Do Muslim Women Need Saving? The Western crusade to rescue Muslim women has reduced them to a simpl

[Safferz]

STOIC;985660 wrote:

Saf, I have watched a video of Leila Ahmed.I still didn't get it whether she was saying Hijab was a symbol of intolerance or she thinks Hijab was not always mandatory in Islam? You can put up her work if you have the time. I love to read her work on this subject.I'm not familiar with hr work.

She's a historian, so she's not interested in debates over whether hijab is a requirement or not... her work focuses on how the hijab was perceived historically, both within Muslim societies and by Western societies. In her new book she talks a bit about how she grew up in an Egypt where the majority of women did not veil in the way we see it now (perhaps not unlike our parents' era in Somalia), and how Egyptian society transformed in the last few decades, and she uses that as the starting point to explain her own curiosity about wanting to write a modern history of the hijab. The new book is called "A Quiet Revolution: The Veil's Resurgence from the Middle East to America."

 

Can you link to the talk you watched?

[STOIC]

This was the talk she did at LSE

[Safferz]

*Ibtisam;985662 wrote:

Except it is upside down/sideways- can't figure out how to turn it sideways.

Can you download it, then rotate in Adobe Reader or whatever PDF viewer you're using? If not, I can always scan the intro to that as well. It sounds harder than it us, but among my grad student privileges here, I get to "request" scans of whatever book pages/chapters I want lol, so I'll gladly abuse that for the benefit of SOL. It can take up to three days though, depending on how many requests I make.

 

Here are my notes for Mahmood and Ahmed.

[SomaliPhilosopher]

Safferz;985666 wrote:

Here are my notes for

Mahmood

and

Ahmed.

Hmmmmm I am a graphologist by trade. This shall provide valuable insight

[magicbird]

Safferz;985657 wrote:

A tad simplistic, no? Muslims aren't the only ones to experience Western intervention. There have been more American invasions of the Caribbean and Latin America than anywhere else, and they are Christians for the most part. What people like Edward Said show is how culture becomes the colonialist logic to justify what's fundamentally political and economic exploitation and extraction. That's what feigned concern over the "oppressed" Muslim woman is all about.

"And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion".(Baqarah:120)

 

Akhi, it is that simple.

[Ibtisam]

^^^ Akhi Edward Said was a Secularist Christian and he probably stuck up for Muslims more than most- oh and guess what he cared little for anyone's religion- just nationalistic and humanist

 

 

Safferz Akhi - I did thanks- and the notes too! looking forward to reading it

[STOIC]

Akhi, check out this video..Chill dude Islam is beautiful and no one can corrupt it... http://youtu.be/QdcEEhtAuII

[Safferz]

SomaliPhilosopher;985668 wrote:

Hmmmmm I am a graphologist by trade. This shall provide valuable insight

Sorry to disappoint you SP, but those are typed notes, although my notes always start off in a notebook before typing up anything I know I'll need to go back to. Would you like a photo of my handwriting?

 

magicbird;985669 wrote:

"And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion".(Baqarah:120)

 

Akhi, it is that

simple

.

Ukhti, and no, it's not as simple as quoting verses of Quran devoid of context and rejecting analysis.

[Classified]

magicbird wrote:

"And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion".(Baqarah:120)

 

Akhi, it is that simple.

Safferz;985675 wrote:

Ukhti, and no, it's not as simple as quoting verses of Quran devoid of context and rejecting analysis.

How simpler can this verse be? :confused: But, I'll do the courtesy of asking before coming to a conclusion, using your "scholarly" approach, what do you think the context of this verse is?

 

Apophis, I said this before and I'll say it again. These "Muslim" women will only get a book deal, a grant of some sort, exclusively given, if they're to go back to their country of origin, to shot a small documentary, incriminating their culture and religion and of course a little air-time on a National news, talking about their ordeal, before ending it with their own emancipation proclamation to free the women from the "chains of Islam".

[Safferz]

Classified;985709 wrote:

How simpler can this verse be? :confused: But, I'll do the courtesy of asking before coming to a conclusion, using your "scholarly" approach,

what do you think the context of this verse is?

Asking the wrong questions, as usual. The point is that there's nothing simple about colonialism or neocolonial interventions in Africa, the Middle East or elsewhere, so the simple reasoning that it's because of religion just doesn't cut it. However culture/religion does become the language to mask what are political and economic aims.

 

Magicbird posted that verse after I said most US interventions were in the Caribbean and Latin America, not the Muslim world, so clearly this verse has no relevance to American imperialism and its ambitions.

[Classified]

Safferz;985710 wrote:

Asking the wrong questions, as usual. The point is that there's nothing simple about colonialism or neocolonial interventions in Africa, the Middle East or elsewhere, so the simple reasoning that it's because of religion just doesn't cut it. However culture/religion does become the language to mask what are political and economic aims.

 

Magicbird posted that verse after I said most US interventions were in the Caribbean and Latin America, not the Muslim world, so clearly this verse has no relevance to American imperialism and its ambitions.

Again, you're deflecting my question pertaining to your arrogant way in tossing away the verse as "devoid of context" [in your own words]. Let's put aside this whole "Cultural Colonialism and "Neocolonial Interventions in Africa" you're trying to use as a deflection to avoid my simple question in regards to a simple verse from the Quran by the member magicbird.

 

magicbird quoted this verse: "And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion".(Baqarah:120)

 

You replied with, "Ukhti, and no, it's not as simple as quoting verses of Quran devoid of context and rejecting analysis."

 

I'm asking you, what is the context of this verse, you think? Does one need to analysis to really understand what Allah meant by when he said this verse?

[AfricaOwn]

Classified;985709 wrote:

 

Apophis

, I said this before and I'll say it again. These "Muslim" women will only get a book deal, a grant of some sort, exclusively given, if they're to go back to their country of origin, to shot a small documentary, incriminating their culture and religion and of course a little air-time on a National news, talking about their ordeal, before ending it with their own emancipation proclamation to free the women from the "chains of Islam".

So they basically become tools for the liberal elites? I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't be paying much attention to them, these issues don't contribute nothing to advancement of mankind, extremely weak focus.

[Safferz]

Classified, I'm not getting into this with you. This thread is about culture, religion and histories of Western intervention, particularly as it has been experienced in the Muslim world and how the "oppressed Muslim woman" becomes a metaphor and part and parcel of the colonialist logic that leads these countries to these lands for political and economic aims. I responded to magicbird to say that there is obviously more to Western imperialism than "they want our way of life" (the fact that most US interventions have been in non-Muslim countries underscores this point) and that quoting a verse of Quran - each verse having a specific context within the text as well as at the time of its relevation - has no relevance to this discussion and cannot be used to reject historical and political analyses of colonialism.

 

Go read Edward Said's "Orientalism" and come back when you're capable of participating in this thread constructively instead of trying to derail discussion into Quranic exegesis, which is not what Ibti's thread is about.

[Classified]

AfricaOwn;985712 wrote:

So they basically become tools for the liberal elites?

I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't be paying much attention to them, these issues don't contribute nothing to advancement of mankind, extremely weak focus.

I totally agree with you.

 

As for Safferz, this is my last reply to you directly. I shouldn't have went out of my way to entertain your ideas/opinions.

[Safferz]

Good riddance!