CANADIAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS SPONSORS PINK HIJAB DAY" FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
writer writer's picture
CANADIAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS SPONSORS PINK HIJAB DAY" FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH

 

writer writer's picture

quote:


In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful
The Canadian Islamic Congress Media Communique
Sunday, October 14, 2007 -Shawwal 2, 1428, Year:10 Vol:10 Issue: 103
**********************************

** SUPPORT THE CANADIAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS **
The independent voice of Canada's Muslims; Sunni and Shi'a, men and women,
youth and seniors
[url=http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/support.php]http://www.canadianis...

***********************************

THE CANADIAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS
MEDIA COMMUNIQUE

October 14, 2007

CANADIAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS SPONSORS NATIONAL "PINK HIJAB DAY" TO RAISE FUNDS FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH

-- YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A MUSLIM WOMAN TO WEAR A PINK HIJAB ON FRIDAY OCTOBER 26

The Canadian Islamic Congress announced today it is giving away pink hijabs to 200 Canadian women across the country who will volunteer to wear them on Friday October 26 to raise funds for breast cancer research.

October is Islamic History Month Canada (IHMC) and also Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

In a unique teamwork venture, CIC is urging Canada-wide support in marking Friday October 26 "National Pink Hijab Day".

"Wearing a pink hijab on that day will send a doubly powerful message," said CIC national vice-president, Wahida Valiante, "that breast cancer does not discriminate between Muslim and non-Muslim women and that wearing a traditional hijab is a personal choice to be respected by all ... It should not be a reason for abuse or discrimination. On October 26, we warmly
welcome non-Muslim women to wear pink hijabs in solidarity with their Muslim sisters."

To request a free pink hijab, please email to adm4@canadianislamiccongress.com before October 22; be sure to include your name, phone number, postal address and a short personal biographical statement.

To learn more about Islamic History Month Canada visit:
[url=http://www.islamichistorymonth.com]www.islamichistorymonth.com[/url]

For more information about CIC visit:
[url=http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com]www.canadianislamiccongress.com[/...

CONTACTS:

English Media
Mrs. Wahida Valiante
Cell ph: (647) 802-8024

French Media
Dr. Najat Moustafa
Cell ph: (514) 327-7680


Feminist babblers: thoughts?

Unionist

[I consider myself a feminist - hope you'll agree.]

My, there are lots of ways to divide people up these days, aren't there...

quote:

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A MUSLIM WOMAN TO WEAR A PINK HIJAB ON FRIDAY OCTOBER 26

Well, I'm not a Muslim woman, so I should qualify for a pink hijab, no?

I'll tell you what I think:

I don't like proselytizing of any sort - what next, Jews inviting non-Jews (men only, of course) to wear kipahs, tallit and tefillin? Sikhs asking non-Sikhs (men only, of course!!!) to wear turbans? The Catholic Church asking non-Catholics (straight males only, of course) to conduct the Mass?

Actually, I don't like a single thing about this. It looks like faux-chic marketing gone wrong.

Michelle

That's...interesting.

I don't know. Not sure if I would do that. Even with "permission" it feels too much like cultural appropriation to me. Not to mention that I don't really buy the "feminist freedom" argument to wearing the hijab to begin with. I think every person should be free to wear a hijab or any other article of clothing for religious observance, but that doesn't mean I think it's particularly "feminist" to do so. Not that it has to be in order to show support, or that it is necessarily "non-feminist" either. I suppose one could look at such an action as an act of anti-racist solidarity.

But I don't know, maybe it's just because of my past involvement in a patriarchal church, but I always distrust any overtly religious calls to action from any of the patriarchal religions, even if it's from women within the religion. I knew more than a few female Christians who were just fine with reinforcing patriarchy within the church.

Practical note: I wonder if they come with instructions on how to wear them? Probably most non-Muslim women wouldn't have a clue how to wrap them or make them stay on. (I wouldn't, anyhow!)

Cueball Cueball's picture

I don't own a pink Hijab. So I guess that is out.

Michelle

No, no. They'll MAIL you one if you want to participate. For free!

What I don't get is where the fundraising comes in. I tried to find information on their web site but didn't see anything on it.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Really? Ok, I am in.

Elysium

Here's the the direct link to the page:
[url=http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/mc/media_communique.php?id=945]pink hijab day[/url]

I think it's disgusting that they would encourage non-muslim women to wear hijabs. I'm not surprised anyway, the CIC is an antigay organization.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Why is it "disgusting"?

Pride for Red D...

I think the intetion is quite nifty- solidarity, anti-racism, etc. I don't know howe many non-muslim women would want to wear one though.

notice how muslim women are a frequesnt topic of conversation but we never seem to hear form one on this board ? That seems kinda of wrong to me.

Makwa Makwa's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Elysium:
[b]I think it's disgusting that they would encourage non-muslim women to wear hijabs.[/b]

btw PFRD, wonderful comment. It seems that encouraging head scarf tryouts among the larger population at worst could be a nifty fashion trend, despite its gendered connotations.
Still, mens skirts have not caught on much outside of Fulsom street, as far as I can see, and I don't see much demand from men for headscarves, although the practical applications in October seem obvious.

Elysium

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Why is it "disgusting"?[/b]

Because to me it represents the oppression of women, and the terrible burden that is placed on them concerning rape. To put it simple, it's a blatant statement that 'this is a man's world' instead of an equal one.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Are Orthodox Russian Babooshkas also opressed women, therefore in you opinion?

oldgoat

Elysium, to suggest that the hijab represents oppression of women is to say that oppression of women is a Muslim issue. It is not. It is a global and trans cultural issue. While there are women who wear a particular mode of dress because they feel compelled to within their domestic or cultural circumstances, it is inappropriate to assume women don't wear the hijab, or other styles of dress out of preference for whatever reason. It is not for you to say why any woman dresses the way they do unless they've told you.

quote:

notice how muslim women are a frequesnt topic of conversation but we never seem to hear form one on this board ? That seems kinda of wrong to me.

That is indeed a good point. I just may talk this place up among a few people I know.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by oldgoat:
[b]Elysium, to suggest that the hijab represents oppression of women is to say that oppression of women is a Muslim issue. It is not. It is a global and trans cultural issue. While there are women who wear a particular mode of dress because they feel compelled to within their domestic or cultural circumstances, it is inappropriate to assume women don't wear the hijab, or other styles of dress out of preference for whatever reason. It is not for you to say why any woman dresses the way they do unless they've told you.
[/b]

You should "sticky" that.

oldgoat

Where would you like me to sticky it?

Vision Artist

quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
notice how muslim women are a frequesnt topic of conversation but we never seem to hear form one on this board ? That seems kinda of wrong to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

At your service!

The reason why many Muslim women decry their hijab as an act of feminism is because we feel that dressing modest/covering our hair is actually our stance, if not protest, against man's objectification of us. It is a reclaiming of our bodies, our dignity, our self. It is my way of saying, "My body is not yours for visual amusement, pleasure, or commodification, it is mine to do/share with as I please".

I've actually compared it to women I've interviewed who shave their heads. These women felt that removing their hair is not only an act of defiance against society's construction and definition of what it means to be a woman, but more so a defense against men's catcalls, condescension, and objectification of her.

I agree, misogyny and the oppression of women is a world plague and it is definitely present amongst Muslims (it is nowhere present in the true religion of Islam, as originally sent down to us by God- who is not a male entity) as much as it is present in all societies, especially here in the U.S.

In Islam, God is not a male, nor in the image of man, and does not differentiate between man and woman, yet demands harmony and balance between them. In our book, Eve did not lead Adam into sin and is not the root of all evil. I do believe my religion combats the oppression of women, provides balance and equality for all, and is truly a liberation. However, there will always be men and even women who will twist and contort and use religion or popular belief, to serve their opinions/agendas- whether for war or oppression.

Sorry so long!! : ) I hope it answers any questions, I didn't mean to be overbearing!!

Peace,
Mona

[url=http://www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/2007/10/21/2007-10-21_two_different_...

Cueball Cueball's picture

Thanks for that.

minkepants

quote:


modest/covering our hair is actually our stance, if not protest, against man's objectification of us

how about in Saudi? Where it's not a choice?

quote:

is present in all societies, especially here in the U.S.

nahhh... we dont have men running around with sticks beating women because their dress is imodest. I'd say that edges us out in the misogyny sweepstakes

quote:

it is nowhere present in the true religion of Islam

quote:

The Noble Quran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da'wah and Guidance chapter four, verse 34

And for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them (first); then leave them alone in bed; then beat them


Over to you Mona

Cueball Cueball's picture

Using singular examples of certain types of oppression practiced by one specific group of people who share a belief system with the entire a larger group.

The reality is that most societies with majority Muslim populations do not have morality police as they do in Saudi Arabia, for instance, Turkey, Egypt and even the Iraqi Republic under Saddam Hussien. The list is long.

Really you are talking about the conservative Salafist brand of Islam, for one thing, when you are talking about the Taliban, and Saudi Arabia.

Islam also has extremely tollerant and even quasi-hedonistc strains, such as some of Sufi schools.

The reality is that there is nothing particularly sexist about Islam in comparison to the other major world religions, and in fact wife beating is commonly justified in some patriarchal Christian practices, so Mona is right.

Such things usually are reflective of local cultural practices, which are then justified by the original text, not derived from the text itself. Most of the wierder things one hears about some Islamic practices, are derived from Hadith, and specific interpretations of Sharia, and even Sharia is not a universal system of law.

You would be amazed at the kind of hermeneutic bastardization that goes on. For example the Hudood ordinance in Pakistan regarding rape, assures essentially that a man can defend himself from the the charge of rape relying on Shura 24:13, and saying that the sex was voluntary, and that she must produce "four witnesses (you may believe them). If they fail to produce the witnesses, then they are, according to GOD, liars."

But [url=http://www.submission.org/suras/sura24.html]Shura 24:13[/url] is about adultery not rape, and means that if one person accuses another of adultery, they must produce "four witnesses" in support of the accussation.

Basicly some Pakistani lawmakers and Imams have decided that they can take the example of the "four witnesses" rule regarding "false accusation" about adultery and then extend that to the charge of rape, and thus place the burden of proof upon the accuser, whereas if one reads Shura 24:00 through 24:20 one can see it has nothing to do with rape at all.

So the Hudood Ordinance is essentially a reification of the conjectural.

Never mind the fact that Shura's 24:6 through 24:10 specifically account for a process in situations where it might not be possible to have "four witnesses", through a process of sworn testimony.

minkepants

Interesting points, but her point was "nowhere" does misogyny appear in the religion itself. My quote appears in the Koran itself. Her point was that misogyny is "especially" bad in North America. I would not concur.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

quote:


Originally posted by minkepants:
[b]Interesting points, but her point was "nowhere" does misogyny appear in the religion itself. My quote appears in the Koran itself. Her point was that misogyny is "especially" bad in North America. I would not concur.[/b]

There was no link to your quote so how would anyone know if that is in the Qur'an or just a State interpretation (Saudi Arabia)? And who are you to state that misogyny is not especially bad in North America?

Perhaps things have improved compared to the 50s and 60s but they are far from perfect. I can't believe how many dinner parties I attend where it's the women who prepare, serve and clean-up. Here we are in a supposed equal society but it's the women who are expected to contribute to all these duties without question. And as for workspace politics, there is still a definite divide. Women have to work twice as hard and basically be as hard assed as possible to get any recognition. As for the general attitude towards women being an object of desire, I haven't seen marketers stray to far from the tried and true. We are still objectified in the media and Barbie dolls are still pushed on young girls. So things have changed but maybe not enough for you to make such an emphatic statement.

minkepants

The article linked, from today's Toronto Star, is the source of the quote. I would infer that the quotation I gave is pretty much standard. Unfortunately, a third quote, very consistent with the first, was cut off by the Star's internet.

[url=http://www.thestar.com/article/268835]the star[/url]

here's the 1st translation from google, consistent as above.

[url=http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=114839]se... Koran [/url]

I was going to print the 2nd site listed on Google but the translation is identical

As for your other points, I don't know if forced" is the right wayto describe the distribution of Barbies. A lot of kids don't have to be forced to eat McDonalds even though its utter shit.

As for the idea that we're worse off than Saudi, what, you wanna live there?

writer writer's picture

Okay, folks. I started this thread in the feminism forum for a few reasons.

One of them was to ensure that it did not become over-run by the opinions of men. Especially when it comes to opinions about women's oppression here in North America.

We've been down this road a few times over the years. Could you guys back off, please? Even if it means this thread quietens down?

Many thanks.

remind remind's picture

If I bought into the whole pink ribbon, rubber bracelet thing, I still would not consider it.

Particularily not after Mona's dialogue on why she says some Muslim women see it as a sign of feminism within their culture.

Vision Artist

Sorry I've been out of the loop, it took me a while to figure out how to get back to this thread. I'm not sure about what the last comment was implying, "Particularily not after Mona's dialogue on why she says some Muslim women see it as a sign of feminism within their culture. ", negative or positive... but that's just a way that many women in the west who become Muslim or start to cover, view it.. I was trying to say that in addition to being a religious obligation, we feel empowered by covering, not oppressed.
**Disclaimer** I am talking about women in free societies here. In Egypt and in a majority of places in the world you have freedom of choice to cover or not. Some places like Turkey won't even let you cover! And I don't even want to get started on Saudi. That government is the most twisted NON ISLAMIC NON DEMOCRATIC leadership you can find, and you can ask our own leader why he supports them. And plz avoid Saudi texts and salafi/wahabi texts like cueball mentioned.

And BTW Islam declares there is NO COMPULSION in religion because actions are weighed by God by intentions, so you can't force a woman to cover, she has to choose it. Side note: Did you know it is illegal to force a woman to marry someone not of her choice.

So anyone you find doing these things is not a correct representative of Islam, as all extremes are not representative of their religions of body of ppl.

Vision Artist

Sorry I didn't mean to touch a vein, I mentioned U.S. because that is all I know. I was born and raised here and have not lived anywhere else (except a tiny bit in France). I visited Egypt a couple of times and Saudi once. So I can't speak for the woman's experience in any other countries. All I know of is what it means to be a girl and now woman in West Coast, USA : )

So as to not upset anyone, I will not talk about it- you can get a glimpse into the World Oppression of women here:
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=001201]h...

And as far as that line in the Quran, you can read here: [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=001875]h...

And actually there is a lot to talk about here, if you want me to, I can get into it and give you structural proofs of what it says in the mainstream interpretation books.

minkepants

As requested I'll keep my two cents out, but, regarding that verse, I'll draw a quote from a woman from the thread you linked Mona:

quote:

There's some kind of a priori commitment to the notion that nothing like that can be there, and therefore it isn't there, and what looks like it must be something else.


Proletariat

As a feminist I would be very concerned with anyone excusing or justifying discrimination and violence against women. Here are some clear quotes from the Koran that do just such things. If I am misinterpreting anything here please let me know. It all seems straightforward to me.

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance):... "
The Book of Women 4.34
Translated by A. Yusufali

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.... "
The Book of Light 24:31
A. Yusufali

"As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation)."
The Book of Women 4:15
M.M. Pickthall

I hope I am not alone in finding this stuff and anyone who believes in it disgusting.

Michelle

I hope you're just as adamant when you condemn Christians and Jews based on the misogyny in their scriptures. I'll look forward to seeing your condemnation and disgust where those are discussed.

Also, Proletariat, as a MAN, perhaps you should read the request posted by writer a few posts ago, that this thread not be overrun by men. Especially men demanding the feminists here to condemn this or that at your command.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

I find it typical of any religious text written prior to 1900.

What bothers me is the western obsession with the Islamic text, and the apparent need to apply literalist interpretations of the Qur'an by excerpting bits and pieces of it as "examples," of its unmatched sexism, when in many aspects the Qur'ran can be shown to be far advanced of either the Torah or the Bible.

For example, the idea that an accusser must bring "four witnesses" forward, actually asserts that a woman has a voice in court, and that she must be witnessed against, she is also clearly a person in the eyes of god. Whereas nothing similar can be found in either of the other major monotheastic texts -- women simply have no standing whatsoever, as persons.

There was certainly no debating wether or not women had souls as there was among Christian theologians in the 17th Century. The Qur'an expressly asserts that women have standing in the eyes od god. It was not until the Quaker movement came into existance among Christians that it any major sect made it explicit that women could even pray to god, and not need intermidiaries do it for them.

But most people seem content to accept that despite the numerous examples of outright sexism in the Bible that it can be interpreted in the manner of the United Church where activities strictly proscribed in the Bible, such as homosexuality are permitted, and where women may be ordained as Ministers. No such interprative subtely is considered possible by many western critics of Islam, who seem as intent to apply literalist fundamentalist interpretations to the Qur'an as the Salafist "fundamentalists" they critique, without nuance.

Above all, it is impossible I think to understand the Qur'an or any major religious text, without reading it as a whole work, as there are always apparent contradictions. Simply snipping out pieces does not cut it, though it may seem to prove the point that a person intended to prove when they first went looking for it. Really the overall essence of a work can be derived.

And it is precisely because of applying an interpretation of the Bible based on the [i]essentce[/i] of the meaning of the words of Jesus Christ, that the more liberal interpretations of the bible can be made, against the apparent meaning found in a literal reading of some of the text, which is really a hodge-podge anyway

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Proletariat

I am and will be just as critical about misogyny in Christianity,Hinduism,Judaism or any other religion or organization. However, I will not rationalize, justify, or downplay sexism and the promotion, yes promotion of violence towards women in the Koran.
When we criticize sexism and homophobia in Chrisitanity do you automatically call for equal criticism of Islam and other major religions. In the spirit of fairness we will see if this happens next time.
Personally, I am not afraid of challenging muslim fundamentalists or fundamentalists of any religion on these issues. The stakes for women are more important than protecting the sensitivities of religious fundamentalists.

I listed my sex as male, although I am a transgendered. I don't know what the rules on posting in the feminism forum are for us. Seeing that we face many of the same challenges I assumed that it was OK. For you to castigate me as a "Man" is somewhat threatening and brings back some bad experiences. Please keep an open mind. Thanks.

Michelle

Uh, yeah, I guess I was supposed to just know that automatically when you put "male" as your gender in your profile, as opposed to "transgendered" or "MTF" or "FTM" or "female" if you are MTF, or even just an ambiguous response.

You barge into the feminism forum, self-labelled as "male" and demand that everyone be as disgusted as you at Muslim believers while we're trying to have a more nuanced conversation about feminist issues in Islam - a conversation that includes at least one Muslim woman.

Sorry for assuming that you were just another overbearing man trying to make the feminists dance to your tune. You might change that perception by changing your tone and being more accurate in your profile.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.... "
The Book of Light 24:31
A. Yusufali

I realy don't see how this varies a great deal from Canadian custom, or for the most part obcenity laws in most western nations.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Proletariat

I can understand how you could make that mistake about my gender. Gender and sex being two different things. The lesson learned is to never prejudge anything.
This is not an attack on Muslims. The wording in the quotes that I provided is clear. This is the translation provided by Muslim scholars. There is little room for ambiguity here. They are about as straightforward as the instructions on a TV dinner. I find it interresting that anyone would want to engage in a "nuanced" discussion about the appropriateness of blatant misogyny. Please if I am missing something in these quotes as to their meaning please advise me. If not, I am not the problem and I do not deserve to be attacked for trying to raise awareness of this issue. Millions of women are affected everyday because some men believe it is a religious duty to follow these instructions. I will not protect them or cover up for them. That would be submitting to religious fundamentalists.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Vision Artist:
[b]...I'm not sure about what the last comment was implying, "Particularily not after Mona's dialogue on why she says some Muslim women see it as a sign of feminism within their culture. "[/b]

The key to that sentence was on the "why" you say some Muslim women choose to do this. The use of the word "modesty" to preface the reason, why it is professed it liberates, has negative patriarchial connotations/implications for myself that would bar me from participating, if I even bought in the whole pink thing, in the first place that is.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Proletariat:
[b]I can understand how you could make that mistake about my gender. Gender and sex being two different things. The lesson learned is to never prejudge anything.[/b]

Precisely one of the arguements put forward by some Gay muslim people when discussing their relationship to their religion.


quote:

When we criticize sexism and homophobia in Chrisitanity do you automatically call for equal criticism of Islam and other major religions. In the spirit of fairness we will see if this happens next time.


No one "called" for this.

I directly commented on the existance of sexism in the Bible in relationship to non-Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible in Christianity, and posed that likewise not all interpretations of the Qur'an assert the meanings you attach to the text. Some Muslim people do not see them as plainly evident, just as some Christians have disposed of most of Levidicus.

An example of an alternate interpretation is of course the one that some gay Muslim people put forward when differentiating between Gender and Sex as you have done.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Proletariat

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michelle:
[QB]I hope you're just as adamant when you condemn Christians and Jews based on the misogyny in their scriptures. I'll look forward to seeing your condemnation and disgust where those are discussed.

Cueball. You are correct. I was not "told". I was just encouraged to criticize Christians and Jews for misogyny in their scriptures.

Excuse me not just criticize. "Condemn" in the biblical sense.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Proletariat ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Ok then, so how about the issue at hand?

Do you agree that Christian theologians have made interpretations of the Bible and reflect in their practice, ideas that appear to directly contradict the face value homophobic and sexist proclomations made in the Bible?

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Proletariat

Yes. Some theologians, "Christian" and "Muslim" advocate tolerance towards gays and other faiths but this is not the instructions given to them in the scripture. The belief about gays and non-believers in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are very clear. (read Leviticus) There is no need for "nuance" here. The reason Sharia where it is practiced is so brutal and backwards is because it is an actual interpretation of religious law spelled out clearly in the Koran. For a true fundamentalist there is no nuance, or taking out the bad or uncormfortable parts. That would be an apostasy. It is all or nothing. My point is that religious leaders who promote tolerance towards gays, equality of other faiths etc are doing this not because of religious instructions but in spite of it. It has nothing to do with the scripture and everything to do with being a decent, compassionate human beign.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Proletariat:
Yes. Some theologians, "Christian" and "Muslim" advocate tolerance towards gays and other faiths but this is not the instructions given to them in the scripture. The belief about gays and non-believers in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are very clear. (read Leviticus) There is no need for "nuance" here. [b]The reason Sharia where it is practiced is so brutal and backwards is because it is an actual interpretation of religious law spelled out clearly in the Koran.[/b] For a true fundamentalist there is no nuance, or taking out the bad or uncormfortable parts.

No Sharia, is the law as it was [i]not[/i] "spelled out clearly in the Koran".

It is the law based in the Qur'an as interpreted when reflecting on the the life (or "the way": Sunna) of the "historical" Mohammed, based on "Hadith". Hadith being a kind of legal precedent applied for things which are not specifically or sufficiently clear in the Qur'an.

There would be no reason to have Sharia, if everything was spelled out in the Qur'an, since one could just refer to the Qur'an, which is what the Shia do, the Mullah's interpretting solutions to specific problems inspired directly from reading the Qur'an without reference to previous precedent.

Sharia is essential a code of religious practice based in traditional interpretations of the Qur'an as set out in previous precedents, like provincial laws and civic by-laws. The Qur'an is to Sharia what the constitution is to the criminal code of Canada. Sharia, is interpretted differently throughout the Muslim world, so for instance the Hudood Ordinance in Pakistan is unique to Pakistan.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

For example, the passages of the Qur'an wherein severe punishment for Jews and other non-believers is spelled out, is directly in contradiction to other passages where tollerance is ordered.

These two edicts are clearly contradictory, unless one interprets them contextually. So when reading the Qur'an as the Sunnis would do by refelecting on the actual actions of Mohammed in his life, we see that he orders an implacable attitude to the enemies of his people (competing tribes of Jews that Mohammed's people are at war with for instance) during times of war but then in times of peace he orders peaceful co-existance.

So really the injunctions about infidel are rather clear: Be merciless in war, be tollerant when at peace.

Franklin D. Roosevelt might say this. In fact it was his uncle Theodore that first said: "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick."

And herein the whole problem of cutting out little chunks of the Qur'an outside of their context is revealed.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Proletariat

Yes. But the source of the law is the Koran. I know it is a set of laws based on an "interpretation" of the Koran, but as many instructions in the Koran and other religious texts are relatively clear, the amount of interpretation in many cases is limited. Therefore, as I am not a Muslim scholar, I will defer to the Muslim fundamentalists that Sharia is essentially based on the Koran. It is likely that if anyone would have the interpretations correct it would be them. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that fundamentalist men believe that Sharia is the will of God and are using it today to legally oppress,harass and even murder other Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Why would you defer your opinion to a minority opinion in Islamic thought that you despise?

Expecially when right in front of you is the text of a Muslim woman who disputes that interpretation. You think the interpretation of a few backwoods Imams is truer than her interpretaion? Why?

She says this about that:

quote:

I am talking about women in free societies here. In Egypt and in a majority of places in the world you have freedom of choice to cover or not. Some places like Turkey won't even let you cover! And I don't even want to get started on Saudi. That government is the most twisted NON ISLAMIC NON DEMOCRATIC leadership you can find, and you can ask our own leader why he supports them. And plz avoid Saudi texts and salafi/wahabi texts like cueball mentioned.

Would you not assert the superiority of the United Church interpretation of the Bible over that of the Roman Catholic church?

The Salafists are the [i]newest school[/i] in all of Islam. The movement is based in the thinking of one Muslim 18th century schollar, and didn't even really reach any level of notoriety until it was promoted by the house of Saud, when they were installed as the rulers of Arabia by the British.

Fundamentally it has nothing really to do with traditional Islam.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

remind remind's picture

Lovely, 2 men having a pissing match in the feminist forum after being asked x2 to desist.

Proletariat

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]Lovely, 2 men having a pissing match in the feminist forum after being asked x2 to desist.[/b]

That's transgendered to you bitch!!!

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]Lovely, 2 men having a pissing match in the feminist forum after being asked x2 to desist.[/b]

Its not a pissing match as far as I am concerned. I am certainly not pissing in anycase. I am being rather gentle. I thought.

I am trying to shed some light on this grossly misunderstood subject, since this board is generally about as bad as any when it comes to spreading anti-Islamic hate propoganda based in totally ingrained mainstream media falsehoods.

Look at this from far above:

quote:

I think it's [b]disgusting[/b] that they would encourage non-muslim women to wear hijabs.

It very difficult not to respond, even in the Feminist Forum. If someone were to write misinformed things about Jews here that spread disinformation tailored to promote intollerance, I would feel obliged to respond.

And this one is essentially [i]promoting[/i] Fundementalist Islam and saying that other Muslims are deluded if they believe otherwise. Is bigotry protected merely because it appears here, as opposed to somewhere else?

Well if it is, I will take my walking papers with pride. That said since you insist, I will desist.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Proletariat:
[b]That's transgendered to you bitch!!![/b]

Wonderful!

BetterRed

Take it easy everyone.

No need to swear at people. male transgendered as you will. This is the frigging internet, we cannot see each othr.
Also no need to shut people up when they actually take the time to research something important and share it.And when theyre on topic as cueball was.
Allright, remind?

remind remind's picture

No actually it is not alright better red, this is the feminist forum, and males were asked twice to back off.

Nor do I take kindly, you telling me here that it should be alright for them to have a pissing match, if they want to discuss the Koran, and what it contains as men, then start a new fucking thread and do it!

BetterRed

fair enough,

just contact the mods then.
As you were

Pages

Topic locked