Questioning the Veil: Open Letters to Muslim Women

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by ThePoint:

There are only 2 states that mandate hijab for all women - Saudi Arabia and Iran. No other other state in the Muslim world does so.

And this is really a damning with a faint praise. That you concede that there ARE Sharia Law based Islamic States that do force women (muslim or non-muslim) to wear the Hijab only bears me out. While I didn't address states per se, only countries where Islamists exercise control/influence, my point still stands.

 

So far the record is 100% (2/2). The only two states in the world that are based on Sharia Law force women to wear the Hijab. Now, lets look at all the non-governmental Islamists groups whose objective, as they state, is to implement Sharia Law. Just about everywhere -- from Indonesia to Mauritania -- where Islamists exercise significant control, women are forced to wear the Hijab. It doesn't matter who these Islamists are be it the Taliban, Alshabaab, Hamas, Jameeca Al-Islamiya etc... they all force women to wear the Hijab. What are the chances that it's all due to pure coincidence that all these disparate pro-Sharia Islamists groups and the only two officially Sharia based states in the world, all force women to wear?

 

The chances are zero. Forcing women to wear the Hijab is part and parcel of running a particular region or country by Sharia law.

 

Despite the voluminous cases from all over the world where all sorts of unspeakable crimes are done against Muslim women for refusing to wear the Hijab, we get a deafening silence from the Muslim masses. And yet when the French government suggests maybe the Burqa and the Niqab should be banned, we have people so indignant that they nearly go into epileptic seizures. If you don't see something wrong with that, then you're part of the problem.

 

 

Originally posted by ThePoint:

Read the posts on this forum regarding hijab and you can clearly see many people don't agree with forcing individuals to wear the hijab.

Nonsense. Show me the proportionate outrage against those who force muslim women to wear the Hijab compared to those who suggest denying muslim women the right to wear the Hijab. Note, I purposefully chose "proportionate" because the reactions have to be in proportion to the outrage they're directed at. In Sharia run countries and regions, the penalty for women who refuse to wear the Hijab is not a mere symbolic fine or something like that; it is actually more severe like whipping, prison or family/relatives taking the law into their hands and disfiguring the women.

 

 

Originally posted by ThePoint:

But I doubt any of this matters. In your zeal to denigrate and demean Muslims and Islam you will say anything that comes from the deep recesses of your bias.

This is more ad hominem attacks against me by someone who ran out of arguments. You know who invented this tactic of smearing his opponents so as to prejudice the audience (readers) against him? It was Dr. Joseph Goebbel. He used to distribute pamphlets and brochures containing prejudicial information against his (and his friend's) debating partners in the entrances of wherever the debates took. And you wouldn't believe how many seemingly intelligent people fell for this tactic time and again. Lets hope people have learned a thing or two about history.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by ThePoint:

The argument consists of citizenship and its attendant rights. There is no citizenship for non-Saudis in Saudi Arabia and consequently fewer rights vis-a-vis citizens.

Another complete balderdash from you. I exposed the silliness of your original argument and now you're trying to safe face by changing the topic. Lest you forget, your initial argument was: France claims the moral higher ground as evinced by their national motto but S. Arabia doesn't have morally superlative motto or doesn't claim to adhere to higher morals like France... THEREFORE, we can't criticize S. Arabia to the same extent as we can and should criticize France. That was the gist of your original argument. Now you "magically" float in the issue of citizenship. Did I miss something?

 

But there is a flaw with that argument as it rests on unstated, implicit assumption that some countries have mottoes like: to kill, plunder and oppress. In reality no country in the world has such motto and all countries aspire to higher morals... they all claim to uphold highest moral standards. Thus, all have equal moral responsibility. In other words, we can judge them based on not what they say they stand for but what we expect from every nation.

 

But this lame ad hoc argument of yours has other problems. For instance, why if the reason non-mulims can't build churches or non-Islamic places of worship in S. Arabia is due to citizenship issue, why then can't non-Muslim S. Arabian citizens build their places of worship? Oops! ****** question 'cause you're not allowed to convert out of Islam in S. Arabia as the punishment for apostasy according to Islamic law is death.

 

Accept the harsh truth. Non-Muslims can't build places of worship in S. Arabia and many other Islamic countries or face extreme restrictions BECAUSE of Islamic law and nothing else.

 

 

Originally posted by ThePoint:

France gives citizenship to many but fails to accord some rights to a certain section of its citizens due to the religion they practice. That is a failing of France to live upto the contract established with citizens.

The law is the same for every citizen of France regardless of religious or ethnic extraction. Unlike under Sharia where there is one law for Muslims and another for everyone else. So, what exactly do you mean deny certain rights? What rights were denied to Muslims that are afforded to others?

 

 

Originally posted by ThePoint:

In general - I do expect Saudi Arabia to be a more just and peaceful place than France if it was actually living upto the Quran, Shariah and the Sunnah.

You're beginning to sound like communists in denial who still will tell you with straight face that communism works just not USSR or PRC or N. Korea or anyone else who tried to implement it.

 

What you see is what you get. S. Arabia is "living upto the Quran, Shariah and the Sunnah." It's just that you don't like what that entails.

[ElPunto]

1. Two states out of how many in the Muslim world? Not too sure what it is you're crowing about proving. Hamas does not have any laws that mandate hijab nor do they enforce the wearing of hijab on anyone Muslim or not. Unless you can provide proof - this statement is simply a lie.

 

2. Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood don't advocate for hijab for all women. The idea that all Islamists are the same on this issue is false.

 

3. Proportionate outrage? This sort of demand is the bastion of prejudiced bigots. Tell me how does one measure 'proportionate outrage' - what measuring stick or scale do you use? Even if you had such a thing - where do you go to quantify this outrage - websites, newspapers, tv - where exactly? This impossible demand speaks to your biased mindset and has no basis in logic.

 

4. Saudi Arabia is a closed, extremely traditional culture. They do not proclaim themselves as an example to the world. They do not trumpet a three word national motto. They do not extoll the virtues of their republic. They do not proclaim freedom of religion as a core right. Saudi Arabia is not putting itself out there as a bastion of enlightenment. That's why France bears more criticism. It's the only western country to ban hijab in certain places. Thus France and Saudi Arabia share the rare distinction of restricting women's dress on the basis of religion. Is France then not worthy of more criticism? This is not a complicated argument.

 

5."Non-Muslims can't build places of worship in Saudi Arabia and many other Islamic countries or face extreme restrictions BECAUSE of Islamic law and nothing else." Three questions. What other country besides Saudi Arabia can non-Muslims not build places of worship? Which are the 'many' countries where non-Muslims face 'extreme restrictions' and what specifically are the 'extreme restrictions'? If they face 'extreme restrictions' - how did you determine that was as a result of Islamic law rather than prejudice, ignorance, zoning, noise issues etc etc?

 

6. Sharia has different sets of laws because some issues of Islamic morality are not applicable to non-Muslims. Did you want Sharia to force non-Muslims into accepting all aspects of Islamic morality? I think that would be an unfair burden.

 

7. The rights that are being infringed upon in France are those of freedom of religion. A hijab according to most scholars is a mandatory part of Islamic worship and not something of a frivolous nature. France is interfering with that right. In the interests of appearing to be fair France has chosen to ban other 'conspicous religious items' such as yarmulkes and large crosses. But neither of those items has the wieght of hijab or is an integral part of Jewish/Christian worship according to my knowledge.

 

8. Most knowledgeable people will tell you that Saudi Arabia is not living upto the Quran, the Shariah and the Sunnah. I'm not sure where you get off saying that it is? If you want to go into detail why it is not - you can engage with our resident scholar Nur.

 

9. It's funny that you mention communism and North Korea. It's official name is the Democatic People's Republic of North Korea. You also have the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Now having seen these countries in isolation - any half-wit would quickly come to the conclusion that democracy is a horrible and brutal system of government since these two countries that claim to be democratic are nightmarish places to live. I assume you can guess what the problem here is my friend. You have the same problem. If you really want to see the Quran, Shariah and the Sunnah in action you need to study the times of the Prophet and the four rightly guided caliphs. Pointing at Saudi Arabia and insisting that is Islam in action will only score you points with the ignorant and the prejudiced.

 

Overall - I think you need to stop the hyperbole, the distortions and the flat out untruths if you want to engage in debate and discussion. If you have legitimate criticisms state them without bias and they will be judged on their merits. But attacks for the sake of attacks is pointless, tiresome and ultimately reveals a deep-seated sickness for which there is no cure.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by ThePoint:

1. Two states out of how many in the Muslim world? Not too sure what it is you're crowing about proving.

They're the only two states that matter -- both proclaim to be run according to Sharia and carry out many Sharia mandated policies like gender segregation, prohibition of riba (interest), implement xuduud punishments like lapidation, amputations, beheadings, lashes for various misdemeanors etc... if Sharia compliant governments coercing women into wearing the Hijab/Burka was exception to the rule, then both S. Arabia and Iran shouldn't be compelling women to wear the Hijab since they're the majority.

 

You see, your real problem is not whether these two countries force women to wear the Hijab; your problem is reconciling modern moral sensibilities -- what modern humans consider to be just, fair and humane -- and what your religion prescribes. For the most part, modern values and Islamic moral prescriptions can not be reconciled. For the genuinely devout Muslim, this poses a great challenge. On one hand, a Muslim can't disengage from his/her moral/cultural milieu. For example, a Muslim in the West can't avoid being confronted with various believes/practices that contradict his religion. By the same token, the devout Muslim can't divorce from his religion for fear he'll earn eternal damnation. The devout Muslim in the West is often required to make difficult trade-offs between demands of the West (religious pluralism, gender equality etc) and observing his religious duties. Thus, you got the classic condition of cognitive dissonance.

 

The brave and honest find release for this cognitive dissonance through "radical Islam." For the hypocrites and cowardly, equivocation and denial is their remedy. This is why they'll deny every Islamic group that implements Sharia in full or partially and claim they don't represent true Islam... why? Are they deviating from Islamic teachings or historical precedents? Nope. Are they doing what is proscribed in Islam? Nope. Their only justification for denying the legitimacy of these Islamic groups is because what these groups breach and do isn't acceptable to the West and the rest of the world. Hence, we got you denying policies of S. Arabia and Iran not because they're inconsistent with the letter and spirit of Islam but because they're embarrassing YOU as a Muslim living in the West.

 

You have my pity.

 

 

Originally posted by ThePoint:

Hamas does not have any laws that mandate hijab nor do they enforce the wearing of hijab on anyone Muslim or not. Unless you can provide proof - this statement is simply a lie.

Perhaps you're not keeping abreast of events in Gaza. Hamas is slowly but surely turning Gaza into Talibanistan.

 

Here is Human Rights Watch pleading with Hamas to rescind Hijab law: source1

 

Here is another article talking about the varius measures being taken by Hamas to Islamise Gaza: source2

 

 

 

Originally posted by ThePoint:

Tell me how does one measure 'proportionate outrage' - what measuring stick or scale do you use? Even if you had such a thing - where do you go to quantify this outrage - websites, newspapers, tv - where exactly? This impossible demand speaks to your biased mindset and has no basis in logic.

Have you ever taken a survey or wrote one? If you did, you'd know that you're often asked to rank priorities/preferences in some questions. That data is then pooled and used to extrapolate what people prefer. It's very scientific and objective means of ascertaining people's priorities. My developing point is, we CAN determine the priorities of Muslims. What is of greater priority to Muslims: muslim women being forced into wearing the HIjab/Burka/Niqab at the pain of whippings, fines, imprisonment or other draconian punishments OR President of France suggesting a hearing into whether the Burka (but not the Hijab!) should be banned or not?

 

The response to this question was the hysteria surrounding Sarkozy's suggestions. Even Al-Qaacida got into the fray with threats of revenge against France. Conversely, we got and continue to get a deafening silence about brutalization of Muslim women who refuse to wear the Hijab/Niqab/Burka. We know WHY Muslims remain silent over the mistreatment of Mulsims women; wearing the Hijab is religious duty.

 

In SOL we can easily measure Muslim priorities by comparing the number of posts/threads dedicated to denouncing governments that ban or suggest banning the Hijab to the posts/threads covering equal denunciation against governments or other entities that force the Hijab.

 

 

Originally posted by ThePoint:

Thus France and Saudi Arabia share the rare distinction of restricting women's dress on the basis of religion.

A vivid demonstration of the equivocation I mentioned earlier.

 

France restricts ALL religious symbols, including HIjabs, on government premises. It's not really restriction of woman's dress per se as it is more of the strict separation of religion and state. To equate French ban on religious symbols to S. Arabia's foisting of religious dress code on all women is to indulge in fallacy of equivocation.

 

 

Originally posted by ThePoint:

Is France then not worthy of more criticism? This is not a complicated argument.

No. France doesn't lash or imprison people for how they dress.

 

 

Originally posted by ThePoint:

6. Sharia has different sets of laws because some issues of Islamic morality are not applicable to non-Muslims. Did you want Sharia to force non-Muslims into accepting all aspects of Islamic morality?

Non-Muslims are second-class citizens under Sharia. Equality of all before the law will level the floor and treat all equally with dignity.

 

 

Originally posted by ThePoint:

It's official name is the Democatic People's Republic of North Korea. You also have the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Now having seen these countries in

isolation

- any half-wit would quickly come to the conclusion that democracy is a horrible and brutal system of government since these two countries that claim to be democratic are nightmarish places to live.... Pointing at Saudi Arabia and insisting that is Islam in action will only score you points with the ignorant and the prejudiced

Of course what a country is -- democratic or not -- is not determined by what it calls itself but by objective reality. There are a number of requirements a country has to meet before it can be accepted as Democracy. These include but are not limited to: competitive elections and politics, economic and personal freedoms, free press, free association, freedom of speech, separation of powers including independent judiciary, promotion and protection of civil society groups etc. Also, democracy (or any political system for that matter) is not a switch that must be one way or the other (democracy or not). Democratic institutions are on a continuum. This is how the various political indices rank democratic countries. Some countries are considered more democratic than others because they score higher on democratic institutional measurements. N. Korea and DR Congo would be the very bottom of any democracy list.

 

Similarly, Saudia Arabia is Islamic country based on Sharia because it has more of the Islamic/Sharia institutions than not. Is it 100% perfect? No. But then there never was an Islamic entity that implemented Sharia flawlessly if such thing ever exists.

[Haatu]

Originally posted by Raamsade:

quote:Originally posted by ThePoint:

Saudi Arabia does not have as its national motto liberty, fraternity and egality.

But it has the Quran, the Sunna, the Sharia and the Prophet Mohammed. Ostensibly superior sources of higher moral framework and system of governance that dispenses justice and bestows freedom according to Muslims. We expect Saudia Arabia to behave better (grant more freedoms and justice) than France because the former's laws and system of governance is from God unlike man-made motto of France.

 

This is a self-defeating argument for a Muslim to make. Unless, of course, you're losing faith in Islam.

Miyuu soo hanuuney?

[Nur]

Raamsade writes:

 

But then there never was an Islamic entity that implemented Sharia flawlessly, if such thing ever exists.

 

 

From the perspective of a person who believes that his parents literally created him, and that God does not exist, Its quite logical that, he also believes that such a thing called Sharia never existed! flawlessly or otherwise!

 

 

Nur

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Nur:

Raamsade writes:

 

From the perspective of a person who believes that his parents literally created him, and that God does not exist, Its quite logical that, he also believes that such a thing called

Sharia never existed! flawlessly or otherwise!

 

Nur

Islam is composed of many foundational myths including the myth that at one time there existed a pious, peaceful, progressive Islamic polity (Ummah if you will) that lived under the one and true Sharia (as opposed to all the false/incomplete ones)... and if Muslims could only reconstitute that polity today, all the problems afflicting Muslims will magically go away.

 

Such Islamic polity never existed. That's the point I was trying to convey.

[ElPunto]

Raamsade,

 

1. What the state proclaims doesn't matter much (witness DRC or NK). Sharia is a comprehensive way of governance - it cannot be reduced to Xuduud or no-interest. Saudi Arabia and Iran have their own rules on hijab but as I said before it only takes one entity(national government or not) that proclaims it practices Sharia and doesn't force women to wear the hijab to blow your argument out of the water. Witness Hamas(despite your dither above) or Hezbollah.

 

2. 'Modern, moral sensibilities', 'modern values', 'just, fair and humane' etc - do you believe that a certain people, geographic region, religion or culture have a monopoly on decent values and sensibilities? I don't know what modern means in this context. It's just a word certain people culturized in the west throw out. Basically what they mean is that if you don't look like me, act like me, order yourself the way I do - you are primitive. It's a very convenient tactic.

 

3. 'For example, a Muslim in the West can't avoid being confronted with various believes/practices that contradict his religion. By the same token, the devout Muslim can't divorce from his religion for fear he'll earn eternal damnation. The devout Muslim in the West is often required to make difficult trade-offs between demands of the West (religious pluralism, gender equality etc) and observing his religious duties. Thus, you got the classic condition of cognitive dissonance.'

 

For someone who I presume is not a Muslim - I'm not sure how you KNOW that Muslims have to make difficult trade-offs or are experiencing cognitive dissonance. I urge you to ask the practicing Muslims on SOL whether they are experiencing cognitive dissonance. Had you bothered to actually find out rather than concoting theories that fit your preconceived bias/prejudice - you would learn that most Muslims are able to conduct their lives according to Islam and are able to leave off or avoid that which doesn't in the west. There are difficulties but there is little if any cognitive dissonance.

 

4. 'Hypocrites and cowardly', 'equivocation and denial'. You like to throw out the words don't you? How about this definition for a hypocrite - one who is born a Muslim, leaves the religion and then uses every conceivable tactic to slander, malign, demonize the religion he was born into with little understanding of it in the first place. Let me break it down for you. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Al-Qaeda or Al-Shabaab do not encapsulate the religion of Islam - no matter how many times you insist they do. Neither does what you say is Islam actually make it Islam. I haven't denied any policies of Saudi Arabia or Iran - what I have denied is that they are practicing proper Sharia in its complete form. That's it.

 

5. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran embarass me as a Muslim. They might disappoint me or disgust me. As for your pity, save it for those who buy your feeble arguments.

 

6. Neither of your documents shows that Hamas has officially prescribed hijab for all women and that not wearing one will result in punishment for breaking the law. Isolated incidents are not going to cut the mustard here.

 

7. You went from demanding 'proportionate outrage' to measuring and ranking priorities/preferences via survey? What a climbdown. I take it you realize the folly of your demand. You don't need to take surveys to rank Muslim's priorities or preferences. Most Muslims in the developing world are concerned about putting food on the table, the health and education of their children, being able to lead a happy and fulfilling life etc. Why do you keep the refrain of 'deafening silence' and 'remain silent'? You don't have a way to guage this just as you don't have of guaging 'proportionate outrage'. All you have is your bias which only lets you register a 'deafening silence'. Stick to 'easily' measuring the Muslim priorities in SOL first and tell us the results you get. Otherwise you've got diddly squat on this argument.

 

8. As I said France's ban on religious symbols unduly affects Muslims' ability to follow the tenets of their religion. You can hardly compare that to not allowing a large cross or a yarmulke in class. To do so would show a large logical defieincy indeed. France doesn't lash or imprison people for their dress but they get kicked out of tax payer funded public schools. Hardly praise-worthy.

 

9. Non-Muslims are second class citizens in your biased view of Sharia. It's so odd that those second class citizens chose to stay in 'Muslim lands' for centuries and were active participants in the vibrant intellectual and social life thereof. But this is off-topic really.

 

10. I am glad you recognize there is a continuum for the tenets of democracy. There is also a continuum for Shariah and SA and Iran are at the low end of that continuum. That's why pointing to them and insisting that is Shariah or Islam in action is mistaken. I've told you and illustrated to you several times in the course of this thread that very point. Any further insistence on that point shows willful ignorance and bias.

[Nur]

Raamsade Writes:

 

Islam is composed of many foundational myths including the myth that at one time there existed a pious, peaceful, progressive Islamic polity (Ummah if you will) that lived under the one and true Sharia (as opposed to all the false/incomplete ones)... and if Muslims could only reconstitute that polity today, all the problems afflicting Muslims will magically go away.

 

Such Islamic polity never existed. That's the point I was trying to convey.

 

 

These words do not only reflect an inherent ignorance of Islamic history, but also the perceived interest of the writer in defending Atheism and all that it entails, a glaring example that a person who admitted on this forum that there is no purpose in life, can not offer one, nor accept any other purpose that conflicts with his outlook in life.

 

 

“The Islamic Law which is binding on all from the crowned head to the meanest subject is a law interwoven with a system of the wisest, the most learned and the most enlightened jurisprudence that ever existed in the world.”

 

Edmund Burke ; Lawyer, Politician and Writer.

1729-97

 

 

Nur