LayZie G: Putting the Burka issue to bed

[Ibtisam]

One step at a time sister; We must agree on the basic evidence; that modesty and covering is ordained. Hence why I am saying which tasfir you use is irrelevant as the basic will remain the same. Once we agree on that, then we can move on to its application, which surprisingly I agree with you on same areas.

 

So post translations you are comfortable with, I will agree and we can move on to the appliction and how different people implement it.

[LayZie G.]

^ I think it was the other thread where I wrote, yes, we do agree with the basics.(none of it derives the Burka as a source, as long as we agree on that, we can move on to step two)

[LayZie G.]

Ibti, Let us not turn out like Ulrich Zwingli and Martin Luther once did in debating about the ordinances...and whether Zwingli believed the spirit of christ or objected to real presence of spirit in the bread and wine, where as Luther believed that the words must be interpreted literally as a teaching of Jesus Christ. Otherwise, without this bit of interpretation, Luther and Zwingli would have gone far in their disputation but this minor disagreement handicapped the once in lifetime opportunity that both men had and the expectations of their followers and the impact it would have on the community etc. (let us not embark on their territory, instead, let us rise to the occasion ya Ibti)

[MAXIMUS POWERS]

Layzie, IBZ is an amateur and ciyaal! she claims to be protecting the hijab and yet designs new innovative and modern hijabs for Muslims (some of which are quite revealing and would be considered un-Islamic. baal let me find some of Ibtis designs.....

[Ibtisam]

Max, read my response to Alimos on page one. Islam is NOT about me and what I do, so keep it moving. I can defend the hijab without even wearing one. Islam does not change just because its followers are imperfect.

 

Lazy I’m going to wait on you to post your position with regards to what Islam ordains, what is acceptable to you and what is not. Then I am clear on what you are objecting to, what alternative you advocate for and how far you would go to get rid of what you object to in society.

 

P.s. Max, go ahead and post your pictures (not in this thread, we are trying to have a serious discussion here you know, bloody ciyaal make your own and I'll defend my position.

[MAXIMUS POWERS]

Originally posted by *Ibtisam:

I can defend the hijab without even wearing one.

You see the above quote is quite similar to:

 

1. being a catholic priest and groping little children.

2. being a HIV/AIDS campaigner and not using contraceptives.

 

Its pure hypocrisy!

[Ibtisam]

Max I know you are bored and want someone to talk to you so please go and troll elsewhere. Not wearing a hijab does not mean someone does not believe that they should.

 

I can't believe you would comparing it to the above. You really are being silly. Now run along. :rolleyes:

[MAXIMUS POWERS]

eedo IBZ, Mash'Allah I want to learn from your never ending knowledge on Islam, especially on islamic dress code.

 

I understand you want to talk to layzie and for this reason created this thread but surely its better to engage with all those who wish to participate in the discussion than to expel them and tell them to go away. That's not very Islamic is it?

 

I just want to learn some Islamic knowledge eedo IBZ, don't deny me this wonderful opportunity to learn from you.

 

I am not bored, just chilling at home on a Sunday evening. I mean your the one with 12547 posts, actually make that 12548 after you response to this.

[Ibtisam]

You don't learn from Islam on a forum edo, In any case I can only deal with one person at a time in each thread, and you only came in here to mock me as a person, otherwise why bring up what I design or do outside of SOL, particularly when you are informing lazy about it as if someone this will influence the credibility of what I am saying about this issue. I don't see how that adds to your knowledge on Islam, just sounds like the first sign of obsession.

 

 

P.s. Well since I only have one account and never been banned my post count makes sense.

 

P.s.s. Islam section is that way >>>> Maybe Nur can help you.

[MAXIMUS POWERS]

Eedo IBZ, lets not get personal and throw around falsified allegations. I have deep and profound respect for you, you are older than me and you are a woman of high moral fibre.

 

Having said that, you have yet to produce any evidence of me of having more than one account on SOL. You have been too busy twisting phrases and listening to hearsays started by my enemies, detractors and those who harbour hatred towards the great leaps made in recent years by me.

 

I am more than happy to co-operate with the MODs and Admin and would be happy to divulge any information they require if they have any concerns or doubts about me. But for the time being, Eedo IBZ, I would advise you to refrain from defaming my good name and honour.

[LayZie G.]

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.

 

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):-

 

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.

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. 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.

 

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.

 

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..

 

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.

 

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

[Jacpher]

Faruuroow maxaa Berbara ku geeyey?

 

Faduul!

[General Duke]

A good debat indeed. Ibti is doing a fine job thus far at answering the questions posed. LazyG is also putting forth some good arguments. Let's let the sisters complete thier dicussion and not resort to personal attacks.

 

Keep it clean people and continue we need healthy discourse.

[ailamos]

Originally posted by *Ibtisam:

quote:

---

I think you are confused brother, the ayah you refer to is:

"O you who believe! Do not go into the Prophet's rooms except after being given permission to come and eat, not waiting for the food to be prepared, However, when you are called, then go in and when you have eaten, then disperse, and do not remain wanting to chat together. If you do that, it causes injury to the Prophet though he is too reticent to tell you. But Allah is not reticent with the truth. When you ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a screen

(33-53) Notice I did

not

quote that Ayah above for Lazyie- so I don't get what you are asking me, nor is your argument by extension about covering correct, since you picked on the wrong Ayah.

Hold on a second here, you're accusing me of confusion because I am quoting what's in the Quran? Tell me you dispute the historical facts of ayah 33:53? If you do then I would love to hear your argument.

Not at all, the store is true and well known, I was asking you why you are asking me about this Ayah about privacy when I spoke of Hijab as in covering your cawra. I still don't understand how this ayah supports or not Hijab (as in dressing) and why did you bring it up?

Hmmmm... interesting... http://www.islamswomen.com/hijab/virtues_of_hijab.php

 

Originally posted by *Ibtisam:

1) It does what matter what you cover your bosoms with so long as it covers.

I am glad we have reach at least one conclusion

 

The less clothes you wear, the more likely men will approach or harass you.

You're tied up, or rather welded, into the "system" that it is always the woman's fault. The man has no control over his urges and thus is excused, but the woman, she is the one who must cover-up completely. This statement of yours is very relative because it doesn't have a "bounding box", whether a woman wears a t-shirt and jeans, a skirt and blouse, a diirac, a shalwar kameez or a sari.. she will always be wearing less compared to the full blanket, used by e.g. the Taliban, in order to prevent women from participating in the public sphere as they rightfully should. Religious fundamentalists such as them also view that what they interpret of the Quran is the most accurate interpretation. And unfortunately you fail to see through that.

 

1) What you refer to as a blanket mockingly I hold in high regards and honestly regard it as blanket from the world.

Exactly my point. This is the system's way of sidelining women and keeping them "away from the world", a world that is controlled by men... whether it be religion or otherwise.

 

And since you bring up rape; statistically in the west most rape cases are committed by someone who the women already knew, and yes it is true random rapist often will try to find someone with least clothing or restrictions, looks most venerable and isolated and possible intoxicated (I was once the researcher for government run women's safety Magazine).

Although I don't doubt your experience as a researcher, but at least you have numbers from the West, but in a Muslim society these kinds of statistics are not revealed nor are they recorded for that matter. Whatever rape cases are heard of are of Western women... and please don't make me explain why this is because I know you're smart enough to figure it out.

 

So I assure you a random rapist is less likely to pick someone with 5layers of clothing and with her mahram (male family members)

I'm amused by your assurance. A rapist will go for anyone if given the opportunity, whether it's 5 layers or not. Please try to see where I'm going with this. You mention the "mahram" which is also another method for the control of women because as they are not competent or intelligent enough to be on their own. They are weak, feeble and need the protection of the male. They are not equals but they are beneath the male and thus they must be controlled and told where, when, and with whom to go.

 

As for your

most people will leave you alone if you saw No;

while you may not be physically sexually assaulted on the street, Many women are followed and pestered in both Muslim and Non- Muslim societies. I can testify to that, so yes we are verbally harassed and bothered, and yes the level varies with how dressed up we are (rightly or wrongly) and no acknowledge that is not making excuses for immoral men.

"By extension" you say? and is that fact? if so please furnish me your proof... please.

Is what a fact? that there will be no new prophet? YEs. Or that we are subject to the same religion and conditions- Again YES.

I asked if it was a "fact" that what you are saying automatically goes "by extension",I did not question whether or not there will be a new prophet.

 

Okay feel sad all you want, if it is any comfort the four witness have to be people who are normally known for their honest, and secondly they will need to answer to Allah like the rest of us.

Rape is very difficult to claim under Sharia because in Islam the burden of proof is on the woman and since her testimony is half that of a man, she's pretty much screwed... again.

 

I guess I will take comfort in knowing that I or my daughters were punished wrongly and Allah will reward them in the hereafter for their suffering.

No comment.

 

The reason we have so many problems in our societies is because of this misuse of religion and unfortunately the APPLICATION of the laws of allah unlike the rules themselves are not free from human error.

Interesting.

 

This verse neither permits violence nor condones it, while it uses the term "beating" and only applicable in extreme cases and ONLY if one is sure it would improve the situation, if it only worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then no he can't. Furthermore, the prophet expanded on this as "dharban ghayra mubarrih" which means "a light tap that leaves no mark" and not on the face. So if my husband was practising Muslim in all aspects and I was in the wrong, then a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush is the least of my worries. And Yes I have no problem with he man being the head of the Family and in charge of ME and his family, while I was living with my parents/family then it is them who are in charge of me.

How does this verse not permit violence? and why are you contradicting yourself by stating that it "does not permit violence" and then say that it's "only applicable in extreme cases". And how does violence improve the situation? Are you out of your mind? Violence

never

improves situations, it only makes them worse. Also, either you are ignorant of the Arabic language or you have no understanding of the meaning of the word "mubarrih", it does not mean "a light tap", as you try to cushion it but rather that does not leave a mark and do you know what? A lot of internal injuries do not show marks on the body... for example a severe punch to the stomach.

I don't want to get into this, but I see no contradiction between the Quran and Hadith (You can also read the story of Prophet Ayoub and his wife with regards to this issue if you are really interested), whether you like it or not is irrelevant and beside the point. And no it does not mean physically harm your wife. The culture at the time was to beat your wife severely, the prophet commented on this in the Hadith which goes something along the lines of

"how can one of you beat your wife like you beat a thirsty camel and then sleep with them"

I don't have time to look for the source now but will do so later for the exact wording.

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.

 

And this is not about ME, but about Islam.

Agreed.

 

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?

 

 

Cicero: As I keep telling Johnny I am not going to debate about the meaning of an Ayah or its application with someone WHO does not even believe in the authority of the Quran or its validity or a GOD. Kind of pointless really.

If you cannot reasonably defend what you believe in, then what is the point of believing? and by reasonably I don't mean "just because it's written here then it MUST be true". What do we teach our children before they go to school... "do not believe what people tell you, but think for yourself and come up with your own conclusions".

[Ibtisam]

Salamah;

Hmmmm... interesting...

http://www.islamswomen.com/hijab/virtues_of_hijab.php

I checked the website briefly, I don’t see that ayah anywhere.

You're tied up, or rather welded, into the "system" that it is always the woman's fault. The man has no control over his urges and thus is excused, but the woman, she is the one who must cover-up completely. This statement of yours is very relative because it doesn't have a "bounding box", whether a woman wears a t-shirt and jeans, a skirt and blouse, a diirac, a shalwar kameez or a sari.. she will always be wearing less compared to the full blanket, used by e.g. the Taliban, in order to prevent women from participating in the public sphere as they rightfully should. Religious fundamentalists such as them also view that what they interpret of the Quran is the most accurate interpretation. And unfortunately you fail to see through that.

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.

Exactly my point. This is the system's way of sidelining women and keeping them "away from the world", a world that is controlled by men... whether it be religion or otherwise.

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. Now if you said Muslim women are not given as much opportunity because of what they wear, I might agree with you.

Although I don't doubt your experience as a researcher, but at least you have numbers from the West, but in a Muslim society these kinds of statistics are not revealed nor are they recorded for that matter. Whatever rape cases are heard of are of Western women... and please don't make me explain why this is because I know you're smart enough to figure it out.

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.

 

I'm amused by your assurance. A rapist will go for anyone if given the opportunity, whether it's 5 layers or not. Please try to see where I'm going with this. You mention the "mahram" which is also another method for the control of women because as they are not competent or intelligent enough to be on their own. They are weak, feeble and need the protection of the male. They are not equals but they are beneath the male and thus they must be controlled and told where, when, and with whom to go.

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:

I asked if it was a "fact" that what you are saying automatically goes "by extension",I did not question whether or not there will be a new prophet.

No, it is not a fact, it is my understanding and opinion, otherwise I won’t be having this discussion with Lazy.

Rape is very difficult to claim under Sharia because in Islam the burden of proof is on the woman and since her testimony is half that of a man, she's pretty much screwed... again.

How did you get from false accusation of lewdness to rape. 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.

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.

 

 

________________________________________

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. This is why there is such big problem with regards to interruptions and application; it is also why we are even having this discussion. See my discussion with Lazy, take off is hindered by getting an interruption of the ayahs we want to discuss.

 

 

________________________________________

Cicero: As I keep telling Johnny I am not going to debate about the meaning of an Ayah or its application with someone WHO does not even believe in the authority of the Quran or its validity or a GOD. Kind of pointless really.

________________________________________

If you cannot reasonably defend what you believe in, then what is the point of believing? and by reasonably I don't mean "just because it's written here then it MUST be true". What do we teach our children before they go to school... "do not believe what people tell you, but think for yourself and come up with your own conclusions".

We are not in school, nor are we children; it is not that I cannot defend what I believe in, it is that I would only bother if I think I or they might gain something from the discussion. In this case he is bent on being insulting and condescending and I cannot be bothered. Secondly, there is no foundation to base his objection on, discussion with them needs to start from the top of the pyramid and address the issue of God before you can confront the broad issues or their application. 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.

 

Lazy Allahu Akbar, Walahi you are not even as far as I thought. I will post my response tonight inshallah. Alimos took up enough of my lunch time for now.

 

W'Salam