I don't know much about Islam, perhaps someone could enlighten me. If Allah created people, then why must they cover themselves to be considered modest? Wouldn't they be created just the way he wanted them to be?

Hello Enigma,
I am a Sunni Muslim and although one does see alotta muslim women covering themselves it isnt mandatory. The reason alotta muslim women do cover themselves is because they dont wanna be treated as "sex objects" they believe that the sexuality of the female body is for her husbands eyes and his only.If you notice pictures of women from long ago (like in the biblical days) all of the women dressed this way. Also notice that Catholic Nuns and such dress this way also. Also so do Hindu women.Hope that helps you.....peace unto you

In that case we should all be nudists...

EDIT: While we're at it, let's not learn languages since we were born with "Googoo gaga"...

Hey Surenderer, what is the differance between Sunni Muslims and Shi'it Muslims?

Well the short and easy answer is that before the death of the Prophet Muhamaad(saws) he never named a "sucessor" the Sunnis(which comprise 85% of the worlds muslims) believe that the most qualified person should lead the "ummma"( muslim community) while Shias(10% of the worlds muslims) beleive that the Prophets nephew Ali was the next sucessor and only the desendents of their family lineage can lead the community. There are other differences but that is the main one hope that helps you some....peace....oh yea the other 5% is Sufi's and other minority muslim grps

But the Shias quote several Sunni references also that the prophet named Ali as his successor in Ghadir Khum, holding up Ali's hand and saying "Whoever I am his leader (Mawla), Ali is his leader (Mawla). O' God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him."

Ali was also referred by the prophet as gate of the city of prophet's knowledge.

Ali was called by the prophet as "Amir-ul-Momineen" (Commander of the faithfuls).

Is it not reasonable to believe that the prophet really wanted Ali to succeed him.?

May be Ali was much younger than the first 3 Caliphs hence could not succeed the prophet ?

According to al quran women have a lower status than men.

And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree over them..." Quran Surah 2:228

Though I haven't seen it in the quran there are some hadiths that say the hijab is required whether this is followed or not depends on the validity placed on the particular hadith by muslims.

Well its not resonable to think that Ali would be a better ruler simply because of blood lineage the Shia's are much more "extreme" in their beliefs bacause several(including Ali) of their leaders had been murdered


And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree over them..." Quran Surah 2:228


Although this has nothing to do with this particular thread and i could quote many of the same type of verses in the bible one has to remember that in pre-islamic times in Arabia women had NO rights. Female infantcide was normal and women were slaves to their men. The meaning of the verse above was that although the relationship between men and women was one of equality the man had final say in matters because he was usually the "bread-winner" in the family. I did notice that you skipped the verses right before that one.


And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women. (2:226)

This is what USC has for 2:226 thru 2:228

002.226
YUSUFALI: For those who take an oath for abstention from their wives, a waiting for four months is ordained; if then they return, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Those who forswear their wives must wait four months; then, if they change their mind, lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: Those who swear that they will not go in to their wives should wait four months; so if they go back, then Allah is surely Forgiving, Merciful.

002.227
YUSUFALI: But if their intention is firm for divorce, Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
PICKTHAL: And if they decide upon divorce (let them remember that) Allah is Hearer, Knower.
SHAKIR: And if they have resolved on a divorce, then Allah is surely Hearing, Knowing.

002.228
YUSUFALI: Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
PICKTHAL: Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.
SHAKIR: And the divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they should conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the last day; and their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation; and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner, and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Where are you getting that verse? Women are not considered equal to men, in islamic jurisprudence you know how many women must bear witness to equal a mans testimony under sharia. Yes early christianity and today fundamentalist christians were and are very patriarchal as well (I am not christian btw)

Well its not resonable to think that Ali would be a better ruler simply because of blood lineage
Do you mean the prophet's words (refered in my previous post) were due to blood lineage of Ali.?!

I am interested in Sufi thoughts and their patron saint is Ali, the father of sufism.

Ali was much more qualified in many fields than any of his contemporaries. Thats why your answer about blood lineage looks strange and not in sync with facts.


the Shia's are much more "extreme" in their beliefs bacause several(including Ali) of their leaders had been murdered
Ali and Hussein were the Caliph & Imam for sunnis too. Were not they.?

Other than the Komeini, Sadr characters and annual self-inflicting mourning by shias, in what way they are more extreme than Wahabis.?

Again, I am not 'for' or 'against' any sect or religion.

Do you mean the prophet's words (refered in my previous post) were due to blood lineage of Ali.?!

I am interested in Sufi thoughts and their patron saint is Ali, the father of sufism.

Ali was much more qualified in many fields than any of his contemporaries. Thats why your answer about blood lineage looks strange and not in sync with facts.



Ali and Hussein were the Caliph & Imam for sunnis too. Were not they.?

Other than the Komeini, Sadr characters and annual self-inflicting mourning by shias, in what way they are more extreme than Wahabis.?

Again, I am not 'for' or 'against' any sect or religion.



There are alotta doubts about some Hadiths between Sunnis and Shias that were written i dont know of the one you are refering to it could be that the Prophet was referring to a specific battle not as to his successor As far a Hussein is concerend Sunnis really on agree on the first 3 calips(Abu Bakr,Umar,and Uthman)with Ali being the 4th who was assassinated. As far as being qualified because of blood lineage i look at it on a personal level...... if.I have a older brother who is a "immoral" person and if I try to be rightous person should he get to receive the family fortune because he is the closest blood relative to our father? Sunni's believe that its the best man for the best job

This is what USC has for 2:226 thru 2:228



Where are you getting that verse? Women are not considered equal to men, in islamic jurisprudence you know how many women must bear witness to equal a mans testimony under sharia. Yes early christianity and today fundamentalist christians were and are very patriarchal as well (I am not christian btw)




http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/womenquransunnah.html


sorry i am at work so i can only answer with threads....peace

Why not imam Ali ,he could do things at that time tht no muslim could do eg -U know the battle of khayber where there were 7 forts the strongest of them QAMUS who captured it imam Ali as in that young age
-And in Eid ul gadeer When the prophet proclaimed
MAN KUNTUM MAWLA FA HAZA ALIUN MAWLA
(to whoever im the leader Ali will be his next leader)
-When the holy Prophet had died who was it that went to bury him it was imam Ali as and some followere everybody else was busy in saqqee deciding the next caliph,,at that time burying the prophet was important.

There are alotta doubts about some Hadiths between Sunnis and Shias that were written i dont know of the one you are refering to it could be that the Prophet was referring to a specific battle not as to his successor As far a Hussein is concerend Sunnis really on agree on the first 3 calips(Abu Bakr,Umar,and Uthman)with Ali being the 4th who was assassinated. As far as being qualified because of blood lineage i look at it on a personal level...... if.I have a older brother who is a "immoral" person and if I try to be rightous person should he get to receive the family fortune because he is the closest blood relative to our father? Sunni's believe that its the best man for the best job


one thing tht u have angered me is u Tellin me UR 4 th imam our first Imam was an immoral person,what makes u say that abusisive words we shias never abuse ur caliphs in public

and tht shows how ignorant u ppl are
Who were the first ppl to accept ISLAM bibi khadija and imam Ali as
who called the prophet crazy when he was lying on his death bed asking for a pen and paper(u knoe who i mean)

In that case we should all be nudists...

EDIT: While we're at it, let's not learn languages since we were born with "Googoo gaga"...


I didnt get u ,give some explanations

May be Ali was much younger than the first 3 Caliphs hence could not succeed the prophet ?


Didnt u know tht Ali used to go in battles fight for the prophet

and he(abu bakr) has been heard saying to the imam: I could not have lived in a time where u werent there .And tht shows his capablity

one thing tht u have angered me is u Tellin me UR 4 th imam our first Imam was an immoral person,what makes u say that abusisive words we shias never abuse ur caliphs in public



first of all Salaam Alikum brother....... As a muslim I would NEVER insult an iman the example i used was just that... an example i follow the Prophet,sura's and Koran the rest doesnt matter to me whether Ali be the 2nd or 4th Caliph doesnt matter

first of all Salaam Alikum brother....... As a muslim I would NEVER insult an iman the example i used was just that... an example i follow the Prophet,sura's and Koran the rest doesnt matter to me whether Ali be the 2nd or 4th Caliph doesnt matter


Waalykum sallam
And it seems wrong tht we argue among ourselves they are the one who are insulting the prophet

surenderer

I read the link (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/womenquransunnah.html) you gave earlier and came across this:

"This clearly contradicts the assertion of the Christian Fathers that women do not possess souls and that they will exist as sexless beings in the next life."


Can you back this up?

can i back up what that women dont possess souls? why would i want to say that? how could you (unless your mind is closed) read that link and come up with something so negative?

I still don't see where that comes from the article quotes a non-existant passage from the quran or is there an abrogated version of the quran out there I don't know about.

surenderer

Your memory must be failing you - You made this post below and it contains a link, which I read and contains the line I quoted to you.

Will you please explain the line I have highlighted in red.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/womenquransunnah.html


sorry i am at work so i can only answer with threads....peace

Quote surenderers link

"In Islam there is absolutely no difference between men and women as far as their relationship to Allah is concerned, as both are promised the same reward for good conduct and the same punishment for evil conduct. The Qur'an says:

And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women. (2:226)
The Qur'an, in addressing the believers, often uses the expression,'believing men and women' to emphasize the equality of men and women in regard to their respective duties, rights, virtues and merits. It says:

For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise, for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward. (33:35)
This clearly contradicts the assertion of the Christian Fathers that women do not possess souls and that they will exist as sexless beings in the next life. The Qur'an says that women have souls in exactly the same way as men and will enter Paradise if they do good :"

I still don't see where that comes from the article quotes a non-existant passage from the quran or is there an abrogated version of the quran out there I don't know about.




I will have to look up that 1st verse again sorry i was at work but this one i know by heart:

"Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you MALE OR FEMALE, YOU ARE EQUAL TO ONE ANOTHER........." Quran 3:195

Remeber the Koran though isnt written like the bible....peace

I will have to look up that 1st verse again sorry i was at work but this one i know by heart:

"Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you MALE OR FEMALE, YOU ARE EQUAL TO ONE ANOTHER........." Quran 3:195

Remeber the Koran though isnt written like the bible....peace

Thats fine - But I want to know what that other guy is writing about in that link - Sounds to me like he's promoting Islamic propaganda by lying about Christianity.

off the top of my head i cant say but i do know that that part of the Koran (2:226-2:230) deal with laws according to divorce what did he say regarding lies about christianity? my apologies i probably shouldnt had quoted him but should have waited and went straight to the "source" (koran) myself.....peace

Sorry, I do not know much about Islam, but what is a Caliph?

ca·liph [ káylif, kállif ] (plural ca·liphs) or ca·lif [ káylif, kállif ] (plural ca·lifs) or ka·lif [ káylif, kállif ] (plural ka·lifs) or kha·lif [ káylif, kállif ] (plural kha·lifs)

noun

Muslim ruler: a title taken by Muslim rulers, for example, the Turkish sultans, that asserts religious authority to rule derived from that of Muhammad


Peace unto you

the ruler of the world wide Islamic community (ummah).the Caliphs in the Islamic empire were at first good but afterwards, in the final stages of the Ottomon Empire (turkish empire) they started to become crazy and corrupt.

the Caliph was officialy abolished in 1924 by Mustapah Kamal with the help of the British (at the same time the Islamic empire was broke up into many countries to divde and weaken them by the French and British) and currently there is no Calipha.

the Quran states, A rightly guided Caliph will descend called Imam Mahdi (I can't quite remember know but the Quran gives his exact and full name, the location he will be found, the situation at the time and what he will do).

only Allah knows when Imam Mahdi will descend but i reckon it would about maybe 50 or so years from now (there;s long story why i think so)

peace, hope i answered your question :eek:

So what's an ummah?

Let me guess, an islamic community?

Oh, I got confused.

Where`s PM ? he is the only one who can answer with authority. Come on PM ,you know you want to respond. just log in. Go on . :D

It is the Muslim community or Muslim nation.

I don't know much about Islam, perhaps someone could enlighten me. If Allah created people, then why must they cover themselves to be considered modest? Wouldn't they be created just the way he wanted them to be?

As far as the headcover being mandatory is concerned, I am a Sunni Muslim, I do believe that it is mandatory. As for your question my answer is as follows. We have not been created to live a sequence of events without having to choose our path in them. We have got the potential to do good and bad. We have the choice to be modest or not to be modest. He clearly did not want to create us modest but wanted us to make the choice to be modest.

Peace be upon you.

Can I ask some Muslims here one question? What does the Quran say about politics? And about the authority of those officials? Can we combine religion and politics?

Can I ask some Muslims here one question? What does the Quran say about politics? And about the authority of those officials? Can we combine religion and politics?


http://g.msn.com/9SE/1?http://www2.ari.net/gckl/islam/law.htm&&DI=293&IG=4f30532995634cbeac4bf9b532797c06&POS=1&CM=WPU&CE=1

peace unto you :)

Can I ask some Muslims here one question? What does the Quran say about politics? And about the authority of those officials? Can we combine religion and politics?

As God created the world and knows what is best for it he has decreed certain laws. For there is the yearly tax on wealth for Muslims. This tax is to be levied only over Muslims but non-Muslims may benefit from it. He has also ordered men and women to take care of their kin, even their far familly. These make sure extreme poverty never exists.

As He gave us many more rules for economics, penal codes, heritage, taxes, statemanship, war, hhe has specified that the Muslims came to decisions through counsels of one another. We are to obey them and put them into use. That means that state and religion cannot be separated.

In my opinion, the officials don't need to be clerics like in the Shi'te system. They need to be wise, virtuous men and above all religious. Because religion -when present- confines the behaviour of men and women to that which is good. And the rulers need to be and do good. Of course they can also be clerics but personnaly I don't think that is necessary.

As their authority is concerned, that has been made clear by the Word of God and the example of vurtuous rulers. the first armies for example were often discribed like this; "Knights at days, monks at night, if their commander would commit adultery he would be stoned by his men". That means that the authority of the ruler is never above that of the Islamic law.

May peace be upon you.

As far as the headcover being mandatory is concerned, I am a Sunni Muslim, I do believe that it is mandatory. As for your question my answer is as follows. We have not been created to live a sequence of events without having to choose our path in them. We have got the potential to do good and bad. We have the choice to be modest or not to be modest. He clearly did not want to create us modest but wanted us to make the choice to be modest.

Peace be upon you.

Well Bruce doesn't making the hijab mandatory take away that choice you mention? I have a hard time beleiving any god purposefully made his creations sinful or that he is embarrased by what he created if we are the ultimate living creation of god then shouldn't he be proud.

Well Bruce doesn't making the hijab mandatory take away that choice you mention? I have a hard time beleiving any god purposefully made his creations sinful or that he is embarrased by what he created if we are the ultimate living creation of god then shouldn't he be proud.

Well.. I asked this questions to a lot of Muslim sisters and friends as well.. The responses were always because they chose to wear Hijab; and wearing Hijab made them feel better. Personally I admire these Muslim sisters who wear Hijab in the modern world. :) And in a modern world, i believe wearing Hijab or not is a personal choice for any Muslim girl (I know lots of Muslim girls who do not wear Hijab). So, the choice is there. And wearing Hijab (and following all Islamic rules in general) is choice, and all Muslims have to be
responsible for what they do.
(PS: I am not a Muslim)

Well Bruce doesn't making the hijab mandatory take away that choice you mention? I have a hard time beleiving any god purposefully made his creations sinful or that he is embarrased by what he created if we are the ultimate living creation of god then shouldn't he be proud.



A Muslim man should similarily not wear tight, sheer, revealing, or eye-catching clothing. The prohibitions against wearing clothing of the opposite sex or distinctive clothing of other faiths is also the same. In addition, a Muslim man is prohibited from wearing silk clothing (except for medical reasons) or gold jewelry. A Muslim woman may wear silk or gold. The Koran tells women tio be modest in their dress so as to not be treated as sex objects which lower their demeanor and shows them lack of respect....peace unto you

As far as the headcover being mandatory is concerned, I am a Sunni Muslim, I do believe that it is mandatory. As for your question my answer is as follows. We have not been created to live a sequence of events without having to choose our path in them. We have got the potential to do good and bad. We have the choice to be modest or not to be modest. He clearly did not want to create us modest but wanted us to make the choice to be modest.

Peace be upon you.
There is a contradiction in your statement Bruce. While you may believe that that the headcovering is mandatory, it is still up to the individual woman to decide to wear the hijab. You yourself have stated that the choice of modesty rests on the individual person, so therefore, it should not be mandatory. Instead it should be a choice for the individual as to how modest they decide to be. It should not be for you to tell any individual and certainly not any woman as to what she should wear or not wear. If a woman does not wish to wear the hijab, then no one should force her to do so or make it mandatory that she does so. The same applies to any person or Government who states that a woman should not be allowed to wear it (for example France's laws banning the hijab). The wearing of the hijab is based on the individual woman's personal beliefs. It should never be based on the beliefs of others, be they her father, mother, brother(s), sister(s) or government.

Why must the head be covered to be modest?

Why must the head be covered to be modest?


Because a womans hair is seen as being sensual....peace

and men's isn't? I'm not arguing, just asking.

There is a contradiction in your statement Bruce. While you may believe that that the headcovering is mandatory, it is still up to the individual woman to decide to wear the hijab. You yourself have stated that the choice of modesty rests on the individual person, so therefore, it should not be mandatory. Instead it should be a choice for the individual as to how modest they decide to be. It should not be for you to tell any individual and certainly not any woman as to what she should wear or not wear. If a woman does not wish to wear the hijab, then no one should force her to do so or make it mandatory that she does so. The same applies to any person or Government who states that a woman should not be allowed to wear it (for example France's laws banning the hijab). The wearing of the hijab is based on the individual woman's personal beliefs. It should never be based on the beliefs of others, be they her father, mother, brother(s), sister(s) or government.

I may not have been totally clear. I am not talking on the level of religion obligation. I am referring to the wisdom in creation. So, Let me rephrase. God could have created us without the notion of modesty. Instead he gave us the choice whether we are modest or not. So some women are modest and others are not. A woman in this world has a choice. Then God made known what he prefered, i.e. modesty. And that was a religious obligation. Now that women know what God expects of them. They still have the choice whether to comply with god's command and religious rules or not. The proof is the many Muslim and non-Muslim women that do not comply to God's command of modesty as it is stated in religious doctrine.

"Now that women know what God expects of them"

Bruce, I thought that Muslims refered to God as Allah.

Allah would be better indeed. Because it is a unique name. It has no feminine nor plural. But I think that God is more adequate in our topic here. Because most people are more familiar with the term God.

I know that with God there are several differant names for God, such as Jehoviah and Elohim, each with a slightly differant meaning. Do you do something simmilar with the name Allah?

I know that with God there are several differant names for God, such as Jehoviah and Elohim, each with a slightly differant meaning. Do you do something simmilar with the name Allah?



No thats why muslims say ALLAH because you know whom we are referring to it has no plural meaning AL-means ultimate supreme LAH-means entity..... oh and to your other question women dont usually treat men as sex objects but men cant really say the same thats why women are suppose to dress "modest" but as i showed you in an earlier post men have rules according to dress also....peace

I geuss the differant names in christian religions just helps reveil differant charactor traits of God.

Well.. I asked this questions to a lot of Muslim sisters and friends as well.. The responses were always because they chose to wear Hijab; and wearing Hijab made them feel better. Personally I admire these Muslim sisters who wear Hijab in the modern world. :) And in a modern world, i believe wearing Hijab or not is a personal choice for any Muslim girl (I know lots of Muslim girls who do not wear Hijab). So, the choice is there. And wearing Hijab (and following all Islamic rules in general) is choice, and all Muslims have to be
responsible for what they do.
(PS: I am not a Muslim)

Well I don't think muslim women in many muslim majority countries would say the hijab is optional. Here in Norway somali women who don't wear the hijab are openly called whores in public by other muslim women. I have a hard time admiring that kind of behaviour in modern women of any type hijab or no.

(PS: I am not a Muslim)

I may not have been totally clear. I am not talking on the level of religion obligation. I am referring to the wisdom in creation. So, Let me rephrase. God could have created us without the notion of modesty. Instead he gave us the choice whether we are modest or not. So some women are modest and others are not. A woman in this world has a choice. Then God made known what he prefered, i.e. modesty. And that was a religious obligation.
This is what never ceases to amaze me in religious doctrine. Those who believe in the notion of creation, be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish, believe that God created Adam and Eve, who lived happily in the Garden of Eden, who were seen to be pure and loved by God as they were created. They were created naked and lived naked until their minds were said to be corrupted by the devil and it was only then that they covered themselves and were later banished from the garden. Now no offence Bruce, but the notion of modesty in dress is a human belief. If God demanded that man and woman dress modestly, Adam and Eve would have been instructed to cover themselves before the eyes of God. Because when you come before God, you should not be covered, but instead allow God to see you as you are and as you were created, so that you have nothing to hide behind. This is where I find religious doctrine to be highly hypocritical. It is pounded into the heads of the believers that God created Adam and Eve who roamed naked because that was how they were created. It was not God who told them to cover themselves. It was not God who told them to dress modestly.

Now that women know what God expects of them. They still have the choice whether to comply with god's command and religious rules or not. The proof is the many Muslim and non-Muslim women that do not comply to God's command of modesty as it is stated in religious doctrine.
Sorry, but I think it's more a case of 'now that women know what man expects of them'. God never commanded that Eve cover herself. So how is it that now God has changed his mind and told women to cover themselves? Or could it be that it is man's interpretation of what God may want that has deemed it to be against 'God's' command to not dress modestly? I have stated this many times before on this issue. It is not for man to judge the level of modesty a woman employs in her dress. Your holy book states that it is up to the individual woman to decide whether she wears the hijab or not. God never told Eve to dress modestly, so why does religious doctrine dare try to judge how women dress or to judge a woman for not dressing as the religious doctrine demands? However, that aside, the religious doctrines state that both men and women must employ a level of modesty in how they dress. It does not give a list of what is considered to be modest. That is left up to the interpretation of the individual man and woman. The proof instead Bruce, is that the when you have a situation where the laws and society demand that women comply with the so called religious doctrine, such laws and society have taken away the individual's God given right to choose, as per your own religious doctrine.

Remember, it is not for you, or anyone else, to judge others on whether they adhere to your religious doctrine or not. In the end, it is God who judges. So instead of you saying that "the proof is the many Muslim and non-Muslim women that do not comply to God's command of modesty as it is stated in religious doctrine", maybe you should remind yourself of the point that it is not for you to decide or judge as to who complies with God's command of modesty, or God's command of anything else. Instead, remind yourself that if God so commands, then God will be the one to judge who lived up to his commands or not.

Remeber i said that God wants women to be MODEST in their dress i dont take that to mean covered i take that to mean not "flaunting what you got" i mean think about it as a man how many of us when we see a women half-dressed think "boy i bet she's got a nice personality" or "boy i bet she's really intelligent" thats why the rule......peace

Remember, it is not for you, or anyone else, to judge others on whether they adhere to your religious doctrine or not. In the end, it is God who judges. So instead of you saying that "the proof is the many Muslim and non-Muslim women that do not comply to God's command of modesty as it is stated in religious doctrine", maybe you should remind yourself of the point that it is not for you to decide or judge as to who complies with God's command of modesty, or God's command of anything else. Instead, remind yourself that if God so commands, then God will be the one to judge who lived up to his commands or not.

I totally agree with u, Bell. It is God who will judge us. We dun have the right to judge over others, but be responsible for our own actions

Well I don't think muslim women in many muslim majority countries would say the hijab is optional. Here in Norway somali women who don't wear the hijab are openly called whores in public by other muslim women. I have a hard time admiring that kind of behaviour in modern women of any type hijab or no.

(PS: I am not a Muslim)

That is called group-norm, isnt it?
When I said I admire the Muslims who wear Hijab, I mean the one who choses to wear it because they understand the reasons behind it. Those Muslim women that i know have the choice not to wear Hijab. So I think it is different.
Personally I admire anyone who follows the religion wholeheartedly, with a deep understanding and respect to other religions as well.

Remeber i said that God wants women to be MODEST in their dress i dont take that to mean covered i take that to mean not "flaunting what you got" i mean think about it as a man how many of us when we see a women half-dressed think "boy i bet she's got a nice personality" or "boy i bet she's really intelligent" thats why the rule......peace
Mmmmmhmmm.. now tell me something surenderer, how is it then, that when God created man and woman, as believed by creationists, that God never made Adam and Eve cover themselves? They were instead said to be blessed by God and loved by him/her/it for being who they were... naked and all. For a God that so demands modesty, why was he so angered that Adam and Eve listened to the devil and covered themselves up? The notion of modesty is one that is demanded by man. If it was demanded by God, Adam and Eve would have been hearing about modest dress from God and not from Satan, wouldn't you say?

Whether a woman is naked, half naked or covered from head to toe, a man will not look at her and think 'she's got a nice personality'. A man will look at a woman (regardless of how she's dressed) and see what he wants to see. If he can't see it, it then leads the man to imagine what could be under there. A woman can dress as modestly as she possibly can, but that will never prevent the man from thinking luscious thoughts about what she's covering up. The same thoughts that a man has when he sees a woman naked/half naked or dressed immodestly can and does occur when that same man sees that same woman dressed modestly.

In reality, religious doctrines demand that a woman dress modestly so that she does not tempt the supposedly pious males who've decided to devote their lives to the religion of their choice.

Whether a woman is naked, half naked or covered from head to toe, a man will not look at her and think 'she's got a nice personality'. A man will look at a woman (regardless of how she's dressed) and see what he wants to see. If he can't see it, it then leads the man to imagine what could be under there.

I don't think your a man Bells.


A woman can dress as modestly as she possibly can, but that will never prevent the man from thinking luscious thoughts about what she's covering up.

It's within most men's control to avoid such thoughts but immodesty makes it more difficult.

You are also coming from the standpoint of a unmarried women. Would you want your future husband checking out other girls?

I don't think your a man Bells.

Well I don't think I am either. My birth certificate seems to indicate that I'm female...:p

It's within most men's control to avoid such thoughts but immodesty makes it more difficult.
I'm sorry Okinrus, but that doesn't really wash with me. It is not for the woman to ensure that the man does not have 'such thoughts'. Any man, actually no, scratch that. Any person has, or should have, control over their thoughts. It is not up to the other person to prevent such thoughts from happening. If a woman is dressed in a bikini, it is not her fault if some guy looks at her and thinks impure thoughts.

You are also coming from the standpoint of a unmarried women. Would you want your future husband checking out other girls?
My marital status means nothing in this argument. If the man is going to look, he will look regardless of the fact if the woman is dressed modestly or immodestly. If he likes to look and 'think', he will have 'such thoughts' regardless of the way she is dressed. As I've stated above, it is not up to the woman to prevent the man from thinking evil luscious thoughts.

Hijab is not worn when mulsim women are at home, with their close male relatives like father, brothers, uncles etc are around. The display of hair for the view of other males is not advised.

Hijab should not be seen as an isolated wear. It comes when all other body parts are covered and only part left out is hair that might still draw 'attention' of other males. So cover that also..!!! That is the idea.

But, I've seen some girls wearing tight jeans and tops with hijab..?!! :D

we hav alot of those here

The notion of modesty is one that is demanded by man. If it was demanded by God, Adam and Eve would have been hearing about modest dress from God and not from Satan, wouldn't you say?

Now, that's an interesting line of inquiry. I think it'd be fairly easy to tackle though. Adam and Eve before eating the fruit of Knowledge had no awareness of their immodest state of attire. They were innocent savages. God let them run around naked to their hearts content, because at that time they were indulged by their creator. I don't think he had any idea what to do with this world that he had created and let them do what they wanted. It wasn't until the fall that Adam and Eve showed that they had taken from God his knowledge of good and evil, morality and immorality. They tried to hide their nakedness and of course, God figured it out pretty easily. He then ordered them out of the garden and I believe that the strictures of proper attire were laid down at this time. If they should have the knowledge of good and evil that previously was god's alone, then they should abide by tighter restrictions according this knowledge. Didn't he make them some clothes before he sent them out, can't remember for sure.

And there is also the issue that God planned the whole thing to happen in just that way. He knew that by telling the duo to abstain from the fruit of this tree alone that he ensured that they would eventually eat it. Or more properly, he knew that the serpent who hated god and his creations would convince them to do so. Both man and serpent were fooled that day. By attempting to go against god's will they actually followed it to the letter. God is tricksey, very tricksey. Seemingly more in the Loki sense of trickery than the coyote. He doesn't teach so much as cram it down your throat and then denies it afterward, saying it was all your fault.

If God demanded that man and woman dress modestly, Adam and Eve would have been instructed to cover themselves before the eyes of God. Because when you come before God, you should not be covered, but instead allow God to see you as you are and as you were created, so that you have nothing to hide behind. This is where I find religious doctrine to be highly hypocritical. It is pounded into the heads of the believers that God created Adam and Eve who roamed naked because that was how they were created. It was not God who told them to cover themselves. It was not God who told them to dress modestly.

I don't agree with what you said. It is a notion for creation indeed, modesty that is. God dominion would not diminish nor would he be effected by their nakedness or their modesty. Remember also, that as a married couple the Muslim man and -woman are allowed to be totally naked and go far beyond the missionary position. So even in the rules of religion they can be naked together and no one would be able to protest. On the contrary, one is rewarded for engaging in sexual intercourse in a formal marriage. Now the reason for modesty would then be that it is meant for the organisation of the community or society. So that everyone looks at what he has, his wife or her husband, and doesn't search for adultery.

Sorry, but I think it's more a case of 'now that women know what man expects of them'. God never commanded that Eve cover herself. So how is it that now God has changed his mind and told women to cover themselves? Or could it be that it is man's interpretation of what God may want that has deemed it to be against 'God's' command to not dress modestly? I have stated this many times before on this issue. It is not for man to judge the level of modesty a woman employs in her dress. Your holy book states that it is up to the individual woman to decide whether she wears the hijab or not. God never told Eve to dress modestly, so why does religious doctrine dare try to judge how women dress or to judge a woman for not dressing as the religious doctrine demands?

It is indeed not for man to judge. Unless of course in a community or society based on religion because then the religious laws would be the state laws and there would be judges and others who have to uphold the law. Our religious book doesn't say be modest the way you want. I guess it is because some could have no sense of modesty at all. Instead it gives rules such as for the dress, or for the way in which women or a man should conduct themselves in their intercourse with the oppsite sex. And Eve is not the same as women nowadays. Adam and Eve were not in a context where modesty was needed until they would descend to earth. A place where there would lures and the possibility to do bad. Furthermore Eve was the only women and Adam was the only man modesty as an instrument for social order was not needed.

However, that aside, the religious doctrines state that both men and women must employ a level of modesty in how they dress. It does not give a list of what is considered to be modest.

It does, most fortunately.

That is left up to the interpretation of the individual man and woman. The proof instead Bruce, is that the when you have a situation where the laws and society demand that women comply with the so called religious doctrine, such laws and society have taken away the individual's God given right to choose, as per your own religious doctrine.

Who do you mean precisely?

Remember, it is not for you, or anyone else, to judge others on whether they adhere to your religious doctrine or not. In the end, it is God who judges. So instead of you saying that "the proof is the many Muslim and non-Muslim women that do not comply to God's command of modesty as it is stated in religious doctrine", maybe you should remind yourself of the point that it is not for you to decide or judge as to who complies with God's command of modesty, or God's command of anything else. Instead, remind yourself that if God so commands, then God will be the one to judge who lived up to his commands or not.

It is indeed not me who should and does judge. It is He. But somethimes -many times actually- it does not require genius to see that one is not in accord with THE modesty prescribed by God. If I see a woman in the street with nothing but her bra's and a tight jeans I consider it safe to assume it is not in accord with THE modesty He has prescribed.

Mmmmmhmmm.. now tell me something surenderer, how is it then, that when God created man and woman, as believed by creationists, that God never made Adam and Eve cover themselves? They were instead said to be blessed by God and loved by him/her/it for being who they were... naked and all. For a God that so demands modesty, why was he so angered that Adam and Eve listened to the devil and covered themselves up? The notion of modesty is one that is demanded by man. If it was demanded by God, Adam and Eve would have been hearing about modest dress from God and not from Satan, wouldn't you say?

In Islam we believe that it was a consequence of their eating the apple. Satan told them nothing. To set Islam apart from christianity it would good to know that Islam blames them both for failing an does not lay the responsibility with Eve.

Whether a woman is naked, half naked or covered from head to toe, a man will not look at her and think 'she's got a nice personality'. A man will look at a woman (regardless of how she's dressed) and see what he wants to see. If he can't see it, it then leads the man to imagine what could be under there. A woman can dress as modestly as she possibly can, but that will never prevent the man from thinking luscious thoughts about what she's covering up. The same thoughts that a man has when he sees a woman naked/half naked or dressed immodestly can and does occur when that same man sees that same woman dressed modestly.

Bells, there is a difference, believe you me. :p

In reality, religious doctrines demand that a woman dress modestly so that she does not tempt the supposedly pious males who've decided to devote their lives to the religion of their choice.

It was done as to not tempt those men that are not pious and those that are trying to be or remain pious AS well as those women who would not see the regards of inviting men everywhere they went. But it was also a tool for social order. To this purpose it was one of many instruments of course.

Bruce, thank you for your reply. I will tell you that it is refreshing to be able to discuss such issues with a Muslim and not have the terms 'hater', 'Islamophobe' etc thrown back at me as was done in the past. And now onto the discussion.

I don't agree with what you said. It is a notion for creation indeed, modesty that is. God dominion would not diminish nor would he be effected by their nakedness or their modesty. Remember also, that as a married couple the Muslim man and -woman are allowed to be totally naked and go far beyond the missionary position. So even in the rules of religion they can be naked together and no one would be able to protest. On the contrary, one is rewarded for engaging in sexual intercourse in a formal marriage. Now the reason for modesty would then be that it is meant for the organisation of the community or society. So that everyone looks at what he has, his wife or her husband, and doesn't search for adultery.

I understand what you are saying and I can see your point of view, and why you are saying it. But the way I personally see it, how the individual dresses wont affect the chances of adultery occuring. If someone is going to cheat on their spouse or partner, the way the temptation is dressed doesn't really factor into it. Just because a woman or a man is dressed provocatively, doesn't mean that they are out on the prowl. I guess this is falling into the realm of differing opinions.

It is indeed not for man to judge. Unless of course in a community or society based on religion because then the religious laws would be the state laws and there would be judges and others who have to uphold the law. Our religious book doesn't say be modest the way you want. I guess it is because some could have no sense of modesty at all. Instead it gives rules such as for the dress, or for the way in which women or a man should conduct themselves in their intercourse with the oppsite sex.
That is the thing though. Here in lies my own little issues with this problem. When man enacts laws and upholds them, it is man who is creating that law and man who is judging based on those laws. While the laws may be enacted based on the religious doctrine, it is still man who passes judgement when any of those laws are breached. This goes against the belief that God is the one to judge for any 'breach' of the religious doctrines or for if the individual commits a sin. The Quran is fairly specific in some instances and not so specific in other instances. It lists what parts of the male body that should be covered and it also deems that a woman's body should be shielded from gazes that might lead to thoughts that one could term unholy in this discussion. Now when you have States which have such religious rules as their laws and who then go further and enforce a style of dress, they have gone beyond what the Quran advises. The wearing of the burka is not (as far as I'm aware and it's been a while since I read the Quran so bear with me) stated as being compulsory for women to wear. Yet some Governments enforce it. Where women are being forced to hide their bodies completely and even their eyes and their very identity, and they are judged and punished by man for failing to do so, well in such cases man has taken the place of God in passing judgement. The same goes for Governments that enforce a dress code for men or who force men to grow beards (as was the case in the now defunct Taliban regime). It is laws such as these that I personally find abhorrent. And I find the laws in France which have banned the hijab from public buildings to be equally disgusting. My point is Bruce is that the State should never force anyone to dress in a certain way because of their own interpretation of a religious belief. I hope you understand where I'm coming from with this and what I'm trying to say.

It is indeed not me who should and does judge. It is He. But somethimes -many times actually- it does not require genius to see that one is not in accord with THE modesty prescribed by God. If I see a woman in the street with nothing but her bra's and a tight jeans I consider it safe to assume it is not in accord with THE modesty He has prescribed.
Ok. But are you one of those people who sit there and think that that woman is going to go to hell for dressing as she does? Or do you just think to each their own?

I'm going to tell you a little story of what I and several members of my family witnessed on the beach last summer. My cousins and I had gone to the beach for the day... was hot.. water was wonderful and I was looking forward to doing some body surfing and my cousin's kids were looking forward to a day of running wild and sandcastle building. Upon our arrival and after having set up the beach umbrella's and sunshades and all the rest of it, I looked up and wished I was blind. Just up from where we were sitting was a Muslim family. Husband, wife and a little boy and girl. The wife and the daughter who looked as though she was around 5 years old or so were fully dressed, wearing the hijab and sitting under their own anti-cancer beach shade. The little boy was dressed in shorts and playing at the waters edge. The little girl looked miserable and my heart broke as I looked at her sitting there with her mum watching her brother play. Now it was the husband that made me wish I was blind. There he stood, at the waters edge, g-string, hairy back and gold chains and all. While my mind screamed out in pain, my cousin's husband could only say 'good god it's hideous'. It was a stinking hot day Bruce. Sweltering and I felt angry as I looked at this g-stringed beast running up and down the beach, doing star jumps every once in a while so that we and the rest of the unfortunate people on the beach got to see the full effect of his g-string, while his wife and daughter were sitting there broiling in the heat, fully dressed. His little girl was sitting there looking sadly as my cousin's daughter who is also 5, as she played in the sand, running back and forth from the water. Now, how this man could feel justified, dressed as he was, while his wife and daughter were dressed as they were is beyond me. Especially his little girl. Surely such rules of dress would not prevent a little girl from wearing a pair of shorts and playing like any child likes to play at the beach? The husband was trying to make sure that all the women on that beach got a good look at him, and it was nasty.... absolutely nasty. No man looks appealing in a g-string. Yet he appeared to have no qualms that his wife and daughter had to adhere to the strict modest dress rule. How is that? Why is that? This man, dressed as he was, was not making anyone have lustful thoughts. It was having the opposite effect actually. Each time his daughter tried to leave the sunshade to play a little bit in the sand, he'd come back up the beach and order her to sit down beside her mother. In the end, he put a towel over the front of the sunshade, blocking the entrance and blocking the view of anyone looking in or out. I mean... arrrggghhhhh! Why is it that it is always the woman who must dress modestly while guys like this moron could dress and behave as he did? While I'm sure the rules would apply to him as well as his wife, why is it that men can so often get away from adhering to the modesty rule, instead the rule usually ends up being applied to women only? This is what I don't understand.

And I thank you Bruce for being so patient in answering my queries on this.

Bells,
As a muslim myself i find it refreshing to have questions/opinions ask or stated respectfully instead of being rude.As far as your story goes the koran states that A Muslim man should similarily not wear tight, sheer, revealing, or eye-catching clothing. The prohibitions against wearing clothing of the opposite sex or distinctive clothing of other faiths is also the same. In addition, a Muslim man is prohibited from wearing silk clothing (except for medical reasons) or gold jewelry.So that shows that that man is wrong also for dressing the way he did but that is not the norm. i am muslim yet my children dont wear hijabs and my fiance is a christian it is a personal choice of what one sees as modest

Bells,
As a muslim myself i find it refreshing to have questions/opinions ask or stated respectfully instead of being rude.As far as your story goes the koran states that A Muslim man should similarily not wear tight, sheer, revealing, or eye-catching clothing. The prohibitions against wearing clothing of the opposite sex or distinctive clothing of other faiths is also the same. In addition, a Muslim man is prohibited from wearing silk clothing (except for medical reasons) or gold jewelry.So that shows that that man is wrong also for dressing the way he did but that is not the norm. i am muslim yet my children dont wear hijabs and my fiance is a christian it is a personal choice of what one sees as modest
Thank you surenderer! :D

If a woman decides to wear the hijab, then it should be her choice to do so. I understand that the Quran has rules in regards to modesty and I respect that. What I don't respect is when women are forced to dress in a certain manner. It should be the individual woman's choice whether she wears the hijab or not. That's my view of it anyway. After having read the Quran long ago, I realised that the Quran gave Muslims the choice. I just have an issue when a State, or family member takes that choice away.

Having visited Muslim countries before, I have a tendency to cover myself and wear a scarf on my head because I know that the Muslim faith wishes for modest dress and I do this because I don't want to offend anyone. But it is my choice to do so and it's only right to show respect when visiting a country. But that's just me. But again, it is my choice to do so.

I think I have contradicting issues. :(

Thank you surenderer! :D

If a woman decides to wear the hijab, then it should be her choice to do so. I understand that the Quran has rules in regards to modesty and I respect that. What I don't respect is when women are forced to dress in a certain manner. It should be the individual woman's choice whether she wears the hijab or not. That's my view of it anyway. After having read the Quran long ago, I realised that the Quran gave Muslims the choice. I just have an issue when a State, or family member takes that choice away.

Having visited Muslim countries before, I have a tendency to cover myself and wear a scarf on my head because I know that the Muslim faith wishes for modest dress and I do this because I don't want to offend anyone. But it is my choice to do so and it's only right to show respect when visiting a country. But that's just me. But again, it is my choice to do so.

I think I have contradicting issues. :(



Well just remember that the word Hijab is nowhere in the Koran....i think alot of time its more cultural(sp?) than religious ;)

I agree with you. I think in many instances it is mostly a cultural belief that has been translated into a religious belief. But regardless of whether it is cultural or religious, no woman should be blamed or judged for not wearing it.

I agree with you. I think in many instances it is mostly a cultural belief that has been translated into a religious belief. But regardless of whether it is cultural or religious, no woman should be blamed or judged for not wearing it.


But more importantly i aint trying to see a man of any religion on the beach with a g-string and gold chains anyway!!! :eek:......maybe thats why his family was so sad :D

But more importantly i aint trying to see a man of any religion on the beach with a g-string and gold chains anyway!!! ......maybe thats why his family was so sad
Heh.. Consider yourself blessed. I can still picture that man's hairy back glistening in the sun.:( My cousin remarked that his behind was also hairy but I refused to look in that direction.. Was an image that made me wish for hot coals to burn out my eyes on that beach...

No man should wear a g-string and run up and down the beach... Actually, no man should wear a g-string full stop.. especially in public... No man! It's nasty.. :eek:

And if that man was my husband, I'd be looking pretty sad too... and then I'd be looking for a quick getaway... ;)

Bruce, thank you for your reply. I will tell you that it is refreshing to be able to discuss such issues with a Muslim and not have the terms 'hater', 'Islamophobe' etc thrown back at me as was done in the past. And now onto the discussion.

You are welcome, it 's my pleasure, really. I also appreciate calm discourse especially in this subject.

I understand what you are saying and I can see your point of view, and why you are saying it. But the way I personally see it, how the individual dresses wont affect the chances of adultery occuring. If someone is going to cheat on their spouse or partner, the way the temptation is dressed doesn't really factor into it. Just because a woman or a man is dressed provocatively, doesn't mean that they are out on the prowl. I guess this is falling into the realm of differing opinions.

To be honest I have to admit that it will not stop adultery, not completely. But it helps. What you should understand about Islam, and this one of the reasons I have chosen it as my religion, is that is not a set of one dimensions rules. It is a very complicated system, whose parts strengthen one another. It is a system that needs to be applied integrally and not by cherry picking what one likes. Take adultery for instance. In my rather confined understanding of this system, I can come up with at least two other mechanisms that would severely diminish adultery, rape...etc in society. Firstly, In a Muslim society one marries younger. Which means the need to experiment is already met. Another one is the ongoing education or "brainwashing" that instills the idea in you that it is bad to do such a thing. Third would be the social norm. Fourth would be the punishments Involved. If you are married and you commit adultery you get the death sentence. As you can imagine this is quite a deterrent.

The system is more elaborate than what I stated here.

That is the thing though. Here in lies my own little issues with this problem. When man enacts laws and upholds them, it is man who is creating that law and man who is judging based on those laws. While the laws may be enacted based on the religious doctrine, it is still man who passes judgement when any of those laws are breached. This goes against the belief that God is the one to judge for any 'breach' of the religious doctrines or for if the individual commits a sin. The Quran is fairly specific in some instances and not so specific in other instances. It lists what parts of the male body that should be covered and it also deems that a woman's body should be shielded from gazes that might lead to thoughts that one could term unholy in this discussion.

God is indeed the One that judges. But other than Justice there are other needs for humanity. Men and women need or prefer a safe environment both physically and psychologically. They need rules so no one transgresses on the rights of another. And these rules need to be upheld.

Also bear in mind that even he that judges in this life will be judged on his judgment when he shall stand before the Truly Just. I believe the prophet once said - peace be upon him- that the Judge shall then wish he didn't judge in a date. So severely shall judges be judged.


Now when you have States which have such religious rules as their laws and who then go further and enforce a style of dress, they have gone beyond what the Quran advises. The wearing of the burka is not (as far as I'm aware and it's been a while since I read the Quran so bear with me) stated as being compulsory for women to wear. Yet some Governments enforce it. Where women are being forced to hide their bodies completely and even their eyes and their very identity, and they are judged and punished by man for failing to do so, well in such cases man has taken the place of God in passing judgment. The same goes for Governments that enforce a dress code for men or who force men to grow beards (as was the case in the now defunct Taliban regime). It is laws such as these that I personally find abhorrent.

As you stated in the case of the burka., there are those that make severe laws that are not required by religion. But it should be clear then that what they have done had not religious credibility. Islam is then free of blame as far as those laws are concerned. But in the case of the Taliban I should also add that the acts, I dare even say crimes, they committed against my sisters in Afghanistan were both wrong, religiously, and foolish. You should also know hat the Burka and the unjust laws concerning women in Afghanistan were also present before the Taliban and even now that they have lost power.

Btw, as Sunni Muslims we derive the laws from the Qur'an and from the examples of the prophet -peace be upon him- .

And I find the laws in France which have banned the hijab from public buildings to be equally disgusting. My point is Bruce is that the State should never force anyone to dress in a certain way because of their own interpretation of a religious belief. I hope you understand where I'm coming from with this and what I'm trying to say.

I do. I can't fully agree but I do.

Ok. But are you one of those people who sit there and think that that woman is going to go to hell for dressing as she does? Or do you just think to each their own?

Let's say I am somewhere in between. Of course when I see a girl half naked on the street I do think that she is being less than good. And do wish for her to do better. And if I get the chance and I see any hope in her (religious inclination or intellect I will try and make her remember what is better for her. But after having reminded her it is her responsibility. And I have my self to save. 'cause I am far from being an angel myself.

I'm going to tell you a little story of what I and several members of my family witnessed on the beach last summer. My cousins and I had gone to the beach for the day... was hot.. water was wonderful and I was looking forward to doing some body surfing and my cousin's kids were looking forward to a day of running wild and sandcastle building. Upon our arrival and after having set up the beach umbrella's and sunshades and all the rest of it, I looked up and wished I was blind. Just up from where we were sitting was a Muslim family. Husband, wife and a little boy and girl. The wife and the daughter who looked as though she was around 5 years old or so were fully dressed, wearing the hijab and sitting under their own anti-cancer beach shade. The little boy was dressed in shorts and playing at the waters edge. The little girl looked miserable and my heart broke as I looked at her sitting there with her mum watching her brother play. Now it was the husband that made me wish I was blind. There he stood, at the waters edge, g-string, hairy back and gold chains and all. While my mind screamed out in pain, my cousin's husband could only say 'good god it's hideous'. It was a stinking hot day Bruce. Sweltering and I felt angry as I looked at this g-stringed beast running up and down the beach, doing star jumps every once in a while so that we and the rest of the unfortunate people on the beach got to see the full effect of his g-string, while his wife and daughter were sitting there broiling in the heat, fully dressed. His little girl was sitting there looking sadly as my cousin's daughter who is also 5, as she played in the sand, running back and forth from the water. Now, how this man could feel justified, dressed as he was, while his wife and daughter were dressed as they were is beyond me. Especially his little girl. Surely such rules of dress would not prevent a little girl from wearing a pair of shorts and playing like any child likes to play at the beach? The husband was trying to make sure that all the women on that beach got a good look at him, and it was nasty.... absolutely nasty. No man looks appealing in a g-string. Yet he appeared to have no qualms that his wife and daughter had to adhere to the strict modest dress rule. How is that? Why is that? This man, dressed as he was, was not making anyone have lustful thoughts. It was having the opposite effect actually. Each time his daughter tried to leave the sunshade to play a little bit in the sand, he'd come back up the beach and order her to sit down beside her mother. In the end, he put a towel over the front of the sunshade, blocking the entrance and blocking the view of anyone looking in or out. I mean... arrrggghhhhh! Why is it that it is always the woman who must dress modestly while guys like this moron could dress and behave as he did? While I'm sure the rules would apply to him as well as his wife, why is it that men can so often get away from adhering to the modesty rule, instead the rule usually ends up being applied to women only? This is what I don't understand.

Of course you understand that the string is not appreciated nor allowed by Islam. As far as this guy is concerned I can only quote you: arrrggghhhhh!

And I thank you Bruce for being so patient in answering my queries on this.

It has been my pleasure.

Peace be upon you.

p.s: don't mind my spelling

Bruce

To be honest I have to admit that it will not stop adultery, not completely. But it helps. What you should understand about Islam, and this one of the reasons I have chosen it as my religion, is that is not a set of one dimensions rules. It is a very complicated system, whose parts strengthen one another. It is a system that needs to be applied integrally and not by cherry picking what one likes.
Good point. Just a question though. Couldn't it also be possible that while it may strengthen in one place, it could also cause weaknesses in another. And people do cherry pick. No matter what rules you may apply to the application of the system, people do pick through it. It's human nature to do so. But in the end, in the whole scheme of things, regardless of the rules that may be in place, it is up to the individual to choose what they are going to do, and in many instances they will go against their religion to please themselves... no matter what the consequences may be. I mean this is just my opinion and I fully understand why you would disagree with how I view the issue. I'm on the outside looking in and questioning and at times criticising... so bare with me lol.

Take adultery for instance. In my rather confined understanding of this system, I can come up with at least two other mechanisms that would severely diminish adultery, rape...etc in society. Firstly, In a Muslim society one marries younger. Which means the need to experiment is already met. Another one is the ongoing education or "brainwashing" that instills the idea in you that it is bad to do such a thing. Third would be the social norm. Fourth would be the punishments Involved. If you are married and you commit adultery you get the death sentence. As you can imagine this is quite a deterrent.

The system is more elaborate than what I stated here.

Yes I'm aware that the system is more elaborate. But I disagree with you on a few things here. Making someone marry when they are very young could have severe repercussions later on. As you say it could disable the wish to experiment, but it could also have a totally opposite effect. Making someone marry young could result in that person maturing and thinking 'hmmm I wonder what it would be like if...'. Marrying someone should only be when you are sure that you really want to spend the rest of your life with that person, that you love that person enough to want to see them and be with them for years to come, that no one else can take the place of that person, etc. It's not so much the age that would prevent adultery, I think personally that it is the individual's level of maturity and self control that would help prevent it.

As for the ermm 'brainwashing', that already happens. Pretty much all religions and society in general always try to do so anyway. The possible effect of this is that the individual wants to rebel against what he/she has always been told is wrong. Just imagine when a child does the complete opposite of what the parents have always taught them is wrong. I mean I remember sneaking into the garage with my cousins when I was 6 and smoking cigarettes. I remember that delicious feeling of rebellion at the time. That feeling disappeared quickly when my aunt walked in and caught us and then made us smoke cigars until we threw up to teach us a lesson... but before being caught.. it felt good to do something that we'd been told was bad. The same thing can happen with people who cheat on their partners. I'm not saying it always happens, but it can. Some people thrive on the adrenalin of cheating... it's like a game to them.. and no amount of brainwashing or societies teachings can change that in them.

I agree with the social norm, but I think that is in place already because when someone cheats then they are usually treated like a pariah by their society.

Ermm the punishment I disagree with totally lol. From your words, it appears to be based on Sharia Law and errr.. killing someone.. no sorry, you've lost me there. It wouldn't serve as that much of a deterrent. For an example, look at the US and the fact that the death penalty has not been the deterrent they thought it would have been. But killing someone for cheating on a partner or spouse? No sorry Bruce but ... no. Mistakes can happen and it would be almost impossible to implement when one considers what evidence would be needed to prove that adultery did in fact occur. As with Sharia Law, 4 witnesses are needed, etc. And in the cases that we've seen so far in regards to this very issue, the woman is convicted of death even though the evidence given is dubious at best and should have resulted in an instant acquittal (and yes she was later acquitted for lack of evidence), while the male adulterer is released or acquitted for lack of evidence. Too unfair and the access to justice issues scare me. Killing someone on religious grounds should never be the norm in my opinion. I mean like many people, I've been in a relationship in the past where the other cheated, and while I may have wished death and pain on him, that was just me wanting revenge (I actually wished I could have dragged him naked behind my car over hot coals...), that was just the anger and emotion at the time. Deep down I wouldn't have wanted the guy to be put to death for it. Torture is much better:D... just kidding of course.. lol

God is indeed the One that judges. But other than Justice there are other needs for humanity. Men and women need or prefer a safe environment both physically and psychologically. They need rules so no one transgresses on the rights of another. And these rules need to be upheld.
Hmmm yes true. But sometimes the rules and justice itself can infringe on the rights of the individual too much.

Also bear in mind that even he that judges in this life will be judged on his judgment when he shall stand before the Truly Just. I believe the prophet once said - peace be upon him- that the Judge shall then wish he didn't judge in a date. So severely shall judges be judged.
Ermm yeah. I guess that could also apply to your example of using the death penalty for adultery.. lol. To be the judge who presides over such a hearing... hmmm... and you've just reminded me of another reason why I have refused to strive for the bench.. :p

As you stated in the case of the burka., there are those that make severe laws that are not required by religion. But it should be clear then that what they have done had not religious credibility. Islam is then free of blame as far as those laws are concerned. But in the case of the Taliban I should also add that the acts, I dare even say crimes, they committed against my sisters in Afghanistan were both wrong, religiously, and foolish. You should also know hat the Burka and the unjust laws concerning women in Afghanistan were also present before the Taliban and even now that they have lost power.
Yes I'm aware of that. I was merely pointing out that sometimes Governments can interpret the rules to such an extent that it goes beyond the religious doctrines themselves. Power does strange things to people and in so many cases it gets out of control. I don't really blame Islam for the treatment of women. I blame the people who treat women that way while using Islam as a shield. I blame the Governments like the Iranian Government for the way they've treated women, but I also recognise that they are trying to change and while the steps to change are small and slow, at least their taking those steps towards change, while so many others do not. I disagree with many of the rules in Islam itself, but then again, I disagree with the rules in most religions lol.

And yes, I do know that the unfair and unjust laws in Afghanistan were in place in many areas of the country before the Taliban took power and unfortunately the rules against women, while less strict, are still discriminatory.

Couldn't it also be possible that while it may strengthen in one place, it could also cause weaknesses in another. And people do cherry pick. No matter what rules you may apply to the application of the system, people do pick through it. It's human nature to do so. But in the end, in the whole scheme of things, regardless of the rules that may be in place, it is up to the individual to choose what they are going to do, and in many instances they will go against their religion to please themselves... no matter what the consequences may be.

Although, in theory, the system could prevent adultery altogether, specially if we consider the impact of a fully operating (religious) system could have on the internal functioning of man, I don't think and, as far as I know, Islam doesn't claim that adultery shall 'ever' disappear. If we look at the laws we see, for instance that four witnesses are needed. The conclusion from this is that the focus is not on adultery itself, but on, shamelessly, practicing it in public, and thereby disrupting social order. This is only one way of looking at it, of course.

I mean this is just my opinion and I fully understand why you would disagree with how I view the issue. I'm on the outside looking in and questioning and at times criticising... so bare with me lol.

Of course you may disagree, especially since you do it in a pleasant manner.

Making someone marry when they are very young could have severe repercussions later on. As you say it could disable the wish to experiment, but it could also have a totally opposite effect. Making someone marry young could result in that person maturing and thinking 'hmmm I wonder what it would be like if...'.

I want to comment on two things here. First, it is not making someone marry too young. It is allowing one to do so and facilitating that choice. It means giving a young man or woman all the sexual freedom they want when they are in their prime. It means also that as the sexual needs are met, they will not have to seek for alternate and ever changing sources of pleasure. They can also spare time to be productive in society

The second thing is that 'hmmm I wonder what it would be like if...' is less disruptive than having to compare the wife or husband, with which you share the burdens of life as well as the pleasures with all those old flames and adventures, which is an uneven comparison since you saw your old romances and girls only in times of pleasure and always in a presentable state and you were free to leave whenever you want. If you compare that with the person with whom you are married, that person will always lose. Especially since your memories are made even more appealing by time.

'hmmm I wonder what it would be like if...'Marrying someone should only be when you are sure that you really want to spend the rest of your life with that person, that you love that person enough to want to see them and be with them for years to come, that no one else can take the place of that person, etc. It's not so much the age that would prevent adultery, I think personally that it is the individual's level of maturity and self control that would help prevent it.

I don’t think it is the age that will prevent it either. It is both the virtue of the person involved as well as the environment in which he lives. The person could be very mature and ardently against adultery, but if we put him in situation in which he is constantly tempted. He might very well waver.

As for the love part in early marriage, I, personally, believe that, first, no two are a perfect match and that love is not a condition for a happy marriage, but a result of one. I also believe that the reason so many marriages go bankrupt is the attitude with which the married engage in that institution. If it is to satisfy their urges and make them happy, then the marriage is ‘doomed’. Love will vanish when you will see your counterpart as he truly is instead of the appearance he seduced you with. Of course ‘love’ and infatuations subside. This makes love not the best basis for a marriage. As far as the satisfaction of urges, they only last when your counterpart is still in his physical prime. I personally think that a common (religious-) vision on life, respect and the will to make the marriage succeed (through sacrifices) is truly the basis of a marriage. Love will automatically ensue from that.

As for the ermm 'brainwashing', that already happens. Pretty much all religions and society in general always try to do so anyway. The possible effect of this is that the individual wants to rebel against what he/she has always been told is wrong. Just imagine when a child does the complete opposite of what the parents have always taught them is wrong. I mean I remember sneaking into the garage with my cousins when I was 6 and smoking cigarettes. I remember that delicious feeling of rebellion at the time. That feeling disappeared quickly when my aunt walked in and caught us and then made us smoke cigars until we threw up to teach us a lesson... but before being caught.. it felt good to do something that we'd been told was bad. The same thing can happen with people who cheat on their partners. I'm not saying it always happens, but it can. Some people thrive on the adrenalin of cheating... it's like a game to them.. and no amount of brainwashing or societies teachings can change that in them.

There is brainwashing and brainwashing. There is that of your family, your school and society. Society is pretty important as it affects you, and your immediate environment. And society doesn’t seem to care much for the well being of its members under the motto’s such as, as the Dutch say, ”me, me and to hell with others”

I agree with the social norm, but I think that is in place already because when someone cheats then they are usually treated like a pariah by their society.

“Even” in “Muslim” society that doesn’t apply. Men are regarded as studs when they go at it and women as whores if they do the same. As if people don’t understand that for a man to commit adultery a woman is needed (at least in the majority of the cases). The woman too is excluded from criticism if her doings result in material advantages.

Ermm the punishment I disagree with totally lol. From your words, it appears to be based on Sharia Law and errr.. killing someone.. no sorry, you've lost me there. It wouldn't serve as that much of a deterrent. For an example, look at the US and the fact that the death penalty has not been the deterrent they thought it would have been. But killing someone for cheating on a partner or spouse? No sorry Bruce but ... no. Mistakes can happen and it would be almost impossible to implement when one considers what evidence would be needed to prove that adultery did in fact occur. As with Sharia Law, 4 witnesses are needed, etc.

I think that severe penalties are a good thing. I always saw it like this; better a thief or a murderer without a hand than millions living in fear. Better a dead rapist, than millions of women not able to walk on the street.

And in the cases that we've seen so far in regards to this very issue, the woman is convicted of death even though the evidence given is dubious at best and should have resulted in an instant acquittal (and yes she was later acquitted for lack of evidence), while the male adulterer is released or acquitted for lack of evidence. Too unfair and the access to justice issues scare me.

Again that is the failing of patriarchal societies and not religious doctrine.

Killing someone on religious grounds should never be the norm in my opinion. I mean like many people, I've been in a relationship in the past where the other cheated, and while I may have wished death and pain on him, that was just me wanting revenge (I actually wished I could have dragged him naked behind my car over hot coals...), that was just the anger and emotion at the time. Deep down I wouldn't have wanted the guy to be put to death for it. Torture is much better:D... just kidding of course.. lol[QUOTE=Bells]

Lol.

[QUOTE=Bells]Hmmm yes true. But sometimes the rules and justice itself can infringe on the rights of the individual too much.

What if those rules are put down by the Creator of the individual that stated in the Quran that he wants that which is easy for his creation not that which is burdensome. The old Arabs had a maxim, which is illustrated as follows:

One man stretched his armed. He thereby touched the nose of a man next to him with his finger. The second man asked for apologies while the first replied: "My finger is free to go wherever it wishes". Upon which the second man replied "Yes, but the freedom of your nose ends where the freedom of my nose begins"

May peace be upon you

Bells, Adam and Eve lived naked in heaven (im not actually sure if they did or not, but lets just say they did). they were sent to Earth later. modesty is a commadment in this life. in Heaven there are no restrictions.

According to al quran women have a lower status than men.



Though I haven't seen it in the quran there are some hadiths that say the hijab is required whether this is followed or not depends on the validity placed on the particular hadith by muslims.


christianity applies the same philosphy on women. judism the same. just because they are not followed does not mean it is not there in the texts.

also, during the medevil ages women had very little rights.

peace.

christianity applies the same philosphy on women

Can you show me where this is stated?

Can you show me where this is stated?

at this risk of pointing fingers at people. i will list a few quotes from the bible and learned christians. PLEASE UNDERSTAND I DO NOT NECCESARILY BELIEVE THAT THIS SHOULD ALL APPLY TODAY, AND I AM NOT SAYING THAT CHRISTIANITY IS A LOAD OF BULL. ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT ALL TEXTS HAVE WORDS THAT MAY MISLEAD PEOPLE IF NOT REFLECTED UPON WHILE BEING HONEST TO ONESELF OR READ WITHIN CONTEXT OR HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE SOICIAL SITUATION AT THE TIME. i like to think i am a little smarter and open minded than that .....just a little.

Timothy 2:11-14 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

Corinthians 11:5-10: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovereddishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

Genesis 3:12-16 "And the man (Adam) said, The woman (Eve) whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and heshall rule over thee."

Ecclesiastics 7:26-28 "And I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare....while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all".

"Woman is a daughter of falsehood, a sentinel of Hell, the enemy of peace; through her Adam lost paradise"
(St. John Demascene)

St. Thomas Aquinas considered women as defective, "As regards the individual nature,woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfectlikeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence."

According to the Jewish Talmud, "women are exempt from the study of the Torah." In the first century C.E.,Rabbi Eliezer said: "If any man teaches his daughter Torah it is as though he taught her lechery"

St. Tertullian in his famous treatise 'On The Veiling Of Virgins' wrote, "Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers..."

According to the Old Testament, a childless widow must marry her husband's brother, even if he is already married and regardless of her consent, so that she might bear a child from him (Genesis 38).

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are
discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has
violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" Deuteronomy 22:28-30



Well, i know some people are going to come back to me on this one. go ahead southstar. :( :D

but again, these are the same type of words that are available in all books. read the madn interpret them as you wish, but dont force your opinion on me. i will hear it and respect it, but i dont have to agree with it.

peace.

christianity applies the same philosphy on women. judism the same. just because they are not followed does not mean it is not there in the texts.

also, during the medevil ages women had very little rights.

peace.

True Knife, for me that alone removes any possibility that the quran, bible or torah are divine in origin.