LayZie G: Putting the Burka issue to bed

[Cicero]

Ibti, the reason why I reject and oppose Islam does have a foundation. It's reason and logic, experiment and observation. Islam claims that Muhammad is a special person, a prophet of God; that the Quran is the miraculous word of the creator of the Universe. But these are very extraordinary claims with scant evidence. In fact,there's nothing in the Quran to suggest it's a miracle. It can be explained by natural and historical causes. Verses like beating women and the obsession with menstrual cycles and female control all point to the unmistakbly human origins of this book. I think it is a good sociological record of 7th century arabia. It provides anthropologists with insights into the arab pysche. But it's not a good manual for ethics and morality.

[SayidSomal]

^Illah baan ka magangalnay! another one.

[Complicated]

^Sayidii: waa kuwaad ogayd oo shaati kale u soo xidhay inay faafiyaan Islam nacaybkooda sifo loo aamino inay Soomaalida gaaladu kusoo badatay.

[SayidSomal]

complicated - you have point - it is either Johnny Boy has being converting lost souls on sol or he is breaking the site rules.

[ailamos]

Originally posted by *Ibtisam:

See my above post, I already told you once my position on man and his urges and who is blamed. I am not the Taliban, never was and never agreed with them, so it is pointless you quoting me what they did or did not do.

But aren't they your brothers in Islam who enforce the blanket which you admire so much? Why the drift?

 

Women empowerment is NOT found between their legs or how much/less clothing they wear. It is state of mind enhanced by education and opportunities.

You fail to add an important but to this statement... "It is state of mind enhanced by education and opportunities and choice... which is missing... a woman's choice is non-existent.

 

It is not so much that they are not revealed, but that no one carries out these researches and the support system is lacking. As for rape is only reported in the West, yes I agree that they are reported to

authorities

and more likely to get persecution and support. But as with any crime and even disease, recorded data and investment in research is poor or none existent, so we can never know the true extent.

You're sounding like typical apologist. Recorded data and investment in research are widespread in Muslim lands. They just choose not to record certain things because of the shame it will bring them.

 

Opportunity in the key dear, an accompanied female is not a target. As for the clothing, the opportunist wants the easiest and fastest option. As for the mahram, that’s your opinion and not a fact, but after travelling on my own a few times, I see the perfect sense and wisdom in travelling with a male in some societies and if I ever go back to those countries, if I can’t find a mahram to go with me, I will hire a man to pretend to be mine. :rolleyes:

Your paranoia is a personal matter to you so I'm not going to comment here.

 

In any case, rape is not that straight forward and in this day where modern science allows the use of advanced techniques to identify the rapist with the highest accuracy from semen, saliva, blood, hair, fibers, skin scraps, bite marks. And if sharia existed, the same man could not rape again. But we don’t live under Sharia anywhere in this world, so our arguments will only remain as ifs and buts.

I see that we're staring to accept "modern science" instead of the Islamic "witness" program. If only you would put this though into broader use instead of picking and choosing where and when to apply modern "stuff", then we won't be having this discussion. Are the matters of forensics that you just mentioned in the Quran since according to you it was "revealed for everyone in any time period because Allah was aware that things change". If not, then why use them and stick to the primitive system? It worked then and it will work now too, no?

 

Ibti don't start avoiding the issues here. It would be helpful if you answered my question as to how this verse "does not condone violence" and how "a beating improves the situation" and regarding your contradiction.

I don’t have time to spoon feed you; I like how you like to clink to the prevailing Arab culture at the time of the Prophet (PBUH) when it suits you, and yet when I tell you that this ayah was dealing with the needs and the circumstances. As for how it can help; the measures may work in some cases and cultures (the nomadic Somali culture which you admire so much is one of them) and on the same token it is not effective in other cases. In fact the prophet discouraged this measure,

"Do not beat the female servants of Allah";

 

"Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you." As for how does not condone violence; In Islam if an act is "permissible" it is not required or nor is it forbidden nor is it encouraged. There are many examples, but the one I can think of right now is the issue of Divorce in Islam.

You make another baseless assumption... what makes you think I admire the Somali nomadic culture? Besides, I don't "clink" to the culture at that time when it suits me but rather this misogyny is rooted there, it started there and now it's in the Muslim lands.

 

Again, you have not failed to amaze me. The ayah was dealing with the needs and circumstances... so by your admission it is a circumstantial matter and that is exactly what I am getting at here. So many circumstantial things in the Quran have been applied for all circumstances.

 

The fact that a violent act was made "permissible" does not prevent it from being used. This illustrates that there is a need for revision and reflection when it comes to the interpretation.

 

In any case, religion is judged by the scripture Not its followers action, otherwise we'll be here all year talking about what different Muslims do.

Oh really? This is a highly illogical statement. Where do the followers get their instructions, inspirations and laws from?

Actually you are being illogical here, two different people can never read the same line and understand it the same way, particularly considering the diversity in background and culture.

Two people. Two men. Not a man and a woman. You conveniently neglect the matter of influence here. Men control Muslim societies, not women, and their influence is clear in every aspect of Muslim life. From public prayer to the household.

 

Two interesting comments coming from you:

 

"I don’t agree with this and believe that it was revealed for everyone in any time period because Allah was aware that things change and with his wisdom accounted for this."

 

the measures (of the ayah) may work in some cases and cultures (the nomadic Somali culture which you admire so much is one of them) and on the same token it is not effective in other cases.

 

Make up your mind.

 

Reminds me of my philosophy class when the lecturer told me

to leave God and such ideas outside the door and pick them up on my way out

in an effort to get me on the same ground as everyone else. Same way Cicero, Johnny and I will never be able to discuss religion without meeting at a starting point, and the application is not that place.

I like your philosophy professor. It is necessary to be on the same ground and not float in superstition from the onset. I for one am getting tired of this discussion because the circling has already begun.

[Ibtisam]

Sura An-Nur, verses 30-31: English translation(Light)

 

The above verses you shared were the same verses I brought to Sheikh Nur's attention, in order to get clarity on how he understood said verses, which we are still waiting for him to share and you have done the same, where you have said what you said of the same verses.

 

When I brought it up last year, I did it to first get an understanding on how proponents of the Burka interpret verses that specifically deal with matters of dressing modestly, both for women and men.

Okay, I can’t answer Nur, so I hope he gives you your answer.

You are the first one who actually attempted to re-vive these very same verses, so, I grand your request of me, which is to bring forth verses that deal with women and women garments, which surprisingly is the same verses I once opened a thread on, but this time, I will share how I interpreted the said verses, along with Chapter 33, verse 59.

 

For the following is said of a 'Woman and dressing Modesty'(after all we are dealing with Burka, so we should limit ourselves to verses that only concern our sex):-

quote:

________________________________________

And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.

________________________________________

I like your translation better; so

1) Reduce your vision

2) Guard their private parts

3) Don’t expose their adornment except what necessarily already shows

4) Wrap your head/ cover your head and part of the head covering should extend to cover your chest

5) List of those who can see your adornment

6) Don’t stamp your feet.

 

Simple enough, to the point and at the end, it instructs women to protect their goodies, i.e not to expose their nakedness to anyone that does not fall under the above category, especially against those that are more likely to engage or draw the woman to break her promise to Allah, thereby covering over 'bosoms' with the same cloth as that is is on her head.

So far agree 100%

However, it does not instruct a woman to conceal her face but I can see why some commentary of the Qur'an would interpret as beauty being identified with the facial only. Beauty is not limited to just the facial and if we are speaking frankly, the saying of "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" is appropriate for this part of the discussion because it all boils down to individual liberty to see beauty as one sees fit. I'm sure we don't want to get into a discussion about what true "beauty" really constitutes...some men would say, well, as long as she has an attractive face, that will do for me. Others will say, face matters not and the body, especially her chest and her lower body is more attractive than just the face alone.

So far so good, I have no issues

The part about not exposing her beauty to anyone that does not fall under the above category is a direct violation of this verse, which makes sense but again, what is beauty to you? We are talking lustful actions here, sexual intercourse, body and soul, exposed for eternal pleasure but does it limit to face? Apparently taliban thinks so.

I’m not too bothered about what beauty is, I think every has to cover the same basic thing

 

You have to understand, women of the period weren't awliyo, they were buck wild. YOu could rarely tell who was a convert and who did not adhere to the new religion. all in all, not much distinct from the none converts and this particular verse was how would be able to tell apart from the non-muslims.

I think this is still th case partly anyway.

 

In pagan Arab culture, one woman was shared by atleat 4-5 men at a time, so the idea here is to refrain from such conduct and to only expose yourself to your husband and not to anyone else. (thats why marriage was important)

 

This was a direct instruction against pagan practice. Islam had to establish itself as a religion and the light chapter is a reflection of such reform. You can say Islam was reforming the practices of the period, thereby making a direct statement.

Also possible and true.

 

On the other verse(Chapter 33, verse 59), it says:

quote:

________________________________________

O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

________________________________________

For us Somalia, this could be a Dirac and a Garbasaar that would conceal your figure or for the Arabs it could be their own garment or even a sizable men's overalls.

So 7) characteristic is to conceal your figure, cover the whole body so that nothing is exposed.

 

Moderation, instructions to wear loose clothes that conceals the woman's figure. If the said garment is long enough to cover her body, including but not limited to the head, it does not object, matter of fact it welcomes it. The way I interpret this particular verse is that its a clause that is revealed for the sole protection of the female. Again, the question of the shape of the female which may entice some men to do more than look is spoken against. I just don't see how this verse speaks of Burka.

A material which covers her body, not limited to the head to protect the female.

 

Various interpretations of the above verse are available but this commentary should sum it all up:

quote:

________________________________________

O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks closely over themselves

________________________________________

(again not exclusive to the face but the body as a whole, covering up, making sure the woman's figure is not exposed to the wondering eyes)

 

PS: I think the Hijab crowd should perhaps take a second look at the mirror before they leave the house with their tight jeans and Hijab over their head, thinking iney asturan yihiin, which this verse speaks against it.

lol agree.

 

So in conclusion I have no problem with your definition of Hijab, its characteristics and you probably have a better understanding of level of modesty meets such standard than some hijabs.

 

My understanding:

So as far as I am concerned, ALL the above are forms of Hijab, you can throw the dirac and shawl in there too, not to mention the Asian Shalwa khamis, to the Abayah in the Middle East, or the Moroccan Dresses. All of them have the basic 7 characteristics and some like the Burka go above and beyond that which is mentioned. I look at these basic characteristics as the minimum that is expected of a Muslimah. What she adds to is entirely her own business. My role as a fellow Muslimah is to support and respect her CHOICE in the form of Hijab she wears, the style, material and design are all individual concepts and basically a matter of taste. Whether I approve or like or think it is attractive is neither here or there. For this simple reason I will always a support a women option to wear or not wear, and if she does wear it, how she wears it.

 

We’ve agreed that in the Quran there is no evidence of facial covering, this means it is not part of the basic criteria and as such there is no sin or compulsion from the deen. This is why I disagreed with the Taliban, because they made something that was at best recommended by scholars or in a hadith compulsory, but they also enforced this notion by force; there by the women had no choice in the matter.

 

But what I do not get is why you would:

 

1) Vocally object to a women who has chosen to cover her face for her own reasons: Maybe out of piety, maybe because she thinks her face is too pretty, maybe she finds it comforting or is shy.

 

2) OR support legislations by non-Muslim to ban or advocate for the oppression of this Muslimah who has made a different choice. What makes you (the said advocate) any better than the Taliban who tried to enforce the opposite. Explain to me how you are not the two side of the same coin please?

 

3) If a Muslim was engaging in an action that was not harmful to society (i.e. endangering society) but just made people uncomfortable or changed the landscape or just scares people, i.e. Wearing a niqab/ burka; I would never support a none-Muslim against a Muslim.

 

4) Many people think that to none-Muslims they care what sect you are, or if you are a modern Muslim or traditional Muslim or Fundamental Muslim; we Muslims should not open the door for banning and oppressing our minority. This just makes it easy to pick us off one by one. An interest case which has nothing to do with this area is the issue of little Muslim organisations in London; They were engaged in this little in house fighting between mosques and committees, so they tried to use the media against each other and point the finger at each other. Sadly to the media and general British public, we all look the same, the resulted documentary was severely damaging to the Muslim community and resulted in shutting down of facilities and banning of lessons in certain masjids. This in fighting is what is destroying our community; we spend so much energy and effort trying to destroy the brother or sister who has a different view to us that we forget that we are a minority in countries where they really don’t care about what conditions we have to satisfy. My point is, if we support the ban of the niqab or the Burka, how long before the long dress and hijab is seen as extreme and that ban is extended (remember the niqab and Burka only seem extreme now because they are uncommon and partly because its been misused by certain groups) . We are not supposed to be the forerunners who hang the rope that is later used to dangle us from a balcony; if anything we should try to legitimise the Burka/ niqab as well informed choice made by individuals who are the same as you and I.

 

Aliamos Your right, it is getting boring, length, no direction and i'm too tired to read.

[Ibtisam]

Originally posted by Cicero:

Ibti, the reason why I reject and oppose Islam does have a foundation. It's reason and logic, experiment and observation. Islam claims that Muhammad is a special person, a prophet of God; that the Quran is the miraculous word of the creator of the Universe. But these are very extraordinary claims with scant evidence. In fact,there's nothing in the Quran to suggest it's a miracle. It can be explained by natural and historical causes. Verses like beating women and the obsession with menstrual cycles and female control all point to the unmistakbly human origins of this book. I think it is a good sociological record of 7th century arabia. It provides anthropologists with insights into the arab pysche. But it's not a good manual for ethics and morality.

Cicero then I am sure you will agree it is pointless to debate the current application of something that you think is sociological record of 7th Century Arabia; A better place to start would be to examin your so called logical, reasonable reasons and compare it with believers claim of the origins of the Quran and their proof. Talking about application is a waste of my time and yours and not helpful to either one of us.

[ailamos]

Ibti, after re-reading our round-and-round discussion, and after reading what you have written above to LG, I realize that we're not all that divergent but were too defensive and stubborn to see the other's point.

 

You have earned my respect by stating "whether I approve or like or think it is attractive is neither here or there. For this simple reason I will always a support a women option to wear or not wear, and if she does wear it, how she wears it" and that is it outright wrong when the authority makes "something that was at best recommended by scholars or in a hadith compulsory, but they also enforced this notion by force; there by the women had no choice in the matter." This is basically what I have been trying to say, that it's always the woman's choice, not the male authority's, she has the sole responsibility to read and interpret and not succumb to someone else's interpretation.

 

But sadly as the Taliban and Alshabab have shown that certain interpretations are enforced through the barrel of a gun; or as the House of Saud have shown through legislation; or in many Muslim households simply through the male authority.

 

Freedom of choice is a right. If a women freely chooses to wear something without any of the above influences, then I have no problems and would be the first to defend that right.

 

I think I rest my case on this matter. Thank you for a stimulating, albeit at times circular, discussion

[Ibtisam]

Freedom of choice is a right, regardless of what we think of peoples decision; It just gives me a headache that people who are against Taliban or Alshabab can then advocate for a ban. I wish people would just leave women to make their own decision about what to wear. We can’t on the one hand object to forceful wearing on the basis for freedom of choice and then forcefully remove it from those who want to wear it.

 

No problem and thank you, after 5yrs of SOL you and lazy forced me to write a few essays.

[ailamos]

hahaha... it's all good the bottom line is that everyone learns something from a discussion.

[Ibtisam]

^^You would think so, but Somalis general are good defenders. Instead of listening they are too busy planning what they are going to say next. Maybe Somali MPs should write letters to each other, and war lords too. Might help them get on the same page. [never mind, another topic, another day]

[LayZie G.]

^not so fast Ibti.

 

 

YOu have not refuted my claim that Burka should not be worn on the premise that Burka is not dictated by Islam nor does our culture require it. At the same time, Burka is harmful, nothing comfy about it.(as you have us believing)

 

I knew religion did not dictate Burka as a condition for a woman to wear in order to fulfill her duties as a Muslim lady. On the other hand, you knew it all along, you just sided stepped it in hopes of wonderfully presented the Hijab and over covering as a viable option.

 

So, in the spirit of understanding, I think its time for you to join hands with C&H(below, read my signature), because she agrees with me, its there for everyone to read. At the same time, she(C&H) insist on being stubborn about it, so she found an excuse(something about a woman's choice), same as Cara, she too agrees with me, now say it with me, LayZieG was right, I was wrong?

 

 

All jokes aside, we understand that outer garment could mean literally anything that doesn't reveal the shape of the female, which is really what's being protected and a long garbasaar/shaal in your case, all those materials could fulfill the material, the same way a sizable men's overall could, so at the end of the day, if a man takes it to a extreme measure and defines what covering over her body constitutes, such as wearing Burka or whether the man forces her to, is wrong. Bottom line, its wrong, especially when people say that they do it for religious reasons because you and I just concluded that it is neither religious nor tradition, so what is it? A personnel choice to look like an Arabian robber?

 

What comes of banning the material in the west? You just want to end the discussion because you can't find any more verses for me that supports your argument against banishment but maba kaa yeelaayo, unless of-course you say the magic words.

 

wish people would just leave women to make their own decision about what to wear.

What of the man who forces a woman to wear the darn thing on a hot, humid day? Atleast the ban would allow her to breath normal. Can the folks on the other side of the aisle say the same thing?

 

Remember, men dont know any better. On the other hand, women recognize what is harmful to them and other women. You are an example of such a woman. ( if marx accusations of you weren't true and you were not in it for the profit.) (I kid)

 

PS: Pious reasons and personal choice maba isa soo galaan. Mase one mase the other, not the two in the same sentence when you just so much as admitted that it was not a requirement.

 

Pss: Running late, will be back later

[Ibtisam]

Not so fast dear, I asked you:

1) Vocally object to a women who has chosen to cover her face for her own reasons: Maybe out of piety, maybe because she thinks her face is too pretty, maybe she finds it comforting or is shy.

 

2) OR support legislations by non-Muslim to ban or advocate for the oppression of this Muslimah who has made a different choice. What makes you (the said advocate) any better than the Taliban who tried to enforce the opposite. Explain to me how you are not the two side of the same coin please?

The Bukra is a form of hijab that fulfils the conditions of a Hijab and covers additional areas (hands &face) which they don't have to; Now if she made that choice, regardless of whether it is pretty or comfortable or she looks like a robber (Arab or otherwise) What is your objection and why would you force them to take it off?? :confused: That has been my question all along, since last year I’ve been watching you and trying to figure out exactly what it was that your objection was based on; At one point I thought you was against all hijab, another time I thought you was fashionable and felt embarrassed by them, now I feel like you are just pis*sed off they going an extra mile that they don’t need to.

Go back and read any thread on this topic I have ever commented on; I’ve always said, it is not required, however it is a form of hijab and for those who made their own choice to dress that way I will support them and we have no right to bully them.

 

As for pious reasons, I don't like to comment on it because Allah knows their intentions, whether it is for their husband or Allah or friend, or maybe they feel it helps them spiritually. I have wore niqabs a few times, I don't think I could say it was for pious reasons, often it was because I was in a situation where 1000 Muslim men were coming out and they just stare at you or if you are doing a charity collection, you don't want to mess up their intentions and I'm shy, plus I don't want them to see my face.

 

This is similar to What Aisha said:

 

“The riders used to pass by us when we were with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in ihrām (the sacred state one enters when going to hajj or ‘Umrah). When they came near, each of us would

lower her Jilbāb from her head over her face, and when they passed by we would uncover (our faces).”

 

[Narrated by Abū Dāwūd, 1833; Ahmad, 24067

Asian do this by using their hijab as part covering over their lower face.

 

In any case, I like having that option.

 

Btw, I have worn a niqab and a Burka previously and it was very comfortable, aside from the people who kept looking at me, I felt free and light, It was summer (English summer), maybe you should try to wear it.

 

My atheist friend and I swapped clothing for a day so she can experience a day in the life of a Muslimah(she wore gloves, niqab and Burka) while another friend followed us about with a video recorder. Although it took her a while to get use to walking, and it was only for a day, her main complaint was that as a model she is use to people looking at her when she is out and about,but now people looked at her with suspicion and that made her want to laugh or scare them.

 

P.s. you do not have a signature? :confused:

 

P.s.s. I don't want to end the discussion (Aliamos & I came to a common ground) now I'm trying to do the same as you. So please put your ego of Lazy is right aside and answer the questions so I can at least understand why you feel the need to dictate to these women what to wear (like the men you hate on) Can't they just do what they want without you or a man or government telling them so?

 

What of the man who forces a woman to wear the darn thing on a hot, humid day? Atleast the ban would allow her to breath normal. Can the folks on the other side of the aisle say the same thing?

The man and you who wants to force them to take it off are the same to me, neither of you have any right to do so. Just let be will ya.

 

P.s. Marx is right, but think of me as a hair dresser- she can't control where people go or who they show their hair to after she made the hair beautiful and sexy

[Johnny B]

^ Exactly my thoughts.

Three pages and no sign of the "reason of the reason" as to why "burka" is the Islamically prescribed garment for dis-figuring women.

 

Ibti admitts being unjustfully baised against any Human being who is not Muslim's stance regarding the " Burka", yet fails to present the Islamicness of the "burka".

 

This displays an unforgivable bigotry that crimples her chance of being an open-minded person.

 

Abti's association of the Burka and Islam,leaves much to be desired.

[Ibtisam]

^^Johnny you have no place in this discussion,dis-figuring women kullah, I mean seriously you would rather everyone (the good looking ones at least) walked around naked.

 

The Islamic-ness of the Burka is that it fulfils the basic characteristics of a hijab, (if it had a whole in the backside revealing their as*s then no I won’t support it or call it a hijab.) Furthermore it is not banned in Islam, and in Islam everything is lawful unless it is declared unlawful.

 

I'm not an open-minded person at all, I just don't like people telling others what to do. Don't get it twisted atheer. I am always with the Muslims right they be or wrong; If they are right I will support them, if they are wrong, I will support them by correcting them- hence I can never be open-minded.