Burka

[mazHur]

[QUOTE=The Atheist;910587]

I have to say, this smacks of the worst kind of defensiveness, because you're wrong in so many places

.


Or, alternatively, Yasmin's views smack of '' the worst kind of defensiveness, because she's wrong in so many places''

Where does this come from?

How could Yasmin Alibhai-Brown possibly remind you of the Kama Sutra?

She is 60 years old and there isn't even a photo with the article. The images of Yasmin available online are professional head shots, as one would expect of an author.

''face to face'' communication is not correct...there are many ways of communication, why doesn't she refer to them or any other form of 'body language' ---??

Humans only communicate through their eyes?

What?

First love is always through the EYES. Ever heard of love at first sight??

Did you read the article?

I surfed it but was disgusted to read further.

Of course she isn't obeying purdah rules. Why would she? Whether she's loyal to her faith is pretty obvious. She may have a different view to you, but her loyalty is unquestionable. Especially if you read the article.

Purdah is commanded by the Quran. If she doesn't believe in Quranic injunctions regarding Purdah I doubt if she is a Muslim. The rules for Purdah may differ but it is a must for every Muslim woman!!
For men the Purdah is to keep their eyes down, look down, and do not intentionally look at women!

This is a pretty odd way to attack an accomplished author, especially in the light of the article, which is extremely well written, mature, and nothing less than diametrically opposite to what a 5 year old would write like.

I am not interested in her 'style or syntax', it's her thoughts that are 'revolting' and incorrect which are objectionable.
Salman Rushdie and Tasleema Nasreen are better writers than her but condemned for their profanity in distorting Muslim faith.

That you dismiss her religious knowledge is interesting, because she barely mentions it in the article, so it another meaningless, and purely defensive, attack.

From her name I can figure out that she belongs to which sect of Muslims and how that sect views Islam. By all other sects of Islam they are NOT even recognized as true Muslims because of their deviations from fundamental beliefs of Islam

Your point being?

She does note that in the piece...



Pretty easy to find out the answers to those questions.



Which flimsy reasoning is that?[

/QUOTE]

My point is clear as I stated above regarding Purdah.
Also, as she seems to be a westernized her views are not acceptable as malignant, wayward and smacking of prompting Muslim women from violating Quranic Injunctions to suit her sectarian beliefs and motives which are not acceptable for other Muslims.

She is 60, okay, but still younger than me!!LOL

[The Atheist]

Or, alternatively, Yasmin's views smack of '' the worst kind of defensiveness, because she's wrong in so many places''

No, that would be silly, because she's attacking, not defending.

''face to face'' communication is not correct...there are many ways of communication, why doesn't she refer to them or any other form of 'body language' ---??

Because it is nowhere near as important as the face in communication.

First love is always through the EYES. Ever heard of love at first sight??

that may well be the case in your culture since the eyes are the only visible part, but I can assure you, it wasn't the eyes that attracted me to my wife.

I surfed it but was disgusted to read further.

Purdah is commanded by the Quran. If she doesn't believe in Quranic injunctions regarding Purdah I doubt if she is a Muslim. The rules for Purdah may differ but it is a must for every Muslim woman!!
For men the Purdah is to keep their eyes down, look down, and do not intentionally look at women!

Why not?

What is so wrong about looking at women?

I have to say that your attitude displays exactly why she sees it as wrong. It's all about control, which may have been fine in 1210, but most of the world sees it as wrong in 2010.

I trust your religion doesn't have the christian "free will" covenant with the god.

[mazHur]

]No, that would be silly, because she's attacking, not defending

.

sorry, transpositional error ...it should read ''offensive''

Because it is nowhere near as important as the face in communication.

you can't say that.
Why do men want to see their whole visage when any person can be recognized through his/her eyes? I can recognize a woman from a mile, veiled or not.!!

I am not for face covering, though.....because I think it is not required by the Quran. Must is that women should cover their bosoms and hide their 'adornments' from public view. Am not sure if cheek, lips and eyes and forehead also fall in the 'adornment' class?



that may well be the case in your culture since the eyes are the only visible part, but I can assure you, it wasn't the eyes that attracted me to my wife.

With Romeo and Juliet this was not the case, even with me this was not the case. Love enters the soul through the eyes....and humans, unlike animals who use their noses (smell) to assess their females, use the sense of touch to 'familiarise'!! :sigh:

Why not?

What is so wrong about looking at women?

It is forbidden by faith...

Looking at a woman is not forbidden if it is in routine...but if you specifically look or stare or ogle at a women is BAD!! It's the same in your culture....

I have to say that your attitude displays exactly why she sees it as wrong.

She is wrong because she is talking against her Faith..and I don't like hypocrites who confess a faith yet talk bull**** against it or try to stall self-seeking innovations or whims in it. Islam is not like the Bible that you can make any number of versions of it...the Living Quran stays unaltered and the same Quran is read everywhere in the world by all Muslims since more than 1400 years!! It is also the most widely read book in the world!

It's all about control, which may have been fine in 1210, but most of the world sees it as wrong in 2010.

control is as if you are referring to chattels or traffic control. No...every body has a different degree of control, human nature. Hence it is better to control all by commanding them to keep their looks down!
I knkow you won't realize this unless you 'enjoyed the pleasures of living in a poor Muslim country replete with corruption and feudalism. thus Islam preaches UNIversal security to men and women and its command are not only for developed countries, which are controlled by laws, but also extend to backward countries where human laws are weak or non existant.

I trust your religion doesn't have the christian "free will" covenant with the god.

[/QUOTE]

What is Christian free will?? Is it the free will to condemn their own religion and make mockery of their Biblical elders?? If so we Muslims are forbidden to do that....we are also forbidden to talk ill of any religion, incl Christianity, and Judaism. we are also commanded to believe in Bible, torah Talmus and all scriptures and all prophet and no Muslim, unlike Christians or Jews, can even dare to tall ill of them...if he does he would be committing a major sin.

[motherhubbard]

This is off topic, but is related. I was at a theme park the other day and there was a group of young mid eastern men. Let me tell you, they were BEAUTIFUL! They were so beautiful I looked away and spent a great deal of thought on why these men did not have to cover up to keep from tempting the women around them. I know it's not commanded, but the point is to reduce temptation through modesty. Is there an assumption that men are more tempted than women?

[mazHur]

This is off topic, but is related. I was at a theme park the other day and there was a group of young mid eastern men. Let me tell you, they were BEAUTIFUL! They were so beautiful I looked away and spent a great deal of thought on why these men did not have to cover up to keep from tempting the women around them. I know it's not commanded, but the point is to reduce temptation through modesty. Is there an assumption that men are more tempted than women?

No, I don't think so but if you are not married and feel temptation for a handsome man you are free to propose him for marriage.
But if you are already married you can't do that. Not only that would amount to infidelity but also lechery and you might be knowing that debauchery or promiscuity is strictly forbidden in Islam and those who commit it face a 'bloody' tune!!

[motherhubbard]

No, I don't think so but if you are not married and feel temptation for a handsome man you are free to propose him for marriage.
But if you are already married you can't do that. Not only that would amount to infidelity but also lechery and you might be knowing that debauchery or promiscuity is strictly forbidden in Islam and those who commit it face a 'bloody' tune!!

That is not my point. It's my understanding that women are commanded to do this for two reasons- to preserve their chasity and to prevent men from being tempted. Men try not to look, but women cover themselves. Why do the men not need to worry about tempting women?

[caddy_caddy]

I think the article is more about the right of unveiled or modern women to have their own space in an Islamic society which I'm ok with it .. By the end of the article she said that their veils are walls that keep them in and us out . I can understand her ends but not her means . She's trying to break this wall, the veil and other walls , by saying it is not Islamic . I don't wear the veil but I don't say it is not Islamic . I know I'm committing a sin and I'm responsible of my choice .
I think making the argument religious by saying is not Islamic is a mistake because she has to support her argument with the Qura'n , Hadeeth and the consensus of the clerics . Yet I do agree with her on what she said about imposing cloaks and headscarfs on children .

children as young as four were kitted up in cloaks and headscarves ("so they get used to it, and then later wear the full thing," said a teacher to me who works at a Muslim girls' school) and now for the graduation gown, a full burqa, preferably with dark glasses.

This is too much and very cruel .It is not Islamic , cultural . Unless the girl gets her period she not supposed to wear the veil .

[JBI]

I think the article is more about the right of unveiled or modern women to have their own space in an Islamic society which I'm ok with it .. By the end of the article she said that their veils are walls that keep them in and us out . I can understand her ends but not her means . She's trying to break this wall, the veil and other walls , by saying it is not Islamic . I don't wear the veil but I don't say it is not Islamic . I know I'm committing a sin and I'm responsible of my choice .
I think making the argument religious by saying is not Islamic is a mistake because she has to support her argument with the Qura'n , Hadeeth and the consensus of the clerics . Yet I do agree with her on what she said about imposing cloaks and headscarfs on children .

This is too much and very cruel .It is not Islamic , cultural . Unless the girl gets her period she not supposed to wear the veil .

Who knows though - in Canada we just had a sentencing of guilty two a father and brother who killed a 16 year old girl because she decided she didn't wish to veil herself anymore. Similarly, a woman just got arrested for trying to kill her daughter because she came home too late.

The community, even if the girl is pubescent is still restrictive in extreme circumstances. In moderate circumstance, there is probably a lot more choice. But at what point is what going on?

How much freedom do people actually have. I come from a community that really stigmatized against outsiders - non-Jewish people were shunned, and most people wouldn't talk to them. Anybody who dated one was considered violating the religion.

Of course, coming from an immigrant family, I couldn't fit there either - so I was out before high school - but the closed mindedness shows - people are brought up under circumstances that create a world that lacks dissent.

Not saying all Muslims are raised like that, but there are ones who are often at the mosque, at private schools, at after-class schools, with strong family ties, who essentially become indoctrinated by age 2, and stay that way, to be married off young, and repeat the cycle.

If people at home view you as a whore for not veiling yourself, is it really your choice? If your community has been feeding you misogynist, rhetoric calling you filthy if you do not do as the religion dictates is something really your choice?

It implies a great deal of paralysis.

Now, you regard yourself as sinning, to the quoted poster, for not following. The fact that you need to view yourself as somehow sinful is in itself rather unhealthy, and shows the signs of the indoctrination.

[mazHur]

That is not my point. It's my understanding that women are commanded to do this for two reasons- to preserve their chasity and to prevent men from being tempted. Men try not to look, but women cover themselves. Why do the men not need to worry about tempting women?

It's natural for men too to get worried about tempting women. In that case if the woman is not married he can propose her but if she is married 'he should run for the hills!""

[QUOTE]

I have to say, this smacks of the worst kind of defensiveness, because you're wrong in so many places.




How could Yasmin Alibhai-Brown possibly remind you of the Kama Sutra?

She is 60 years old and there isn't even a photo with the article. The images of Yasmin available online are professional head shots, as one would expect of an author.

msg snipped...........

just received these comment from a UK citizen.......


yes.....yasmin alibhai-brown (it looks like she has kept her
maiden name by hyphenating the maiden/married names,
which is considered as being really posh if you have a hyphenated
surname). She works for the independent newspaper and comes
regularly on various tv debates relating to iran, afghanisation, pakistan,
israel and other issues such as ninja's etc. I dont like her reporting as
she tends to side-track other debaters by continuously enforcing her
thoughts and not allowing the other person to project their views.

[ennison]

Most faces are ugly and it should be compulsory to hide them for aesthetic reasons. Hiding them for faith reasons is childish.

[mazHur]

I was wonder when I read your post what a burka really looks like. If it includes a piece of veil that covers a woman's face and a long dress, it sounds like a pretty dress for women. However if it covers a woman's face with a piece of cloth, which spreads from a woman's head to her toes, it is horrible, and in opinion, degrading for women. Why will anyone want to conceal all women's faces for whatever reason that may have come to his head? If a religion teaches people to hurt someone's feelings, I am sure it is not a good religion, which only promulgates fatuous ideas.

Burqa is NOT prescribed by religion, it's just a kinda dress only.

A cycle rickshaw may sound to you ugly but it still serving the logistic requirements of millions of people in the world. You just can't hate it because you don't need it or don't like it.

Most faces are ugly and it should be compulsory to hide them for aesthetic reasons. Hiding them for faith reasons is childish.

{edit}

No face is Ugly...you can't say that because you can't see them. Have your eyesight and mind checked!
Faith doesn't prescribe Burqa....it just asks women to keep their adornments out of sight of the general public ....and to men, to keep their eyes low (ie don't look at their tits!)when they 'talk' to stranger women..

If I chose to walk around naked would you accept that?

you might get screwed by kids in the EAst!!

Most faces are ugly and it should be compulsory to hide them for aesthetic reasons

. Hiding them for faith reasons is childish.

Most uncovered faces are most ugly and it should be compulsory to hide them for aesthetic reasons

I think the article is more about the right of unveiled or modern women to have their own space in an Islamic society which I'm ok with it .. By the end of the article she said that their veils are walls that keep them in and us out . I can understand her ends but not her means . She's trying to break this wall, the veil and other walls , by saying it is not Islamic . I don't wear the veil but I don't say it is not Islamic . I know I'm committing a sin and I'm responsible of my choice .
I think making the argument religious by saying is not Islamic is a mistake because she has to support her argument with the Qura'n , Hadeeth and the consensus of the clerics . Yet I do agree with her on what she said about imposing cloaks and headscarfs on children .

This is too much and very cruel .It is not Islamic , cultural . Unless the girl gets her period she not supposed to wear the veil .

the author of the article seems to be a so-called Muslim of the Agha khani sect who follows the orders of her Imam (Saint) Prince Aga Khan more than the Quran or anyone else in the world!! hence her every word is UNRELIABLE AND UNTRUE!!

[Scheherazade]

Since this thread is not serving its original intend anymore, it will now be closed.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone involved that preaching and religious intolerance are NOT welcome on our Forum.