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

[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.

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

Really? Ok, I am in.

Why is it "disgusting"?

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.

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

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.

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_...

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 ]

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.

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.

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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.

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

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 ]

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?

fair enough,

just contact the mods then.
As you were