terrorism and hijab

[abdul Majid]

wow very nice

 

[Tasneem]

Thts not full hijab!

Hijab is with the veil

 

[Tasneem]

I feel If I go out widout my niqaab, hijab, abayah, and gloves then I feel there is no hayah left in me. I guess I take the opinion of the scholars who says its wajib to wear niqaab.

It protects ones honor.

Hijab or Niqaab Got nothng to do wid terrorism.

Wasalamualaikum warhatmulah.

I agree :sister:

If i go out without hijab i feel that i have lost all my hayyah
I have been wearing niqqab for bout 1 in a half years
I would stop then start
Last summer was my first summer with hijab on!!!! :giggling:

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

Hijab is not terrorism, attackers go against hijab or harming sisters wearing hijab is called terrorism.

Damn, you're good! Being an American... of NO religion... I still feel every country has criminals, but it's confusing the way they are defined. Terrorism, to me, is the Columbine High School incident where the place was shot up... for NO reason!!! But defending one's land and the religion that was established on it ~ well, I'm having a real hard time buying into the whole "terrorism" deal.

Sure, I'd like to know what Abu Musab al Zarqawi is up to, but clearly not for the same reasons as the rest. I'm just a bit confused. He broad-sided me and I didn't even see him coming, but what I did see, wasn't evil. What I felt was rage, but not that "out-of-control" type of rage that makes mad men. I think he feels that his own brothers, the Shia, betrayed him and sold the country out to the highest bidder so they could partake in a celebration that would exclude Sunnis and build mosques that only serve to divide Islam.

I'm not saying I agree with him. I'm just saying what I saw during an evening dream. Personally (and this is coming from a woman whose mother refused me religion so please have a bit of patience on me), no one can convince me that Mohammed (PBUH) is delighted with the fact that his children have parted company because of a dispute surrounding his sons. I personally believe that you're all running the risk of seriously pissing off your ancestors.

Terrorism? No. I would call this a very personal domestic dispute and the United States should have butted out of it.

As for the hijab, I do know the Muslims here are having problems... or they're heading for problems. On another forum I attended, a poster emailed me that they "heard" that the Muslims were going to try and create their own state here in the U.S. ~ so I went online to hunt the info down. What they really "heard" was that the Islamic School of Rhode Island was going to be featured on a television show called "The Thirteenth State" and some people misunderstood the meaning, not realising that Rhode Island... is the 13th American state. Word on the streets is that guns have become a hot commodity ~ everyone's getting them now. Just what the world needs... a bunch of trigger-happy cowboys running around loose!

I personally hope I don't have to live long enough to see where all this is going.

Ninth Scribe

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

That was a great comment Ninth Scribe *applaud*.
:rose:eace:

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

sorry... *scribe

 

[abdul Majid]

terrorism and hajib DO NOT go together......:grumbling

 

[HeiGou]

Whatever amounts to sufficient evidence in any rational and reasonable estimate - and that obviously does not include trial by ordeals

Well I can see your objection to the trial by ordeal, but they were used at one point to estalbished guilt. As I said proof is culturally based and what is rational and reasonable even more so. Do you happen to have some idea of what judges have used in the past as evidence?

Not actually a means of proof, and this is only used for husband v. wife or wife v. husband claims of adultery. If both sides take the oath, then no punishment is given. So it is not taken as a standard of proof. It is actually closer to the fact that in most western courts a witness must take an oath before testimony.

So the question would be what if two people were involved in an accusation of rape, they both swear to their side of the story, they both go free, and then the woman turns out to be pregnant. What is the punishment for that?

And it seems to have been used in murder cases too.

Volume 4, Book 53, Number 398:

Narrated Sahl bin Abi Hathma:

'Abdullah bin Sahl and Muhaiyisa bin Mas'ud bin Zaid set out to Khaibar, the inhabitants of which had a peace treaty with the Muslims at that time. They parted and later on Muhaiyisa came upon 'Abdullah bin Sah! and found him murdered agitating in his blood. He buried him and returned to Medina. 'Abdur Rahman bin Sahl, Muhaiyisa and Huwaiuisa, the sons of Mas'ud came to the Prophet and 'Abdur Rahman intended to talk, but the Prophet said (to him), "Let the eldest of you speak." as 'Abdur-Rahman was the youngest:. 'Abdur-Rahman kept silent and the other two spoke. The Prophet said, "If you swear as to who has committed the murder, you will have the right to take your right from the murderer." They said, "How should we swear if we did not witness the murder or see the murderer?" The Prophet said, "Then the Jews can clear themselves from the charge by taking Alaska (an oath taken by men that it was not they who committed the murder)." The!y said, "How should we believe in the oaths of infidels?" So, the Prophet himself paid the blood money (of 'Abdullah). (See Hadith No. 36 Vol. 9.)

Absolutely. And that is an inherent problem in dealing with this crime. Ultimately it may come down to two conflicting testimonies, in which case there is not sufficient evidence to punish the accused, in any society.

Well that is not strictly true in the Western legal tradition. Juries can and do convict with no evidence whatsoever or at least just circumstantial evidence. I wonder if you have a reference to what an Islamic judge is supposed to do in this case?

Whether a woman wears revealing clothing or not, if she claims she was raped, then she will not be punished.

That is a bold statement covering what - the Islamic ideal or the Muslim practice?

But the clothes alone will not be evidence to convict the accused. A woman wearing modest clothing could just have easily consented as a woman wearning revealing clothing. In both cases the acused can not be convicted on such weak evidence.

Except we are back with a cultural definition of what is more likely - what is a judge more likely to believe: that someone dressed modestly was raped or someone dressed immodestly was? This forum has people who have asserted that if women dress immodestly they contribute to their rape. Is that an Islamic attitude?

This comment seems to indicate to me that you did not read my response to 'a single male judge' in our previous discussion on the topic. Are you not aware of the function of the advisory council? Or the opinions of the Hanafi, Jariri and Dhahiri madha-hib on the issue of female judges?

Doesn't look like I did. Have women judges ever sat in judgement since the death of Ali? If so where? And doesn't the Hanafi school only allow women judges in very limited areas of law where the hudd punishments are not inflicted?

I never said that. I said culture has nothing to do with it because culture doesn't make it more likely that someone committed a crime or not.

Surely it does.

Then you're statement lacked any evidence to back it up. If we don't know the number of unreported rapes then how can we say that someone who rapes in the US is more likely to be punished than someone who rapes in a Muslim country?

Because it is next to impossible to convict for rape in Muslim countries and we can look at behaviour - Muslim parents vote with their daughters' freedom by imposing stricter conditions that the Quran and Sunna lay down. This must be due to a general fear of assault and presumably they are not irrational.

So a pious girl cannot go shopping according to you?

Well, she can, but she is, presumably, less likely to.