.

if you lived in saudi arabia the government could judge you. they would judge you and maybe kill you...all in the name of God. you must be one of the lucky ones. the lucky ones are not the ones the west is concerned with. its the opressed, impoverished, brainwashed people that we feel a need to protect as we would our own.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
10-04-2010, 09:44 PM
^Yes indeed you are person and you have your own opinions, but it doesnt mean that our "opinions" have the answer to everything.

God is our creator and he created us with a brain so that we may use it the correct way,however some may use it the opposite way, but as we are not all perfect and yes God is perfect!

But we cant all go saying "Im a sinner and were not all perfect" all our lives can we? We must change that and try to better ourselves.

God according to Islaam commands us to do of what is better for ourselves and forbids us to do what is not better for ourselves and weather an action that does not benefit one, why should it be taken place? For example as you mentioned its free will we do whatever want, dress however we will or along those lines and forgive me ive said anything wrong.

But lets say God Allmighty wills us to dress the way he wills and indeed that is a way that is better for us, would you not consider following that?
If he told us to speak in a certain manner that is better for us, for example to be kind, to not swear, help those in need, would you also not consider following that?

Btw this is Islaam the religion that gives us choice and not one that oppresses us.

Peace
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
10-04-2010, 09:45 PM
Originally Posted by Kashnowe
the reason rape is lower in muslims countries is probably because it is not nearly reported as much because of fear of being killed for being alone with a man. obviously the woman knows her side of the story will not matter.
Oh yeah, and you know this because you're a Muslim who lives in a Muslim country, right?
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
10-04-2010, 09:50 PM
Originally Posted by Kashnowe
the reason rape is lower in muslims countries is probably because it is not nearly reported as much because of fear of being killed for being alone with a man. obviously the woman knows her side of the story will not matter.

everyone judges everyone. if by judge you mean analyze and form an opinion and consesnus about something. its the nature of existence to judge everythign and everyone one. the mere act of thinking is judging. if people did not judge the word "opinion" would not exist. there would be no such thing as right or wrong. there would be nothing.
Are you saying its fine for a strange women and strange man to be alone? thats what your saying, according to Islaam this is an act of sin, therefore there will be punishments. And obviously your basing that whole matter with Islaam. Just because its an Muslim country doesnt mean that that Islaam is being fully implemented and doesnt give you yourself the right to say something about Islaam.

Yeah everyone has the "ability" to judge, but what if that judgement isnt correct? then what do you say regarding that?
Reply

Kashnowe
10-04-2010, 10:04 PM
Originally Posted by мυѕℓιмαн 4 ℓιfє
Yeah everyone has the "ability" to judge, but what if that judgement isnt correct? then what do you say regarding that?
i make inconrrect judgements every day. i'm not dishing out punishments tho.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-04-2010, 10:26 PM
Originally Posted by Danah
seriously, I don't know how some people give themselves the right to decide on the place of others :hmm:
Ironically, that is one of the definitions for oppression.

But Kashonwe does make a point when she writes:
Originally Posted by Kashnowe
the sad truth is people of every faith dont' always follow the law and the way these people are judged is NEVER equal if you are Muslim. true intention of character and faith does not always rule the physical actions of the body. people make mistakes.
If women are stoned and men are free to walk away when BOTH have been guilty of the same offense of adultery, it seems that not only is their inequality, but that Muslim women can end up on the short end of a very deadly stick.

(Note: I recognize that this is not something found in Islam alone. It was in fact the pattern established in the OT. However, I am unaware of it continuing to be practiced by either Jew or Christian today. And if you tell me that it also is not being practiced in the name of Islam today, I will withdraw my objection.)
Reply

Asiyah3
10-04-2010, 10:31 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Ironically, that is one of the definitions for oppression.
Interesting..

But Kashonwe does make a point when she writes: If women are stoned and men are free to walk away when BOTH have been guilty of the same offense of adultery, it seems that not only is their inequality, but that Muslim women can end up on the short end of a very deadly stick.
Seeing the time you've spend on the forum, you should know very well that the hadd punishment for adultery applies equally to men and women.
Reply

Woodrow
10-04-2010, 10:37 PM
Originally Posted by Kashnowe
the reason rape is lower in muslims countries is probably because it is not nearly reported as much because of fear of being killed for being alone with a man. obviously the woman knows her side of the story will not matter.

everyone judges everyone. if by judge you mean analyze and form an opinion and consesnus about something. its the nature of existence to judge everythign and everyone one. the mere act of thinking is judging. if people did not judge the word "opinion" would not exist. there would be no such thing as right or wrong. there would be nothing.

if you lived in saudi arabia the government could judge you. they would judge you and maybe kill you...all in the name of God. you must be one of the lucky ones. the lucky ones are not the ones the west is concerned with. its the opressed, impoverished, brainwashed people that we feel a need to protect as we would our own.
To put things in perspective less than 15% of the world's Muslims live in the Mideast. Saudi is not an Islamic Nation, it is a Monarchy. More Muslims live in the Western countries than in all the Mid-eastern Nations combined. Nearly 1/4 of the world's Muslims live in Indonesia. It should be apparent that this generalization does not apply to the majority of the World's Muslims, in fact it does not apply to the majority of Muslims living in the Mid-East. Add to this there are no nations in existence today that are Islamic and live under true Sharia law. what is called shariah law is too often the whims of misguided rulers.

Even so, the majority of Muslim women in Saudi are not abused as the press would like you to believe. For the most part Saudi resembles New York more than it resembles an Islamic Nation. Many of the blatant sins now found in parts of Saudi are because of the westernization.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-04-2010, 10:42 PM
Originally Posted by Runaway
Interesting..


Seeing the time you've spend on the forum, you should know very well that the hadd punishment for adultery applies equally to men and women.
No. I had not even heard the term "hadd" punishment. (This is an area that I know little about. So, I'm assuming that "hadd" is a real term, and not a typo. Forgive me if I'm wrong on that. I don't write in jest.)
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-04-2010, 10:48 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Many of the blatant sins now found in parts of Saudi are because of the westernization.
Woodrow, would you really have us believe that without western influence the people of Saudi would live in righteousness? Was there no rape, murder, stealing, adultery, prostitution prior to contact with the west?

Might it not be that with increased wealth came increased contact with the world beyond what was previously known (including contact with the west) and this exposure produce new ways that the same old sins could be practiced.
Reply

S.Belle
10-04-2010, 10:49 PM
Originally Posted by Kashnowe
if you lived in saudi arabia the government could judge you. they would judge you and maybe kill you...all in the name of God. you must be one of the lucky ones. .
ROFL u are so wrong I am one of the unlucky ones living in the west I would give almost anything to live in Sauid Arabia especially if I am to live in Medinah.
Where ever you are getting your information about Islamic Law is wrong turn off your tv and radio and ask a muslim here there are plently take your pick.
Why do u assume women (muslim) are oppressed
And why do you assume Muslim men are so violent against women? Have you had a personal experience with one?
If not AGAIN turn off your tv!! And stop listening to the media.
STOP assuming and ASK a MUSLIM!!
Reply

Woodrow
10-04-2010, 11:13 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Ironically, that is one of the definitions for oppression.

But Kashonwe does make a point when she writes: If women are stoned and men are free to walk away when BOTH have been guilty of the same offense of adultery, it seems that not only is their inequality, but that Muslim women can end up on the short end of a very deadly stick.

(Note: I recognize that this is not something found in Islam alone. It was in fact the pattern established in the OT. However, I am unaware of it continuing to be practiced by either Jew or Christian today. And if you tell me that it also is not being practiced in the name of Islam today, I will withdraw my objection.)
Peace Gene,

actually if Shariah law was followed, it would be virtually impossible to find sufficient proof to stone a man or woman for adultery. Sadly stonings do occur, although not legal under shariah but legalized by some nations and by vigilante type groups. As best as can be determined not one person has ever been legally stoned for adultery under shariah. But have been under state law calling itself shariah. With the exception of Iran and I believe Nigeria there have not been any stoning by most nations calling themselves Muslim since the early to mid 1900s. There have been some highly publicized ones by Yeshiva's in Iraq and Hindus in India attributed to Muslims. Iran has had a number in the past 5 years. But, most of us do not consider the Shii to be Muslim.
Reply

Woodrow
10-04-2010, 11:19 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Woodrow, would you really have us believe that without western influence the people of Saudi would live in righteousness? Was there no rape, murder, stealing, adultery, prostitution prior to contact with the west?

Might it not be that with increased wealth came increased contact with the world beyond what was previously known (including contact with the west) and this exposure produce new ways that the same old sins could be practiced.
Peace Gene,

Didn't intend for it to be taken quite like that. Yes there were crimes in the past. They just seem to have increased in recent years as Saudi became highly Westernized. I do agree the wealth is a strong contributing factor.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-04-2010, 11:23 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
But, most of us do not consider the Shii to be Muslim.
WHOA!! Hold the phone!! This is news to me.

I know that there are differences between Sunni and Shia, but I thought that there was at least tacit agreement that despite difference they shared the same belief in Islam. I may need a whole new thread to ask you to explain this to me. Don't both worship in the same mosque when there is only one available?
Reply

Woodrow
10-04-2010, 11:43 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
WHOA!! Hold the phone!! This is news to me.

I know that there are differences between Sunni and Shia, but I thought that there was at least tacit agreement that despite difference they shared the same belief in Islam. I may need a whole new thread to ask you to explain this to me. Don't both worship in the same mosque when there is only one available?

Since they do call themselves Muslim and do say the shahadah we do have to accept them as Muslim, but some of the practices seem to be very unIslamic.
Reply

Woodrow
10-04-2010, 11:43 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
WHOA!! Hold the phone!! This is news to me.

I know that there are differences between Sunni and Shia, but I thought that there was at least tacit agreement that despite difference they shared the same belief in Islam. I may need a whole new thread to ask you to explain this to me. Don't both worship in the same mosque when there is only one available?

Since they do call themselves Muslim and do say the shahadah we do have to accept them as Muslim, but some of the practices seem to be very unIslamic.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
10-05-2010, 02:42 AM
@ Kashnowe: wow, do you usually talk garbage, or is this a new trend you are setting?

goodness me.

if you think a woman chooses to dress that way you are fooling yourself.
this is so ignorant, i don't know from where to start from with it. but i guess its true, you are what you see in others.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-05-2010, 04:37 AM
Originally Posted by Kashnowe
if you think a woman chooses to dress that way you are fooling yourself.

I am sorry that you can be so arrogant and full of yourself thinking you know all the facts while, judging from your post, you know almost nothing about Islam, let alone the concept of dressing and general Islamic jurisprudence.

I can say with 100% certainty that ALL of muslim women I know of who wear hijab, ALL of them wear hijab out of their own conscience and free will and NO ONE forced them too.
And I know personally at least hundreds of these women, including my own mother, sisters in law, aunts, cousins, etc.
I was born and lived most of my life in Indonesia, a majority muslims country (in fact, the country with the most muslim population), but it is, unfortunately, largely a secular country.

when Indonesia was still under Suharto regime, the government banned the wear of hijab in ALL public institutions, including schools, government offices etc, because the regime (who was modelled after a combination of Turkey "modernisation" and military dictatorships) was afraid that Islam would get really strong and hence challenge the authority of the regime.
When I was in high school, a few of my schoolmates decided that they wanted to wear hijab out of their conscience in defiance of the school rules, and as a result they got EXPELLED from school. That's how much they were willing to sacrifice to implement islam in their life.
In fact, not many Indonesian women wore hijab during suharto regime as a result of the "modernisation", but slowly they came back to the Islam and now more and more women are wearing hijab as more people returned to apply Islam in their life.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-05-2010, 04:48 AM
Originally Posted by Kashnowe
the reason rape is lower in muslims countries is probably because it is not nearly reported as much because of fear of being killed for being alone with a man. obviously the woman knows her side of the story will not matter.
It's only your opinion, which is not backed up by anything, such as, heard of facts, evidence, statistics?

Originally Posted by Kashnowe
if you lived in saudi arabia the government could judge you. they would judge you and maybe kill you...all in the name of God. you must be one of the lucky ones. the lucky ones are not the ones the west is concerned with. its the opressed, impoverished, brainwashed people that we feel a need to protect as we would our own.
I don't even understand what this rants about.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-05-2010, 04:56 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If women are stoned and men are free to walk away when BOTH have been guilty of the same offense of adultery, it seems that not only is their inequality, but that Muslim women can end up on the short end of a very deadly stick.
By now you should know that women and men receive the SAME punishments according to syariah.

I am actually sick of you pretending not to know the truth in order to drag the rest with you down to the pits.



Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
(Note: I recognize that this is not something found in Islam alone. It was in fact the pattern established in the OT. However, I am unaware of it continuing to be practiced by either Jew or Christian today. And if you tell me that it also is not being practiced in the name of Islam today, I will withdraw my objection.)
Just because your scriptures is a wreck or that all of you do not follow your scriptures because it is a complete wreck, you don't have to try to drag Islam with you to the pits.
Reply

S.Belle
10-06-2010, 05:28 PM
Originally Posted by Kashnowe
if someone tells me "wear a burka or i will kill you" and i choose to wear the burka, that doesn't exactly mean i freely chose to wear it free from opression.
yes i chose to wear it. i could have chosen not to wear it. but then i would be dead. this is the concept non-muslims are concerned about. do you really think a woman in the burka will say " oh yes i chose to wear this because my husband said if i didn't he would kill me, isn't it loveley i was given a choice? " no. they leave that part out....

if you think a woman chooses to dress that way you are fooling yourself.
Please you need to watch this video that a Sis posted on here I think you would benefit greatly.
http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...men-islam.html
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-06-2010, 08:07 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
By now you should know that women and men receive the SAME punishments according to syariah.
Then why is it that there is such a discrepancy in actual practice?


you don't have to try to drag Islam with you to the pits.
You falsely flatter me. In truth, whether Islam is or is not in the pits is going to have precious little to do with what I say. Islam will be praised or vilified based not on what I as a non-Muslim say and do, but with how you and other Muslims present yourself and your faith to the world.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-07-2010, 04:43 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Then why is it that there is such a discrepancy in actual practice?
What practice?

how can a pastor spew lies?

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Islam will be praised or vilified based not on what I as a non-Muslim say and do, but with how you and other Muslims present yourself and your faith to the world.
Unlike christianity, who's lost its actual teachings as soon as christ left, Islam does not depend on what people who claim to follow the religion do, You only just have a look at the actual teachings of Islam, and see the truth.

anyway, based on your logic, can I say that christianity teach paedophilia since many of you MEN OF GOD practice sex with very young boys?
Reply

M.I.A.
10-07-2010, 05:24 AM
well the whole situation could be worse, the governments could force you to wear hijabs.
as it is... you pose a security risk.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-07-2010, 08:11 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
What practice?
I know you have heard of what is called honor killings. I quick Google search will turn up literally hundreds of reports. I understand what you say, that Sharia law actually denounces the cases and that most of what is reported as honor killing is downright unIslamic. Yet, the vast majority of so-called "honor killings" are by people who call themselves followers of Islam and claim that they do so as a function of their faith and religious obligations and therefore cannot be written off as something that is purely cultural. They are generally perpetrated by men and against women. If the law is to apply to men as much as it does women, why do we have reports of women being murdered, but not of men being killed? That is what I mean by the actual practice not matching Islamic teaching. Given this broad pattern, which quite clearly exists (whether you recognize as the truth or not it is obvious to all outside of Islam it is true), and I would like to know why the differentation?
Reply

S.Belle
10-07-2010, 08:33 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I know you have heard of what is called honor killings. I quick Google search will turn up literally hundreds of reports. I understand what you say, that Sharia law actually denounces the cases and that most of what is reported as honor killing is downright unIslamic. Yet, the vast majority of so-called "honor killings" are by people who call themselves followers of Islam and claim that they do so as a function of their faith and religious obligations and therefore cannot be written off as something that is purely cultural. They are generally perpetrated by men and against women. If the law is to apply to men as much as it does women, why do we have reports of women being murdered, but not of men being killed? That is what I mean by the actual practice not matching Islamic teaching. Given this broad pattern, which quite clearly exists (whether you recognize as the truth or not it is obvious to all outside of Islam it is true), and I would like to know why the differentation?
You keep claiming that men and women are not treat equally when it comes to honor killings, etc.
then how come the man was no punished equally as the woman in this biblical scripture? Did he not help create the child?

24 - And it came Now it was about three months later that Judah was informed, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot, and behold, she is also with child by harlotry." Then Judah said, "Bring her out and let her be burned!"
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-07-2010, 09:06 PM
Originally Posted by Mila
You keep claiming that men and women are not treat equally when it comes to honor killings, etc.
Do you claim that they are?

then how come the man was no punished equally as the woman in this biblical scripture? Did he not help create the child?

24 - And it came Now it was about three months later that Judah was informed, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot, and behold, she is also with child by harlotry." Then Judah said, "Bring her out and let her be burned!"
Did you read the whole of the story? Actually, neither was punished. At the time that Judah called for her punishment, he had been in the wrong in his thinking regarding Tamar. Once he was made aware of this error, he corrected his mistake:

26And Judah acknowledged them [Tamar's evidence and complaint], and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son.


But this is actually irrelevant. All the world may be wrong, but I am told Islam has the truth. So, why do we continue to find this pattern that Muslims preach one thing (men and women are to be treated the same) and practice another (men and women are treated differently)? If it was isolated cases I wouldn't be asking, I would write it off as there being hypocrisy in every religion because they are practiced by fallable humans. But these are not a few isolated cases. This is a broad pattern that we find worldwide and which is often condoned with governmental and religious blessings. And all the more so in those places where Islam is strong enough that they claim to be at least attempting to implement sharia laws even if they are not able to do so in toto.

Do you really not see this being the case?
Reply

S.Belle
10-07-2010, 09:23 PM
Yes they are treated the same when it comes to punishments and honor killings if any people are killed unjustily it is due to culture and they are not following Islamic law.


but Islam has the truth
Wow first Christian I have ever heard say that

and my goodness people this is way off topic lol
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-07-2010, 09:40 PM
Originally Posted by Mila
Yes they are treated the same when it comes to punishments and honor killings if any people are killed unjustily it is due to culture and they are not following Islamic law.
OK. So we agree. According to Islamic law, men and women should be treated the same.

Do we also agree that men and women are often are not treated the same, even in countries where the majority of people are followers of Islam? If so, why not when being a follower of Islam is not just a religion but a lifestyle that is suppose to involve all of one's life, including the way that men and women are treated in society? And why not, when the teachings of Islam are suppose to supercede local culture and custom?
Reply

S.Belle
10-07-2010, 10:00 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
OK. So we agree. According to Islamic law, men and women should be treated the same.

Do we also agree that men and women are often are not treated the same, even in countries where the majority of people are followers of Islam? If so, why not when being a follower of Islam is not just a religion but a lifestyle that is suppose to involve all of one's life, including the way that men and women are treated in society? And why not, when the teachings of Islam are suppose to supercede local culture and custom?
men and women are treated the same in Islam
Muslim women have the same rights as a muslim man
and to just pin point Islam is not right because in western society men and women are suppose to be treated equal right
then how come men are paid more then women??
it has nothing to do with religion it is culture.
When you see these killings were a woman commit this or that and got killed and then a man did the same and didnt
they are not following Islamic law they are following culture and being disobedient to Allah (swt). Also some cases are different if a woman had sex with a man and she is married and his is not married
She is to be stoned to death and the man is to be lashed and vice versa
Some people around the world choose to follow their culture before their religion and others choose to mix them together.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-08-2010, 12:22 AM
Originally Posted by Mila
it has nothing to do with religion it is culture.
When you see these killings were a woman commit this or that and got killed and then a man did the same and didnt
they are not following Islamic law they are following culture and being disobedient to Allah (swt). Also some cases are different if a woman had sex with a man and she is married and his is not married
She is to be stoned to death and the man is to be lashed and vice versa
Some people around the world choose to follow their culture before their religion and others choose to mix them together.

Sure, it is culture, not Islam. But why is it that this culture shows itself more in those countries where Islam is the dominate religion and less so in countries where Islam is a minority?
Reply

Woodrow
10-08-2010, 09:20 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Sure, it is culture, not Islam. But why is it that this culture shows itself more in those countries where Islam is the dominate religion and less so in countries where Islam is a minority?
Peace Gene,

I believe you will find the same type culture among India and the countries that border the Mediterranean such as Italy, Sicily, Greece, Crete, Southern Spain and even France to a lesser degree. In the recent past (may still be) it was also common in China and Japan. While there may be a correlation with religious beliefs, I doubt if that is causation, there seems to be some other factors at work. The extreme concept of Family honor seems to play a very important role in the culture of those nations. This concept of Family pride and honor, coupled with a bit of racial pride just could be the cultural attitudes at the base of this.

Another factor that may play a large part in the culture of those regions is the population density. It seems the Densely populated cities and lack of inhabitable land also plays a part in the formation of this type of culture.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
10-08-2010, 09:27 AM
Grace seeker, after all your time debating and being on this forum, i would have at-least expected you to master the art of debate, not make your stance unclear by popping up with some surprise here and there by trying to "trip up" your opponents with deceit. what do you have to hide? your half-assed debating skills? no need to, we already know this...you made it crystal clear one too many times.


Graceseeker by name, im afraid grace seeker not by nature.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-08-2010, 02:53 PM
Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
Grace seeker, after all your time debating and being on this forum, i would have at-least expected you to master the art of debate, not make your stance unclear by popping up with some surprise here and there by trying to "trip up" your opponents with deceit. what do you have to hide? your half-assed debating skills? no need to, we already know this...you made it crystal clear one too many times.


Graceseeker by name, im afraid grace seeker not by nature.
Since you are having trouble following my line of arguement, I'll spell it out more simply for you:

The specific question of this thread is whether or not there is a double standard in terms of the perception by the non-Muslims world that Muslim women are oppressed by virtue of being "force" to wear the veil, when none one says anything about nuns.

I made my view on that clear by arguing that those who feel this way would be wrong because they make a false assumption, that there is actual coercion going on with respect to what either Muslim women or nuns wear. That such coercion was not demonstrably linked to Islam as a whole because we one could see that it was not a universal practice by Muslim women.

Yet this does not mean that no Muslim women are oppressed. If a woman has a husband who is oppressive, then she is living under oppression. This is true whether a woman is Muslim, Christian, Wiccan or none of the above. So, even though not all Muslim women are oppressed, this does not mean that no Muslim women are oppressed. And though Islam may not see itself as oppressive, sometimes those who do oppress Muslim women do so based on rationale that they cite as being part of their Islamic faith.

When questioned why I felt that, I sided with those who had already contributed the opinion that women and men are not affored equal status in Islam. This led others asking for substantiation of that position. To which I offered the example of honor killings. Now there are other examples beyond this, I believe, but we are presently stuck on this one.

To this point, surely no one can question the sense of logic that is involved. The question then becomes does the presence of honor killings substatiate the position that women and not treated equally with men in Islam. I am willing to stipulate that Islam does, at least in certain passages, teach equality. But I submit that on this issue there may be a difference between creed and praxis. And with regard to oppression, it is the praxis of one's religion that is important.

So, what is the praxis of Islam with regard to honor killings. Well, one could argue that since not all Muslim women are subjected to this, that it proves that Islam as a whole does not condone honor killings. That I have already agreed to. So, all such discussions are a moot point. But I do ask what I think is a very relevant question, since, as it has been argued, Islam specifically forbids such actions, where does it come from? And the answer has been culture.

This answer however is in essence a hypothesis. And in examining that hypothesis, I observed that the actual frequency of the practice of honor killings seemed to directly correlate with the degree of influence of Islam in the culture. And I argue that if Islam really did teach as part of one's praxis (and not just an idealized creed) the equality of men and women, then either there would be as many honor killings of men as there are of women or even in regions where the presence of honor killings was part of the culture, it would be less among Muslim communities than among non-Muslim communities of that same culture. That's a legitimate argument, and for you or anyone else to suggest that it is poor logic or poor debate shows your own lack of ability or an unwillingness to exam Islam rationally.

Fortunately, Woodrow has decided to join the discussion, at least for the moment, and he alone has raised a good counter argument. Mainly he asserts that such correlation doesn't really exist and that honor killings are similarly distributed among non-Muslim communities. He cites places such as southern Europe and India where he claims this same culture exists.

Woodrow, I don't see southern Europe as having that similar of a culture with those countries that are predominately Islamic, can you provide evidence that the practice of honor killings in southern Europe is anywhere near on par with honor killings in Iran or Afghanistan?

I agree that Pakistan and Indian share a common culture. Perhaps it would be good to compare the frequency of honor killings among Muslims and non-Muslims in these two countries to see if religion can be excluded as being part of the equation that leads to honor killings? Do you have any idea as to how we could obtain data to test that hypothesis?

Another way to examine it would be to see if the practice of honor killings increased or decreased in a nation that was once non-Muslim and now is mostly Muslim. Alternately, one could examine the effect of secularlization might have had in a nation that was historically Muslim, but now thought to have become more westernized.
Reply

S.Belle
10-08-2010, 03:45 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Sure, it is culture, not Islam. But why is it that this culture shows itself more in those countries where Islam is the dominate religion and less so in countries where Islam is a minority?
You know Grace Seeker I could actually ask the same about countries that are dominated by Christianity
In the Bible doesnt it say that adulters should be stoned but yet and still in America (and many other Christian dominated countries) the only thing that happens is divorce. And murder is it not suppose to be like an eye for an eye but no men here are just sent to prison for many years and a few are actually given lethal injection, etc.

I suppose it is the opposite with Islam some people are getting too extreme when following the laws of Allah (swt) while Christians are failing at following anything that was prescribe for them when it comes to laws. This type of culture over religion attitude exists everywhere and to pin point it on a specific religion or group of people is not fair.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-08-2010, 04:24 PM
Originally Posted by Mila
You know Grace Seeker I could actually ask the same about countries that are dominated by Christianity
In the Bible doesnt it say that adulters should be stoned but yet and still in America (and many other Christian dominated countries) the only thing that happens is divorce. And murder is it not suppose to be like an eye for an eye but no men here are just sent to prison for many years and a few are actually given lethal injection, etc.

I suppose it is the opposite with Islam some people are getting too extreme when following the laws of Allah (swt) while Christians are failing at following anything that was prescribe for them when it comes to laws. This type of culture over religion attitude exists everywhere and to pin point it on a specific religion or group of people is not fair.
I agree that there are instances of culture obscuring religion everywhere. But culture is also largely formed by religion as well. I believe it was religion that transformed Japan's culture to the point that they were willing to launch Kamikazee attacks or commit Hari Kari. I believe it was religion that resulted in the style of art that dominates the Moorish influenced portions of Spain. I believe it was religion that led to the justification of geneocide of Native Indian populations in America.

And that last is a good illustration of what I am trying to examine with regard to Islam. The desire for Americans of white European descent to ever expand unto Native American lands wasn't the result of religion, that desire was driven by much baser desire, but religion was then used (or maybe we should say misused) to justify it. One has to wonder how the world would be different, if people had remained true to the ideals of their respective religions rather than simply co-opting them to justify their actions. Could Hitler have risen to power if the church in Germany would have stood up to him rather than surrendering to him under the pressure of German pride.

So, I'm not picking on Islam. But I'm not going to leave it unexamined either. Is there something in Islam that sets the stage so that those who for other reasons desire to commit these acts are able to find justification more easily within the context of Islam than if they were in some other environment? Because, despite Woodrow's questioning, what I see is that the coorelation between where these types of honor killings are most frequent and where Islam is the dominant religious influence on the culture of those who commit these crimes is all too close.
Reply

S.Belle
10-09-2010, 12:37 AM
If someone was to commit a honor killing in America (or any other country with a different culture/ religion that doesnt accept honor killings) the person who did the killing would be charge with murder because they (people outside their culture/religion) would consider it to be horrible and maybe even taboo thats why it is more common in Muslim or Hindu countries and not Christian dominated countires.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-09-2010, 04:51 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I know you have heard of what is called honor killings. I quick Google search will turn up literally hundreds of reports. I understand what you say, that Sharia law actually denounces the cases and that most of what is reported as honor killing is downright unIslamic.
Then you already know that the so called honor killings are against the teaching of Islam.


Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Yet, the vast majority of so-called "honor killings" are by people who call themselves followers of Islam and claim that they do so as a function of their faith and religious obligations and therefore cannot be written off as something that is purely cultural.

Did you interview the perpetrators individually and did they tell you that they did the honor killings because Islam told them to?

You know Grace seeker, I don't think you are as stupid as you make out to be, so I will give you a pass on this and I will not mention all the HEINOUS CRIMES that have been done by PRIEST, PASTORS and NUNS in the name of God.
Reply

Pygoscelis
10-09-2010, 05:48 AM
Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
Grace seeker, after all your time debating and being on this forum, i would have at-least expected you to master the art of debate, not make your stance unclear by popping up with some surprise here and there by trying to "trip up" your opponents with deceit. what do you have to hide? your half-assed debating skills? no need to, we already know this...you made it crystal clear one too many times.


Graceseeker by name, im afraid grace seeker not by nature.
Wow really? You're going to go all adhom on Graceseeker of all people? I mean I expect it with me. I say some things that people won't like and I don't sugar coat it. But Graceseeker? Dude is one of the most serene bend over backwards polite people I've ever seen on this forum.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
10-09-2010, 06:46 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Wow really?
yes

You're going to go all adhom on Graceseeker of all people?
yes.

I mean I expect it with me. I say some things that people won't like and I don't sugar coat it. But Graceseeker?
yes

Dude is one of the most serene bend over backwards polite people I've ever seen on this forum.
umm no.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-09-2010, 07:36 AM
In an attempt to answer to the original question; I would be more inclined to say that while muslim women can easily be seen to be oppressed, by secular standards - nuns are repressed.

The reason I say this is because nuns come into their order by choice, as young women - and not in the same way as we see muslim girls being indoctrinated into the ways of Islamic culture from a very young age. Having said that, both christianity and Islam are almost on a par, when it comes to suppressing certain 'natural qualities' of a person, in terms of outward expression through fashion but one must look for the reasons behind each, before making erroneous comparrisons between the two. Thus, it is more than conceivable that the nun comes to her calling as a result of early childhood indoctrination - most likely from a catholic upbringing or Sunday school. In that sense, I suppose you could say that the choice is coloured by her upbringing, in much same way as it has for a young muslim girl, growing up in the free world.

However, one of the major differences you have overlooked, when attempting to conflate catholic nuns with traditional muslim women, is that nuns make the decision to 'marry god' and as such, fall into a sect. They operate in normal society, only through stricly measured restrictions, while the work they carry out is designed to be of a caring and supportive nature to both society and humanity. They take a vow of celibacy and devote themselves to work, in service of that god.

On the other hand, muslim women are subject to arranged marriages and become what the average western observer might percieve of as being in some way 'the property' of the man, within that marriage. Catholic nuns are not subject to 'ownership' in that sense, by men but fall strictly under the institutional laws of the church and of their sect.

To the observer of Islam, it would also appear that the 'choice' has already been made for the girl, whilst somehow forging a masquerade of choice in the matter. The point being that when children are brought up strictly within the confines of Islamic culture, knowing very little outside of that, the question would be: what other other choices are they presented with? So when a muslim woman says she wears the all-encompassing black robes by choice... one is forced to wonder what alternatives are available to her.

Now this brings me to possibly the most important point - that nuns are free to leave their sect if they are deemed 'unsuited' to the life of penance and suffer no ill treatment as a result of leaving. This is in sharp contrast to certain laws in muslim countries, which we have become aware of, in which the penalty for apostasy appears to be clearly defined.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-09-2010, 08:11 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I can say with 100% certainty that ALL of muslim women I know of who wear hijab, ALL of them wear hijab out of their own conscience and free will and NO ONE forced them too.

What would you say is the cause of such a conscience?
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
10-09-2010, 10:34 AM
very interesting conclusions, Ezekiel_B .so basically what you are implying and saying is that since the nun decided to become a nun-then Catholicism has forced her not to get married and bear children?
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
10-09-2010, 11:38 AM
Since you are having trouble following my line of arguement, I'll spell it out more simply for you:
Well it’s just as well you did that, since your line of argument makes no sense.

your argument about honor killing has no place since 1) that wasn’t what was being discussed and 2) you dragged it into the discussion in desperation to back your baseless allegation about so called inequality in Islam...more about that later, but my point is You don’t spring surprises like that when debating, it’s plain and simple ignorance.

About your pathetic attempt at shooting down Islam, you use honour killings despite the fact that it was explained to you that both men and women in Islam receive the same punishment for adultery. Not only that, you (in the very same post mind you) actually acknowledged that honor killings have nothing to do with Islam.

But wait a min aren’t you using cultural practices as your yardstick to judge Islam, even though you admit that honor killings have no place in Islam. Right on, genius.

Oh but then you make it sound as if you are so stupid and don't realize this
Yet, the vast majority of so-called "honor killings" are by people who call themselves followers of Islam and claim that they do so as a function of their faith and religious obligations and therefore cannot be written off as something that is purely cultural.
1) Even though you admit that it is (purely cultural)? Ok then, whatever floats your boat.
2) Who said that Muslims implement honor killings as to implement that part of Islam. Weird, I've never heard any such jargon from any muslim. Hell i cant even recall such statements from non-muslims.

Another loophole and claim not backed up with evidence.

Yes the punishment for adultery (for the married) is death but by the same token does that mean christens are blood sucking, un-sympathizing murdered since they worship a man who was dragged and nail to across praying for god to save him? Going by your logic, could i conclude the same?

Errr no, i don't think i can.
Reply

Woodrow
10-09-2010, 11:49 AM
It is all very simple, a Nun is not seen as oppressed because she is covering out of religious convictions while a Musilima is seen as oppressed because she covers out of religious convictions. More simple explanation, just call it what it is "Double Standards".

I think the difficulty for non-Muslims is they see Nuns as doing so out of love for God(swt), but fail to see that Musilimas are also doing so out of love of Allaah(swt)

They also forget that all people of the Abrahamic faiths have received the same commandment for all women to cover. Perhaps some think that because some women cover that fulfills the command for all women.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-09-2010, 11:50 AM
Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
very interesting conclusions, Ezekiel_B .so basically what you are implying and saying is that since the nun decided to become a nun-then Catholicism has forced her not to get married and bear children?
That's a rather simplistic reasoning on your part, Ummu. As you should be able to deduce - the nun is (apparently) not being forced into anything but has accepted the rammifications of her path. Rather, the path she has chosen, by virtue of it's very nature, does not include taking a partner or bearing children. It would defeat the purpose of her goal, but I think our use of the word 'forcing' is inaccurate and not one I would attach to catholic nuns as readily as I would to the traditional muslim way of treating females. Obligated by a pressured consience and subject to mysognistic tradition... perhaps! Don't forget, the catholic religion is just as sexist as Islam - yet still - to the best of my knowledge, there doesn't appear to be any looming danger of an ex-nun being stoned to death, for leaving her sect or disobeying orders. We know there is a tradition of self-flagellation within the catholic church, so it stands to reason, most punishments will be consentual and neither fatal nor injurous!

However, my conclusion is quite without reference to what *might* go on behind closed doors. We have come to expect some deviation within the realms of the catholic church and who knows what the little minxes get up to after evening prayers, possibly even under the direction of the mother superior - and who knows who (or what) gets forced into the holiest of holys...?

I cannot and will not try to fit this broad overview to individual circumstances because I'm neither related to, nor otherwise directly associated with any nuns... It's just a fantas...er I mean... a set of observations, you understand. :shade:
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-09-2010, 12:01 PM
So there you have it! You can say nuns are suppressed if you want, or you can say they are simply making choices. You can say the same about muslim women wrapped up in black robes... Any patriarchal religion hailing from the middle east (and in this I DO include christianity - as a modified form of Judaism) is oppressive, in some form, towards females. It stands to reason; the evidence of which, virtually inarguable.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-09-2010, 12:16 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
It is all very simple, a Nun is not seen as oppressed because she is covering out of religious convictions while a Musilima is seen as oppressed because she covers out of religious convictions. More simple explanation, just call it what it is "Double Standards".
Again - very over-simplified reasoning. You can call it "double standards" if you want, but I think it is more accurate to say that the suppression of a persons will is a matter of degree, which certainly appears to differ between the two religions.

Another difference would be that the muslim women you're talking about are ordinary citizens, whereas nuns are of a specialised order, which is not only entered into voluntarily, but is also strictly regulated in terms of who can join. They must qualify to gain a position in the covent, through a series of tests, which can take many years (depending on the order) but, as I have come to understand it, muslim women are simply born into their tradition and live it through, quite as a matter of routine.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
10-09-2010, 12:20 PM
Thank you, really. for expanding and explaining my point.

Yes as a nun she chose to, thus she forfeits her will for a husband/child which means she has given up children/husband.

Same with being a Muslim once you choose to be a Muslim, you forfeit whatever it goes against it and will get punished accordingly for doing so- like the nun who gets “punished” and deprived of a husband and child for willingly giving up her natural instincts to serve god.

i hope that is clear.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-09-2010, 12:36 PM
Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
Thank you, really. for expanding and explaining my point.

Yes as a nun she chose to, thus she forfeits her will for a husband/child which means she has given up children/husband.

Same with being a Muslim once you choose to be a Muslim, you forfeit whatever it goes against it and will get punished accordingly for doing so- like the nun who gets “punished” and deprived of a husband and child for willingly giving up her natural instincts to serve god.

i hope that is clear.
Ah! Yes... I see what you mean, Ummu. Yes, perfectly clear, thankyou.

In a sense it is a form of 'symbolic punishment' I suppose. More importantly, I assume you are talking about people who have decided to convert to Islam? Well - and correct me if I'm wrong; I guess when this occurs in the Western world, we may be seeing more mitigated forms of the laws in practice? Largely due to the laws of the land they happen to be in at the time. I suppose I should ask: in a so called 'muslim state', how much freedom do you feel is available to you in these matters? I'm genuinely interested to know.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
10-09-2010, 01:16 PM
I suppose I should ask: in a so called 'muslim state', how much freedom do you feel is available to you in these matters? I'm genuinely interested to know.
counter question: how much freedom do i have in a western/non-Islamic state?

could i talk about matters (for example) warfare, or anything that is considered (to that particular law) to violate the general safety and the safety of the citizens of that state? would i be allowed to give my wealth towards a cause which may harm the existence of that state and the well being of its citizens?

what if i preached for men to rape women? would that be acceptable?
what about if i was all for drink driving?
how about if i plotted to kill the head of that state? would that be acceptable?


by living in that state i
1) know/agree to its laws and know/agree what will happen me if i violate those laws.
2) im fully aware of what that law approves of and what it doesn't approve of, which im guessing that since im a citizen of that state, i would know what is acceptable and what isn't.

thus

it is MY fault only if i get punished since everything has been made clear to me and i choose to violate that law.


what would become of me? would i not get punished accordingly? if i was that much of a threat, wouldn't i be exiled or something to that affect?

if i dont like that state, its time i pick myself up and go elsewhere. there is no point or justice on my part if i stay there, whilst 1) it is been made clear to me that what im allowed/not allowed to do and 2) i have violated the laws
it is completely my fault if i stay here and argue that it is unjust of that state to hand down its law though when i chosen to accept it.

do you know why america is in iraq? do you know why so many of my brohters and sisters are locked up in prisnors? becuase the events that had lead to the war in Iraq and the actions of those prisoner as considered to be a threat/violation of the American law.

p.s i don't believe the war in iraq is justified nor do i believe that those prisoners are guilty..thats a different topic for a different time, but i used it as an ex maple expand on my point.
Reply

GreyKode
10-09-2010, 01:19 PM
Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
very interesting conclusions, Ezekiel_B .so basically what you are implying and saying is that since the nun decided to become a nun-then Catholicism has forced her not to get married and bear children?
Indeed lucky her, she has truly become free from the clutches of marraige.
Reply

Woodrow
10-09-2010, 01:38 PM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Ah! Yes... I see what you mean, Ummu. Yes, perfectly clear, thankyou.

In a sense it is a form of 'symbolic punishment' I suppose. More importantly, I assume you are talking about people who have decided to convert to Islam? Well - and correct me if I'm wrong; I guess when this occurs in the Western world, we may be seeing more mitigated forms of the laws in practice? Largely due to the laws of the land they happen to be in at the time. I suppose I should ask: in a so called 'muslim state', how much freedom do you feel is available to you in these matters? I'm genuinely interested to know.
Well I am pleased you call it (a so called 'Muslim state') as no true Islamic state exists today and I agree in some of those states abuses do occur. But not on the level the media would have people believe. There is considerable freedom for women in these 'oppressed' states. Perhaps one day you will have the opportunity to travel throughout the Mideast and see the reality not the sensationalism of the media.

We have several women from Islamic Nations as members on this forum, perhaps some of them will notice this thread and give you their views.
Reply

Pygoscelis
10-09-2010, 03:46 PM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Another difference would be that the muslim women you're talking about are ordinary citizens, whereas nuns are of a specialised order, which is not only entered into voluntarily, but is also strictly regulated in terms of who can join. They must qualify to gain a position in the covent, through a series of tests, which can take many years (depending on the order) but, as I have come to understand it, muslim women are simply born into their tradition and live it through, quite as a matter of routine.
^ I think that is the key difference here.

Although it has happened in history that children are forced into convents and forced to be nuns, its has been rare and was never the norm for christians. Muslims on the other hand are indoctrinated as young children before they have developed the capacity to make a meaningful choice about it, and the head covering thing applies (or seemingly applies) to everybody and not just the special order as you mentioned.

As I said before though, I really don't think anybody should see wearing a clothing item (or not wearing clothing items) as oppression. There are a lot of misapprehensions about this in both directions (as the part a few pages ago about burka vs nudist showed).

I think the misapprehension regarding the muslima has more to do with the image of Islam as a whole in modern day than the fact that a hat/mask is being worn. I don't think many of us cared about hajib/birka before 9/11 and 7/7 and all the resulting anti-muslim hysteria.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-09-2010, 04:09 PM
I see, so what you're saying is really that you're happy to abide by those Islamic dress laws and forego dressing like a scantily clad harlot, in return for a sense of pride and dignity. Well, I must say...! It's rather hard to knock! :) So it seems no sister of Islam has any real interest in attracting men other than her husband. Again - what can I say against that!? Nothing. Now, I hear that women of Islam may dress sexy at home, before their own husband only. So it seems as though you can appreciate what it is like to wear nice clothes - except you prefer to keep that in a private context. But, what I'm interested to know - is there any penalty (apart from inner shame) given to those who decide they would like to wear more revealing clothes on the street?

I say this, because I have spoken to some gentlemen of Islamic faith in my area and they seems quite convinced that the average western woman is dressed like a cheap **** (as they put it). We're not talking about skirts so short that they show the knickers or bra-less wonders who seem to be popping out tea-bag sized tops... no. They seemed to be implying that because my girlfriend likes to adorn her figure with beautiful dark, gothic ballgowns and take full advantage of her cleavage and her attractive features with make-up, that she is somehow acting like a prostitute! Now, I'm a reasonable man - she is still dressed very decently, even by all conservative standards... so I managed to laugh it off... but some people might not see the funny side and land the fellow one on the nose, for his cheek!

I did not say "get out of the country if you don't like it" or any words to that effect, as I wished not to show him I was offended - or even bothered by his opinion. I don't think it was very nice - especially since my lady is a most honourable woman, who has eyes only for me. Also, I trust the gentlemen in my own peer group not to try and interfere with her, either. Why would they? They respect her as their friend.

So you see, in secular society, much of the issue of 'lust' is governed by the individual's self control, sense of respect and what we call 'common decency'. It's innate. I actually refuse to believe that asian men are all drooling lust-bags, who would suddenly become uncontrollable sexual animals, were they to suddenly behold a fair (or dark) maiden strutting her fun-bags before their eyes. I am convinced they must have enough self control and honour, to behave as gentlemen. So I find it rather interesting that laws like this might come about at all, in the first place. I'm familiar with sexual repression, obviously, as I have in the past also been surrounded by christians, who think rather much the same, only to a much lesser degree, when it comes to the lengths they will go to cover their bodies.

But if that's how you choose to dress, then who am I to critisize? Maybe sometimes, it is what you don't see, which makes things more exciting? Perhaps we, in the west, have become somewhat numbed by the onslaught of constant sexual titilation? I mean, everywhere you go, in western society, we are being bombarded with sex - because it sells. I don't, however, personally believe that it is this which increases the dangers of rape, though there have been certain women in our secular society in the past saying that using the sexual charms of females to aid advertising is exploiting women and igniting the passions of dangerous predators. You see, even we non-religious secular people are often very divided on this issue, amongst ourselves!

Personally, I think, statistically, I could get knocked down by a truck whilst crossing the road at any time and that life is dangerous as a by product of living it to the full. I wouldn't stay indoors just to avoid such a probability. I could just as easily have an accident at home. Therefore, I think it is much the same with sex crime in the western cities. I don't actually believe that a full hijab would deter a man, where he to be so determined to commit rape.

But there we have it. I know we're talking about values here, rather than these dangers - but I suppose those values must come from somewhere...

Anway, thank you for a most interesting and informative chat. It's been a pleasure talking with you!
Reply

Muslim Woman
10-09-2010, 05:11 PM
Salaam/Peace



edited
Reply

Muslim Woman
10-09-2010, 05:17 PM
Salaam/Peace



"EVER WONDER WHY?"

Why a Jew can grow his beard and he is just practicing his faith and he has his freedom?
But when Muslim does the same, he is an extremist and terrorist!


Why a nun can be covered from head to toe and she is respected for devoting her self to God?

But when Muslimah does the same she oppressed and they are reactionary!

When a western women stays at home to look after her house and kids she is respected because of sacrificing herself and doing good for the household?

But when a Muslim woman does so by her Will, because Islam don't prevent Muslim women from work they say, "she needs to be liberated"!

full post here :
http://www.ezsoftech.com/akram/poem3.asp

http://english.islamway.com/flashpag...=550&hight=400
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-09-2010, 07:22 PM
Or for that matter, every wonder why...
When a Christian critiques his own faith, he is finally honest and there is feigned surprise that he has admitted that it is somehow less than perfect?

But when a Christian critiques Islam or asks questions of it, he is making up things, talking about culture not Islam, arrogant, guilty of "springing surprises", and practicing Islamaphobia?
Reply

Predator
10-09-2010, 07:47 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Or for that matter, every wonder why...
When a Christian critiques his own faith, he is finally honest and there is feigned surprise that he has admitted that it is somehow less than perfect?

But when a Christian critiques Islam or asks questions of it, he is making up things, talking about culture not Islam, arrogant, guilty of "springing surprises", and practicing Islamaphobia?

Exactly . Islam is the based on both faith and proof and the religion of truth, and its laws and solutions are applicable to all the ages. The Qur’an is the only religious book on the face of the earth without contradictions and which has maintained its purity and authenticity proving itself to be the word of God in all the ages and there would never be another group of people that can "show a candle" to Muslims in morality, brotherhood, piety , sobriety , ethics, hygiene and hospitality
Reply

Ramadhan
10-09-2010, 08:05 PM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
The reason I say this is because nuns come into their order by choice, as young women - and not in the same way as we see muslim girls being indoctrinated into the ways of Islamic culture from a very young age.
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Although it has happened in history that children are forced into convents and forced to be nuns, its has been rare and was never the norm for christians. Muslims on the other hand are indoctrinated as young children before they have developed the capacity to make a meaningful choice about it, and the head covering thing applies (or seemingly applies) to everybody and not just the special order as you mentioned.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys have ACTUALLY met a muslim AT ALL since your opinions about muslims in general, and especially in this case about hijab-wearing muslimah are so uninformed and erroneous.
Did you guys not read my previous post about hijab-wearing muslimah in Indonesia?

Most muslimah in Indonesia started wearing hijab in the past 10-15 years, so that means most muslimah who are wearing hijab today made the conscious decision when they were already adult. Example: my own mother started wearing hijab when she was 44, and that was after my father died (so you non-muslims cannot say that my father forced to wear hijab).
Another example: last week one of my work colleagues also started wearing hijab, she was not "indoctrinased to wear hijab when she was little".
She used to be one of those "party girls" who I urged to study Islam in depth and alhamdulillaah she is now a much better person and much better muslimah.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
On the other hand, muslim women are subject to arranged marriages and become what the average western observer might percieve of as being in some way 'the property' of the man, within that marriage.
I was born a muslim, i have very large extended family (my father has a total of 11 siblings and mother 8) in the LARGEST muslim country in the world, and I have never heard a muslimah whom I know personally who have been subjected to arranged marriages.
I am surprised that you know something about islam and muslims that I do not know of, or maybe it is all in your imagination?
Maybe you should check with your local psychiatrist?

Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
To the observer of Islam, it would also appear that the 'choice' has already been made for the girl, whilst somehow forging a masquerade of choice in the matter. The point being that when children are brought up strictly within the confines of Islamic culture, knowing very little outside of that, the question would be: what other other choices are they presented with? So when a muslim woman says she wears the all-encompassing black robes by choice... one is forced to wonder what alternatives are available to her.
You know what, in this so called "modern" world, even in the largest muslim country in the world, peple are bombardised by images through magazines, televisions, popular cultures etc whcih shows women how to dress (or rather how to undress). Especially in the western world, when you say there is choice, there is actually not much choice. since little girls, the women in the western countries through popular culture are conditioned and indoctrinised what to dress (sexy is better), how to dress (or undress), how to behave (like a *****), so you see that women who wear very very modest clothes in the west are normally not very popular and most consider them strange or weird.
And this even applies in most cases (especially in big cities) in Indonesia, so you see that if a woman decide to wear hijab, it actually shows more her strength, her resolute and her INDEPENDENCE rathen than succumbing to what society (or pop culture) dictate.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
This is in sharp contrast to certain laws in muslim countries, which we have become aware of, in which the penalty for apostasy appears to be clearly defined.
and what is that? I actually know one or two "muslims" who apostated because of marriage, and I know a number of poor muslims who apostated because of economic reasons but nothing happened to them.
I live in the LARGEST MUSLIM COUNTRY in the world, by the way.
Reply

S.Belle
10-09-2010, 08:15 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Or for that matter, every wonder why...
When a Christian critiques his own faith, he is finally honest and there is feigned surprise that he has admitted that it is somehow less than perfect?

But when a Christian critiques Islam or asks questions of it, he is making up things, talking about culture not Islam, arrogant, guilty of "springing surprises", and practicing Islamaphobia?
That is because Islam is perfect there is no need to question every aspect of it all one needs to do is pick up the Quran or read a hadith about a certain question one has and you will easily find it. It is your choice on whether or not to believe and accept it.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-09-2010, 08:29 PM
Originally Posted by Mila
That is because Islam is perfect there is no need to question every aspect of it all one needs to do is pick up the Quran or read a hadith about a certain question one has and you will easily find it. It is your choice on whether or not to believe and accept it.
I agree.
I always read about one the most common reasons why a person left christianity:
the more they ask about christiniaty, the more questions they get (instead of answers)
Hence most atheists and agnostics we have today are former christians (I'm sure most of our resident atheist and agnostics were born christians)

while in Islam, the more you study islam with sincerity, the more it makes perfect sense.
Reply

S.Belle
10-09-2010, 08:41 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I agree.
I always read about one the most common reasons why a person left christianity:
the more they ask about christiniaty, the more questions they get (instead of answers)
yes that is why I left Christanity Islam made more sense and it isnot only a religion but a way of life I didnt feel that way with Christanity
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2010, 03:10 AM
Originally Posted by Mila
yes that is why I left Christanity Islam made more sense and it isnot only a religion but a way of life I didnt feel that way with Christanity
How is it that you were taught or came to feel that Christianity was NOT a way of life?
Reply

Muslim Woman
10-10-2010, 03:16 AM
Salaam/Peace

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
....But when a Christian critiques Islam or asks questions of it, he is making up things,
pl. give specific examples. Sometimes I read news that non-Muslims claim to ban Quran because it has verses on war & kiling. I never saw media mention that Torah , Bible have more verses on war & killing.

Media condemn Islam for polygamy as if Quran started it. Media/ non-Muslims never say that many Prophets pbut and their respected figures also had more than one wife.

Always Muslims husbands torture wives but when women in the west are abused , it's not the fault of non-Muslim men.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2010, 04:38 AM
Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
Salaam/Peace



pl. give specific examples.
Examples of what? That when a Christian asks questions of Islam that he is accused of making things up.

Sure, I think this qualifies as being accused of making things up:

Originally Posted by naidamar
how can a pastor spew lies?

And what is my supposed lie? Asking this question:
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Then why is it that there is such a discrepancy in actual practice?
And don't tell me that it is a lie. I'm asking why Islam teaches one thing and yet we see another thing practiced. Woodrow even confessed that we do see other things practiced:

Originally Posted by Woodrow
Peace Gene,
actually if Shariah law was followed, it would be virtually impossible to find sufficient proof to stone a man or woman for adultery. Sadly stonings do occur, although not legal under shariah but legalized by some nations and by vigilante type groups. As best as can be determined not one person has ever been legally stoned for adultery under shariah. But [people] have been [stoned] under state law calling itself shariah.
I think the question remains valid. Why, where Islam is most dominant, so much so that nations enact laws that they claim represent shariah law (even though Woodrow says they don't really), why does the practice not keep with what everyone here says is true Islamic teaching? Especially when, Islam is not just a creed, but a way of life. Isn't to do those things that are diameterically opposed to the teachings of Islam to by not just unsubmissive, but down right rebellious toward Allah? How can such things be condoned in a state that claims to be attempting to enforce at least portions of shariah law? The actions and the words don't jibe.

And as far as men and women being treated equally, in 2002 alone, over 382 people, about 245 women and 137 men, became victims of honor killings in the Sindh province of Pakistan. Though it would seem that both genders are equally culpable, I suppose this discrpenancy should not be understood as unequal treatment, but just the result of women being twice as easy to catch as men. When, in 2005, a bill was proposed in Pakistan that would strengthen legislation against honor killings the parliament rejected the bill by a majority vote, "declaring it to be un-Islamic." (source: BBC News, 2 March 2005)

Jordan, considered one of the most liberal countries in the Middle East still witnesses instances of honor killings. In Jordan there is minimal gender discrimination and women are permitted to vote, but men receive reduced sentences for killing their wives or female family members if they have brought dishonor to their family. Rana Husseini, a leading journalist on the topic of honor killings, states that “under the existing law, people found guilty of committing honor killings often receive sentences as light as six months in prison”. (source: Rueters AlertNet 18 April 2005)

According to the Christian Science Monitor (March 2005) honor crimes account for 1/3 of all violent deaths in Jordan. And though they are done to restore what is supposedly lost honor to the family, over 70% of all female victims of such crimes are discovered in post-mortem to be virgins.

Sheikh Atiyyah Saqr, former head of the al-Azhar University in Amman told IRIN "it was a cultural practice that falsely interprets religion to allow murder to be justified. So, although Islam does not sanction such killings, most honour crimes occur in Muslim societies." (source: Reuters) You see, it is not just my opinion that there is a wedding of culture and religion that is producing this outcome, and I would think Muslims would want to address, not deny it.

But some seem to think that the responsibility lays with women more than men:
"Women adulterers cause a great threat to our society because they are the main reason that such acts take place," said Mohammed Kharabsheh, a Jordanian parliamentarian said. "If men do not find women with whom to commit adultery, then they will become good on their own."
I submit that such views, if held by society at large, would be a form of oppression.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
10-10-2010, 06:03 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Or for that matter, every wonder why...
When a Christian critiques his own faith, he is finally honest and there is feigned surprise that he has admitted that it is somehow less than perfect?
yes, becuase Islam is the truth.

But when a Christian critiques Islam or asks questions of it, he is making up things, talking about culture not Islam, arrogant, guilty of "springing surprises", and practicing Islamaphobia?
Wrong. When a christian doesn't sincerely and genuinely care to ask for about it, but rather comes along thinking they know everything, couldn't care less for explanations and throws indirect insults
that's when they will get disputed with. However when Christians actually bother to ask politely (you might not recognize it here, that "breed" of Christians is rather rare on this forum) then likewise, you will be met with politeness.

as long as you keep u p your haughty attitude, then no prizes for guessing whats going to happen.
Reply

titus
10-10-2010, 06:05 AM
That is because Islam is perfect there is no need to question every aspect of it all one needs to do is pick up the Quran or read a hadith about a certain question one has and you will easily find it.
Easily find it?

Then why the need for scholars to answer questions? Scholars aren't a luxury in Islam, they are a necessity, and the reason is because the answers are not easy to find, and in fact they often disagree with each other.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-10-2010, 06:10 AM
Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
"EVER WONDER WHY?" Why a Jew can grow his beard and he is just practicing his faith and he has his freedom? But when Muslim does the same, he is an extremist and terrorist!

And how often does that occur?

Ever wonder why... when I wear a long, black leather trenchcoat and I am just exercising my taste in fashion, I am a satanist and possibly a potential 'Columbine-style' shot-gun killer...?

I have myself been on the receiving end of such irrational association by christians, and muslims alike...

Looking at the above paragraph it appears muslims and christians are both as guilty of prejudice as any person of the mixed west who has not sat down to study the issues or considered the statistical evidence of just how many people with long beards are plotting to plant bombs and how many people in leather trench coats actually want to kill them with a shotgun or sodomize their children, in the name of Satan.

If you live in the west you must be prepared to sometimes encounter those of lesser education and social understanding. Nowhere on earth is perfect, though I sometimes wish it could be different. What you are experiencing is the result of mixing people from differing cultures and appearances together, in one place.

Sometimes, all we can do is weigh the disadvantages of living in a free and mixed society, with it's benefits; perhaps, in the same way as we would weigh the beauty & solitude of the desert with it's scarcity of fresh water.

How often do you and I hear the prejudicial cries of false accusation, brought on by our appearance? Is it every day? Every week? Once a month? Or does it vary enough to suggest there will always be a minority of ill-educated souls who find it hard to seperate tabloid rhetoric from actual truth and statistical evidence?

It is interesting, is it not, to discover that belief, without evidence.... is everywhere.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
10-10-2010, 06:11 AM
Then why the need for scholars to answer questions? Scholars aren't a luxury in Islam, they are a necessity, and the reason is because the answers are not easy to find, and in fact they scholars often disagree with each other.
the scholars are used to explain if you will, what Islam is to the laymen/ordinary Muslim. how, as a laymen, are you going to know what a verse or hadith means without the proper knowledge? the verse and hadith are in Arabic and i doubt even a native Arab would understand what they are supposed to mean. thats what the scholar is there for. ordinary folk don't understand this type of things.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-10-2010, 06:20 AM
So why don't you point out to them, that the terrorists aboard flights AA 11 & 175 were clean shaven? :rolleyes:
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
10-10-2010, 07:14 AM
^i dont get it.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-10-2010, 10:09 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I submit that such views, if held by society at large, would be a form of oppression.
Wow... did you have to go search for some obscure jordanian parliamentarian to support your view that Islam oppress women?

really?

Do you want to play this game?

Would you like me to unearth tons of unbeliavable comments from US congress members that I can easily attribute to christianity because the said members are christians?

And I thought PASTORS have better things to do?

Or is this really befitting of a pastor and actually a better example of them?
Reply

Ramadhan
10-10-2010, 10:12 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
nd what is my supposed lie? Asking this question:
Quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker View Post
Then why is it that there is such a discrepancy in actual practice?
And don't tell me that it is a lie. I'm asking why Islam teaches one thing and yet we see another thing practiced. Woodrow even confessed that we do see other things practiced:
Does christianity teach how to sexually abuse little children?
Reply

Ramadhan
10-10-2010, 10:16 AM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
And how often does that occur?

Ever wonder why... when I wear a long, black leather trenchcoat and I am just exercising my taste in fashion, I am a satanist and possibly a potential 'Columbine-style' shot-gun killer...?

I have myself been on the receiving end of such irrational association by christians, and muslims alike...

Looking at the above paragraph it appears muslims and christians are both as guilty of prejudice as any person of the mixed west who has not sat down to study the issues or considered the statistical evidence of just how many people with long beards are plotting to plant bombs and how many people in leather trench coats actually want to kill them with a shotgun or sodomize their children, in the name of Satan.

If you live in the west you must be prepared to sometimes encounter those of lesser education and social understanding. Nowhere on earth is perfect, though I sometimes wish it could be different. What you are experiencing is the result of mixing people from differing cultures and appearances together, in one place.

Sometimes, all we can do is weigh the disadvantages of living in a free and mixed society, with it's benefits; perhaps, in the same way as we would weigh the beauty & solitude of the desert with it's scarcity of fresh water.

How often do you and I hear the prejudicial cries of false accusation, brought on by our appearance? Is it every day? Every week? Once a month? Or does it vary enough to suggest there will always be a minority of ill-educated souls who find it hard to seperate tabloid rhetoric from actual truth and statistical evidence?

It is interesting, is it not, to discover that belief, without evidence.... is everywhere.

It is interesting to note that you commited the exact crime you accuse others of doing (prejudice etc) when you, based on your ignorance, arrogance said things about hijab-wearing women without evidence, and which by the way, I have disproved in my previous post but yet you conveniently did not dare to touch.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-10-2010, 11:32 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
On the other hand, muslim women are subject to arranged marriages and become what the average western observer might percieve of as being in some way 'the property' of the man, within that marriage.
I was born a muslim, i have very large extended family (my father has a total of 11 siblings and mother 8) in the LARGEST muslim country in the world, and I have never heard a muslimah whom I know personally who have been subjected to arranged marriages.
I am surprised that you know something about islam and muslims that I do not know of, or maybe it is all in your imagination?
Maybe you should check with your local psychiatrist?
Why do you assume my local psychiatrist knows anything about muslim culture?

I'm sorry, but we hear all the time about arranged marriages in Islamic culture. Just by reading my posts, you should be able to detect that I can only bring to the table what I have heard and been told. You should be able to see this, by the way I say "it appears" and "it is perceived". If I am incorrect, then inform me of my error. You're doing very well, then you go and say something completely stupid, suggesting I need to consult a mental health professional. Psychiatrists aren't employed to inform us on cultural matters, are they?!

If you want to debate with me then you need to represent your brothers and sisters by showing intelligence and integrity. Don't assume that everyone of what you consider to be an 'opposing' culture is automatically charmed by it. We have many complaints about western pop culture, our government's policies and our education system.

If it's true that arranged marriages form no part of Islamic culture at all, then I would be delighted to hear it. I only have the internet, media and word of mouth, as it seems you do, concerning knowledge of our western culture - which, unfortunately, this board will not allow me to share right now (???). It's not just the initial arrangement which concerns me but some of the duties which participants are called upon for in marriage and it's not only muslim attitudes to marriage and courtship I'm talking about - I see similar things in christianity. So perhaps you could put me right on that?

Originally Posted by naidamar
Originally Posted by Ezekel_B
To the observer of Islam, it would also appear that the 'choice' has already been made for the girl, whilst somehow forging a masquerade of choice in the matter. The point being that when children are brought up strictly within the confines of Islamic culture, knowing very little outside of that, the question would be: what other other choices are they presented with? So when a muslim woman says she wears the all-encompassing black robes by choice... one is forced to wonder what alternatives are available to her.
You know what, in this so called "modern" world, even in the largest muslim country in the world, peple are bombardised by images through magazines, televisions, popular cultures etc whcih shows women how to dress (or rather how to undress).
And this even applies in most cases (especially in big cities) in Indonesia, so you see that if a woman decide to wear hijab, it actually shows more her strength, her resolute and her INDEPENDENCE rathen than succumbing to what society (or pop culture) dictate.
I think you mean: "bombarded".

I'm afraid you're pointing out the obvious to me. I could add to that by saying that our girls are also bombarded with images of the 'right weight' or dress size they should be, in order to be popular and successful in life. This is where anorexia nervosa stems from in a frightening number of cases. Trying to conform to the 'norm'. Don't tell me about this - I'm perfectly aware of these problems in 'popular culture' and I make no attempt to defend it, but actually fight against it, as I believe all people should.

However, I'm not sure you've addressed my point sufficiently, merely by offering a counter-stab at my culture. You say she shows 'strength' and you emphasise 'independence' but independent from what? From pop culture, yes... but if she is dressing according to Islamic rules (or guidelines) that can hardly be described as 'independent', can it?

Originally Posted by naidamar
Especially in the western world, when you say there is choice, there is actually not much choice. since little girls, the women in the western countries through popular culture are conditioned and indoctrinised what to dress (sexy is better), how to dress (or undress), how to behave (like a *****)
Well, actually there IS a choice... it all depends on how resistant you are to advertising and other forms of secular indoctrination. The same goes for religious indoctrination. As someone who has raised many a conservative eyebrow in his youth for his own dress sense, I can tell you there is a choice... it all depends on the value a person puts on their own individualism, whether you care enough to make it. Far too many people are blinkered into a notion of 'normality' but at the end of the day, there is always a grudging respect for a person who stands up for their own style and dares to be different. Can you always say these things about any religious culture, where purity and goodness is interpreted through dress?

Originally Posted by naidamar
so you see that women who wear very very modest clothes in the west are normally not very popular and most consider them strange or weird.
Well, actually, you're wrong. At least, it's not the case in my experience. In the same way as you suggest I've imagined the idea of arranged marriages, it appears you have created your own notion about western attitudes to conservative dress. At the very least, it's not really noticed or commented on by as many as you think. There will always be people who mock others for their appearance, but in the general scheme of things, a lady who dresses modestly is not generally considered 'weird'. In fact, it's quite the opposite. If a person dresses inappropropiately for a certain occasion, they may be looked upon as a little 'strange'. As it happens, there are many TV fashion programs which offer advice on how NOT to appear too 'tarty'. It's not all about dressing sexy - it's often just as much about style and elegance. Others will insist, it is a matter of taste. Do you know what they means?

There is in fact, a TV show here in the UK, called "Snog, marry, avoid?" in which female contestants are chosen for their outlandishly revealing dress-sense and offered more 'stylish' alternatives to avoid being percieved as 'tarty'. Of course, it's just a bit of fun, but all the same, the message this show gives out, is that men are more likely to find a girl attractive when she has a mature sense of style, rather than offering everything on a plate, with ridiculously short skirts and low-cut tops. In many cases, too revealing an outfit is more often laughed at, than respected. Men may find it arousing, but that doesn't always mean they will consider her 'girlfriend material' for the long haul.

Of course, having said all that, if you happen to consider that a dress that shows off the figure or a shows a woman's legs up to the knee, is in some way 'sinful' then most of what I have said will be lost on you. It all depends on having a balanced view and of understanding people's motives, rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to what you see around you. Conflating dress sense with a 'looseness of morality' would be as much a mistake as reading beards as a sign of bomb-manufacture.

Originally Posted by naidamar
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
This is in sharp contrast to certain laws in muslim countries, which we have become aware of, in which the penalty for apostasy appears to be clearly defined.
and what is that? I actually know one or two "muslims" who apostated because of marriage, and I know a number of poor muslims who apostated because of economic reasons but nothing happened to them.
I live in the LARGEST MUSLIM COUNTRY in the world, by the way.
You know "one or two..."? My, that's a straw poll if ever I saw one. Now come on... You know what I am talking about. Are you seriously trying to tell me that Qu-ranic writings say nothing about apostacy arousing the consternation of Allah? If this source is incorrect, then please correct it for me.... I'm open minded. I'm only trying to get to the truth here.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
"The Qur'an states that God (in Arabic, Allah) despises apostasy, with severe punishment to be imposed in the hereafter. Except 16:106-109, the verses that discuss apostasy all appear in surahs identified as Madinan and belong to the period when the Islamic state had been established so they are not there because of any "need of time."

Sunni hadith
Some Sunni scholars claim that the Hadith sanction the death penalty for apostasy, thereby explicitly condemning the act. Examples of such passages in the Sahih al-Bukhari include Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260, Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:57, Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:58 and Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:271.

"Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17..."
-------------------------------------------------------
I am aware that Wikipedia can often contain inaccurate material, so if the above is incorrect, then now is your opportunity to re-educate me and set the record straight.... yes?
Reply

Ramadhan
10-10-2010, 11:59 AM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Qu-ranic writings say nothing about apostacy arousing the consternation of Allah? If this source is incorrect, then please correct it for me.... I'm open minded. I'm only trying to get to the truth here.
I am not aware of any particular punishment for apostacy in the Qur'an. I am referring to your previous post, by the way.
This is what you wrote:
This is in sharp contrast to certain laws in muslim countries, which we have become aware of, in which the penalty for apostasy appears to be clearly defined.
Please enlighten me as to what is the clearly defined punishment according to the Qur'an.

By the way, you seem to know the Qur'an a lot more than I do to have such a strong opinion about it.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-10-2010, 12:09 PM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
If it's true that arranged marriages form no part of Islamic culture at all, then I would be delighted to hear it.
There is no such thing as "Islamic culture". Islam is a way of life.
There is local culture, and then there is a way of life prescribed by Islam.
as long as the local culture does not contradict or break Islamic jurisprudence, then it is allowed.
In Islam, there is no compulsion, and a marriage can only take place if both the bride and the groom agree to a marriage.
I'm still not sure what you mean by "arranged marriage".
But I personally don't know anyone whose marriage has been "arranged".
In "arranged marriage", do the woman have a say?

Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Just by reading my posts, you should be able to detect that I can only bring to the table what I have heard and been told.
I can only assume that you only listen to/watch/read western media with all that entails, hence you have such uninformed opinions about muslims?
Reply

Ramadhan
10-10-2010, 12:17 PM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
I think you mean: "bombarded".
Thank you for the correction.
pardon my bad english, it's only my fourth language.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
However, I'm not sure you've addressed my point sufficiently, merely by offering a counter-stab at my culture. You say she shows 'strength' and you emphasise 'independence' but independent from what? From pop culture, yes... but if she is dressing according to Islamic rules (or guidelines) that can hardly be described as 'independent', can it?
What I meant by independence is that the women women who chose to wear hijab do it out of their own conscience, not because of pressure from anyone, and in fact, especially in secular countries, wearing hijab would be considered as social suicide because the women do not conform to the dress code of what women "need" to wear to be "acceptable"
Reply

Ramadhan
10-10-2010, 12:23 PM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Well, actually there IS a choice... it all depends on how resistant you are to advertising and other forms of secular indoctrination.
I didn't say there isn't any choice did I?


Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Can you always say these things about any religious culture, where purity and goodness is interpreted through dress?
I wish you stop projecting your knowledge about religion ( I assume it's christianity) onto Islam.
In islam we do not interpret "purity" and "goodness" through dress, because only Allah SWT knows who's pure and who's good as the heart plays very important role and only Allah knows whats in the heart.
We choose the way we dress (in this case hijab for women) because Allah commands us to, and a good muslim aims to please Allah SWT.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-10-2010, 12:39 PM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
It all depends on having a balanced view and of understanding people's motives, rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to what you see around you.
I wish you apply this to yourself too, after accusing all muslim women to have been "indoctrinised" for having chosen to wear hijab.
Reply

S.Belle
10-10-2010, 04:18 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
How is it that you were taught or came to feel that Christianity was NOT a way of life?
I seen this with my own eyes christians (not saying all) who are pious on Sunday but Monday thru Saturday drinking, partying, and having sex. Thats not a life i wish to have or be associated with, and at a young age (even though my mom was a minister) I didnt believe Jesus was the son of God or that he died on the cross for our sins.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-10-2010, 04:51 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
What I meant by independence is that the women women who chose to wear hijab do it out of their own conscience, not because of pressure from anyone, and in fact, especially in secular countries, wearing hijab would be considered as social suicide because the women do not conform to the dress code of what women "need" to wear to be "acceptable"
No, it's not 'social suicide' at all. The women over here have the social network of their fellow muslims and of their local mosques as soon as they arrive. They also have strong support from our government in terms of recommendations for acceptance and equal opportunities. You might be pleased to know that some women in traditional dress hold professional occupations, go shopping, visit the bank - often without ever having to see a white person at all, because now they can live in areas completely occupied by muslims. In other, more mixed areas, they are seen out and about, looking perfectly happy and the local mosque in my area just completed a new women's education unit. I believe they even have their own swimming baths. There is no sense of social suicide whatsoever.

Since you mention dresscode, that's quite funny because in the city I live in, there are SO MANY muslims here, I sometimes feel I am the one not following the 'dress code'. ;D

Seriously though, it's got to the stage now, where a white person can not only be prosecuted for speaking ill of immigrants or giving verbal abuse but can also fall into unpopularity among his friends. While there are still large numbers of people who do express resentment for muslims (oh, yes, sadly, there have been racial attacks, of course!)

Having said that, I can't speak for all cities of Europe and America, but I do get the impression that in most places, the muslims themselves at least do set up large enough social networks to ease the arrival of the hijab-wearing muslimah into the west.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-10-2010, 04:55 PM
[QUOTE=naidamar;1375437]There is no such thing as "Islamic culture". Islam is a way of life.
There is local culture, and then there is a way of life prescribed by Islam.
as long as the local culture does not contradict or break Islamic jurisprudence, then it is allowed.
In Islam, there is no compulsion, and a marriage can only take place if both the bride and the groom agree to a marriage.
I'm still not sure what you mean by "arranged marriage".
But I personally don't know anyone whose marriage has been "arranged".

Good!

Originally Posted by naidamar
I can only assume that you only listen to/watch/read western media with all that entails, hence you have such uninformed opinions about muslims?
That's funny, because it seems we both only have our own country's media for reference. ;D
Reply

جوري
10-10-2010, 05:05 PM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Why do you assume my local psychiatrist knows anything about muslim culture?
I believe brother Naidamar meant pay your psychiatrist a visit to find a cure to those paroxysms of cachinnation that seem to plague you at inappropriate times as well to discuss your delusions of grandiosity and self-importance.. when there you might discuss with him 'Muslim culture' but I am not sure that would be a beneficial way to spend your session money!

all the best
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-10-2010, 05:20 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I didn't say there isn't any choice did I?
Why, yes you did! If I may remind you...?

Originally Posted by naidamar
Especially in the western world, when you say there is choice, there is actually not much choice. since little girls, the women in the western countries through popular culture are conditioned and indoctrinised what to dress (sexy is better), how to dress (or undress), how to behave (like a *****)
Originally Posted by naidamar
I wish you stop projecting your knowledge about religion ( I assume it's christianity) onto Islam.
I wish I didn't have to, but I'm sorry, I see certain similarities (in just some areas, you understand).

Originally Posted by naidamar
In islam we do not interpret "purity" and "goodness" through dress.
Well I think you do. What else is it for? You don't dress in black to make people think you're evil, do you? No, you see - I'm the one who does that! ;D

What I mean is, (and you've intimated as much yourself) if a woman is parading around wearing very little in the west, I get the feeling you consider her to resemble some kind of prostitute? Well, if a woman is covered (in the so called 'decent way') it stands to reason you may think more highly of her (than if her butt was hanging out the back of jeans). Do you not see what I mean? Goodness... purity... you know... that sort of thing...?

Originally Posted by naidamar
We choose the way we dress (in this case hijab for women) because Allah commands us to.
Excuse me, but don't you think you've just contradicted yourself? You 'choose' although Allah commands it anyway? The way you put it, it doesn't sound very much like he asked you nicely or as a second thought... ("Er, excuse me, madame... I'd be ever so grateful if you didn't mind covering up a bit?"). He commands and you... what...? Obey? Or do you choose to obey? At what point do his 'commands' stop being commands and become requests? And what does he do if you don't comply? Are you saying his commands are optional?

I think I could rest my case there... almost. We'll see.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-10-2010, 07:02 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I wish you apply this to yourself too, after accusing all muslim women to have been "indoctrinised" for having chosen to wear hijab.
Sorry, but...

doc·trine
–noun 1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
-------------------------------------------
in·doc·tri·nate
–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing. 1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

2. to teach or inculcate.

3. to imbue with learning.

--------------------------------------------------------

Try reading the definitions... then ask yourself which part doesn't apply to you. Then tell me - was it a knee-jerk reaction, or a simple observation?
Reply

GreyKode
10-10-2010, 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Sorry, but...

doc·trine
–noun 1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
-------------------------------------------
in·doc·tri·nate
–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing. 1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

2. to teach or inculcate.

3. to imbue with learning.

--------------------------------------------------------

Try reading the definitions... then ask yourself which part doesn't apply to you. Then tell me - was it a knee-jerk reaction, or a simple observation?
May i ask what is your religion or your framework of morals?. Tell me who doesn't instill a set of values into their children from a young age.
Will you not teach your children say, that spying or looking at people while they are naked from behind doors etc is wrong?. Would you not indoctrinate your young children by teaching them not to watch porn movies or violence movies?
Will you teach your children that engaging in sex outside marraige is wrong? I guess not, we however think that is abominable and so we indoctrinate our children to beleive that it is a sin.

So basically everyone is indoctrinated into beleving a set of values from his childhood, unless ofcourse his parents were not giving him any attention.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-10-2010, 08:37 PM
Originally Posted by GreyKode
May i ask what is your religion or your framework of morals?. Tell me who doesn't instill a set of values into their children from a young age.
Will you not teach your children say, that spying or looking at people while they are naked from behind doors etc is wrong?. Would you not indoctrinate your young children by teaching them not to watch porn movies or violence movies?
Will you teach your children that engaging in sex outside marraige is wrong? I guess not, we however think that is abominable and so we indoctrinate our children to beleive that it is a sin.

So basically everyone is indoctrinated into beleving a set of values from his childhood, unless ofcourse his parents were not giving him any attention.
At last... Someone who gets the point! I have never denied that the secular culture indoctrinates people - and that some of it is very negative. What I've said concerns more the nature of the indoctrination. Also, if you read back through my posts, you'll see I have not condemned anyone for having certain morals - in fact, I have even complimented someone on it.

I don't have any children and don't plan on having any. But you're right - pretty much all decent people DO instill their children with moral ideas - it's just that in my case, I would not feel the need for a religious scripture to refer to. It would come entirely from my own heart and experience. I would not, however, teach them that "sex before marriage" is wrong because I do not believe it is 'wrong'. For the notion of 'right & wrong' in these matters is entirely subjective to me. I have no reason to believe it is 'wrong' or a 'sin' because I do not consider marriage necessary in my life. To me, it is a religious and legal ceremony, which myself and my partner simply do not require, in order to remain faithful, so long as we are in love. A secure relationships is important - at least, to me - and in my case, I would have no desire to wander from that, for the sake of lust. That is out of simple love and respect. No one had to indoctrinate us at all, in any religious context, for us to gain these values. We already know that the 'sanctity' of marriage is not enough to secure a happy life together, nor can it prevent 'infidelity' (so long as you don't threaten people with hell, or a good whipping). The wrath of the gods is entirely within the human imagination.

When it comes to indoctrinating children with primitive ideas of sin, hell and other imaginary concepts, leading ultimately to a condemnation of people for their lifestyles and sexual preferences which do not happen to fit with the laws of a certain god and garnering the idea that all women of the west, who are not covered head to toe are little more than prostitutes, I do regard this as an undesirable and potentially dangerous form of indoctrination.

I'm sorry if you don't like that, but those are my views.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-10-2010, 08:45 PM
Originally Posted by GreyKode
Will you not teach your children say, that spying or looking at people while they are naked from behind doors etc is wrong?
Why would I think that was right? Who do you know, who thinks that's a perfectly okay thing to do? I never even thought of that! Makes me wonder what was going through your mind at the time!
Reply

GreyKode
10-10-2010, 10:41 PM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Why would I think that was right? Who do you know, who thinks that's a perfectly okay thing to do? I never even thought of that! Makes me wonder what was going through your mind at the time!
First : It was just an example :)

Second : Could you think of a reason why looking at skin is wrong?

Finally : You missed the point, since your child won't be easily convinced why somthing like that is wrong, you will have to indoctrinate him. Got it.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2010, 11:50 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Does christianity teach how to sexually abuse little children?
No it does not. But, sadly there are cases where some Christians have abused children. Sadder still, some have taken advantage of their position(s) in various ecclesiastical bodies to actually prey upon children. And others have tried to twist teachings of the church to their own perverted ends. These acts are heinous. And they are not a part of the Christian faith. But, they do point out deficiencies in the practice of our Christian faith. One of the greatest deficiencies that we let go for far too long was that we just assumed that only good people would be interested in the priesthood or being a pastor. That isn't true and never was. Because of lack of oversight, and the implicit trust that congregants gave pastors, we ended up with sick people seeking to enter into ministry for reasons completely unrelated to serving either God or his church. This is an area in which not just those who perpetrated this horrofic acts, but also those who turned a blind eye to them or created a system in which one could get away with such crimes have had to examine outselves, confess our lack of care for those at risk, and repent of our own contributions by challenging and change old systems.

Assuming that all religions spend time in such introspection so as to correct past or present errors to make for a better future, what are some of the issues where Islam has chosen to become introspective?
Reply

GreyKode
10-11-2010, 12:00 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Because of lack of oversight, and the implicit trust that congregants gave pastors, we ended up with sick people seeking to enter into ministry for reasons completely unrelated to serving either God or his church. This is an area in which not just those who perpetrated this horrofic acts, but also those who turned a blind eye to them or created a system in which one could get away with such crimes have had to examine outselves, confess our lack of care for those at risk, and repent of our own contributions by challenging and change old systems.

So you are saying taht this is a flaw in the practice rather in the teaching. I used to think that celibacy that was enforced on priests was one of the main reasons of causing such sexual trangressions.
But isn't celibacy a teaching in the religion itself not only a matter of practice?
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-11-2010, 02:35 AM
Originally Posted by GreyKode
First : It was just an example :)

Second : Could you think of a reason why looking at skin is wrong?

Finally : You missed the point, since your child won't be easily convinced why somthing like that is wrong, you will have to indoctrinate him. Got it.
First : Yes, of course it was just an example. I just thought it was a little bizzare, that's all. But never mind...

Second : It wouldn't be the looking at the skin which is wrong, so much as the breach of privacy, as in spying, I suppose. But that would surely depend on the relationship between the one who is spying and the one being spyed on, plus the motive. Of course, in a child, the motive for 'spying' on a parent would be interpreted by most sane persons as a simple act of playfulness... whereas, a priest, spying on a choirboy in the shower, for instance, would have infinitely more sinister connotations.

Finally : No, I don't think I missed your point. It's quite obvious to me what you're trying to say. The point I'm making is that although it is certainly necessary to impress upon children that something is wrong, such as lying, cheating, stealing, etc - the things which are impressed upon people in religious institutions may often go far beyond the basics, which they should obviously have learned already, during very early childhood.

By this, I mean things such as being taught that homosexuality is evil or that they will go to hell if they do not believe in god.

Of these two examples, one is garnering a form of hatred and intolerance towards people's private business (in which case I would teach that you do not judge someone, unless they are harming either themselves or another person by their actions). The other is unfalsifyable, supernatural nonsense, which we know has been used by those in power, to control the masses, by inciting fear for the past few thousand years at least.

Now, what I mean by indoctrination is this: When it comes to the basic tenets of civilised life, such as not stealing, lying, cheating, causing harm to each other, etc - which the child already knows is wrong, - when they hear these things mentioned in religious study, they will be getting the immediate sense that the holy book is correct - because it has just mentioned those things which the child has already been assured are correct. Thus, a pathway to further trust is opened up, which a priest, Imam or Sunday school teacher can then use as an open conduit to pump them full of the rhetorical wisdom which is contained in very antiquated forms of literature, designed for people of a more primitive era to follow.

That is what I am referring to, when I use the term 'indoctrination'. Religious indoctrination goes somewhat further than those very basic rules designed to ensure a child grows up treating his fellows with common respect. Protocols and behaviours, the grasp of which equip him to act in a fair and decent manner, which enable him to be a success as a human being. One who must share society with others, like himself.

All of these things... and more... can be taught successfully, without the need for further religious indoctrination.
Reply

Woodrow
10-11-2010, 03:15 AM
A few gentle reminders.

This is a forum not a war zone.

If any member is offended by the post of another member, use the report button, do not respond to the offending post.

The topic of this thread is: * Why aren't the Nun's considered Opressed?

Please stick to the topic and only the topic. If you have something else to say, start a new thread.....Please
Reply

Ramadhan
10-11-2010, 03:21 AM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Seriously though, it's got to the stage now, where a white person can not only be prosecuted for speaking ill of immigrants or giving verbal abuse but can also fall into unpopularity among his friends. While there are still large numbers of people who do express resentment for muslims (oh, yes, sadly, there have been racial attacks, of course!)
Is there a case where a white person has been persecuted AND tried AND sentenced for speaking ill of immigrants?

If not, I will just have to consider your statements above as nothing but xenophobia.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
No, it's not 'social suicide' at all. The women over here have the social network of their fellow muslims and of their local mosques as soon as they arrive. They also have strong support from our government in terms of recommendations for acceptance and equal opportunities. You might be pleased to know that some women in traditional dress hold professional occupations, go shopping, visit the bank - often without ever having to see a white person at all, because now they can live in areas completely occupied by muslims. In other, more mixed areas, they are seen out and about, looking perfectly happy and the local mosque in my area just completed a new women's education unit. I believe they even have their own swimming baths. There is no sense of social suicide whatsoever.
Where is this area? Maybe we should encourage more muslims to migrate and move to your area.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-11-2010, 03:26 AM
Yes, of course, Woodrow. And thank you for the messages. I know I should have ignored those comments, rather than responding and in future, I will do my best to respect your wishes.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-11-2010, 03:46 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Is there a case where a white person has been persecuted AND tried AND sentenced for speaking ill of immigrants?
I'm not sure. I would certainly hope so, since there are some very xenophobic characters here in our society, who certainly deserve to be! I can't quote any specific cases right now, but I can tell you there are laws in place, which are designed to prohibit what can be deemed as 'incitement to hatred'. Abusing a person of a different ethnic origin, on the basis of their skin colour or religion is covered by the hate crime law. A law, which I myself once tried to improve, by starting a petition, as a matter of fact.
If not, I will just have to consider your statements above as nothing but xenophobia.
Eh??? No. :)
I can't tell you here and now, exactly how effective such legislation has been, so far, but I think it's certainly a step in the right direction.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-11-2010, 03:50 AM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Why, yes you did! If I may remind you...?

Quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Especially in the western world, when you say there is choice, there is actually not much choice. since little girls, the women in the western countries through popular culture are conditioned and indoctrinised what to dress (sexy is better), how to dress (or undress), how to behave (like a *****)
I am bolding my phrase,
"there is actually not much choice"
is it the same with
"there is no choice whatsoever"?

I assume english is your first and native language, so are you sure that "not much" = "not at all"?



Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
I wish I didn't have to, but I'm sorry, I see certain similarities (in just some areas, you understand)
However instead of addressing particular areas, you brush it off as "these things about any religious culture".

Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Well I think you do. What else is it for? You don't dress in black to make people think you're evil, do you? No, you see - I'm the one who does that!
You charged that muslimah only wear hijab because they want to be looked as "pure" and "good"
And I have explained to you the reasons why muslimah wear hijab, however you seem unable to accept the explanation I gave.
although I am not a woman, I know close and personal (including my own mother, aunts, cousins, sisters in law) those who wear hijab, and that is the reason they told me why they wear hijab.
So, I assume you personally know some muslimahs who TOLD you that they prefer to wear hijab because they want to be seen as "PURE" AND "GOOD"?

Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
What I mean is, (and you've intimated as much yourself) if a woman is parading around wearing very little in the west, I get the feeling you consider her to resemble some kind of prostitute? Well, if a woman is covered (in the so called 'decent way') it stands to reason you may think more highly of her (than if her butt was hanging out the back of jeans). Do you not see what I mean? Goodness... purity... you know... that sort of thing...?
Are you that insecure?
Do you take other people's opinions to form they way you dress or you think about yourself?

I'm sure those woman who wear skimpy clothes do not give a rat's ass what other people think of them
likewise, those who wear hijab couldn't care less what other peeople say about them, one way or another.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Excuse me, but don't you think you've just contradicted yourself? You 'choose' although Allah commands it anyway? The way you put it, it doesn't sound very much like he asked you nicely or as a second thought... ("Er, excuse me, madame... I'd be ever so grateful if you didn't mind covering up a bit?"). He commands and you... what...? Obey? Or do you choose to obey? At what point do his 'commands' stop being commands and become requests? And what does he do if you don't comply? Are you saying his commands are optional?
No, I did not contradict myself.
yes, Allah commands us to do or not do certain things.
but yes, I also have the option whether I comply with the commands or not.
You see, there are more than a billion muslims in the world, some of them choose to obey Allah more than others. FYI, not all muslimah wear hijab.

Have a look at yourself too, you claim you live in the area where there are a lot of muslims, and you are participating in this forum which shows you have at least more than a passing interest for Islam. Yo have the freedom to choose whether you want to become a muslim or not. it is not contradictory.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-11-2010, 04:05 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Where is this area? Maybe we should encourage more muslims to migrate and move to your area.
Why? Do you not think they're happy where they are at present? I should tell you, it's not entirely a bed of roses as there are still challenges to face, when moving to the UK and they have still had to put up with some of the western ways they don't approve of. Some have become more integrated with our culture than others. It varies. However, to their credit... did you know... some years back, they managed to clean up the prostitution problem in that area, by rallying in the streets and preventing the curb crawlers from parking there! Unfortunately the problem just moved to another area... but I think many people agreed, it was a good effort on their part.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-11-2010, 04:46 AM
Naidamar, I think if I reply to your most recent post, point by point, I suspect we'll end up going around in circles. I think you may have misinterpreted some of those points I made earlier. I don't know if you've realised it yet, but I have actually taken on board the point you've made, regarding the choice aspect of wearing the hijab.

I once came across something very similar in a christian church, where I overheard a conversation between some women who were considering taking on the practice of 'covering their heads' during worship. They believed it was right and so they wanted to persue it and encourage other girls to do it - but by no means was it ever obligatory.

Living very near an all-muslim area has certainly opened my eyes to some things (some good / some not so good), but has not exactly provided the endless fount of knowledge on Islam. Erm... they don't tend to come out onto the streets and preach to us, as do some of the christians here!

All I'm really saying here, is that from the outside observer's point of view, it appears that both traditional nuns and muslimah in full hijab (by that, I'm referring to the burqa or 'chadri') seem to be displaying some form of individualistic and sexual repression - and that that can, realistically, only be brought on by some form of religious indoctrination. It's been admitted that indoctrination is necessary for religion by someone here already, so I'm not sure what the fuss is about. What I have done is attempted to draw a meaningful distinction between non-religious moral guidance, necessary for any modern, civilised society to function, and further indoctrination drawn from very ancient holy books.

Honestly, I'm grateful for some of the insights you've brought to this discussion, Naidamar.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-11-2010, 06:38 AM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Naidamar, I think if I reply to your most recent post, point by point, I suspect we'll end up going around in circles. I think you may have misinterpreted some of those points I made earlier. I don't know if you've realised it yet, but I have actually taken on board the point you've made, regarding the choice aspect of wearing the hijab.
Good!

Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
I once came across something very similar in a christian church, where I overheard a conversation between some women who were considering taking on the practice of 'covering their heads' during worship. They believed it was right and so they wanted to persue it and encourage other girls to do it - but by no means was it ever obligatory.
I don't know what your current or former religion is, but covering head especially during service IS obligatory in christianity, it is written in bible, there's severe punishment for those who don't.
Just because christiniaty does not believe in their own scripture anymore does not suddenly make what was obligatory become voluntary.

Actually your view seem to be confirming the title and the aim of this thread, which is to show hipocrisy among western society who consider head covering nun as exercising their choice while viewing hijab-wearing muslimah as having no choice.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
10-11-2010, 01:26 PM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
I see, so what you're saying is really that you're happy to abide by those Islamic dress laws and forego dressing like a scantily clad harlot, in return for a sense of pride and dignity. Well, I must say...! It's rather hard to knock! :) So it seems no sister of Islam has any real interest in attracting men other than her husband. Again - what can I say against that!? Nothing. Now, I hear that women of Islam may dress sexy at home, before their own husband only. So it seems as though you can appreciate what it is like to wear nice clothes - except you prefer to keep that in a private context. But, what I'm interested to know - is there any penalty (apart from inner shame) given to those who decide they would like to wear more revealing clothes on the street?
[...]
Well hold your horses for a minute. Answer my questions first and don’t jump to conclusions about what was i was trying to say (which incidentally you got all very wrong). That’s wasn’t what i was implying-in fact that wasn’t what i was implying at all.

I haven’t touched upon the matter about a husband or about apostasy. That’s what you said. If that’s your own ignorant opinion- then fine, but don’t go around putting words in my mouth.

What I was getting at, is that once you become Muslim then you accept whatever Islam comes with. Like the nun-who has given up her will for a husband and children. They are the conditions, if you will, to become a nun. And likewise once you become a Muslim (or if you were already one), you too will have matters that you forfeit and give up. Does that equate to force and “indoctrination?” rubbish. You chose to become whatever you become, you also forfeit and give up whatever that particular thing entails you give up and no-one and nothing forces or indoctrines you into it. Thus my argument about living in western/non-Muslim state. If I chose to live there, i therefore accept that plotting to kill the head of state (and other example used) will call for some kind of punishment. Abiding by the law, does not mean that you don’t have freedom. Rubbish again.

Jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth does in no way denote that i have made or implied any such comment, no matter how affective you believe that approach is.

Furthermore, even if that was what i was saying and even if that was what argument is about, it holds no relevance or is tied to what was being said anyway.

Lets break this down:
1. You assume that taking off the hijab equates to apostasy and thus this is the reason why us Muslim women are forced to keep it on. (i know what your argument about freedom in a Muslim state was all about- i aint thick).

2. Wearing hijab is not associated with a husband. That is, the law of hijab is still binding for a woman who isn’t married, a widow whose husband is deceased and yes, a married woman as well. Being married is really associated with the point. So your evidence about some Muslim dude you spoke to, doesn’t count since it hold no relevance.

Goodness me, give us Muslim women some credit, instead of making blatant and ignorant assumptions.
Some of you non-Muslims think you are our hero’s or something. You have ZERO idea about how many Muslim women LOVE their veils, so beat it.

Now you’re going to come up with some baloney that i’ve been brainwashed.

Another point you raised was belonging to the man. What an ignorant and funny thing to say considering the state that non-Muslim women are in. Since we are so obsessed with impendence and living our lives independent of any man, let’s have a good laugh shall we? Of course we shall!

The simple question: What does the man like?? Flesh, and make makeup or opaque, modest fabric? Which one is going to attract him more?

How many times would a non-Muslim woman get hired had it not been for her hair style or skin?
How many securities would there be at offices? Not actually in an office, but in front of where all can see and talk to her (she needs to attract customers, etc that’s why she is at the front where everyone can see and talk to her).

Look closer, and you probably see, that behind all those women getting hired are actually men hiring them.

Modeling agencies and the fashion industry, the brains behind them (especially modelling agencies) are all men! Women do NOT have a need to hire women!

If that doesn’t denote women belonging to men, I don’t know what does. i thought people get hired for brains, not body.


So whether you like it or not, or whether you admit it or not, this so-called idea of independence where women have been brainwashed to believe that having your hair a certain way and being as anorexic as a twig basically showing all what you look like, is great and empowering because it means being independent of the man, is exactly what is driving her to do- belong to the man. The irony eh? Being independent of the man, by being dependent and belonging to him. Hilarious.

Another interesting point you and some other people here have bought up is Indoctrination.
How about the indoctrination of young western women? Based on certain factors (the media and feminism come to mind as an example) which advertise for young girls/women what they should look like and what they should eat. And how to flirt with boys and all that stuff that a young teenage mind is so naive and vulnerable about, whilst believing she is free and independent and its all about growing up...?

So Just because you mention indoctrination along side Muslim women, doesn’t actually mean anything. You can make anything up up and pout any fancy label on it to make a statement but it doesn’t mean its actually true or has any substance to it.


But there we have it. I know we're talking about values here, rather than these dangers - but I suppose those values must come from somewhere...
Nice scape goat, but i dont buy it.
Anway, thank you for a most interesting and informative chat. It's been a pleasure talking with you!
You’re welcome, but we havnt finished yet.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 01:28 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
In Islam, there is no compulsion, and a marriage can only take place if both the bride and the groom agree to a marriage.
I think you need to put "agree" in quotes. The means by which some families get their young daughters to "agree" is tantamount to compulsion.


I'm still not sure what you mean by "arranged marriage".
But I personally don't know anyone whose marriage has been "arranged".
I do. And in this particular case it has worked out very well. The families of the man and the woman made the arrangements for their children to be married to each other. Their children did not have any romantic connection prior, but did agree (and indeed they could have said "no") to accept the decision of their families. And then they entered into the marriage with the intent to love (not as an emotion, but as an action) their spouse, and as a result they built a marriage that today is better than most relationships built principally on emotional attraction, but that has evolved over time as well.

In "arranged marriage", do the woman have a say?
In the case I noted above, she did. I understand from other reports that not all women do. Also, I have heard of cases where neither man nor woman has a choice, but the couple are actually married to each other as children. I don't think those types of arranged marriages where both the man and the woman are children are connected with Islam.


I can only assume that you only listen to/watch/read western media with all that entails, hence you have such uninformed opinions about muslims?
Do you care to suggest other non-western media that one might be able to access in the west?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 01:47 PM
Originally Posted by Mila
I seen this with my own eyes christians (not saying all) who are pious on Sunday but Monday thru Saturday drinking, partying, and having sex.
So, the practice of Christianity was wanting. Surely you have found that not everyone who claims to be a Muslim is the best follower of Islam either? I have an acquaintance who is a taxi driver in Libya and his biggest complaint is about Saudi businessmen, supposedly Muslims, who ask him to arrange for them the very activities you just decried among Christians. In fact, they often ask him to help them find young boys to have sex with.

Of course, I don't judge the actual faith of Islam based on those Saudi businessmen, but upon that which is taught in the mosques, or presented as normative and acceptable practice by those who are serious about their faith. Since your mom was a minister, did you hear it ever taught that Christianity was not a lifestyle?

Following is a part of the Discipline of the denomination I belong to that speaks of how our faith is much more than just a creed, but a lifestyle:
Wesley and the early Methodists were particularly concerned about inviting people to experience God’s grace and to grow in their knowledge and love of God through disciplined Christian living. They placed primary emphasis on Christian living, on putting faith and love into action. This emphasis on what Wesley referred to as "practical divinity" has continued to be a hallmark of United Methodism today.
The distinctive shape of our theological heritage can be seen not only in this emphasis on Christian living, but also in Wesley's distinctive understanding of God's saving grace. Although Wesley shared with many other Christians a belief in salvation by grace, he combined them in a powerful way to create distinctive emphases for living the full Christian life.

(source: Beliefs, subsection "Our Wesleyan Theological Heritage", of the United Methodist Church)
Reply

GreyKode
10-11-2010, 01:53 PM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
Naidamar, I think if I reply to your most recent post, point by point, I suspect we'll end up going around in circles.
I was intending to write a lengthy response to you, but then i got this same feeling as yourself, going around in circles.

You agreed that everyones does some kind of indoctrination to their children, however, you disregard other peoples opinions and you give yourself the right to judge and decide what is right and what is wrong, you gave the verdict that religious indoctrination is dangerous, however i and other muslims sincerely beleive that leaving children without this religious indoctrination is extrememly dangerous to society . Hence my decision of refraining from repsonding to you. Anyway, I am not writing this to have the last word or anything, I simply want you to think about what I just said and unless you feel there is something you might add, please don't respond.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 02:01 PM
Originally Posted by GreyKode
So you are saying taht this is a flaw in the practice rather in the teaching. I used to think that celibacy that was enforced on priests was one of the main reasons of causing such sexual trangressions.
But isn't celibacy a teaching in the religion itself not only a matter of practice?
I'm not Catholic, but as I understand it, it is a matter not of faith but of administration.

Celibacy is something that is expected of Catholic priests, monks and nuns. Should a Catholic priest desire to get married, he can leave the priesthood and get married. Also, it is not something that has always been the practice even among Catholics, and while it is the expectation of anyone who seeks to become a priest in the Catholic church, the have not codified it to the extent that the standard cannot be relaxed if (in the opinion of the Church) such relaxation is warranted. Therefore, should an Anglican priest who is married desire to convert to Catholicism he can do so and remain married; this actually happens more than people might think.

My understanding of the rationale behind the standard practice of the requirement for celibacy is the desire that a priest not be burdened by concerns for one's family and is therefore able to devote the whole of one's energies and attention to the service of God in the church.

You may wish to have what I have written clarified by someone who is Catholic.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 02:18 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I don't know what your current or former religion is, but covering head especially during service IS obligatory in christianity, it is written in bible, there's severe punishment for those who don't.
Just because christiniaty does not believe in their own scripture anymore does not suddenly make what was obligatory become voluntary.
Naidamar, I think that your definition of obligatory needs some fine tuning. Who determines whether something is or is not obligatory in Christianity (or in any religion for that matter)?

One might be tempted to say that God makes it obligatory, and certainly all who would hold that something is obligatory would contend that God said it was. But the question then becomes who says that God said it or that the particular practice represents the best understanding of what God did say?

There are Christian women who do wear and head covering and Christians who don't. Those who don't aren't being rebellious, they simply don't accept the interpretation that others have regarding the necessity of wearing a head covering. It isn't that they don't believe the scripture; they do. What they don't believe is the interpretation of it that attempts to apply those statements which they see as being for a particular time or place and make it a universal statement for all time, people, and places.

Ultimately what makes something obligatory then is whether I can make you feel obliged to comply with my interpretation rather than make such a decision for yourself.

To the extent that a woman feels like God has asked this over it, it really isn't obligation but devotion that causes her wear a head covering whether she be a Muslim, a nun, or doing it for some other reason. To the extent that someone else has demanded it of her and for that reason and not genuine devotion she wears it, even if not under direct force, she is wearing it out of compulsion and is making less than a free choice. You would have to know the mind of each woman to know which of those is true for her.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 02:31 PM
Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
Modeling agencies and the fashion industry, the brains behind them (especially modelling agencies) are all men! Women do NOT have a need to hire women!

You probably aren't aware that Ford Models, which for decades was the top modeling agency in the world, was founded and run by Eileen Ford. Another top modeling agency is Wilhelmina Models founded by a woman who was herself a model, Wilhemina Cooper. Wilhemina Models has since been sold to Horst-Dieter Esch who made his daughter, Natasha Esch, president of the company. There are plenty of men running the modeling industry -- that is undeniable -- but to say, as you did, they are ALL men, is simply not true.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-11-2010, 02:56 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
There are Christian women who do wear and head covering and Christians who don't. Those who don't aren't being rebellious, they simply don't accept the interpretation that others have regarding the necessity of wearing a head covering. It isn't that they don't believe the scripture; they do. What they don't believe is the interpretation of it that attempts to apply those statements which they see as being for a particular time or place and make it a universal statement for all time, people, and places.
The conclusion I take from all this is that the bible means little for christians.
As if most of the things written and prescribed by god in the bible is just for a nice reading and has no consequences in todays life.
I am not saying this is either right or wrong, it's your own scripture anyway, you can do things you like with it.
It's just my observation regarding the matter.
For example, homosexuality acts certainly warrant extremely severe punishments in the bible, however these days people who proclaim publicly they do homosexual acts are received warmly and highly respected by the church. hell, the church even marry homosexuals these days!
I see that views and attitudes of the church keep shifting to conform with current trend of society.
Who knows, maybe in the future churches will also marry fathers with their daughters too, if incestuous relations becomes acceptable by society?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-11-2010, 04:30 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
The conclusion I take from all this is that the bible means little for christians.
Well, if that's the conclusion you take, then that's the conclusion you take. I won't tell you that you don't know your own thoughts. I disagree that they correctly represent the Christian view with regard to the Bible. But that's for another thread.

With regard to your example, however:
For example, homosexuality acts certainly warrant extremely severe punishments in the bible, however these days people who proclaim publicly they do homosexual acts are received warmly and highly respected by the church. hell, the church even marry homosexuals these days!
I see that views and attitudes of the church keep shifting to conform with current trend of society.
Who knows, maybe in the future churches will also marry fathers with their daughters too, if incestuous relations becomes acceptable by society?
First, my opinion. That the church should conform to the world around it is indeed a concern. Christians are to be in the world, but not of the world. Very specifically scripture tells us "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will" (Romans 12:2). But do we conform? One only has to see that the figures for what I consider important ethical practices very little when compared of supposed Christians with the rest of society at large to know that this is a major problem. However, I don't think this is the result of Christian teaching conforming, but of Christians becoming lax with regard to the practice of their faith. Many even becoming nothing by nominal Christians, Christians in name only, who if they were born in some other culture that was not dominated by Christian heritage would be just as likely to be Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim depending on into what culture they were born.

Next, some facts:
There are some churches who would be willing to perform a marriage ceremony for homosexuals. But most would not.
The three largest religious bodies in the USA, the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the United Methodist Church are all on record as refusing to do homosexual marriages. In my own denomination, a pastor can be stripped of his orders for even offering a prayer at a service that might be seen as giving approval for or the church's blessing on a homosexual wedding. And those who have challenged this have been charged in the courts of our church with disobedience.
Reply

manaal
10-11-2010, 04:43 PM
Originally Posted by Yanoorah
How many nuns do u see ın Universıty buıldıngs studyıng to become engıneers, doctors, Teachers? Something worth pondering over...
Actually nuns do receive an education and enter university as well. I had many teachers who were nuns (catholics) when I was in school and some of them were university graduates. Typical fields of study for nuns are languages, social sciences and of course theology.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-12-2010, 02:32 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
However, I don't think this is the result of Christian teaching conforming, but of Christians becoming lax with regard to the practice of their faith.
I don't blame christians who do not strictly follow their scriptures.

When Saul abrograted mosaic laws (the laws that were fastidiously observed by their own god, who proclaimed that he came not to change it, by the way) and claimed that their god died to absolve human sins and that people are guaranteed after-life salvation if they believe in the concept, I dont see much point in strictly observing the laws as previously taught and commanded by their god.
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-12-2010, 07:29 AM
Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
I see, so what you're saying is really that you're happy to abide by those Islamic dress laws and forego dressing like a scantily clad harlot, in return for a sense of pride and dignity. Well, I must say...! It's rather hard to knock! So it seems no sister of Islam has any real interest in attracting men other than her husband. Again - what can I say against that!? Nothing. Now, I hear that women of Islam may dress sexy at home, before their own husband only. So it seems as though you can appreciate what it is like to wear nice clothes - except you prefer to keep that in a private context. But, what I'm interested to know - is there any penalty (apart from inner shame) given to those who decide they would like to wear more revealing clothes on the street?
[...]
Well hold your horses for a minute. Answer my questions first and don’t jump to conclusions about what was i was trying to say (which incidentally you got all very wrong). That’s wasn’t what i was implying-in fact that wasn’t what i was implying at all.

I haven’t touched upon the matter about a husband or about apostasy. That’s what you said. If that’s your own ignorant opinion- then fine, but don’t go around putting words in my mouth.
Ummu, I think you've gone completely off the deep end. None of that was addressed specifically to you. There has been no putting of words into anyone's mouth but I am sorry if I have offended you by assuming too much whilst getting carried away in my own thoughts. It's a shame that you choose to take such an aggressive line with someone who is here attempting to learn more about your faith and who is therefore bound to be mistaken on a good number of points. You could have tackled my musings with much greater dignity, had you received them in the spirit they were meant.

To save time, I'll leave out replying to the bulk of it and try to get down to brass tacks.

Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
Lets break this down:
1. You assume that taking off the hijab equates to apostasy and thus this is the reason why us Muslim women are forced to keep it on. (i know what your argument about freedom in a Muslim state was all about- i aint thick).
No, I don't assume that removing the hijab equates to apostasy. I never said that at all. I'm talking about if someone wants to remove the hijab in the context of being a believer (and I was interested to know if there were any known penalty for this); whilst apostacy is the abandonment of faith (and I'll come back to that later). It would stand to reason, that if a person abandoned their faith, they would also abandon the hijab (?). No one's implying you are 'thick', so I'd say it's safe to let go of your paranoia.

Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
2. Wearing hijab is not associated with a husband. That is, the law of hijab is still binding for a woman who isn’t married, a widow whose husband is deceased and yes, a married woman as well. Being married is really associated with the point. So your evidence about some Muslim dude you spoke to, doesn’t count since it hold no relevance.
I'm aware that single women wear the hijab.

I do not include my conversation with "some muslim dude" as 'firm evidence' of anything. I mentioned it, as an example of what some Islamic people say about western women's dress - and I've heard it before - many times. Naturally, it raises some questions and, if anything, is only evidence for his attitude. Depending on what it's intended to show, evidence is often required in sufficient quantity to form a 'body' - meaning that one or two examples would be insufficient on their own. I'll let you know when I am supplying 'evidence'. Until then, try to see things for what they are.

Here, you've raised the singularly most salient point...

Earlier you said the woman wears the hijab by choice.

Now you refer to it as 'law'.

And you say it is 'binding'.

And you wonder why some of us westerners are confused about issues of consent, surrounding the hijab.

A little girl, a friend of my neice has just recently been put into hijab by her parents. She is eight, and we're told this is the age at which hijab becomes applicable (?). I'm not saying she has been held down and had it forced onto her head. Neither do I discount the possibilty she is enamored of it - just as I was, when I recieved my first school uniform...

What I'm now asking is - has this child been institutionalised to the ways of the mosque by her parents? Well, if that were the question then I think it is reasonable to say yes, she has.

It reminds me of my own feelings towards school uniform at the time I started secondary school. I was, at first, actually very enamored at the prospect of my new school uniform - and all that it stood for, due to some of the ideas my own father impressed upon me, during my transition from primary to secondary. The process could reasonably be called 'conditioning'. Not necessarily all negative or all-consuming - but there, all the same.

The difference (please note: as I perceive it) is, however, that in a secular society, we tend to dress according to different roles we play, depending on the situation... and there may be many different situations a person finds themselves in, during the course of their life... Not all of which, driven by religious doctrine.

Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
The simple question: What does the man like?? Flesh, and make makeup or opaque, modest fabric? Which one is going to attract him more?

How many times would a non-Muslim woman get hired had it not been for her hair style or skin?
How many securities would there be at offices? Not actually in an office, but in front of where all can see and talk to her (she needs to attract customers, etc that’s why she is at the front where everyone can see and talk to her).

Look closer, and you probably see, that behind all those women getting hired are actually men hiring them.
Yes, an interesting point, Ummu. We call it sexism where this applies. At least, that's what we call it, if we can prove this is the only reason why certain women are hired. You see, while you can easily bang this out as a stereotypical scenario, the truth of the matter is tied to the individual case and without knowledge of each case, you don't have one to bring against them all. In order to arrive at this conclusion, you'd have to assume it's only men who hold the highest positions in recruitment - and, in this day and age, (thankfully) that simply isn't true.

Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
So whether you like it or not, or whether you admit it or not, this so-called idea of independence where women have been brainwashed to believe that having your hair a certain way and being as anorexic as a twig basically showing all what you look like, is great and empowering because it means being independent of the man, is exactly what is driving her to do- belong to the man.
Tell me something knew, Ummu! If you care to look back over my previous posts, you'll see I've already mentioned it. I think the problem here, is that while I am quite willing to acknowledge the faults and wrongs going on in modern 'christian'-secular society, you seem very unwilling to admit your own society may have problems you don't want to face. Sexism - even sexual harrassment has been a problem in the workplace for women in our society. However, this is something which is today being addressed (perhaps not fully enough, I might add) in Britian's workplace.

I'm afraid it's a throwback from Christianity, the dominant religion of the west, which has formed most of the attitudes towards women you and I are now discussing. The woman's role in society and in marriage is clearly defined in the Bible - and that is to 'serve her man'...

...and many of us have fought against it, to try to bring about a sense of true equality.

Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
The irony eh? Being independent of the man, by being dependent and belonging to him. Hilarious.
An irony, perhaps - and a bitter one at that. Hilarious? No. Not even funny for those who've suffered it. Tell me... does it bring about in you, a sense of satisfaction, to discover injustice outside of the muslim world?

Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
Another interesting point you and some other people here have bought up is Indoctrination.
How about the indoctrination of young western women?

Based on certain factors (the media and feminism come to mind as an example) which advertise for young girls/women what they should look like and what they should eat. And how to flirt with boys and all that stuff that a young teenage mind is so naive and vulnerable about, whilst believing she is free and independent and its all about growing up...?

So Just because you mention indoctrination along side Muslim women, doesn’t actually mean anything. You can make anything up up and pout any fancy label on it to make a statement but it doesn’t mean its actually true or has any substance to it.
Well, as you should be able to deduce by now, this isn't anything new, in a world where patriarchal values have almost unanimously been accepted.

But stop for a second - and listen to what you're saying: You appear quite on the ball with indoctrination outside of the muslim world. Your powers of deduction allow you to identify indoctrination when you see it, yet your powers of logic seem somewhat attenuated, when it comes to applying the same known principle to the muslim world.

And to think - I've been accused of hypocrasy here...
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
10-12-2010, 08:09 AM
don't act the sulky old victim and in the process make me look like the villain. it doesn't work.

and im not going to reply further to you as if you had bothered to read things in their proper contexts you wouldn't have come up with the reply you did. none of things you have said actually are relevant to out discussion. maybe that is a tactic of yours not to address the real issues that have been raised. i don't know, i don't care, but if you go back and read the posts that i have based my reply to you on, you will find that none of things you have said are really relevant.

i really don't want to go back and copy paste things to make you understand things what any average joe could understand. what painstaking and time wasting thing to do. no thank you.

the only thing i will bother replying to is:
Earlier you said the woman wears the hijab by choice.

Now you refer to it as 'law'.

And you say it is 'binding'.
the hijab is law. my point was, similarly, the law of becoming a nun entails giving up a husband a children. going by your logic, abiding by law is forceful but funnily you somehow completely ignore this in relation to the nun but make it sound like the Muslim woman is victim. come again?
Reply

Ezekiel_B
10-12-2010, 08:51 AM
Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
don't act the sulky old victim and in the process make me look like the villain. it doesn't work.
Well, thank you for that interpretation. I thought I was merely qualifying a few things you thought I meant...

Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
and im not going to reply further to you as if you had bothered to read things in their proper contexts you wouldn't have come up with the reply you did.
Judging by this reaction I might be forgiven, by some, for wondering if you've actually read my posts in context.

Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
the hijab is law. my point was, similarly, the law of becoming a nun entails giving up a husband a children. going by your logic, abiding by law is forceful but funnily you somehow completely ignore this in relation to the nun but make it sound like the Muslim woman is victim. come again?
Does it really look as though I have ignored catholic laws when talking about nuns? The connotation of 'victim' is relative.

We've agreed that secular advertising can be reasonably described as 'indoctrination' when investigating similarities to religion. There is, of course, a subtle difference. Have I implied the effects are any less damaging? No.

I've already posited that some degree of conditioning and indoctrination would seem necessary to produce a young woman who wants to become a nun. Obviously you've missed that the first time around, so here it is again.

The connotation of victim is, as I've said: relative. It seems reasonable to suggest we are all, in some ways - and to larger and lesser degrees - victims of our childhood conditioning.

In your case, for instance, it would appear you are behaving like a victim of your own bitterness, for some reason.

I suggest you calm down and try to evaluate what is being said to you. Right now, you sound somewhat hysterical.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
10-12-2010, 11:09 AM
^yeah so what, sue me :shade:
Reply

Asiyah3
10-12-2010, 11:47 AM
Originally Posted by Ezekiel_B
read my posts
Peace,
What's your point in this thread?
Reply

جوري
10-12-2010, 12:21 PM
Originally Posted by Runaway
Peace, What's your point in this thread?
To talk of his girlfriend's private parts, live out his perversions while exalting the ways of the goths-- which I'll venture to say he knows so little about, as is apparent from all other topics he gauges..

:w:
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!