Islam - What's your view on it?

[Johnnypenso]

That's true of most women's clothing in one extent or another, no?



Nothing wrong with knockers

Only a slight difference between choosing which pair of pants or which skirt or which blouse to wear VS whether or not to cover yourself head to toe voluntarily.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Only a slight difference between choosing which pair of pants or which skirt or which blouse to wear VS whether or not to cover yourself head to toe voluntarily.

A quite large difference as styles go, I'd say. The key word is voluntarily, of course.

 

[Johnnypenso]

A quite large difference as styles go, I'd say. The key word is voluntarily, of course.

Enough of a difference that I'd venture to guess that most women don't choose to cover themselves head to toe on a regular basis without external or unusual forces wouldn't you say?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Enough of a difference that I'd venture to guess that most women don't choose to cover themselves head to toe on a regular basis without external or unusual forces wouldn't you say?

If all women dressed alike based entirely on internal forces then that would be a very strange thing indeed. You'd need to further define "unusual", are we talking about Canadaland or elsewhere? If Canadaland then not unusual to be covered head-to-toe, I would think.

 

[LeMansAid]

But the headscarf and niqab IS a part of Islam, just not when it is forced upon someone.

Isn't it more about the rather ambiguous "dressing modestly"? Who decides what modest is? I thought we'd already established that the niqab, etc. are cultural inclusions...... ?

I'll respond more more thoroughly when I have a bit more time.

 

[ECGadget]

Isn't it more about the rather ambiguous "dressing modestly"? Who decides what modest is? I thought we'd already established that the niqab, etc. are cultural inclusions...... ?

I'll respond more more thoroughly when I have a bit more time.

Sorry about the late reply. I think there is a slight misunderstanding. There are hadith about wearing a headscarf and face covering etc, HOWEVER the whole idea about forcing people to dress a certain way is cultural. So wearing a scarf is part of Islam, but making someone wear a scarf or mocking someone who does not or manipulating them etc is not.

 

[DCP]

I really feel for the muslims caught in this, and are trying to defend islam.
It's not easy, and the verses in the quran and hadiths, as well as the violent life of Muhammed, makes it even worse.

I came across this debate, and found it very interesting. The fact that muslims are bound to Muhammed, and have to follow him as the perfect example, poses the problem in islam for 1400 years non stop.
There is no need to ask if other religions are religions of peace. It's got to be islam.
It might be easy to say now, but if Jesus had a life and biography like Muhammed, I would be an atheist today.

 

[FoRiZon]

I really feel for the muslims caught in this, and are trying to defend islam.
It's not easy, and the verses in the quran and hadiths, as well as the violent life of Muhammed, makes it even worse.

I came across this debate, and found it very interesting. The fact that muslims are bound to Muhammed, and have to follow him as the perfect example, poses the problem in islam for 1400 years non stop.

Of course its not. Islam is a religion, period. Like Christianity, Judaism, or even non-Abrahamic ones like Buddhism. Dug each of them deeper and they have their own dark parts.

The "Islam the Religion of Peace" merely comes from people who get sympathy to moslems for being marginalized after tons and tons of terrorists publicities by extremists (vocal minority) that screwed millions of majority of "usual" moslems. I can accept that. Moslems are people, after all, not a dangerous creature who bombs people for "living". Im sure if, say, Christianity had a terror publicity instead, people will have those "Christianity the Religion of peace" on their trending topics.

And so on, and so on.

 

[DCP]

Of course its not. Islam is a religion, period. Like Christianity, Judaism, or even non-Abrahamic ones like Buddhism. Dug each of them deeper and they have their own dark parts.

The "Islam the Religion of Peace" merely comes from people who get sympathy to moslems for being marginalized after tons and tons of terrorists publicities by extremists (vocal minority) that screwed millions of majority of "usual" moslems. I can accept that. Moslems are people, after all, not a dangerous creature who bombs people for "living". Im sure if, say, Christianity had a terror publicity instead, people will have those "Christianity the Religion of peace" on their trending topics.

And so on, and so on.

I agree, muslims are ordinary people, though people who fear death, fear even moderate muslims, since the innocent ones are convinced about the goodness of hiding explosive devises, and blowing up in populated areas.
Other religions cannot be labelled the same. Acts of violence in random parts of history doesn't say that religions are like that permanently.

Since the rise of Muhammed, the facts are that even within islam, there has been endless bloodshed.
Sunnis and Shiites till today, are going at it.
I really admired the part of the debate when they said that the want to speak out and stop the violence, and make islam a religion of peace, though unfortunately, the prophecies in the bible talk about the rise of Islam, as what we see in the nations today, and their contribution to the end times.

This is why I feel for muslims who don't want to be a part of this, but unfortunately are, whether they participate or not.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It might be easy to say now, but if Jesus had a life and biography like Muhammed, I would be an atheist today.

Everyone points to the "violent life of Mohammed" as proof of the supposedly violent nature of Islam, but c. 900, the Arabian Peninsula wasn't exactly a peaceful, stable region. It was dominated by a loose assortment of warring nomadic tribes; Islam was meant to be a means of unifying them and stabilising the region - which is exactly what it did.

Compare that to Israel in the first century, which in the time of Jesus was under the control of a corrupt theocracy and a variety of tyrants.

 

[DCP]

Everyone points to the "violent life of Mohammed" as proof of the supposedly violent nature of Islam, but c. 900, the Arabian Peninsula wasn't exactly a peaceful, stable region. It was dominated by a loose assortment of warring nomadic tribes; Islam was meant to be a means of unifying them and stabilising the region - which is exactly what it did.

Compare that to Israel in the first century, which in the time of Jesus was under the control of a corrupt theocracy and a variety of tyrants.

Through constant violence and beheading. Any different to what we are seeing in the Middle East for the last 2 years?

As for Israel, they were warned many times before hand of coming destruction, but as it goes, they were always stubborn and knew what was best.
Likewise now, glorifying their technology and iron dome protection etc.
Unfortunately Israel will be shaken up in the near future.

 

[Joel]

Through constant violence and beheading. Any different to what we are seeing in the Middle East for the last 2 years?

Well...yes? Syria and Iraq aren't the entirety of "the middle east".

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Through constant violence

At a time when the peninsula was in a state of constant warfare. Any time one tribe amassed any size or wealth or influence, it immediately became the target of every other tribe in the area. Which is pretty much the way every civilisation started out.

and beheading

It's not like the head of a church has used this to execute the people who displeased him. Except, of course, for Henry VIII ...

 

[Liquid]

Islam is no different to the other two major Abrahamic religions in terms of the violent content of its books. All three have a rich history within their psalms and parables which is unsurprising given the religions' common origins.

 

[squadops]

With no regard for the NT?

 

[LeMansAid]

Moving onto the second part, I disagree again, being in the community here it does alienate people. Now that does not mean people should use that as an excuse, because of course it is not. Mr Cameron is not a bad guy. He sometimes says things that alienate, other times he says things that bring communities together. But neither of them should affect how a Muslim behaves. They should be an example whether people embrace or alienate them. But I agree that it is not helpful. Buts are only helpful when you need to sit.

I didn't say that it doesn't alienate. The issue I have is with false associations. It's the attitude that biting back can logically be expected, but coupled with a tendency to disregard the lack of logic in the exact expression of that bite back - and again, the "I'm doing this, because they're doing that" mentality.

It's the crux of everything I'm arguing, including on the topic of clothing. There's a lot of detail up for debate about how strongly recommended the niqab and hijab are, and also on the validity of the hadiths themselves, considering the "Do not write down anything I say except the Quran. Whoever has written something other than the Quran let him destroy it" in the Quran - but to a certain extent we can put those debates aside and accept that at the very least that the clothing is not a requirement. The question for me then becomes - why are women wearing these clothes? I think that as it stands there's a significant amount of push-back mentality to it...... "I'm doing this, because they're doing that".

People can try to base their choice purely on the teachings - there, a non-cynic might say that it's about modesty, a cynic, that it's about misogyny. Or just make spit up as they go, as I think a lot of women do today - "It's feminism", "It's freedom", "It's spirituality". For me, it for the most part looks more like standing their ground and making a statement for statement's sake, and I can't see how anything good can come of that. I think it's basically flipping the bird to all those accusers and detractors, and protracting the period of disharmony in the process. The approach should be taken that every false association is doing Islam damage, regardless of if it's on the extreme terrorist-type level, or right down to a seemingly inconsequential level.

 

[sumbrownkid]

So this guy totally blew my mind.

But I do see this hadith culture he talks about. Where people say this and that and do this and that because of some story that the Prophet did it. And many of those stories aren't validated.

 

[TenEightyOne]

And many of those stories aren't validated.

Like the bibble... but I see several presidential candidates standing on their faith in that christian text. It's a sad world when people live by fairy stories.

 

[Furinkazen]

Not best source, but interesting study and it is explained a bit.

 

[ECGadget]

I didn't say that it doesn't alienate. The issue I have is with false associations. It's the attitude that biting back can logically be expected, but coupled with a tendency to disregard the lack of logic in the exact expression of that bite back - and again, the "I'm doing this, because they're doing that" mentality.

It's the crux of everything I'm arguing, including on the topic of clothing. There's a lot of detail up for debate about how strongly recommended the niqab and hijab are, and also on the validity of the hadiths themselves, considering the "Do not write down anything I say except the Quran. Whoever has written something other than the Quran let him destroy it" in the Quran - but to a certain extent we can put those debates aside and accept that at the very least that the clothing is not a requirement. The question for me then becomes - why are women wearing these clothes? I think that as it stands there's a significant amount of push-back mentality to it...... "I'm doing this, because they're doing that".

People can try to base their choice purely on the teachings - there, a non-cynic might say that it's about modesty, a cynic, that it's about misogyny. Or just make spit up as they go, as I think a lot of women do today - "It's feminism", "It's freedom", "It's spirituality". For me, it for the most part looks more like standing their ground and making a statement for statement's sake, and I can't see how anything good can come of that. I think it's basically flipping the bird to all those accusers and detractors, and protracting the period of disharmony in the process. The approach should be taken that every false association is doing Islam damage, regardless of if it's on the extreme terrorist-type level, or right down to a seemingly inconsequential level.

Sorry I haven't been around much, work is getting the best of me and I am getting less time here! But I'll try to quickly answer this. The clothing is not a requirement, you're right. But that doesn't mean it isn't rewarding in the eyes of God to wear such clothing. There are of course times where they ARE a requirment, such as in prayer. But I will wholeheartedly disagree with you that the majority (of course some do) of muslim women who know how it works (i.e. not forced or in a culture that has changed it) wear it as a push-back. They wear it because they WANT to. Just the same way I WANT to wear jeans all the time or the colour blue. It isn't me pushing back against joggers or tracksuit bottoms, or the way people wear lighter colours in summer over darker. I just want to wear it because that is who I am. Similarly, I wear an Islamic dress when during occasions, for the same reason. I want to wear it. But some people do, and you are right, just wear certain clothes for the sake of it. When I wear my Islamic dress I wear it because I am a Muslim and rightly proud to be one. When I wear an England football shirt I wear it because I am an England fan and want to show my pride in doing that. We all have things we like to wear, and for some they like to wear a headscarf as a show of being a Muslim.
Also a slight mention on the Hadith, there is a LOT of explanation for that, but you really need to ask a scholar to explain that to you. I'm going to see if I can chat with one because I want to get a few things cleared up myself, so if I do get that chance I'll ask about the hadith too.

 

[LeMansAid]

They wear it because they WANT to.

I'm sure that you don't believe that 0% of women wear it as a push-back though. If true, it's then a question of how prevalent the push-back mind set is, but neither of us can truly know.

Whatever the percentage, I think it's a very detrimental state of mind to embrace, and helps service their side's ongoing presence in a stand off with those struggling or refusing to accept Islam as in tune with modern society. I question these things out of a genuine want for harmony. Just yesterday, hearing about a terrible abduction, sexual assault, and attempted murder of two backpackers visiting Australia, I found myself saying "Yes!!" in my mind when hearing the name Abdul Mohammed as one of the civilian people who where pivotal in freeing the women. Sure, I don't actually know if he's a Muslim, but all the same, it's the kind good press that's needed in these times of adjustment.

 

[ECGadget]

http://safeshare.tv/w/ss56c241c4b994f

Something I came across. I don't agree with many things in Saudi Arabia. Let's face it, they aren't a perfect country and I am sure they know it, but that discussion is for another topic! But this answer was very well put to a response of 'IS is very Islamic'

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm not up on my poets but apparently Adonis is a pretty big deal with the beatniks and finger snappers and he has some strong opinions on Islam:

You can not reform a religion. If they are reformed, [the original meaning] is separated from it. Therefore, modern Muslims and a modern Islam is already impossible. If there is no separation between religion and state, there will be no democracy especially without equality for women. Then we will keep a theocratic system. So it will end.”

Arabs have no more creative force. Islam does not contribute to intellectual life, it suggests no discussion. It is no longer thought. It produces no thinking, no art, no science, no vision that could change the world. This repetition is the sign of its end. The Arabs will continue to exist, but they will not make the world better.”

Source

 

[mustafur]

Just sayin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Al-Ghazali's Repression of innovation and move towards Religious fundamentalism was basically the Islamic Dark age, before that they where easily the most innovative and advanced society in the world, this does have a huge effect on Islam today.

To say it will never exist is a complete one sided thought considering it did exist and was at the top of basically all innovation, this carried over into the Renaissance, which contributed to what we have today.

I do think Religious Liberation will happen well before it could ever achieve what it did in the past though.

I will say though, especially with the liberal Emirates of Dubai and Abu Dahbi, they are definitely the world leaders in Modern Architectural design, even if you could point out the works were not actually built from Islam, this Vision of them did in fact come from leaders Claiming to be.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm not up on my poets but apparently Adonis is a pretty big deal with the beatniks and finger snappers and he has some strong opinions on Islam

If you can't reform a religion, why is the Reformation considered such a milestone? Or is the "original meaning", as Adonis would put it, of Catholicism corruption and excess?

 

[squadops]

What about Martin Luther?

 

[LeMansAid]

- "Arabs have no more creative force. Islam does not contribute to intellectual life, it suggests no discussion. It is no longer thought. It produces no thinking, no art, no science, no vision that could change the world. This repetition is the sign of its end. The Arabs will continue to exist, but they will not make the world better".

Conflating Arab and Muslim here? Last I checked, there are Arabs that aren't Muslims, and Muslims that aren't Arabs. She may be doing her bit to perpetuate one of the most dangerous things about religion.... the idea a person can be born with one. That, while also pointing out the problems with associating church and state.

Hypocirony.

 

[mustafur]

- "Arabs have no more creative force. Islam does not contribute to intellectual life, it suggests no discussion. It is no longer thought. It produces no thinking, no art, no science, no vision that could change the world. This repetition is the sign of its end. The Arabs will continue to exist, but they will not make the world better".

Conflating Arab and Muslim here? Last I checked, there are Arabs that aren't Muslims, and Muslims that aren't Arabs. She may be doing her bit to perpetuate one of the most dangerous things about religion.... the idea a person can be born with one. That, while also pointing out the problems with associating church and state.

Hypocirony.

Not to mention incredibly racist, the last sentence alone.

 

[squadops]

I believe both Arabs and Muslims are more than capable of making the world better, whether they choose to or not is no different than any other.

 

[ECGadget]

I believe both Arabs and Muslims are more than capable of making the world better, whether they choose to or not is no different than any other.

Completely agree. Every being has the capability to make a world better; whether you have a religion or not; whether you are a farmer or a scientist, boy or girl, young or old, Chinese or American. The problem only arises when people start forcing, or trying to force their way upon others, and start harming those who do not conform to their ideals. This becomes even more dangerous when such people start using religion to justify it, whether it be ISIS or the KKK or the Nazis, or whoever throughout history, because it causes rifts in communities that could once have been incredibly strong.