LaserBuddha
Member
I think you're really doing mental gymnastics to believe that because it's not a state requirement, the woman has a choice. Maybe where you live (Australia?), not in much of the Middle East.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official Islamic Thread
- Thread starter AmMortal
- Start date
OttomanScribe
Member
If it isn't enforced by anything, what else do you call it? I mean really, even if it was enforced, it would still be a choice, albeit a less than pleasant one. As it is, it is clearly a choice. Wear it, or don't. There is no worldly punishment either way.LaserBuddha said:
I'm guessing you have never been to the Middle East. Go to Lebanon, Syria or Jordan sometime. The hijab is hardly universally worn. In Egypt, in the 70s, you wouldn't see a single scarf worn on a middle class street in Cairo.
LaserBuddha
Member
So you really think that, with no state law enforcing it, that a woman (or a man for that manner) won't suffer potentially severe consequences for not following such a tenant?OttomanScribe said:
And it's not just a single culture-wide standard. It's on a family by family basis, where the patriarch's will is forced upon the family.
I know you'd like these Muslim countries to be as respectful of secular freedoms as where you live, but it is absolutely not the case.
OttomanScribe
Member
Please explain what you mean by this.LaserBuddha said:
A brother I know's wife was told by her Aunt that if she started to wear the hijab, that she would no longer be welcome in their house. My father in law begged my wife not to wear the hijab. You state things so factually, but I sincerely doubt that you have any experience of what you describe. How many Muslim women have you asked about the scarf?
I don't doubt that there are cases where women are pressured by their parents or the culture to dress in a certain way, but I also don't doubt that this is any more or less common than anywhere else. It is still unacceptable regardless. However painting this as the norm, is beyond logic.
Which countries specifically? These broad brush strokes are kind of hard to reply to.
LaserBuddha
Member
I mean that these rules still exist in a very real way, outside of a official state position. A family or community will enforce their own customs. Typically the retribution that comes from a man or woman not following strict Islamic doctrine does not come from any government entity.OttomanScribe said:
Well like I said, it's not clear-cut whether it's *this* country or *that* country. And to be fair, you use broad brush strokes when making any statement about Muslims in general. Muslim populations in secular states and Islamic states are different worlds, likewise there is a world of difference between different Islamic states. That said, Saudi Arabia is an example.
Abu Hanifa ruled out death as a punishment, and said that an appropriate punishment should be assigned by the judge. Ibn Hazm also agreed with this, as well as many Islamic scholars and Shaikhs. And the appropriate punishment for the most part was lashing.OttomanScribe said:
Abu Yusuf and Mohammed Bin Al-Hasan of the Hanafi school say that people who commit sodomy should be punished like those who commit adultery, and that means a physical punishment of 100 lashes and exiling them for one year if they weren't married (exile can be replaced with jailing), and death if they were married.
Prophet Mohammed once said...Killamangiro said:
يأتي على الناس زمان يكون فيه القابض على دينه كالقابض على الجمر
Which translates to "there will be a time where holding on to Islam would be like holding a burning Coal in bare hands"
And he also said...
إن الإسلام بدأ غريباً وسيعود غريباً كما بدأ فطوبى للغرباء
Which translates to "Islam was strange when it began and will one day be strange again; blessed are the strangers.
If you are a muslim who feels like a stranger in these times and finds it difficult to hold on to his fundamental beliefs, these two hadiths are directed at you.
OttomanScribe
Member
You use the words 'force' and 'retribution', heavy words indeed. Yet I see both words readily applicable to both anti-hijab and pro-hijab families and cultures. In Turkey there is immense pressure against women who wear the scarf, the same is true in Syria and was true in both Iraq and Iran before various events changed things.
I am specific when I need to be, or when I am asked to be.LaserBuddha said:
There are no 'Islamic' states in the world today. There are two that claim to be such, and both are ruled by different minority sects, Shiism on the one hand, and Wahhabism on the other. Both of these sects enforce clothing laws. No other Muslim state does. As I understand it, these two states are the exception, not only today, but throughout the history of the Muslim world. I have never seen a single text that demands a worldly 'retribution' or the use of 'force' in relation to veiling.
OttomanScribe
Member
JazakAllah khyer for the correctionDespera said:
it was my misunderstanding in terms of the distinction between 'physical punishment' and punishment involving blood, which can be taken as meaning capital punishment. I am no scholar, so insha'Allah I will be forgiven for conveying that which I understand, with the caveat that that is very little. Astafirghillah.LaserBuddha said:
Hey... I read that somewhere too.. But the first thing that comes to mind is that I know quite a few families where the mum only wears a scarf, and not her daughters... Then again... Things have changed over time... There is this gap in the middle, where the younger generation, post 9/11, have opted to wear the veil...
In other words, I just think the veil issue is not a patriarch thing. If the father is... Strict? Shall we say... Then all things come under that rule... But the veil is a much more wider issue...
OttomanScribe
Member
Alternatively you find the opposite, the mother is unveiled, while all the daughters are.Ashes1396 said:
Either way, the idea that the choice should ever be taken away from a sister, is not an appropriate understanding, so either way such things can only be described as abberations against the tradition.
LaserBuddha
Member
That's fine, but does that validate your sentiment that all Muslim women make the choice to wear the hijab freely? I don't think that can be considered true in practical reality, in many places.OttomanScribe said:
...but I just said it's not the state governments enforcing the practices. You are referencing what religious a text says to conclude what happens in reality.
Let's say, hypothetically, I'm completely wrong that this stuff happens. Saying it doesn't happen because religious texts don't decree that it should still doesn't mean anything.
Several times in the past, you've used what religious texts say to conclude what the reality is, and that just makes no sense. If that were true, I'd have every right to be terrified of Muslims as an infidel, and no Christian would disapprove of homosexual marriage since homosexual marriage isn't addressed in the Bible.
A religion isn't just a set of rules or holy books, a religion is also the followers themselves and what they do. So while the things we disdain in Islamic communities aren't universal or even necessarily represented in the majority, as long as they remain a trend tied to the religion, they are one of the religion's problems that the religion's followers needs to deal with. That's how I see things.
OttomanScribe
Member
Where did I make this statement. I have said that coercion is involved in some cases, however it cannot be said to be in all cases, or even the majority of cases. I think that those cases where coercion is involved, we are talking about cases of domestic violence, something which is a plague on all cultures, not just Muslims, which simply takes a form specific to whichever place it takes root.LaserBuddha said:
I reference what I know of the religion, because that is what I believe in and that is what I am defending. I am not defending some idiot who coerces his daughter into wearing the scarf.
This argument is not one that I make.
Again, this is not an argument that I make.
LaserBuddha
Member
Maybe you're giving off the wrong impression then? In several threads, when someone links an undesirable practice with Muslims, you will say it's not true, and then say "no text says that a Muslim should do this". It comes off as saying that it either isn't happening, or isn't linked to the religion, because the religious texts do not condone it. In reality, any number of deplorable things can emerge from a practicing religion even if the holy books of said religion contradict it. In fact, contradicting the holy texts is often a prerequisite for said deplorable things to become trends within the community. Atrocities done in the name of the Catholic church throughout history require going against the philosophy and teachings of Jesus, the man who is supposed to have the final word on what Christianity is. Said atrocities are still on the shoulders of Catholicism, and I wouldn't say they aren't Catholic atrocities just because the New Testament doesn't call for them.OttomanScribe said:
OttomanScribe, do you obfuscate in all of your conversations?
Would any Muslim in this thread, besides OttomaScribe, please point out where in the Koran it specifically states that women are required to wear hijab.
And if it doesn't, please have the courage to call out OttomanScribe for being a bullshitter and for spreading a perverted vision of Islam.
Being modest does not mean covering yourself head to toe. If it did, it'd be in the Koran.
It's a shame how some Muslim men treat their women like possessions and attempt to use the Koran as justification. Please show me where it states they should be treated as such.
OttomanScribe is doing his best to bend the message of Islam to suit his twisted vision of it. It's a shame somebody doesn't call him out on it.
Don't allow men like him to force their perverted translations upon you. Have the courage of the Prophet and stand up for Islam. Islam is not incompatible with modern times, but men like OttomanScribe will do their best to make you believe so.
If you allow old men to tell you how to be Muslim, you are not doing your part. Read the Koran and come to your own conclusions. Don't continue the chain of 'well such and such said it's okay to do this, or punishment should be this'. The Koran has everything you need to come to your own conclusions. GOD gave you a powerful mind to think for yourself. You can be a true Muslim and live by the word of GOD without relying on these old men to dictate what you should be doing with your life.
Those old men are flawed, irregardless of their status as scholars.
Just a thought.
Would any Muslim in this thread, besides OttomaScribe, please point out where in the Koran it specifically states that women are required to wear hijab.
And if it doesn't, please have the courage to call out OttomanScribe for being a bullshitter and for spreading a perverted vision of Islam.
Being modest does not mean covering yourself head to toe. If it did, it'd be in the Koran.
It's a shame how some Muslim men treat their women like possessions and attempt to use the Koran as justification. Please show me where it states they should be treated as such.
OttomanScribe is doing his best to bend the message of Islam to suit his twisted vision of it. It's a shame somebody doesn't call him out on it.
Don't allow men like him to force their perverted translations upon you. Have the courage of the Prophet and stand up for Islam. Islam is not incompatible with modern times, but men like OttomanScribe will do their best to make you believe so.
If you allow old men to tell you how to be Muslim, you are not doing your part. Read the Koran and come to your own conclusions. Don't continue the chain of 'well such and such said it's okay to do this, or punishment should be this'. The Koran has everything you need to come to your own conclusions. GOD gave you a powerful mind to think for yourself. You can be a true Muslim and live by the word of GOD without relying on these old men to dictate what you should be doing with your life.
Those old men are flawed, irregardless of their status as scholars.
Just a thought.
LaserBuddha
Member
SUPREME1 said:
Umm, I think OttomanScribe is doing the opposite of what you're accusing him of. He is using the Koran to condemn the idea of treating women as property. Which is exactly what any virtuous Muslim should do.
The part where we butt heads, is in how he characterizes the situation. Instead of saying "the Koran says *this*, so this is a trend in the Muslim community that we as a worldwide community need to deal with", he says "the Koran says *this*, therefore this trend is not a Muslim trend/problem". Or at least that's how it comes off. I'm of the opinion that when something is broadly Muslim-specific problem, then it's a problem within Islam. Ignoring it and saying it has nothing to do with Islam because it contradicts the holy texts is cowardice, and doesn't improve the religion (in the sense that a religion includes the body of followers and how the faith is currently practiced) in ways that it needs improving. If all Muslims are supposed to be brothers and sisters, then you need to confront the fact that things you don't like are being done under the umbrella of Islamic beliefs and thus are a cancerous part of the living faith that needs to be addressed, instead of just disassociating yourselves and your religion from those who don't practice it in the enlightened way you do.
Just my $0.02
Please feel free, as you read this, to mentally correct me anywhere I mistakenly use "Islam" in place of "Muslims", or vice versa.
OttomanScribe
Member
The other option here is that I say that things directly condemned by the religion, are caused by it....LaserBuddha said:
How does that work? It seems to me that in such a case no causality can logically be attributed it. Just because an atrocity is committed by Catholics, doesn't make it caused by Catholocism. Similarly just because a Muslim does something bad, it doesn't mean that what he does is automatically caused by Islam.
For one who doesn't believe (my assumption?), you place an extraordinary amount of faith, and yet simultaneously a contradictory contempt, on the power of belief.
It seems to me that if one is seeking to attribute causality to a religious text, one needs to point out something in the religious text that causes it. If the religious texts condemns that thing, then one is not justified in attributing causality. One then must look for some other more likely source.
An example of this would be honour killings, which are a problem in the Muslim world. One would look to the texts and find no leniency given to, to get all GoT up in here, 'kinslayers'. So then one must look for other sources of the trend. Looking at pre-Islamic Arab culture, one can see that it was common practice for female children to be buried alive. If one looks at the Islamic sources we can see a rhetorical attack upon the 'pride of jahiliyah (ignorance)' which is honour. One can then readily conclude that a cultural idea, prevalent before the coming of Islam to the Persians and the Arabs (and their descendents in the ME and Subcontinent) is a likely cause.
One can also then look further afield, to other 'honour' crimes, and see that they too are not uncommon in other cultures, and then see a further trend throughout humanity of a similar thing. In this sense, it is the Muslims duty to emphasis the ignorance of such practices, and call people to righteousness in the form of a rejection of the jahili (ignorant) concept of 'honour'. Honour is nothing in front of God, piety is what matters.
I get the impression that you find it easy to mistake complexity for obsfucation.
The source of a Muslims conduct is not confined to the Qur'an. The Qur'an is a book, within which are commands. An example would be 'establish the prayer'. However the prayer itself is not described in the Qur'an. To understand the how of prayer, one looks to the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). God does not give a command, and then give no way to carry it out. The same is true of modesty, if Allah commands the believers to be modest or chaste, then the example is given in the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) and that which he told others.
The scholars are flawed true, yet the Qur'an commands us to 'ask those who know'. Now who should the believer place more trust in: a person like myself, or you, on the internet, or a tradition of learning and scholarship that reaches back to the time of the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam).
Do you consider yourself a Muslim, to tell Muslims how to practise their religion?
Thankyou for coming to my defence
Now my idea is that precisely because it contradicts the texts of the religion, is the reason it should be combatted. I look at the character of women like Lady Aisha (radiAllahu anha) and I see that Muslim women should not be born into ignorance or coercion.
Look at some of the links I have posted, just in this thread, which is visited by few Muslims. You are exposed to the debates I have with non-Muslims, not those I have with Muslims. I have no issue with calling Muslims to task on all manner of things. Indeed on calling myself to task more importantly.
I do not think that it is a contradiction to defend my community from unjust characterisations, while simultaneously call my brothers and sisters to justice? Maybe you believe that the arguments I make to non-Muslims are the things I discuss with Muslims, which is a forgivable assumption. It is not however always the case.
LaserBuddha
Member
So I'm mistaken in taking your arguments as your arguments, because you have a different argument in this particular thread? In threads besides this one, you distance the religion itself from anything that some/many populations/sects practice, because the Koran does not order them to. And you get flack for it. But when you're in this thread, you treat those issues as issues of your religion because significant chunks of Islam (Islam being it's followers themselves) are doing bad things as part of their faith?OttomanScribe said:
It's like if I said all over the Off-Topic forum that Brony-GAF are a bunch of pedos, but then in the MLP Community thread I defended them, then claimed to be misunderstood when accused of calling Brony-GAF a bunch of pedos.
OttomanScribe
Member
My arguments are my arguments, I try to be consistant as I can be. I think you are kind of getting at it.LaserBuddha said:
I think that I strongly object to people who make links between Islam, which at the end of the day to me personally means the purest definition: a submission to the will of God, and the kind of things that people post about. If someone is linking submission to the will of God with honour killing for example, I will object.
However this is the case even if that person is themselves a Muslim (alhamduliLlah, all praise due to God, Allahu Ackbar, God is greater, I have never come across this).
I think maybe part of the difficulty comes with the definition. Islam isn't the followers themselves, Islam is the purity of the religion, at least as I understand it. Muslims are the followers, and they are all, myself included, far from pure. There is a significant difference in the literature between a Mu'min, and a Muslim. A Muslim is one who says that there is nothing worthy of worship save Allah, and Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah. A Mu'min (believer) is one for whom that testification, in a verbal form, has reached their heart.
There are 1.3 billion, give or take, Muslims on the earth. Allah knows best but there are far fewer of those who are Mu'min. The religion is not the Muslims. Islam is not defined by those who claim to submit. Islam is defined by God alone.
Killamangiro
Member
OttomanScribe said:The last one was the only real question I can see to answer
As I understand it, you are not meant to have sexual relations before marriage. If you feel this will be difficult for you, get married sooner rather than later. It is an unfortunate thing that in our community it is so hard for people to get married young, as parental support (far more so than religious support) is often so slow in being forthcoming.
I met my wife to be when I was 20, it took my in-laws 3 years to be okay with stuff. It is difficult to veer away from the haraam in such a situation. The advice I was given was avoid situations of temptation, and fast when you can. Both are effective means of avoiding getting yourself in a place where you might do something you regret.
Hang around Muslims if you can, an environment made up of pious people is always beneficial. I know many people who have gotten married to people whom they have met through Muslim friends in such a manner.
If you have a scholar or learned person near to you, seek advice from them. They have been through some form of such things, and are far more capable of advising you than internet forum goers.
Thanks for the response and also thanks to Despera for those two quotes.
The following clip speaks a lot to how I feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSiohaK4bCc
LaserBuddha
Member
The thing is, OttomanScribe, when you offer your opinion in other threads, people are expecting to hear what you think of these others Muslims as a Muslim yourself. And that is in fact how you frame what you say, which backs up the expectation. But in practice, when you withhold your real feelings and take on the role of simply being a defender, that is rightfully taken as what you as a Muslim think of the issue being raised.
Now let me start fresh and offer an analogy as to why we differ in opinion on whether the hijab is sexist or not, as well as touching on what we're already talking about:
If I were a practicing Christian, and there were prevalent trends among Christian populations to have women always wear dresses in the name of Christianity, then I'd consider it a failing/dark side of my religion.
I wouldn't disassociate it from Christianity just because it's not in the Bible and because I don't ascribe to it. I also wouldn't say that it is their choice just because the actual nation they live in doesn't make it a law. It's their local Christian community making them do it.
And when they technically aren't forced to wear a dress by anyone, I still wouldn't consider it a free, non-sexist choice, because I know they were raised to think it's what they should do. That's why I find it hard to buy it when some of these Muslim women claim it is entirely their choice. They've been shaped throughout their upbringing to believe it's what they should be doing, so to what degree does this "choice" represent a lack of gender inequality? Back in the early-to-mid 20th century, when women were fighting for gender equality, most women still embraced the sexist role of women in society, because thay's what they were raised to believe. In other words, their own beliefs were a symptom of their inequality.
Now let me start fresh and offer an analogy as to why we differ in opinion on whether the hijab is sexist or not, as well as touching on what we're already talking about:
If I were a practicing Christian, and there were prevalent trends among Christian populations to have women always wear dresses in the name of Christianity, then I'd consider it a failing/dark side of my religion.
I wouldn't disassociate it from Christianity just because it's not in the Bible and because I don't ascribe to it. I also wouldn't say that it is their choice just because the actual nation they live in doesn't make it a law. It's their local Christian community making them do it.
And when they technically aren't forced to wear a dress by anyone, I still wouldn't consider it a free, non-sexist choice, because I know they were raised to think it's what they should do. That's why I find it hard to buy it when some of these Muslim women claim it is entirely their choice. They've been shaped throughout their upbringing to believe it's what they should be doing, so to what degree does this "choice" represent a lack of gender inequality? Back in the early-to-mid 20th century, when women were fighting for gender equality, most women still embraced the sexist role of women in society, because thay's what they were raised to believe. In other words, their own beliefs were a symptom of their inequality.
OttomanScribe
Member
Forgive me, I think I will reply to your post not by replying to your analogy, with respect. I will reply with one of my own, a more personal description, which I will ask you to try and empathise with.LaserBuddha said:
Imagine that you are married to a smart, beautiful and very headstrong woman. She doesn't take no for an answer and your marriage is pretty much holding onto her dress and hoping she leads you right. She is also a dedicated feminist. Now one day you ask her why she wears the hijab. She tells you that when she was 17 she had very low self esteem. She felt that she was ugly and had no value because she didn't look exactly like the women in the magazines that were popular at her school.
Then she went with her parents on the hajj (pilgramage) and had a profound experience. Wearing the scarf, she felt freed from those constraints, felt more free with herself and felt a deeper sense of value, moreover she felt a relationship with God that she had never had before. However when she got back from hajj, her father began to ask her if she intended to continue to wear the hijab. She insisted, and he objected. He warned her that she would be harrassed, but she disobeyed him and wore it regardless. Then the harrasement occurs, she is spat on at a bus stop and at one point a man tries to rip it from her head.
However still she persists in wearing it until you are married, and wears it to this day.
Now imagine that all the Muslim women you meet that wear the scarf have similar experiences, similar characters. They all have subtle differences in their reason for wearing it. For some it is a shield, for some it is a veil between this world and themselves, and in turn a peeling back of the veils between them and God.
Then finally imagine you yourself begin to cover, and you realise what it is like to be them. You suffer the same harrasment but feel the same sense of pride, the same sense of closeness to God.
Of course on the periphery you hear stories of people who are coerced by their parents or their families into wearing it, but these stories are far less common than those who are coerced by their families or broader society not to wear it.
If that was your experience, an experience not confined to your home country, but one that stretched across travels around the world, and friends from many different nations, would you really assume that many or all women are forced? Would you then seek to deny those women the peace and closeness to God that you yourself have, and that they have described to you? I certainly could not. In fact I would go to great lengths to protect their right to do so. As much as I would struggle against those who would take the choice either way, away from them.
LaserBuddha
Member
I respect and believe your characterization of your wife, and it sounds perfectly likely for a woman raised in a place so receptive to feminist beliefs.
I still, however, maintain that for the most part, women in these largely muslim countries are drawn to the hijab because throughout their life it has been a symbol of piety or whatever word you want to choose. The idea is culturally shared that covering one's head/skin is appropriate for a woman, and it's not like these women all randomly came to the conclusion that they should put a scarf on their head. It's a custom, and I'm sorry, but a custom dictating that women should (or are to some degree encouraged to choose to) cover their skin/face is a sexist one when it is on some level restrictive but doesn't apply to men as well. The fact that the logic exists in Islam that women should wear it in part to avoid tempting men, is very offensive to me.
I'd never presume to say that one reasoning applies to everyone in a group so large as the world's Muslims. Nor would I say that the trends are the same in any country with a significant population of Muslims, since they are so politically and culturally diverse. I just see the plain facts of how such a custom shapes the beliefs of those growing up in it, and can't ignore that there is an existing element of sexism.
The hijab really isn't that big of a deal to me. The burqa is what I have issues with.
I still, however, maintain that for the most part, women in these largely muslim countries are drawn to the hijab because throughout their life it has been a symbol of piety or whatever word you want to choose. The idea is culturally shared that covering one's head/skin is appropriate for a woman, and it's not like these women all randomly came to the conclusion that they should put a scarf on their head. It's a custom, and I'm sorry, but a custom dictating that women should (or are to some degree encouraged to choose to) cover their skin/face is a sexist one when it is on some level restrictive but doesn't apply to men as well. The fact that the logic exists in Islam that women should wear it in part to avoid tempting men, is very offensive to me.
I'd never presume to say that one reasoning applies to everyone in a group so large as the world's Muslims. Nor would I say that the trends are the same in any country with a significant population of Muslims, since they are so politically and culturally diverse. I just see the plain facts of how such a custom shapes the beliefs of those growing up in it, and can't ignore that there is an existing element of sexism.
The hijab really isn't that big of a deal to me. The burqa is what I have issues with.
OttomanScribe
Member
I don't think I withold my true feelings at all. I think that in responding to arguments, a specfici facet of my understanding is more focussed upon than others.LaserBuddha said:
I do not however hold back in critique when I feel it is neccesary. However I often think it is odd, the desire of non-Muslims to witness one Muslim denounce another. In the threads that I am in, it is usually the non-Muslims in the thread that I am discussing with, not Muslims, so it would be strange for me to denounce or attempt to correct someone who is not present.
I seldom speak with vitriol, at least I hope not, though, God forgive me, I can be sarcastic and snarky at times. However when I do speak with vitriol, it is usually in frustration at one who I believe has defamed the religion. Ever read my posts regarding Saudi?
If people ask me what I, as a Muslim, feel about something, I will tell them. However people don't. Instead they tell me what I feel, and I cannot abide that. I am repeatedly told what my position is on this issue or that one, rarely am I asked. So in this sense, if I seem as a defender it is because I am not often placed in a role of answering questions, I am more often placed in the role of defending against allegations.
With this in mind, can you see why I would think it odd when a bunch of non-Muslims who have likely never met a Muslim woman, tell them what is and is not sexist, as though those women are unable to think for themselves. So often in threads about banning the hijab in the West, people make the assumption that all women are forced, and yet really is it anything other than an assumption. This assumption is rarely based upon personal experience, if it is based upon anything it is based upon the most extreme incidents, which seem immense when in reality they pale in contrast to the size of the sample involved.
I cannot imagine the day when a non-Muslim posts things like the academic journal articles that link positive body image to being a veiled Muslim woman.
LaserBuddha said:
I used to participate in these type of debates before... I will say one thing that is these questions are worded so you can have to be the defender or you are placed in to state the facts without your personal opinion. If you want to ask our opinion about things, then say what is you opinion. If not then you will see this confusing situation with Muslim GAFFers being defenders or just stating the facts.
OttomanScribe
Member
My apologies, I am enjoying this discussion but it is 7 am where I am, so I should probably sleep. I will do my best to reply in good timeLaserBuddha said:
LaserBuddha
Member
OttomanScribe said:My apologies, I am enjoying this discussion but it is 7 am where I am, so I should probably sleep. I will do my best to reply in good time
I'd like to take advantage of your background and view to discuss other things, and not always get into these discussions that are framed with hostility.
What do you think of Kingdom of Heaven, specifically Ridley Scott's characterization of both the Christian leadership and of Saladin? My general sense of how actual history plays out leads me to believe that both characterizations were overly kind, lending more of an enlightened/liberal view to those of an era that wouldn't lend itself to such views. He didn't pull any punches with the Templars though, but is that because they were truly that horrible and/or motivated by pure greed (not something I'm doubting), or was it just to have a traditional villain?
What are your views on the religious claim to certain religious claims on holy sites, such as Jerusalem (setting aside the entire Palestinian/Israeli conflict which is a whole other matter). If we are to entertain such claims, do we go with which religion has the most recent/longest lasting possession, do we go with who has the oldest claim, or do we make the decision based on how important said site is in the various religions (in that case, for example, Christians would have the most important religious claim on Calvary/Golgotha). Or maybe that because such contradictions exist, is there no claim to be had?
What are your feelings on the western sentiment that Muslims are not speaking out against extremism as they should? Muslims respond with the (correct) assertion that it is not their duty to defend themselves from the actions of another muslim or group of muslims, but is it really about duty or obligation? Is it simply a western cultural thing that people have a moral obligation to speak out strongly against the horrible acts of those they have some association with (whether it's racial, national, or religious association)? When we look at a country such as Pakistan, should we not see any implicit acceptance of al Qaeda's practices because there is not a huge outcry in Pakistan about them operating there? In the west, we as a nation would be outraged at a terrorist group being supported within our borders, an I imagine the outcry and attempt to deal with them would be strong. In places like Pakistan there seems to be more of an attitude of just worrying about one's own day-to-day life, and not having strong convictions about what is allowed to happen in one's own country (that touches on something else I've noticed, which is that people in the Middle East do not draw identity as much from nationality). Does such an outcry on our part represent a fundamental difference in view about extremism, or just a different cultural importance placed on speaking out?
Also, you're Australian, right? What the fuck has Rob Dougan been up to since he hasn't released a second album at all?
Get some sleep, I'll check in on this later.
^about Pakistan. Yeah, its not worth it.
Basic simple answer: Corruption everywhere, leaders and army not caring for majority of Pakistani civilians/people. People extremely apathetic attitude towards government and democracy. Add that Pakistan helped US during the 80s/early 90s to then get hammered with sanctions. Yeah, people there don't care unless it directly concerns them.Areas in Pakistan that had no school but madrassa were fine until Saudi Arabia started to export their type of Islam into Pakistan and thus led to the radicalization of a whole generation of Muslims there.
The rich would like to be even more rich and secular. While the poor are getting even more poor due to the bad conditions there. :|
In all honesty, to end this taliban/extremist tendencies that are occurring in the Muslim world.
US and the rest of the World have to stop Saudi Arabia and their Salafi/Wahabi teachings to spread and that includes the USA!
You guys want to know something, at another local mosque in my area. There was a huge fight concerning this. I don't what would you call him in English, the prayer leader would not say dua (supplication) after doing the actual prayer. Most Sunni Muslims from every school of thought I know of do this. But Wahabi/Salafi don't do this, which I don't know why. :|
These crazy Wahabi teachings are the main reason why terrorism and 9/11 occurred.
Basic simple answer: Corruption everywhere, leaders and army not caring for majority of Pakistani civilians/people. People extremely apathetic attitude towards government and democracy. Add that Pakistan helped US during the 80s/early 90s to then get hammered with sanctions. Yeah, people there don't care unless it directly concerns them.Areas in Pakistan that had no school but madrassa were fine until Saudi Arabia started to export their type of Islam into Pakistan and thus led to the radicalization of a whole generation of Muslims there.
The rich would like to be even more rich and secular. While the poor are getting even more poor due to the bad conditions there. :|
In all honesty, to end this taliban/extremist tendencies that are occurring in the Muslim world.
US and the rest of the World have to stop Saudi Arabia and their Salafi/Wahabi teachings to spread and that includes the USA!
You guys want to know something, at another local mosque in my area. There was a huge fight concerning this. I don't what would you call him in English, the prayer leader would not say dua (supplication) after doing the actual prayer. Most Sunni Muslims from every school of thought I know of do this. But Wahabi/Salafi don't do this, which I don't know why. :|
These crazy Wahabi teachings are the main reason why terrorism and 9/11 occurred.
OttomanScribe
Member
The characterisation was less about my wife than a more general thing. You say 'raised in a place so receptive to feminist beliefs', I assume you are talking about her upbringing in a Bengali household?LaserBuddha said:
I think the main issue here is that I wonder where the source of your understandings come from. Could you explain more to me how you came to these conclusions, specifically the leap that because it was a cultural norm (it is no longer in most places) that it is therefore sexist or offensive? Surely what is sexist is not defined by men, but by those who are victims of sexism? In this respect, if you assert that such women are unable to tell what is and what is not sexist, is that not itself a sexist assertion?
Again, I think there should be a seperation there. Just because not being rude is customary, doesn't mean it is problematic.
Don't take Kingdom of Heaven as a historical text
the Christian leadership were partly made up of different historical characters mashed together lol.I think that throughout the history of tellings of him, Historians have had some affection for Saleh'Uddin al-Ayyubi. We can see this as far back as Dante (who isn't really a historian) who placed Saleh'Uddin in purgatory, rather than hell.
However since 9/11 we have had a reappraising in the scholarship of Saleh'Uddin, in light of the new narrative. I am suspicious of such things, given the context in which they occur. King Baldwin was undoubtedly a skillful and courageous man.
Personally I think that such claims come second in the end to realpolitik. When the Israelis believe they have the political power to turn Jerusalem into their eternal capital, they will. When the Muslims have the power to take back their land, they will. I think it is all about politics and the validity of any religious clams barely come into it.
I think people aren't listening. After 9/11, Muslims learned that speaking out against extremism earned them nothing. Hundreds of Muslim organisations issued statements regarding 9/11, and yet still, still, there were speakers in the US that talked about a 'deafening silence of the moderates'. We weren't silent, they just had cotton wool in their ears.
I am, though I honestly don't know who that is.
In the end, it begins to look like a farce to me. Why should I have to denounce every single bad thing ever done by a person who calls themselves Muslim? Shouldn't it be the fault of the one who asks, the one who makes that association between me and the other, in the first place?
I haven't been to Pakistan, but I have been to Bangladesh. Rural people in Bangladesh that I met had a little concern for the outside world, but their primary concern was getting by. We seem to forget that in our countries, so wealthy, we are free to focus on politics if we feel like it. Other people are not so lucky. I know that people in Pakistan are stuck between the Pakistani Taliban (different from al Qaeda) and the Pakistani Army, and either way they lose. The idea that Pakistanis don't care at all is a strange one. They can't not, however they also can't pick sides.
It is easy to do so from where we stand, we don't have bombs going off across the road from us, smashing all our windows and throwing us to the ground (this happened to a friend of mine). The consequences of supporting one side or the other are far greater than voting democrat or republican. These are life and death decisions for people, and so people generally will choose the side that will benefit them the most. I don't know what other choice they could make. Unfortunately in many cases, this happens to be the Pakistani Taliban, either because they will get food to them when the government will not, or they will threaten them when the government will not.
RustyNails
Member
This is such an unending hog of crap.LaserBuddha said:
Muslims everywhere have been speaking out against terrorism and extremism. But the western media doesn't give a shit (neither does Arab media, for that matter). Academics, intellectuals, scholars, Imams, professionals, students, practically a person from every facet of life has spoken out on the issue. Muslims are sick and tired of explaining everything over and over, and despite that there are still people who go "well why dont muslims say anything hmmmmm?". Shia Islam is slightly more heirarchical and structured compared to Sunni Islam, and the highest ranking clerics of Shias released a fatwa against suicide bombing. The Imams of Mecca and Medina mosques both denounced it. A simple google or youtube search yields the results, but you want to propagate the ignorance some more.
As for Pakistan, again, the squeaky wheel get the oil. Only when a no name dumb hick mullah in Pakistan backwaters says something retarded, it makes the global headlines. The loudest of the bunch make the news. Extremism is routinely denounced everyday. A group of 50 highest ranking scholars got together in Pakistan to draft a declaration against terrorism and suicide bombing sometime around 2005, and they released it. But no one heard of them. Recently, another prominent cleric from Pakistan, a well known scholar released a 600 page fatwa against terrorism and suicide bombing. But no, no one cares about these things. It's always the frothing beardy guy with DEATH TO USA slogans on the TV.
And just two months ago, the muslim peace coalition march happened in NY where about 100 imams took part in a show of condemnation of terrorism, ending of wars and fixing America. The chief cleric of Al Azhar University from Egypt, the oldest Islamic Institution in history also denounced terrorism in a big way. Again, no one knows about any of this because it's not sensationalist. Peace is boring.
This.OttomanScribe said:
Can't believe there are still people in 2011 that think Muslims aren't doing enough. It's pretty much useless by now. 100 Muslim groups denounce terrorism., One no-name cleric from Riyadh doesn't. Suddenly, that cleric is in the center of spotlight and the weird narrative of Muslims supporting extremism and at best, keep silence, begins anew. Hysteria spreads and Congressmen hold hearings on "radical Islam". All the while those 100 Muslim groups are confused as to why they are incredibly invisible.
LaserBuddha
Member
Thanks for the replies.
OttomanScribe, I'll end the whole hijab/burqa discussion now by stating that I see it eventually boils down to cultural differences of what someone with my western/Christian (I'm not Christian, but you know what I mean) upbringing sees as symbolic of sexism and how someone from a different culture or religion would see it. Apples and Oranges; there are more worthwhile discussions to be had.
I had focused on the fact that in some quantity, women have this imposed upon them in the name of religious correctness. This may happen in much smaller numbers than the vague impression that one get from the media, which no matter how unbiased the source, chooses to focus on a particular angle when discussing these matters. We can't get hard numbers on it, and if someone tried, by its very nature it's hard to get completely good and accurate data. I don't think it's a super-tiny fringe thing nor something that is widespread enough to encompass entire cities or nations (except for Saudi Arabia perhaps?), but in the end the numbers don't have a fundamental importance when we all agree that it's a minority element.
These "religious beliefs" that cause some Muslim men to subjugate women are obviously shaped by cultural/psychological factors which are they retrofit to their interpretation of Islam. Such personalized corruption of religious doctrine is a natural phenomenon in religion, as all religions themselves are, in practice, part pure scripture and part cultural influence. After all, if Muhammad wasn't the man who he was, where he was, when he was, how different would Islam be?
To answer your question about how the idea a woman not knowing what is sexist is itself sexist, I'd like to refer back to my analogy to the women's rights movement, and about how culturally-ingrained sexism will warp both men and women's sense of what is sexist. During the first half of the 20th century in America, for example, the struggle for women's rights was a struggle not just against male resistance, but against the fact that most women accepted their subordinate role. People believe what you raise them to believe, and that's why equality movements for the most part take so long and are so difficult. But again, I'm trying to put a period at the end of the sexism in Islam discussion, so I don't want this paragraph to be interpreted as a counter-argument, but more as a clarification for what was perceived as a sexist sentiment coming from me.
As an example of this "problem" of mine, I sat through Kung-fu Panda 2 mostly interested in the question of what Chinese audiences will think of it. That's why I love sites like chinasmack.com. I wish we had other ____smack.com's. When I encounter a foreigner I have to concentrate on not bugging them with questions.
OttomanScribe, I'll end the whole hijab/burqa discussion now by stating that I see it eventually boils down to cultural differences of what someone with my western/Christian (I'm not Christian, but you know what I mean) upbringing sees as symbolic of sexism and how someone from a different culture or religion would see it. Apples and Oranges; there are more worthwhile discussions to be had.
I had focused on the fact that in some quantity, women have this imposed upon them in the name of religious correctness. This may happen in much smaller numbers than the vague impression that one get from the media, which no matter how unbiased the source, chooses to focus on a particular angle when discussing these matters. We can't get hard numbers on it, and if someone tried, by its very nature it's hard to get completely good and accurate data. I don't think it's a super-tiny fringe thing nor something that is widespread enough to encompass entire cities or nations (except for Saudi Arabia perhaps?), but in the end the numbers don't have a fundamental importance when we all agree that it's a minority element.
These "religious beliefs" that cause some Muslim men to subjugate women are obviously shaped by cultural/psychological factors which are they retrofit to their interpretation of Islam. Such personalized corruption of religious doctrine is a natural phenomenon in religion, as all religions themselves are, in practice, part pure scripture and part cultural influence. After all, if Muhammad wasn't the man who he was, where he was, when he was, how different would Islam be?
To answer your question about how the idea a woman not knowing what is sexist is itself sexist, I'd like to refer back to my analogy to the women's rights movement, and about how culturally-ingrained sexism will warp both men and women's sense of what is sexist. During the first half of the 20th century in America, for example, the struggle for women's rights was a struggle not just against male resistance, but against the fact that most women accepted their subordinate role. People believe what you raise them to believe, and that's why equality movements for the most part take so long and are so difficult. But again, I'm trying to put a period at the end of the sexism in Islam discussion, so I don't want this paragraph to be interpreted as a counter-argument, but more as a clarification for what was perceived as a sexist sentiment coming from me.
I don't of course take it as fact. I just ask about it not out of simple ignorance, but out of a strong fascination I have for seeing how things are viewed differently through the lens of another culture. Admittedly, it's mostly in regards to pop culture things, such as movies like this. When it comes to religion-related discussions, I have more interest on discussing history and historical figures than current events, despite what our conversation would suggest.Don't take Kingdom of Heaven as a historical text
I think that throughout the history of tellings of him, Historians have had some affection for Saleh'Uddin al-Ayyubi. We can see this as far back as Dante (who isn't really a historian) who placed Saleh'Uddin in purgatory, rather than hell.
However since 9/11 we have had a reappraising in the scholarship of Saleh'Uddin, in light of the new narrative. I am suspicious of such things, given the context in which they occur. King Baldwin was undoubtedly a skillful and courageous man.
As an example of this "problem" of mine, I sat through Kung-fu Panda 2 mostly interested in the question of what Chinese audiences will think of it. That's why I love sites like chinasmack.com. I wish we had other ____smack.com's. When I encounter a foreigner I have to concentrate on not bugging them with questions.
OttomanScribe
Member
LaserBuddha said:
I think that is an interesting question to ask. I have been told in more than one class that the reason that the Qur'an was revealed to an Arab was predominantly because the Arabic language is the only language with the level of expression required for God's word. The Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) deeply challenged many many aspects of Arab society at the time. I think it is very easy to be removed from that in this day and age.
An example would be trial by a judge, with a set of laws that one could understand and appeal to. Trial by combat remained a norm in so many places for so long. Even the idea that women could own property of their own and even more importantly, could inherit property, was a drastic change. The Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) exulted some parts of Arab society and sanctified them. Others he cast down.
The thing with this though is that it is assuming a position assumedly taken from the future? This is in the sense that people can look back now and say that attitudes in the 30s were sexist, because there has been a feminist movement that has fundamentally changed society. In the case of the hijab, we can't do this, because there has been no major movement that challenged it. If anything, the role of the hijab in rebellions against governance in Egypyt, Turkey and Iran point to the opposite.
As you said, I think it is a part about that difference, difference can be very difficult to grasp with, I know I though 'poor oppressed woman' when I would see hijabis walking around. It wasn't til I knew some myself that I realised my mistake.
In terms of the Muslim perception of the movie, I think it is generally viewed quite well. One hears stories of Lebanese audiences clapping and cheering in theatres when Saleh'Uddin picks up the Cross and places it back on the table.
He is of course a very popular figure, one of my Muslim names is in his honour (I am known by some as Saleh'Uddin Zahir Jamal.. because I like giving myself names
). I often wonder the flipside, how it seems to Western audiences to be honest, I don't know if I am classed as that anymore...It is a strange thing to be confronted with the realisation that a lot of the knowledge I take as standard, isn't standard for non-Muslims. I often forget how ignorant I was so many years ago. That people don't know characters like Ibn Battuta probably surprises me as much as a Chinese person might be surprised that I didn't know much about Wu Zentian before Civ 5 lol.
OttomanScribe
Member
'The Illuminati, Freemasons and Bin Laden'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ_uaRMCYYc&feature=player_embedded#at=41
'Do not trust a culture where the religious leaders do not have the best sense of humour.' - Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ_uaRMCYYc&feature=player_embedded#at=41
'Do not trust a culture where the religious leaders do not have the best sense of humour.' - Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
So as the holy month of Ramadhan draws close, I'm thinking about probably making some sort of a Ramadhan Official Topic in the OT forum. I am planning to cram as much information as I can about Ramadhan, perhaps linking to some informative articles, as well as miscellaneous Ramadhan-related pictures.
Anyone here interested in helping?
Anyone here interested in helping?
OttomanScribe
Member
I'd be happy to help insha'Allah.Laughing Banana said:
Maybe we should make some guidelines for people posting though, just in case it is want to turn into a debate thread? We could always just have such things posted in this thread..
Some of my favorite recitations of various Surahs. They're mostly all pretty uplifting, while some are just powerful (Naba, Naziat). During the past few months I've gone and memorized quite a lot of surahs on my drive to work because it's about an hour long. These are some of the ones which really stuck out for me. I've been going through a huge bout of depression for the past year. Listening/reciting to these and the rest of the Quran has rid me of my depression that I never thought anything could.
Surah Duha (The Morning Light) - Saad Al Ghamdi
http://youtu.be/BV5Pcr1sLqk
Surah Rahman (The Beneficient) - Kamal Uddin
http://youtu.be/vr8DR8frP_s
Surah Maryam (Mary mother of Jesus) - Saad Nomani
http://youtu.be/2CVJ-tIbvZo
Surah Lail (The Night) - Saad Al Ghamdi
http://youtu.be/RFQgeCmyX44
Surah Shams (The Sun) - Saad Al Ghamdi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jmfRnriKGA
Surah Naas (Mankind) - Saad Al Ghamdi
http://youtu.be/W5T1AbH3ywM
Luqman (verses 1-11) - Anas Al Ghamdi
http://youtu.be/x6LuiZWmL8w
Surah Abasa (He Frowned verses 17-42) - Moeed Mazeen
http://youtu.be/AWXDiuUHRFQ
Surah Insan (Man/Human) - Mishary Al Afasy
http://youtu.be/jLXSOgauzAA
Surah Naba (The Great News) - Abdul Baset Abdul Samad, Translation is read By Naeem Sultan.
http://youtu.be/0076IW-Wxl8
Surah Naba (The Great News) - Saad Al Ghamdi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWrnPpGJeyQ
Surah Naziat (Those that tear out) - Abu Bakr Ash-Shatri
http://youtu.be/6u9p69dsHZs
Surah Duha (The Morning Light) - Saad Al Ghamdi
http://youtu.be/BV5Pcr1sLqk
Surah Rahman (The Beneficient) - Kamal Uddin
http://youtu.be/vr8DR8frP_s
Surah Maryam (Mary mother of Jesus) - Saad Nomani
http://youtu.be/2CVJ-tIbvZo
Surah Lail (The Night) - Saad Al Ghamdi
http://youtu.be/RFQgeCmyX44
Surah Shams (The Sun) - Saad Al Ghamdi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jmfRnriKGA
Surah Naas (Mankind) - Saad Al Ghamdi
http://youtu.be/W5T1AbH3ywM
Luqman (verses 1-11) - Anas Al Ghamdi
http://youtu.be/x6LuiZWmL8w
Surah Abasa (He Frowned verses 17-42) - Moeed Mazeen
http://youtu.be/AWXDiuUHRFQ
Surah Insan (Man/Human) - Mishary Al Afasy
http://youtu.be/jLXSOgauzAA
Surah Naba (The Great News) - Abdul Baset Abdul Samad, Translation is read By Naeem Sultan.
http://youtu.be/0076IW-Wxl8
Surah Naba (The Great News) - Saad Al Ghamdi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWrnPpGJeyQ
Surah Naziat (Those that tear out) - Abu Bakr Ash-Shatri
http://youtu.be/6u9p69dsHZs
Lead maghrib prayer today because the imam didn't come. Even tho I've done it plenty of times before it was still pretty exciting to do after such a long time. Luckily it went OK
This year will hopefully give me more free time to get back good into Islamic teachings
Maybe I can do some simple gfx if it's needed!
Can't believe Ramadan is almost upon us. Time's been going real fast this year. Going to be first time for me that it's during the whole summer as well. But apart from tennis matches I never have big problemsLaughing Banana said:
This year will hopefully give me more free time to get back good into Islamic teachingsMaybe I can do some simple gfx if it's needed!
OttomanScribe
Member
AlhamduliLlahTeetris said:
People always get me to be the Imam, but I always get nervous. I'm always worried I'll mess up the translation, so I always recite Surah an-Nas and Surah al-Ikhlas. :$
Not that those are bad Surahs, but I know I will never mess them up.
I much prefer to give the adhan
Thanks for all the links. One of my most beloved Surahs is ash-Sharh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RFfXSJKrAw&feature=related
Was having this debate today, thought I'd chime it in here. First off please excuse me if I "don't get what I fully mean" across or use turkish words (if I don't know english). Usually it's much harder to write than speak ))
Imam nikah (Sharia marrige). Is it ok in a non sharia country to just get the imam nikah and no civil partnership (registry office etc.). Sleep with the woman for months before you have an intention to get registered for a recognised (by the countries law) marriage certificate.
Basically I have a case study. Just say a man became a couple with a girl. This girl not so religious. He comes from religious background, girl does not. He says in order to move in with her (himself, and parents (Imams themselves) think this is permissible) he needs to get nikha, the girl accepts, but they are engaged. She calls him fiancée, not husband until they get civil partnership.
I was debating with the family, everyone was saying it is halal for the hypothetical man to sleep with his wife because Sharia is all that matters, I accept that, but my points why this is a touchy subject were (sorry for list, easier for me to get what I mean in writing);
Marriage is a commitment.
To break this commitment there should be consequence, (not bad, but what I mean is that it shouldn't be easy to break a promise.)
Before nikah is done, usually the wife is asked for what she wants.
If there is a divorce the wife should be honoured this.
In countries with Sharia law, this is easy, the law protects the female.
In non Sharia counties there is nothing protecting the woman, for example the guy can divorce the woman "divorce, divorce, divorce" and there is nothing stopping the man from walking away.
The man if he has intention to marry the woman, should do so both with the Imam and by a civil partnership, if not same time (day) but very close.
So with civil partnership the woman, even the man, is "protected".
Thus the commmitment is greater, which is a beautiful thing.
Couples should not just get sharia married so it's halal to "have it off" with woman early.
An extreme case of this, I compared it to, extreme case, not saying this is the case in the example or the subject, when you have those men who get married to prostitute before they walk in, have sex, divorce as they leave.
Anywho the family said I was talking bollocks, I think I have a point due to the philosophy of what marriage stands for lol
))Imam nikah (Sharia marrige). Is it ok in a non sharia country to just get the imam nikah and no civil partnership (registry office etc.). Sleep with the woman for months before you have an intention to get registered for a recognised (by the countries law) marriage certificate.
Basically I have a case study. Just say a man became a couple with a girl. This girl not so religious. He comes from religious background, girl does not. He says in order to move in with her (himself, and parents (Imams themselves) think this is permissible) he needs to get nikha, the girl accepts, but they are engaged. She calls him fiancée, not husband until they get civil partnership.
I was debating with the family, everyone was saying it is halal for the hypothetical man to sleep with his wife because Sharia is all that matters, I accept that, but my points why this is a touchy subject were (sorry for list, easier for me to get what I mean in writing);
Marriage is a commitment.
To break this commitment there should be consequence, (not bad, but what I mean is that it shouldn't be easy to break a promise.)
Before nikah is done, usually the wife is asked for what she wants.
If there is a divorce the wife should be honoured this.
In countries with Sharia law, this is easy, the law protects the female.
In non Sharia counties there is nothing protecting the woman, for example the guy can divorce the woman "divorce, divorce, divorce" and there is nothing stopping the man from walking away.
The man if he has intention to marry the woman, should do so both with the Imam and by a civil partnership, if not same time (day) but very close.
So with civil partnership the woman, even the man, is "protected".
Thus the commmitment is greater, which is a beautiful thing.
Couples should not just get sharia married so it's halal to "have it off" with woman early.
An extreme case of this, I compared it to, extreme case, not saying this is the case in the example or the subject, when you have those men who get married to prostitute before they walk in, have sex, divorce as they leave.
Anywho the family said I was talking bollocks, I think I have a point due to the philosophy of what marriage stands for
lolThanks! Haha I also have that these days. Used to know a lot of suras by heart but nowadays I can only recite about 20-30. Got to keep practicing if you don't want to forgetOttomanScribe said:AlhamduliLlah
People always get me to be the Imam, but I always get nervous. I'm always worried I'll mess up the translation, so I always recite Surah an-Nas and Surah al-Ikhlas. :$
Not that those are bad Surahs, but I know I will never mess them up.
I much prefer to give the adhan
RustyNails
Member
Anyone attending the ISNA conference in Chicago? I was hoping to attend one and see what goes on, but sadly, the tickets are $100 a piece for shame.
for shame.OttomanScribe
Member
My understanding is that when one is the citizen of a country, they make a covenant with that country, either as soon as they come of age, or when they attain citizenship. Now in my country, the covenant explicitly states that one accepts to abide by the laws of the nation.besiktas1 said:Was having this debate today, thought I'd chime it in here. First off please excuse me if I "don't get what I fully mean" across or use turkish words (if I don't know english). Usually it's much harder to write than speak
Imam nikah (Sharia marrige). Is it ok in a non sharia country to just get the imam nikah and no civil partnership (registry office etc.). Sleep with the woman for months before you have an intention to get registered for a recognised (by the countries law) marriage certificate.
Basically I have a case study. Just say a man became a couple with a girl. This girl not so religious. He comes from religious background, girl does not. He says in order to move in with her (himself, and parents (Imams themselves) think this is permissible) he needs to get nikha, the girl accepts, but they are engaged. She calls him fiancée, not husband until they get civil partnership.
I was debating with the family, everyone was saying it is halal for the hypothetical man to sleep with his wife because Sharia is all that matters, I accept that, but my points why this is a touchy subject were (sorry for list, easier for me to get what I mean in writing);
Marriage is a commitment.
To break this commitment there should be consequence, (not bad, but what I mean is that it shouldn't be easy to break a promise.)
Before nikah is done, usually the wife is asked for what she wants.
If there is a divorce the wife should be honoured this.
In countries with Sharia law, this is easy, the law protects the female.
In non Sharia counties there is nothing protecting the woman, for example the guy can divorce the woman "divorce, divorce, divorce" and there is nothing stopping the man from walking away.
The man if he has intention to marry the woman, should do so both with the Imam and by a civil partnership, if not same time (day) but very close.
So with civil partnership the woman, even the man, is "protected".
Thus the commmitment is greater, which is a beautiful thing.
Couples should not just get sharia married so it's halal to "have it off" with woman early.
An extreme case of this, I compared it to, extreme case, not saying this is the case in the example or the subject, when you have those men who get married to prostitute before they walk in, have sex, divorce as they leave.
Anywho the family said I was talking bollocks, I think I have a point due to the philosophy of what marriage stands for
In this sense, as keeping covenants is an obligation, so obeying the laws of the nation is an obligation. Another point is that lying is impermissable generally, and if one is asked 'are you married', by the state, one would have to say 'yes'.
This is the understanding that I have been given on this issue by mashaykh. The primary argument being the obligation to keep ones covenant with the state. One can renounce it, but they must renounce citizenship to do so. There are issues with this more generally (for example the Australian pledge of allegiance proclaims an adherence to 'democratic values' which I personally don't hold, though that is another issue.
While it might be permissable for one to have sexual relations after the marriage ceremony in the Sha'riah, what would be impermissable would be lieing about one's relationship status to the state, or more generally denying that status for whatever reason. This is the issue, if you are married, the state expects to be informed, and thus by not informing them, you break your covenant, which is haram.
Am I making sense?
i am new here on gaf and just wanted to drop by and say esselamu aleykum ve rahmetullahi ve berekatuhu
greetings my muslim brothers and sisters on gaf and of course all non-muslims who visit this thread.
i have been following this thread for a long time. inshallah you will see me more often here.
Ramadan is coming up - this is always such a spiritual month; visiting the mosque, readings from the qu'ran, being more often together with family and friends, sharing, helping the poor, lively discussions about the islam - it really cleans up your body and especially your mind.
keep this thread alive, so more people will learn about this beautiful religion!
greetings my muslim brothers and sisters on gaf and of course all non-muslims who visit this thread.
i have been following this thread for a long time. inshallah you will see me more often here.
Ramadan is coming up - this is always such a spiritual month; visiting the mosque, readings from the qu'ran, being more often together with family and friends, sharing, helping the poor, lively discussions about the islam - it really cleans up your body and especially your mind.
keep this thread alive, so more people will learn about this beautiful religion!
LaserBuddha said:
This is not true. Theres been multiple marches around the world, conferences set up and here in the uk, community workers (Muslim) re-emphasize that the victimization muslims may feel doesnt validate a physical response.
Muslim summer camp preaches 'anti-terror' message
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10905070
Islamic scholar Tahir ul-Qadri issues terrorism fatwa
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8544531.stm
Just a few. The absence of disapproval from your news circle shouldnt translate into inactivity from Muslim community or anyone else. You'll find it if you look for it.
OttomanScribe
Member
I don't think I read your post in its fullness, my apologies, the other important point is the one you have raised.besiktas1 said:Yeah, it makes perfect sense.
But what I was thinking (in the case of my example) is that for that marriage couldn't we argue it is more of a "convenience" for the groom to get sharia marriage...
While there are people out there who are 'religious', such people are not neccesarily always in full accordance with the dictates of the Sha'riah, even though they may outwardly appear to be so. An example would be a brother I know who is quite outwardly pious, yet likes to meet with women, alone, to give them 'religious advice' when in reality he tries to seduce them. He is a public personality with a lot of charisma, so he often succeeds, and thus leads them away from the religion rather than to it.
Were someone to marry him, thinking that, because he is outwardly religious, he would live by the Sha'riah, they may be disappointed when he divorces her and she is unable to get the rights he owes her because he won't abide by the Sha'riah and their marriage isn't publicly recognised by the state.
While we might like to think that such things do not happen, unfortunately they do, and it is a serious enough risk to warrant consideration.
OttomanScribe
Member
Walaykum Salaam wa Rahmetullahi Wa BaraketahuSalih said:i am new here on gaf and just wanted to drop by and say esselamu aleykum ve rahmetullahi ve berekatuhu
greetings my muslim brothers and sisters on gaf and of course all non-muslims who visit this thread.
i have been following this thread for a long time. inshallah you will see me more often here.
Ramadan is coming up - this is always such a spiritual month; visiting the mosque, readings from the qu'ran, being more often together with family and friends, sharing, helping the poor, lively discussions about the islam - it really cleans up your body and especially your mind.
keep this thread alive, so more people will learn about this beautiful religion!
pleased to meet you
I'm so stoked for ramadan, so soon
check in: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=425726OttomanScribe why are Islamic led countries constantly lagging behind in human rights, social advancement and technical evolution?
Whether you look at Human Development Index, Global Peace Index, Quality of Life, Economy, Literacy Level, Aid to Developing Countries etc etc Islamic countries barely make it into the top 20's of these lists.
All while corruption, illiteracy, dictatorships, conflict, violence, intolerance, terrorism etc etc thrive in numerous Islamic countries.
Does this complete lack of any form of advancement from the most adherent Islamic nations not strike you as slightly worrying?
Whether you look at Human Development Index, Global Peace Index, Quality of Life, Economy, Literacy Level, Aid to Developing Countries etc etc Islamic countries barely make it into the top 20's of these lists.
All while corruption, illiteracy, dictatorships, conflict, violence, intolerance, terrorism etc etc thrive in numerous Islamic countries.
Does this complete lack of any form of advancement from the most adherent Islamic nations not strike you as slightly worrying?