babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Hijab-wearing as a feminist statement

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Hijab-wearing as a feminist statement
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 12 March 2004 12:57 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In yesterday's Hamilton Spectator there was a full page op/ed piece written by Basharat Tayyab, a a professor of Islamic feminist philosophy.

It is unfortunately not available on line, but it reads in part:

quote:
Once in a hijab, what makes her a woman - her femaleness - cannot be appraised. As a consequence, one is left dealing only a person. The woman wearing the hijab is rejecting not only her gender role but also the associated politics of gender. Thus she bypasses the basic social political and economic structures. The woman in hijab refuses to participate in this sexualized economy. Once the female body is de-sexualized, it paves the way for women to perform as a person.
...
The woman who choses the hijab makes an independent decision and follows it up by radical practice. She decides to cover/conceal her physical body, moving herslf out of the fashion industry as well as removing herself from the market which commodifies her being in terms of her sexuality.
A woman in a hijab who is a functioning member of society symbolizes an empowered, independent woman rather than the eclectic, pop-cultural and intellectually-banjrup icons of the sex economy.
...
It will remain a matter of personal choice as to what will consitute modesty, depending upon the prevailing personal and social standards of modesty. The liberation of women in this context is viewed as consisting in women adopting the public shpere in a non-sexualised way, so as to gain, equality with men.
...
Further, the Islamic hijab is not an insult or degradation to women to hide or conceal their being indoors to behind a veil as an "axis of evil" or as an inferior being. Rather it allows women to access complete legal and political status without bringing their sexual being into play. It is a protective sheild for women against the agression and attacks to their dignity.

And since there has been a bit of discussion of the hijab in the threads about Monia Mazigh, I thought this article in L'Actualité would be relevant as well, since Monia herself is quoted:

quote:
«Du fait que je suis musulmane et que mon apparence me désigne comme telle, les gens pensent qu’automatiquement je dois appartenir à un parti religieux ou à un parti politique; ce qui n’est pas vrai.»
...
«Ma femme a contribué à changer les stéréotypes envers les femmes musulmanes», dit (Maher Arar) aujourd’hui.
...
Il peut s’agir d’un réflexe identitaire: certaines musulmanes comparent d’ailleurs l’attachement au hijab à la défense du français au Québec. Il peut s’agir d’un geste simplement religieux. Dans tous les cas, le droit au foulard est une liberté à protéger et à défendre.

Si j’étais une jeune musulmane, aujourd’hui, au Québec, je le porterais!



From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 March 2004 01:20 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, I keep hearing about how Monia Mazigh was trashed on babble for wearing a hijab. And al-Qa'bong's comment in the other thread (about it being amazing that such a brain could be wrapped in a hijab) is a total misrepresentation of what happened in that former thread on babble.

What happened before is one post by lagatta that basically said she was a great choice for candidate, and then she mentioned that she hopes that Mazigh is progressive when it comes to issues such as abortion and homosexuality. And yes, she made it because Mazigh wears the traditional religious garb of one of the monotheistic religions, none of which are known in their traditional forms as champions of women's rights or gay rights.

Almost all of the rest of the comments in that thread were not a reflection on Monia Mazigh personally, it was a debate about whether or not it is reasonable to wonder whether someone who wears traditional religious garb from the three monotheistic (and patriarchal) religions might possibly engage in traditional thinking when it comes to women's rights and gay rights.

Nobody was saying Monia was stupid because she wears a hijab. No one was saying she has no analysis. No one was even saying that she was sexist or homophobic. But I think it's a fair question to ask if someone makes an outward statement through the symbols they wear that they are adhering in a traditional way to a religion that is KNOWN to be sexist and homophobic in their fundamentalist or traditionalist forms (and golly I'm sorry folks, but Islam, Christianity, and Judaism ARE sexist and homophobic as they are practiced by traditionalists).

I think we're getting just a little too frigging politically correct here, and imagining slurs against Monia Mazigh that just weren't made.

And yes, I would wonder exactly the same thing about someone who was wearing a clerical collar or the clothing of a Hassidic Jew. I wouldn't automatically assume they were definitely homophobic or sexist (and I didn't assume that about Monia either, and neither did anyone else in that thread), but I would certainly wonder. And rightfully so. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism have generated so much sexism and homophobia, not just in the past but right now, today, in their more traditional forms. And people who display outward symbols of the more traditional or fundamentalist forms of those religions - well, sometimes you're going to be asked whether you agree with the more distasteful stands people of your faith often take. It happened to me all the time as a Baptist, and it was perfectly understandable, considering that most of the Southern Baptist Convention are a bunch of mouth-breathing, sexist morons if their official public statements or the resolutions they passed at convention are any indication.

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
FPTP
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4780

posted 12 March 2004 01:34 PM      Profile for FPTP        Edit/Delete Post
Hear hear.

Now that's settled. I have to say, the idea of a progressive, outspoken, religious/spiritual woman, from a visible minority, who has just campaigned for international and domestic HR to maintain the unity of her family, who, my god, has a phd in FINANCE, of all things, is nothing short of an incredible god-send for the NDP. I mean, what issue/special interest does she not represent well?

...Equality, Religion, Family Values, Economy, Academia, Women...

If it's found out that she's an avid environmentalist, who exclusively uses bike/public transport, think I might begin to doubt her existence.

Also, the massive IRONY!! The US with the co-operation of our police, in trying to enforce a phoney war against terrorism, inadvertently helped birth the rise of a lefty anti-US aggression politician who will help end such foolishness!!!

I'll calm down now, but you must admit, it's a little too much.


From: Lima | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
FPTP
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4780

posted 12 March 2004 01:37 PM      Profile for FPTP        Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, but also, Monia is great news for the Canadian Muslem community. She's a terrific figurehead to oppose bigotted views of muslems currently in vogue in some quarters.

Also, she is bilingual to boot! If only she was from Calgary.


From: Lima | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 12 March 2004 01:41 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You said it FTPT!! Her official fan-club meets here. There's currently a tight race between vickinottawa and myself for the presidency, but I'm willing to bow out if you want to run, since you are so much more eloquent than me.

From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 12 March 2004 01:58 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Once in a hijab, what makes her a woman - her femaleness - cannot be appraised. As a consequence, one is left dealing only a person. The woman wearing the hijab is rejecting not only her gender role but also the associated politics of gender. Thus she bypasses the basic social political and economic structures. The woman in hijab refuses to participate in this sexualized economy. Once the female body is de-sexualized, it paves the way for women to perform as a person.

I think this is a naive assessment. While it's true that a woman wearing a hijab or burqa has removed herself superficially from objectification as a sexual object, she has placed herself firmly within perceived political and economoic structures as one who has accepted one or more of the following: identification as a woman within a cultural tradition that has --within many, if not most of its traditional manifestations-- placed a lower value on femaleness. Subservience to that tradition that sees her as less valuable. A being who has renounced much of her "personhood" for a stereotypical identification with a particular cultural-religious aesthetic.

Thus, it could be equally suggested (particularly within a Euro-American context)that the hijab-wearing woman has not "reject(ed) not only her gender role but also the associated politics of gender.", but has embraced one of their most oppressive incarnations. And that instead of accepting and reconciling (celebrating?) her natural biological sexuality in defiance of its crass commercialization and exploitation by sexist elements of modern culture, she has allowed this aspect of her humanity to be suppressed by those who would use it to de-personalize her.

Note that I am not making any kind of value-judgment on the hijab as a personal choice or statement, but only pointing out that its use as a political statement can cut both ways.

In this light, I don't see how it can be co-opted as a particularly feminist statement any more than any personal choice by a women expressing herself through aesthetic decisions.


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 12 March 2004 02:08 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by FPTP:
Also, she is bilingual to boot!
At least tri-lingual, no? She is fluent in French, English and one or more dialects of Arabic. Any others?

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 12 March 2004 02:11 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And al-Qa'bong's comment in the other thread (about it being amazing that such a brain could be wrapped in a hijab) is a total misrepresentation of what happened in that former thread on babble.

You're misrepresenting what I said, but go ahead.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 12 March 2004 02:16 PM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Her opponent, a McGuinty, is likely only fluent in Liarsleese.
From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 March 2004 02:56 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
You're misrepresenting what I said, but go ahead.

I didn't mean to. How did I misrepresent it?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 12 March 2004 03:36 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I said "threads" for one thing. There have been three or so babble threads about Ms. Mazigh. Furthermore, my disgust with comments made about Muslim women on another forum also contributed to my statement. You didn't know that, of course, but you seemed to say that I was referring to one thread discussion only.

And I didn't "imagine" any "slurs" either. I didn't say there were any slurs in the thread to which you refer.

What bugs me about all of this is that the focus has for the most part been on her religion. It would have been different had her religion come up within a larger discussion that involved other issues. It didn't. Many, even while making the correct progressive noises, were nevertheless staring at her hijab.

When her candidacy was raised, the discussion wasn't, for example, "Gee, she has a Doctorate in Finance, maybe we should wonder if she's a neocon in sheep's clothing," but rather "Gee, maybe she's Mullah Omar under that veil."

I'm not suggesting there was any malice in that discussion either. But as I said in another thread, I was uncomfortable that the assumptions were raised as the principal point of discussion. They seem to me not too far removed from the attitude that allows one to look at a black person and assume she has natural rhythm.

Anyway, I'd like to move beyond all this and get everyone behind Ms. Mazigh's candidacy because of her progressive views, strength of character and proven ability to take on the big battalions and win.

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 March 2004 03:38 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay. My apologies then.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
FPTP
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4780

posted 12 March 2004 03:54 PM      Profile for FPTP        Edit/Delete Post
I tend to agree with Sysiphus (sorry about the spelling). But I think this discussion encourages us to look for the meaning and not focus on the symbol.

While many are likely to completely reject parts of their heritage they feel are oppressive, I think when people take on views that challenge their inhereted world view but do not want to alienate themselves completely from their original culture and community are likely to initially "blend" elements of their culture with the new element. And so, old symbols take on new meaning (hijab as emancipating). Eventually it is likely that when it is realized that the symbol is no longer necessary, it may eventually be rejected, especially if they can do so without alienating themselves from the groups to which they want to belong. (i.e. a hijab (sp?) isn't necessary for women's emancipation).

Also, another thought, I can see how Muslem women would not see current western women's fashion as liberating. Of course, this isn't to say these are the only two options. They could go granola.


From: Lima | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 12 March 2004 04:07 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that Monia is an admirable, courageous and intelligent woman and would make a fine candidate. I'm sure the NDP has queried her about such matters as whether she supports SSM.

However, I'm extremely annoyed at the insinuation that raising questions about people who wear the garb associated with the most conservative wings of patriarchal religions (be they Christianity, Judaism or Islam, or other ones I'm less familiar with, such as Hinduism) is akin to assumptions about people's race, or their religious background. I live in a city with a very large Arab population, many of whom are Muslims either by background or practice. (I know several "Muslim" atheists, just like I'm a "Catholic" atheist and others may be "Jewish" atheists). And have been active in groups in solidarity with people from that part of the world for many, many years. I'm extremely familiar with Tunisia because an "ex" of mine, himself a refugee claimant, was from that country - he was ferociously atheist (of Muslim background).

In Tunisia, urban educated women choosing to wear the hijab (a specific type of headscarf that was not traditional in that country - the traditional covering was the white gauzey haïk - many older women still wear that) had a specific political-cultural content. It contested the regime in power, but usually not from the left. The Bourguiba regime was very secular and in many ways progressive with respect to women's rights, at least on a formal level. However, like many post-colonial regimes in Africa and the Middle East, it degenerated greatly with the years, becoming dictatorial and corrupt, and repressing opposition groups, whether these were on the left and Arab nationalists, from the growing "Islamic" movement or simply human rights activists such as La Ligue des droits de l'homme. Activists from all these movements found themselves subjected to arrest, detention and torture.

But needless to say, they have no great love for each other as a result.

I'm very suspicious of political movements that use women as guardians of "identity". Here in Québec the revenge of the cradles was an expression of that - perhaps the reaction against it is why we are so ferociously secular and have such a low birthrate here. There are lots of other examples of this throughout the world - it is not at all the exclusive preserve of "Arab" or "Muslim" societies. It still comes down to the same bloody double standard, and women, not men, having to cover up so as not to provoke the supposedly uncontrollable lust of those poor weak males.

I won't judge any individual on the basis of his or her choices in clothing, but I certainly question the idea of the hijab as liberation.

And yes, I think most people here would think Monia would be an excellent candidate for the NDP or for any progressive political party.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 12 March 2004 04:11 PM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree whole heartedly with Michelle's post.

I personally feel that wearing a hijab, and any other clothing worn by fundamentalists of Abrahamic religions is contrary to feminism and equallity and acceptance of our human, animal, sexual, natural reality. The guilt and shame and sin aspect of the Middle Eastern Origin religions is very unappealing to me and I find the mindset unhealthy.

I don't think women and men SHOULD walk around naked or close to it, really it is up to them, but, I'd feel much more comfortable if that were the case. Rather than covering one's own body, hiding it's shape from the rest of the population and trying to repress one's sexuality.

If one does that on an individual basis, it doesn't really have an effect on me. I do understand the need for clothing and conservative dress in some situations. I don't wear poptops and short shorts to work.

However, people doing it as a group, culturally reinforcing it en masse because of a religious rule that has been interpreted in a certain way really makes me uncomfortable and uneasy. Especially targeting women as the temptresses and the seducers makes me very angry.

As humans I feel we are often supertistious, stubbon, easily influenced, often aggressive beings. Religious fundamentalism and outward expressions of it make me nervous.

When religious might rules, questions stop being asked. Expression gets stifled, people turn inward and can get paranoid and superstitious.

From what I know, this has happened in almost all human cultures and geographic regions at one time.

So. A feminist finding an Abrahamic head or body-hiding piece of clothing liberating is very creative thinking in my interpretation. I don't find them liberating at all. I find them oppressive and absurd.


From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 12 March 2004 04:29 PM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The hijab also has a cultural connotation. Many younger Muslim women living in North America have decided to wear it as symbol of cultural/religious pride (among other reasons) especially in a time when Muslims are being attacked in the media. I think Monia's candidacy will help dispell many of the myths and media bias as well as flat out racism against Muslim women who wear the hijab. I think we're seeing the making of someone who will have a powerful impact on Canadians. I am really enthused about her candidacy.
From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 March 2004 06:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When her candidacy was raised, the discussion wasn't, for example, "Gee, she has a Doctorate in Finance, maybe we should wonder if she's a neocon in sheep's clothing," but rather "Gee, maybe she's Mullah Omar under that veil.

Nice.

I think there is way to much discussion of fashion. Is the Hejab just fashion?

Is anyone talking about Saris, or make-up and brassieres? Nike running shoes? All of which are culturally identified. Why always the focus on the negative and repressive aspects of Muslim culture?

Do anarchists wear masks and army pants to demos? I can't think of anything more symbolically repressive than the nose ring worn by many Anarchist activsts. Don't they represent a discreet social group that is making a statement and enforcing a group cultural/political orthodoxy at the same time?

People love using clothing to identify themselves with groups. People love groups!

And why always womens clothing? What about Sikh headress, a sign of pride for Sikh men. Yet the Hejab is a sign of opression.

Obviously, the woman involved does not feel oppressed by her Hejab, what right do people have to imply that she is?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 March 2004 06:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Reverse the Equation

Perhaps she is using the Hejab as a means of getting a feminist message across to her Muslim sisters. The Hejab now identifies her as a devout Muslim who is bucking the sexist tradition within her own community. She is perhaps saying, it is ok for a devout women in her community to step forward and stand for themsleves.

It would be much harder for her to do this if she did not appear in a Hejab and appeared as apostate. The Hejab then becomes the symbolic vehicle which she uses to get her message across, to liberate women from the more sexist traditions of Islam.

The statement is: I can be a Muslim and a feminist, see I wear the Hejab, but I say and believe these things.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tolok
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4934

posted 12 March 2004 08:11 PM      Profile for Tolok        Edit/Delete Post
Why should you have to hide your face?
From: Out of Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 12 March 2004 09:19 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's try not to forget that men live 'under the veil' as well in traditional islamic dress. Shapeless clothing etc.

Whether or not westerners can understand the actions of someone from another culture as feminist actions is somewhat beside the point. Everything, including feminism, is within the context of its culture. So we are on NO position to make judgements on what constitutes equality for women in traditional Islamic culture and beliefs. I would leave that to the Women who are living withing that cultural and religious context.

In other words, it isn't your job to 'civilize' the savages, so please stop trying to dress it up as progressive.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 12 March 2004 09:47 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why should you have to hide your face?

Why indeed?

What does that have to do with a Hijab?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 12 March 2004 10:30 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
In Tunisia, urban educated women choosing to wear the hijab (. . not traditional in that country . .) had a specific political-cultural content. It contested the regime in power, but usually not from the left. The Bourguiba regime was very secular and in many ways progressive with respect to women's rights, at least on a formal level. However, like many post-colonial regimes in Africa and the Middle East, it degenerated greatly with the years, becoming dictatorial and corrupt, and repressing opposition groups, whether these were on the left and Arab nationalists, from the growing "Islamic" movement or simply human rights activists such as La Ligue des droits de l'homme. Activists from all these movements found themselves subjected to arrest, detention and torture. But needless to say, they have no great love for each other as a result.

I certainly question the idea of the hijab as liberation.


I greatly admire Monia. I'd like to understand her background in Tunisia better. Naturally, Tunisia is full of contradictions.

For example, the supposedly authoritarian governing RCD party is the Tunisian member of the Socialist International.

For another example, this government that represses opposition groups, and even jails their leaders, nevertheless gives bonus seats to the opposition. The RCD got almost 92% of the votes in the last election. However, 34 of the 182 seats are reserved for the five opposition parties. The largest is the Democratic Socialist Movement with 13 of the 34 seats.

Are you saying that Monia's background sounds like a human rights movement with an Islamic flavour? Or what?

For example, Mohamed Mouadda, former leader of the Mouvement des démocrates socialistes (MDS), Movement of Democratic Socialists, the main opposition party in Tunisia, was sentenced to 11 years in 1996. In December 1997 he was arrested again and charged with ''conspiring to overthrow the government" and "conspiring with foreign agents'' after having travelled to Europe where he met the leadership of the Tunisian unauthorised Islamist group al-Nahda.

Before I surf blindly around Tunisian websites, I would appreciate your guidance.

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 13 March 2004 12:19 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here are two pictures of Monia with different veils:

Is this hijab?

Is this haik?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 13 March 2004 03:13 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting name, Mazigh.

The indigenous people of North Africa, before the arrival of the Arabs (which started around the mid-seventh century) were called Amazigh people, plural Imazighen. In their language, Tamazight, "Amazigh" means "free person" (free man.) During the Greco-Roman period, the Greeks and Romans called them "Berbers," derived from Barbarian, and the western world still uses that term today. Across North Africa, there are still perhaps 20 million of them, mostly in Morocco or Algeria.

In Tunisia, Tamazight is now spoken only in certain areas. One site says 60,000 to 90,000 people speak it, while another says by 1998 only 26,000 people spoke the local Tamazight dialect, Djerbi.

Having a surname Mazigh might mean Amazigh ancestry? Unless someone chose the name to mean "freeman" or as a statement of some kind. It would be interesting to know.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2004 04:45 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In other words, it isn't your job to 'civilize' the savages, so please stop trying to dress it up as progressive.

Fair enough. My point is that it is just as important to not immediatly equate it with what is non-progressive. What is important is what people are saying. Getting stuck on what appears to be alien cultural affectations is what bothers me.

[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bee's Knees
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4701

posted 13 March 2004 07:00 AM      Profile for Bee's Knees     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can we not get over the labeling here?

Who cares if a person is of this cultural background, this religion or that sex. We should base our judgements on what a person says and the actions they take. When we start placing people into categories like Muslim or woman, we start making general assumptions that is counterproductive.

As for Monia Mazigh, from what I have seen and read in the paper, she is an incredibly dedicated woman to her partner and a strong person willing to take on a system that can eat you alive. I just wish that all the other incredibly dedicated candidates of the NDP who have put their lives on hold or dedicated it to valuable causes got the same recognition.

And now for questioning Mazigh’s political views: For any NDP candidate to run, they must sign a contract stating that they will support the policies brought forth by the party in which they are democratically founded. As far as I am concerned, she is a competent woman who knows what the NDP stands for and has signed that declaration of support. Let’s stop questioning her actions and be proud that we have another fantastic person who is willing to be a fully functioning member of the democratic process.


From: Funkytown | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 March 2004 07:20 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bee's Knees:
And now for questioning Mazigh’s political views: For any NDP candidate to run, they must sign a contract stating that they will support the policies brought forth by the party in which they are democratically founded. As far as I am concerned, she is a competent woman who knows what the NDP stands for and has signed that declaration of support. Let’s stop questioning her actions and be proud that we have another fantastic person who is willing to be a fully functioning member of the democratic process.

Here we go again.

Please point out for me, Bee's Knees, anywhere in this thread, anywhere at all, where people were questioning Mazigh's actions. Just one instance.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2004 07:27 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So. A feminist finding an Abrahamic head or body-hiding piece of clothing liberating is very creative thinking in my interpretation. I don't find them liberating at all. I find them oppressive and absurd.

-- Trinitty

This is a direct reference to Monia Mazigh, who is the subject of this thread, which was specifically started to discuss the 'meaning' of the Hejab. Monia wears a Hejab.... so....


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 March 2004 07:29 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. The subject of this thread ISN'T Monia Mazigh. The subject is whether Hijab-wearing can be considered a feminist statement, and Trinitty gave her view without personalizing it at all to Monia Mazigh, either in the statement you quoted, or anywhere else in her post.

BTW, I actually don't completely agree with Trinitty's statement. I wouldn't go that far. It's not up to me to judge how other women express their feminism, and I probably wouldn't have stated that. But no one was attacking Monia Mazigh on this thread, or questioning her actions or her politics.

If you're saying that we can't discuss hijab-wearing because Monia wears a hijab and therefore any critical analysis of hijab-wearing is an attack on Monia - I think that's ridiculous.

[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2004 07:31 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And since there has been a bit of discussion of the hijab in the threads about Monia Mazigh, I thought this article in L'Actualité would be relevant as well, since Monia herself is quoted:

From Sara's original post.

[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 March 2004 07:34 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So what?

Nobody is questioning Monia Mazigh's politics. She was quoted because she is a woman who wears a hijab and because she was discussed in another thread. That doesn't mean that everyone who posts to this thread to talk about hijab-wearing as a feminist statement is attacking Monia Mazigh.

Give me a frigging break.

And furthermore, feminists are ALLOWED to disagree with each other one what constitutes a feminist action or a feminist statement. Sorry, but I don't believe there should be sacred cows when it comes to feminists talking to each other about feminism.

[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2004 07:36 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you're saying that we can't discuss hijab-wearing because Monia wears a hijab and therefore any critical analysis of hijab-wearing is an attack on Monia - I think that's ridiculous.

Sure and others are discussing other, more positive, possible interpretations of the Hejab and its relation to feminism and liberation.

[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 March 2004 07:38 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So? And other feminists aren't allowed to disagree with that?

I'll tell you what. The next feminist discussion that comes around, when any feminist on the board wants to express an opinion, we'll consult you first so you can give us our opinions, okay? Would that make you feel better? And then no one will be offended and we'll have a nice, happy little thread with everyone agreeing on everything.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2004 07:43 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They are also talking about Monia in an affirmative sense. Perhaps people have a mistaken impression about the thread subject. But what is the problem with them affirming Monia's decisions?

I mean there is no sense that (and perhaps I am not reading carefully enough) that people are suggesting that "Monia Mazigh was trashed on babble for wearing a hijab."

Which seemed to be your initial concern.

[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 March 2004 08:08 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who said there is anything wrong with people affirming Monia's decisions? This thread was started so that the other thread on Monia wouldn't be sidetracked with a discussion about veiling. The implication being that THIS thread could be a discussion about veiling. So we're discussing it. And Sara posted a point of view from a woman who veils - Monia Mazigh. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree or "affirm" that veiling is a liberating thing just because Monia Mazigh thinks it is.

When I said that some people on babble are suggesting that Monia is being trashed for wearing a hijab, I was responding to a comment made in the other thread, because we were directed to this thread in order to respond to that issue. And in a couple of other threads on Monia Mazigh, the claim was made quite clearly that some babblers were being racist by wondering whether a person who wears a veil might have conservative ideas about gender roles and gay issues. That's what I was responding to. And I was responding to it HERE because Sara directed people to this thread to have that discussion so that the thread that IS about Monia Mazigh will not be filled with debate about whether hijab-wearing is an expression of feminist liberation.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2004 08:22 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok. Well I guess I didn't understand all the context and other stuff. Sorry. My apologies.

I will add this. People are going to come under the gun about Monia, the Hejab and feminism and the NDP. Its a good thing you guys are discussing this because this is going to get really ugly. As can be seen by the the visitors who posted on the thread about Sharia in the Canadian legal system.

[edited to add] It's too bad the planets so fucked up.

Thanks for explaining.

[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 13 March 2004 11:31 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was just listening to a private radio station here (happened to tune in to an interview with Layton) and the host kept grilling Layton about the fact that he had a candidate who was an "intégriste", with a "voile islamique" and asked Layton if fundamentalist Catholics who bombed abortion clinics would be accepted as NDP candidates as well. Also assumed Mazigh was browbeaten (!) by her husband. I usually listen to Radio-Canada, CBC or community stations but I guess it is worthwhile to hear the more red of neck from time to time ... in very small doses.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 13 March 2004 12:06 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
asked Layton if fundamentalist Catholics who bombed abortion clinics would be accepted as NDP candidates as well.

The questioner seems to think all Muslims are responsible for 9-11.


I can imagine no other basis for equating our candidate with people who carry out bombings.

Someone should complain to the CRTC. Which private corporation is allowing this sort of racism on its stations?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 13 March 2004 01:20 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I switched to another station in disgust after that redneck interviewer, so I don't know which station it was. The person who would definitely know is Jack Layton himself. I could testify that I heard it if that would be useful, but it must be on tape anyway. The interviewer also went on to talk about how many veiled women he saw the last time he was in Ottawa (there are no doubt as many here, but I guess he doesn't happen to visit Ville St-Laurent, Cartierville or Villeray often).

Moreover, one never knows what goes on behind closed doors, but I really have a hard time imagining Monia as a battered wife.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 13 March 2004 05:57 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My take on it is that if a woman who wears the veil says it's a feminist statement, then it's a feminist statement. Others may not agree, but who are we to say 'No, you're wrong. Because that item of clothing is a symbol of oppression to some, it can't be a symbol of freedom to you.'
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 13 March 2004 10:00 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe Hejab is not a statement of feminism but Hejab is a statement of belonging to an ideology that promotes racism, intolerance, hate, women abusing, etc , just like wearing swastika armbands but unfortunately many Canadians and Muslims do not know that.

[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: fightcensorship ]

[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: fightcensorship ]


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 13 March 2004 10:18 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
fightsensorship, what do you say to a woman who is cognisant of the reality of Muslim life in much of the world, and yet considers wearing the veil to be a feminist statement?
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2004 11:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think we are about to see another episode of an intense facist attack upon Islam. As we saw over hereon this thread.

I can't imagine what would be the reaction on this board if someone said the following about Jews, Hindus or Christians. A quote from Fightcensorship:

quote:
Shame on those who say not as all of them are religous racists

Is this a book you are so proud?!! Doctorine for "Religious Apartheid" that is sent by God? Wake up!!


[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 March 2004 11:04 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, "fightcensorship", what you're saying is that a veiled Muslim is the same as a Nazi?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 13 March 2004 11:05 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Anchoress:
fightsensorship, what do you say to a woman who is cognisant of the reality of Muslim life in much of the world, and yet considers wearing the veil to be a feminist statement?

I will say she is not!!! She did not feel how it hurts if Muslims accidentaly touch you, they should wash their hands since you are treated as feces and urine becasue Quran says "Non-Muslims are unclean".

She did not experience , etc, etc, (If you are interested, let me know, I have a lot more).

Do you want to belong to that ideology and proudly declare it?


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 13 March 2004 11:21 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
fightcensorship, your statements are disgusting. You have just shown your bigoted hatred of all Muslims. People must be judged individually by their actions, not by their dress.

Regardless, you won't be able to "fightcensorship" here on babble for very long, since I have a sneaking suspicion you'll be "disapeared" very soon. I won't miss you.


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 13 March 2004 11:22 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
fightcensorship: Is not what? Your answer does not have anything to do with feminism. Please re-read my question.

[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: Anchoress ]


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 13 March 2004 11:34 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Anchoress:
fightcensorship: Is not what? Your answer does not have anything to do with feminism. Please re-read my question.

[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: Anchoress ]


Is NOT cognizant of the reality of Muslim life in much of the world!

At first prove that please.


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 13 March 2004 11:53 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I think we are about to see another episode of an intense facist attack upon Islam. As we saw over hereon this thread.

I can't imagine what would be the reaction on this board if someone said the following about Jews, Hindus or Christians. A quote from Fightcensorship:

[ 13 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]



An honest question from members of this forum.

If I should not call those who DISCRIMINATE non-Muslims as unclean, "Racisits" what should I call them?

Tough question?eh?


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 14 March 2004 12:00 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
fightcensorship you make absolutely no sense.

Have you ever spoken to a Muslim person? If so you would realise that most Muslims don't consider non-Muslims "unclean". You can't generalise from what a few fundamentalist believe and assume all Muslims agree. That's racism.

[ 14 March 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 14 March 2004 12:06 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:
fightcensorship, your statements are disgusting. You have just shown your bigoted hatred of all Muslims. People must be judged individually by their actions, not by their dress.

Regardless, you won't be able to "fightcensorship" here on babble for very long, since I have a sneaking suspicion you'll be "disapeared" very soon. I won't miss you.


What about this statement: "People must be judged individually by their religions, not by their dress." as Quran orderd Muslims to do!!!

My family are Muslims, my best friends are Muslims, so do not tell me I hate Muslims!!! I hate Islam!! Very different!!

"I HATE ISLAM, NOT BECAUSE IT IS A RLIGION BUT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A RELIGION"


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 14 March 2004 12:14 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:
fightcensorship you make absolutely no sense.

Have you ever spoken to a Muslim person? If so you would realise that most Muslims don't consider non-Muslims "unclean". You can't generalise from what a few fundamentalist believe and assume all Muslims agree. That's racism.

[ 14 March 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


Prove I make no sense!

My family is Muslim!! I live with Muslims.

I have the right to call those who believe in that Quranic statement that orders "Non-Muslims are unclean" as racists? Do you have any problem with that?


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 14 March 2004 12:15 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well it sounds like you've got major issues with your family that you should work out with them, not with us.

But why are you obsessing over a literal interpretation of the Koran? There's lots of disgusting statements in the Bible, but I don't hear you saying you hate Christianity.


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 14 March 2004 12:22 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
So, "fightcensorship", what you're saying is that a veiled Muslim is the same as a Nazi?

Not necessarily, because many of them are forced to wear it by their families.


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 14 March 2004 12:23 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You make no sense because you first brought up the issue of not liking people "who believe in that Quranic statement that orders "Non-Muslims are unclean"," when replying to the issue of women wearing the veil (specifically the author of that commentary I quoted".

One has nothing to do with the other.

A muslim woman, for instance like Monia Mazigh, can wear the hijab and still believe in equality and human rights for people of all religions.


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 14 March 2004 12:37 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:
Well it sounds like you've got major issues with your family that you should work out with them, not with us.

But why are you obsessing over a literal interpretation of the Koran? There's lots of disgusting statements in the Bible, but I don't hear you saying you hate Christianity.


This discussion is not personal, is it? Stick to the topic please.

They are a lot more; do you want me to tell other problems as well?

I am speaking about Islam. This thread is about Hejab. Is it about Christianity?

Prove Quran is right and those who believe that “Non-Muslims are unclean” should not be called racists? Then we can move on!


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 14 March 2004 12:47 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So I think that fightcensorship has been too exposed to a particular (somewhat out of context) way of reading the Qur'an, and not everyone reads it that way.

There are two groups who are the flip sides of one another:

1. People who read the Qur'an in a particular, extremely intolerant way, take what they've read literally, decontextualize parts of it both from their place in the book and the historical situation under which they were first revealed, and so on.

2. People who have had bad experiences with those people and believe that their (intolerant) way of reading the Qur'an is essentially correct, and in repudiating that intolerance, reject Islam itself as a whole.

The common denominator: both of them believe that an intolerant, decontextualized way of reading the Qur'an is essentially correct.

I have several hijab-wearing female relatives. I'm not sure I really agree with their motives, but none of them believe that being touched by a non-Muslim is like being touched by urine and feces. What nonsense.

fightcensorship belongs to group 2. This has been revealed to be most likely by fightcensorship's negative personal experience. I probably live in conditions similar to fightcensorship's---more, at least, than anyone else on this board---but I didn't have the same experience and thus didn't emerge with such generalized vitriol against Islam. Islam to me is a process.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 14 March 2004 12:51 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I am speaking about Islam.

And I am comparing your criticisms about Islam to problems with the Bible. Like it or not, fightcensorship, I'm not bound by your directives on what is acceptable for discussion.

Anyways, this whole discussion is ruining a perfectly good thread on the hijab. By the way, this thread is in the Feminism forum which is specifically to "discuss issues from a pro-feminist point of view". That's certainly not what you and I have been doing during these last few posts. If you want to discuss literal interpretations of the Koran, go start another thread in another forum.


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 14 March 2004 01:23 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:
You make no sense because you first brought up the issue of not liking people "who believe in that Quranic statement that orders "Non-Muslims are unclean"," when replying to the issue of women wearing the veil (specifically the author of that commentary I quoted".

One has nothing to do with the other.


I am sorry but what do you mean again?


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 14 March 2004 01:53 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
So I think that fightcensorship has been too exposed to a particular (somewhat out of context) way of reading the Qur'an, and not everyone reads it that way.


OK, bring me a translation of Quran that says the correct translation or interpretation is that Non-Muslims are actually clean! Will you?

Here are my two translations from four Muslims and from two Islamic websites.

THESE ARE NOT MY TRANSLATIONS AND THESE ARE NOT MY WEBSITES!!

Please refer me to the websites that provide correct translation. CAN YOU?!!

Quran:
http://www.road-to-heaven.com/quran/english/9.htm

Verily, the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh, and in the Message of Muhammad ) are Najasun (impure) . So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Makkah) after this year,

009.028 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque.


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 14 March 2004 01:58 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uhhh...both those verses are meant to be read in a particular historical context, where those people were a threat to the use of the sanctuaries as a place to venerate the singular God---ie, where they would be going there to perform pagan rites. They were unclean in that they had a deliberate intent to defile those places.

The use of the word "impure" or "unclean" reads to me quite differently from what it reads to you. Has nothing to do with translations or anything. We're reading technically the same language, but we're getting different things from it.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 14 March 2004 02:08 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
I have several hijab-wearing female relatives. I'm not sure I really agree with their motives, but none of them believe that being touched by a non-Muslim is like being touched by urine and feces. What nonsense.


Where? In Canada? Are you kidding? In countries where Muslims are in minority you expect them to behave like that? Excuse me, but they are not stupids!!

These laws are where Muslims are in majority:

Look, even Non-Muslims kids are unclean!!

Based on Khomeini's book Tozihatol Masael anybody who does not believe in God, prophet Muhammad are unbelievers and should be considered as Najes or unclean.

Eleven things are impure: urine, excrement, sperm...NON-MOSLEM men and women...and the sweat of an excrement-eating camel.

(From The Little Green Book: Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Philosophical, Social and Religious, with a special introduction by Clive Irving, ISBN number0-553-14032-9, page 47)


Non-Moslem kids are Unclean:
If the father, mother, grandfather and grandmother of a child which has not reached puberty are infidels that child, too, is unclean and if one of them is Moslem the child is clean. Guide #108

Who is infidel?
Infidels [Kâfar] are those who do not accept the prophethood of Mohamad.

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg (1933 - )


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 14 March 2004 02:11 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:

Anyways, this whole discussion is ruining a perfectly good thread on the hijab. By the way, this thread is in the Feminism forum which is specifically to "discuss issues from a pro-feminist point of view". That's certainly not what you and I have been doing during these last few posts. If you want to discuss literal interpretations of the Koran, go start another thread in another forum.



I was talking about the topic, but it was you and your friends who brought up other issues without directly answering what I said about Hejab and feminism.


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 14 March 2004 02:13 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Geez, my female relatives have never even heard of such a thing nor likely read Khomeini's book. You think that every Muslim takes Khomeini (or any number of other writer of mutually contradictory screeds) seriously?

My mother comes from an overwhelmingly majority Muslim country and she had a few non-Muslim friends, and would have been shocked to even think of her non-Muslim friends in that light. Her older relatives also had no trouble with non-Muslims whatsoever, invited them to dinner and never imagined there was anything unclean about them!

Is all this "unclean" business based on a very limited reading of the Qur'an (as you have shown!) and the belief that everyone listens to Khomeini? Really, now.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 14 March 2004 03:55 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
Geez, my female relatives have never even heard of such a thing nor likely read Khomeini's book. You think that every Muslim takes Khomeini (or any number of other writer of mutually contradictory screeds) seriously?

My mother comes from an overwhelmingly majority Muslim country and she had a few non-Muslim friends, and would have been shocked to even think of her non-Muslim friends in that light. Her older relatives also had no trouble with non-Muslims whatsoever, invited them to dinner and never imagined there was anything unclean about them!

Is all this "unclean" business based on a very limited reading of the Qur'an (as you have shown!) and the belief that everyone listens to Khomeini? Really, now.


Let us not talk about your PERSONAL experinces as I did not talk about my personal experiences.

No, it is not based on a very limited readings of the Quran but also "Authentic Hadithes" (spekings and deeds of Muhammad which is accepted by both Sunni and Shiats) orede it,therefore it is not only accepted by Shiatts but is also accepted by Sunnis.

Hadith that says Non-Muslims are unclean.

Now let us see Can We Eat from the dishes of Christians or Jews?”
http://www.islamtoday.net/english/showme.cfm?cat_id=33&sub_cat_id=630
Abû Tha`labah al-Khushanî said to Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him): “We come from a land populated by the People of the Scripture. Can we eat from their dishes?”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: “Do not eat from them unless you do not find anything else to eat from. In that case, wash them and eat from them.”

This is an authentic hadîth related in Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim.

The People of the Scripture being referred to in the hadîth are the Jews and the Christians.


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 14 March 2004 04:10 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Back to the topic:

I believe Hejab is not a statement of feminism but Hejab is a statement of belonging to an ideology that is brought by a person that if you do what he did then you will be jailed as a pedophile, rapist, mass murderer, bandit, slave master, ...

Your choice!

I can prove all of those allegations.


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 March 2004 08:27 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Qu'ran is not special in this aspect.

What is important is how people act and how they believe.

A woman has the right to wear a Hejab to show she is still part of Islam, even if all the internet Mullah's in the world think she is a bad Muslim, for believing that men and women are equal. She has the right to be a bad Muslim in their eyes, and wear the Hejab.

This is true even if her understanding of the Qu'ran is mistaken.

She has the right to take what is good from the Qu'ran and ignore the bad.

A woman even has the right to disagree with your interpretation of the Hejab and Islam.

[ 14 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 March 2004 09:07 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can SORT OF sympathize with fightcensorship in a way, or at least see where he's coming from, even though I think he's mistaken about attributing it to all Muslims. It sounds like the Muslims he's come into contact with are intolerant literalists who take the Quran and use it like a club.

There is no doubt that there are some sexist passages in the Quran, just as there are in Torah and the Bible. And frankly, I refuse to explain them all away and excuse them by saying, "Well, you know, that was then, this is now, historical blah blah." The fact is, the books were written in an extremely sexist time, in a sexist society, and the intent of those passages were sexist and homophobic at the time.

Now we can say, "We've grown since then as a society and we no longer believe what the people from those simpler times believe." But the fact is, a large number of Muslims, Christians, and Jews DO believe that kind of bullshit and they use the passages from those books to buttress their intolerance. I know some Baptists who would curl your hair, they're so hateful towards gays, and so sexist about women's "roles". And yes, I've met Muslims who, while they didn't refuse to shake my hand, had attitudes about women, gays, and Jews that would also curl your hair.

However, fightcensorship...the fact is, all Muslims are not like that, and even all Muslims who wear traditional clothing like the hijab are not like that. Even the most religious of hijab-wearers I have known haven't displayed the extreme hatefulness that you describe. And all of my in-laws live in Iran, so I'm not just talking about Muslims who live here. I have never been treated like haram by any Muslim I have met, religious or secular. That doesn't mean that there are no Muslims who believe that stuff - sure there are.

All religions evolve and change, even if some fundy Christians or Muslims would have you believe differently. Of course, every participant in a religion does not participate in the evolution and changes. All women who wear hijab do not do it as a feminist statement, absolutely not, and I realize that. I personally have a few problems with the feminist analysis of hijab-wearing.

But the fact is, there are people who are Muslims who don't believe the extreme positions you attribute to them. There are women whose reasons for wearing the hijab is an expression of feminism, and their reasons are outlined above.

You remind me of my ex-husband (that's not an insult, let me finish), who is a former Muslim. When he talks about Islam, he spits nails. He hates the religion (although he doesn't hate Muslims) because he sees it as barbaric and hateful. Strangely, though, when people quote hateful passages out of his new religious scripture (the Bible), he can see nuance, and says that in practice, Christianity isn't hateful, because countries where it's practiced do not curtail civil liberties in the name of religious law the way many Muslim countries do. But the fact is, there are many, many Muslims, both here and in Muslim countries, who are not fundamentalists and have tried to live by more liberal interpretations of scripture.

I share fightcensorship's horror at the thought of Sharia Law getting any legal standing whatsoever in Canada. I don't care whether the participants agree. I don't care whether secular courts have final say. I don't want to see Sharia Law formalized anywhere in Canada. It's religious law, and the way it's practiced in other countries is absolutely horrifying. It has no place in Canada's legal system. If people want to arbitrate their disputes informally and agree privately to abide by it, then great, they can go to their Imam privately and get a religious ruling on their dispute. People can already do that now, and that's good enough. Religious law has no place in our society.

[ 14 March 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 14 March 2004 12:43 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If we're going to go back to the Sharia arbitration board topic, here's something I'm not totally sure about. Are the people setting up this board making use of an existing law that generally allows people to set up arbitration boards? Or are laws being changed specifically to accomodate them? I think it matters which one we are talking about. If the former, it's very difficult to complain--they're just exercising their right to set up an arbitration board under a law for which everyone else is eligible. If the latter, I suppose you could complain that its government-sponsored Sharia implementation.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 14 March 2004 12:49 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As for fightcensorship, he is deeply mistaken if he thinks he can make statements like "Islam says that..." in a general way. Islam is a personal thing. There are people who don't read the Qur'an or prioritize the Hadith in the way he does. He cannot fix an interpretation in place for us; that would simply be what is commonly known as a "strawman." If he is opposing a particular intolerant but alas common way of seeing Islam, then I guess I can agree with him. Where he and I depart is that he insists that this is how all Muslims must see Islam; I don't.

His vitriol against Muhammad, while *possibly* backed up by "authentic Hadith" (what does "authentic" mean? Despite him, definitions abound!), is underscored by the complaint that Muhammad would have been a criminal by modern law. But, like, so would almost every man of that period, and a fair bit of the women too, particularly the famous people. That isn't the lesson that intelligent people learn when they look in admiration to figures of the past.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 14 March 2004 01:27 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
fightcensorship: Whoo boy. Blanket condemnations of groups of people are not allowed here. This is a warning. Keep it up, and you'll be gone.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 14 March 2004 03:45 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is to clarify that, I do not have any any intent to insult my own Muslim family, my own Muslim best friends or any Muslim anywhere as I believe almost all of them are honest, hard working, kind people. Meanwhile I believe it is my right to criticize an organized ideology named Islam and Muhammad or discuss the facts that many Muslims do not even know them. Just like how Muslims criticized other religions for centuries.
From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
ProudAlbertan
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5169

posted 14 March 2004 09:17 PM      Profile for ProudAlbertan        Edit/Delete Post
In defense of Fightcensorship, we would best be served to learn what a dichotomy is!!!

In otherwords, learn to seperate Islam from the Muslim which is what exactly our friend is doing.

I too have a deep understanding of Islam as having studied it for over 20 years and my 2 best friends growing up were Sunnis from Trinidad (since apostasized) and my first gal many many years ago was also a Sunni in the Ataturk tradition (in otherwords....very very secular and liberal).

Muslims obviously should not be broadbrushed......however, Islam, as literally and orthodoxly practiced (Sunni Islam) which formulates about 90 percent of Darul Islam can be broadbrushed if not all of its followers!

A study of Islam's primary sources, The Quran, Sahih Hadiths, Reliance of the Traveler, The Life of Muhammed and other writings that help form the Sunnah of Islam can help us to understand this Arab Ideology!

Unless you have at least made a cursory study of Islam, then you obviously will know nothing of this ideology.......and as per most of the liberal left political correctness here, that seems to be the case.

The very idea of a Fundamentalist Muslim running for the NDP party is absolutely hilarious and shows the complete ignorance of the Left about Islam!!

To sit there and quote some liberal prof how she equates the Hijab with a woman's personal freedom is so utterly ORWELLIAN that it boggles the mind.

It would be akin to Jews promoting the SS or Property owners defending Stalin........this is what the Hijab is too Women.......Yes it is perfectly easy for a dolt like this Western convert to brag about how Islam is good for women but note that she doesn't dare live in any of the 65 Islamic paradises on this planet where Women are barely treated better then there cattle...

And all your left wing moral relativism and multiculturism can never change this reality........Islam is too women and there rights what Marxism is too a property owner...

I would suggest that many of you with your pee cee blinders on go visit and talk to the growing legions of ex muslims on the net.......Persia alone has Millions of ex muslims who absolutely loathe Islam and with good reason........of course, the left has never been known for its open mindedness so I suppose my request will be in vain.

Nonetheless, before you listen to the rantins of Orwellian fruitcakes like this prof, do yourself a
favor and talk to ex muslims to learn the honest reality about Darul Islam instead of listening to your various ministries of propaganda here in the West!!

Thanks


From: Calgary | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 14 March 2004 09:21 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The very idea of a Fundamentalist Muslim running for the NDP party is absolutely hilarious and shows the complete ignorance of the Left about Islam!!

What information do you have that Monia is a "Fundamentalist Muslim"?

Are you just sterotyping her because she wears the hijab?


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ProudAlbertan
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5169

posted 14 March 2004 09:36 PM      Profile for ProudAlbertan        Edit/Delete Post
I would suggest that this lady is a Fundamentalist considering her garb....yes that is correct.......the question is , what exactly do you think the Hijab represents???

If you answer freedom, then you speaking rubbish? If you correctly deduce that the Hijab, Chador, Burqa, Abya et al, is a form of debasement for women and a fundamentalist implement, then one would have to deduce that this woman is from a Literalist wing of Islam and thus a fundiementalist.....

But in Islam, that term is not ever recognized.........Most Muslims the world over, take the Quran literally along with the more sever e and binding Authentic hadiths........and judging by this woman's thoughts and garb, I think it is very very safe too say she is not from the Ataturk wing of Secular islam.

However.......there is a caveat......and that being the husband may be forcing her to wear the hijab and in that case, then I apologize to this young terribly niave woman.......Yes, to you pee cee types, this is sadly the case even in the Free West where many many Muslim women have no choice because of there husbands who force them to wear this vile garment....

Indeed, there was a poll 2 months ago in France among Muslim women and 53 % of them were FOR the ban against the oppressive Islamic head dress.

You see, when Muslim women are given the free choice without fear of physical brutality (which is taught in the Quran against Women) then most women will gladly shed this loathsome garb.

And if this poor woman is being forced to wear this, then I apologize and agree that she may not be a radical islamist........however, going by the general zietgiest, I think the evidence is there that this woman wholeheartedly supports a literal facistic form of Islam........the same one that Muhammed taught from the hejaz 1400 years ago.

Thanks

[ 14 March 2004: Message edited by: ProudAlbertan ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 14 March 2004 09:46 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You see, when Muslim women are given the free choice without fear of physical brutality (which is taught in the Quran against Women) then most women will gladly shed this loathsome garb.

Though you have no proof that "most" Muslim women will not wear the hijab if given the choice, your statement nonetheless recognizes that even some Muslim women chose of their own free will to wear it.

Since you realise that some women choose the wear the hijab without being oppressed by their religion or their husband, what makes you assume that Monia is not one of those women?

Can you also explain why you think you know her "thoughts"?

Do you think that someone who subcribed to fundamentalist values, would write these words?

quote:
Canada has been always described abroad as a strong advocate of human rights. As a citizen and new Canadian, I feel a responsibility to make this a reality. I want it to be more than a nice title. I want future generations to see it in practice.
...
Not only do I want to ensure fairness and equity in the political decision-making process in Canada, I also want to help other Canadians. Peace, equality and security are our birthright and our collective responsibility.

Monia in The Globe and Mail

[ 14 March 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 14 March 2004 11:00 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by audra trower williams:
fightcensorship: Whoo boy. Blanket condemnations of groups of people are not allowed here. This is a warning. Keep it up, and you'll be gone.

Thank you for all of your efforts to provide us with a safe and friendly environment by making it fair meanwhile paying attention to all concerns of all members from different cultures.

I really do not understand what you mean by blanket condemnation of groups of people?

It seems there is a problem with the definition of words. I really appreciate if you kindly make it clear to me. It might help me to refrain from any similar postings.

Let me say why I am so confused:

1- This is the definition of racist based on dictionary:

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/racist

[adj] discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion


2- Quran tell Non-Muslims are unclean and should treat them likewise.

Conclusion: Those who believe in Quran that orders them to treat Non-Muslims as sub-humans and discriminate others based on their religions should be called racists based on the above mentioned definition.

If you have any problem with that definition, please contact the editors, tell them your concerns and ask them to refrain from “blanket condemnation of groups of people” and ask them to change the definition or at least consider some exceptions.

Thank you


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 March 2004 11:26 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the point is that when you criticize Islam it is important to keep in mind that

quote:
....I do not have any any intent to insult my own Muslim family, my own Muslim best friends or any Muslim anywhere as I believe almost all of them are honest, hard working, kind people....

The problem is that when you make a generalization about people (like Islam is bad,) often other people do not see what you see. They do not see that Muslims are people just like any other people, and like all people have problems. This means that even Muslim people who have good intentions get lumped in with people like Emam Reza, despite the fact that they do not personally support his views.

People here are very concsious of this here, because many Muslims come under attack, even if they are not Muslim fundamentalist, simply because they come from Muslim countries. People are concerned that blanket attacks against Islam promote Anglo-Saxon (Protestant) anti-Arab and anti-Pakistani racism.

Coming from a Muslim family you are probably not at all aware of how racist some Anglo-Saxon Protestants are. They also use the bible to justify their intolerance, the way some Muslims use the Qu'ran.

But this does not mean that all Protestants are racists, or that their are not ideas that come from the bible that are used to promote what you call religious Apartheid.

For instance the Protestant interpretation of the bible allowed for the almost complete erradication of the Native people of North America, while the Catholics did the same in South America.

[ 14 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 14 March 2004 11:32 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
Uhhh...both those verses are meant to be read in a particular historical context, where those people were a threat to the use of the sanctuaries as a place to venerate the singular God---ie, where they would be going there to perform pagan rites. They were unclean in that they had a deliberate intent to defile those places.

The use of the word "impure" or "unclean" reads to me quite differently from what it reads to you. Has nothing to do with translations or anything. We're reading technically the same language, but we're getting different things from it.


Wrong!!

1-historical issue:

If that is correct, then Quran is a book for its time and location only. Period! So please place it in a museum. Will you?

2- What the word "impure" or "unclean" reads to you? Can you explain it? Will you?


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 March 2004 11:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's odd about your position is that you are using the Muslim Fundamentalist view of the Qu'ran as the only intepretation. You are in fact supporting their intpretation, and attacking any other view of the Qu'ran.

In fact your view is Islam is Muslim Fundamentalist, even though you reject it.

Mandos does not have the right to read the Qu'ran differently?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 14 March 2004 11:38 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
The Qu'ran is not special in this aspect.

What is important is how people act and how they believe.

A woman has the right to wear a Hejab to show she is still part of Islam, even if all the internet Mullah's in the world think she is a bad Muslim, for believing that men and women are equal. She has the right to be a bad Muslim in their eyes, and wear the Hejab.

This is true even if her understanding of the Qu'ran is mistaken.

She has the right to take what is good from the Qu'ran and ignore the bad.

A woman even has the right to disagree with your interpretation of the Hejab and Islam.

[ 14 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]



Good points.
Thank you.


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 12:07 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
It sounds like the Muslims he's come into contact with are intolerant literalists who take the Quran and use it like a club.


Dear Michelle,
This in not a PERSONAL issue. Did I discuss about my personal experiences and then reach to a conclusion?! The same thing that I see is happening a lot in this forum. If I was tortured by Muslim fundamentalists or pampered by them does it make any difference of what I said?


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 12:11 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I think he's mistaken about attributing it to all Muslims.

Dear Michelle,
What is your definition for being a Muslim? What you should believe to be called a Muslim?


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 March 2004 12:13 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, it might even be possible that a woman could show her loyalty to god by wearing the Hejab, while making a feminist statement in defiance of traditional Islamic thought. Some Muslim's might say that she has no right to show her loyalty to god through wearing the Hejab, because she is a bad Muslim for believing in her own equality.

But she does it anyway.

In this sense wearing the Hejab, might be an act of feminist rebellion against what is sexist in Islam.

Isn't that possible?

Do the Mullah's have a right to take away a woman's faith in god because she believes that she is equal to men?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 15 March 2004 12:15 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If I was tortured by Muslim fundamentalists or pampered by them does it make any difference of what I said?

Yes it would, because it would help explain why you only see one possible interpretation of the Koran, and why you don't seem to accept that many people view their religion (Islam) as a religion of peace and love not as a religion of fundamentalist dogma.

[ 15 March 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 12:35 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
As for fightcensorship, he is deeply mistaken if he thinks he can make statements like "Islam says that..." in a general way. Islam is a personal thing. There are people who don't read the Qur'an or prioritize the Hadith in the way he does. He cannot fix an interpretation in place for us; that would simply be what is commonly known as a "strawman." If he is opposing a particular intolerant but alas common way of seeing Islam, then I guess I can agree with him. Where he and I depart is that he insists that this is how all Muslims must see Islam; I don't.



I do not make any statements without giving proofs and backing it up with documents. I only brought Quran quotes and Hadithes from Islamic websites owned by Muslims. Can you understand that?

If you have any problem with THEIR translations or interpretations “ Ask them to change it” to YOUR PERSONAL THING!!”

WOW!!


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 12:40 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
His vitriol against Muhammad, while *possibly* backed up by "authentic Hadith" (what does "authentic" mean? Despite him, definitions abound!), is underscored by the complaint that Muhammad would have been a criminal by modern law. But, like, so would almost every man of that period, and a fair bit of the women too, particularly the famous people. That isn't the lesson that intelligent people learn when they look in admiration to figures of the past.


What about those who want to follow Muhammad and do what he did as a messenger of God, shouldn’t all of them be jailed and called criminals?

Moderator, please see my next post!!


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 12:50 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dear moderator,

Was it another “Blanket condemnations of groups of people”

I believe it is not, let me explain:

If in my post I say:

Fact: Anyone who has MD diploma is a doctor of medicine.

Fact: Jack has MD diploma

Conclusion: Jack is a doctor of medicine.

Obviously there should be no problem with that conclusion.

Now let see this example:

Fact: Muhammad is believed by over 1 billion Muslims to marry Ayasha when she 7 years old and slept with her when she was 9 and he was 54 years old.

Fact: Psychiatrists’ criteria for defining pedophilia is a person who has sex with a child younger than 13 years and the person age is at least 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child.

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm

Conclusion: If you do what he did because you believe you should imitate what he did as he was messenger of God and role model for all times and locations then you will be jailed as pedophile.

As simple as that!!

If there is any problem with that, please contact American Association of Psychiatrists!


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 15 March 2004 12:50 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What about those who want to follow Muhammad and do what he did as a messenger of God, shouldn’t all of them be jailed and called criminals?

Come on, fightcensorship, is this what you want? Don't you think people should be judged on their actions, not on their beliefs?


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 15 March 2004 01:10 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
1-historical issue:

If that is correct, then Quran is a book for its time and location only. Period! So please place it in a museum. Will you?

2- What the word "impure" or "unclean" reads to you? Can you explain it? Will you?


As for 1, the Qur'an gives us an anchor to evaluate how wise people look at a situation and provide moral judgements. Books throughout history act as such an anchor. The conditions that existed when such books were put to paper may no longer exist, and thus it may no longer be sensible to apply what they said in exactly the same way. But it is sensible to take the lessons behind the text seriously, for instance, how Qur'anic (or another ancient book's) moral precepts related to the situations under which it was promulgated. This is the message that is timeless, and for that reason I do not desire to put any book "in a museum," especially not the holy ones.

As for 2, I thought I already answered the question in the context it was given. "Impure"/"unclean" there had a particular contextual meaning: to emphasize that the pagans of the time intended to perform rites that would, in their nature, have defiled the sanctuaries of God. You can, if you wish, pin the blame on monotheism itself, in which case your emphasis on Islam is not fair.

quote:

I do not make any statements without giving proofs and backing it up with documents. I only brought Quran quotes and Hadithes from Islamic websites owned by Muslims. Can you understand that?
Your proofs are invariably and inevitably subjective. I explained the perspective that you share with these internet mullahs who are your allies in interpretation, if enemies in intent.
quote:
If you have any problem with THEIR translations or interpretations “ Ask them to change it” to YOUR PERSONAL THING!!”
And who says I don't suggest a better way of looking at Islam where I think it beneficial to do so?
quote:
What about those who want to follow Muhammad and do what he did as a messenger of God, shouldn’t all of them be jailed and called criminals?
I say that whatever the consequences they may suffer, they should also be treated with mercy and understanding, because it seems to me that they don't appreciate what I see as the spirit behind Muhammad's life, which was to kickstart a process of evolving civilization. Muslims did see this for hundreds of years, and this is how they generated a great history. Muhammad had to bring order, had to set down a foundation, and, yes, had to live in the time in which he was born and work with what he was given, and balance all of these things carefully. And he did so. People who want to copy his life "literally" (an illusion!) word for word only do so superficially, but there is something I think they have missed. In your passionate anger against such people, I think you have missed it too.

And I feel sorry for you as well, because your anger and passion demonstrates some kind of deeply personal angst that I do not understand. I guess it sounds sappy, but I hope you soon find some peace and balance.

Salaam.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 15 March 2004 02:10 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sheesh, I really don't give a rats ass what Monia Mazigh decides to wear. She wears whatever she damned well feels like wearing.

The only thing I care about are her politics. Does she fight for social justice and equality? The answer to that question seems to be yes.

I hope she gives "brother" McGuinty a good run for his money.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 03:25 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:

Come on, fightcensorship, is this what you want? Don't you think people should be judged on their actions, not on their beliefs?


It seems you do not read what I said. I said DO what he DID!
Please read before posting! Is this the way you discuss?!!!


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 03:49 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
I say that whatever the consequences they may suffer, they should also be treated with mercy and understanding, because it seems to me that they don't appreciate what I see as the spirit behind Muhammad's life, which was to kickstart a process of evolving civilization. Muslims did see this for hundreds of years, and this is how they generated a great history. Muhammad had to bring order, had to set down a foundation, and, yes, had to live in the time in which he was born and work with what he was given, and balance all of these things carefully. And he did so. People who want to copy his life "literally" (an illusion!) word for word only do so superficially, but there is something I think they have missed. In your passionate anger against such people, I think you have missed it too.

And I feel sorry for you as well, because your anger and passion demonstrates some kind of deeply personal angst that I do not understand. I guess it sounds sappy, but I hope you soon find some peace and balance.

Salaam.



I am really sorry to say it but "YOUR INTERNET PERSONAL INTERPRETAION" thingy is nothing worth even of discussing until it is accepted by more than 1% of Muslims.

Do your best at first to convince Muftis, Mullahs and over 1 billion Sunni, Shait, … Muslims of your personal interpretation thing. If you were successful to convince
them then I will spend my time telling all of you how stupid it is to interpret a book based on YOUR logic to completely make it different from what is actually is and was to make it “Modern friendly”, but you still not having the guts to claim it was you who decided to interpret them the way you like, it was you who....!

Until your Islamic version thingy is accepted by at least one percent of Muslims population,
Goodbye


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 03:56 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:

Yes it would, because it would help explain why you only see one possible interpretation of the Koran, and why you don't seem to accept that many people view their religion (Islam) as a religion of peace and love not as a religion of fundamentalist dogma.

[ 15 March 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


Really? So why all of you could not show me even one correct translation of that verse. Show it. Bring the facts not YOUR personal interpretation thingy that is not accepted even by one Islamic book! even one sect of Islam, even by one group of Muslims?


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 04:19 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Back to the topic,
I believe wearing Hejab also shows that you believe you are a sexy object that is needed to be covered so other men would not be turned on!!! That’s why you should wear it after reaching puberty.

From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 March 2004 08:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
The problem is that when you make a generalization about people (like Islam is bad,)

Actually, that's not a generalizatio about people, that's a statement about a religious philosophy or ideology. I personally have no problem with religious philosophies being challenged.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 March 2004 08:22 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fine. Geeze around here you have to vet every phrase as if your editing a book.

I should have said:

The problem is that when you make a generalization about people (like all Muslims are bad because they are Muslims, and therefore support religious apartheid,)


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 March 2004 08:45 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, Cueball, but the very issue being discussed is whether fightcensorship is criticizing the religion itself or Muslims. And on babble in the past, criticisms of a religion itself has been taken as criticism of all people within the religion. So I wanted to clarify.

I think fightcensorship is saying that the only valid interpretation of the Qu'ran is a literal one, and he says that this is because most of the world's Muslims interpret it that way, and because that was the spirit and intent of the book back when it was written. And his argument is also that if you argue that it was written in a historical time when those attitudes were prevalent, then the book belongs in a museum because it's historical revisionism to now say, "Well, the book is still valid, and it's still a holy text, and the book is inspired by God, and God is neverchanging - but now we're going to interpret those sexist passages in a way that makes our modern sensibilities feel good."

And I think it's a valid viewpoint to hold - that people who follow scriptures literally (and please don't tell me there aren't millions who do - from all of the monotheistic religions) are in the dark ages, and those who claim they want to "modernize" the scriptures by either ignoring or explaining away the sexist parts have their heads in the sand as to the true nature of the book. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this viewpoint, but I think that's what fightcensorship is saying.

A lot of people have left Christianity for that very reason - because they don't want to do the mental acrobatics and apologetics that are necessary to explain away sexist or homophobic passages of the Bible, or to try to claim that the people of 2000 years ago didn't have sexist or homophobic intent when they wrote the scriptures. I know what those claims are, and I respect people who follow the religion in a "modern way" if they can explain to themselves, to their satisfaction, why their modern views can be encompassed by an ancient book full of sexist stuff. More power to them. But I can't do it, and apparently neither can fightcensorship.

Where fightcensorship and I differ, however, is that I don't assume that because I reject the "modernization" of the Bible, that others cannot interpret the Bible in a modern way that gives them comfort.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 March 2004 09:54 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know that I am not going to disagree with you. But then the sailent feature that I was trying to get across was around the real world impact.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 11:19 AM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Sorry, Cueball, but the very issue being discussed is whether fightcensorship is criticizing the religion itself or Muslims. And on babble in the past, criticisms of a religion itself has been taken as criticism of all people within the religion. So I wanted to clarify.

I think fightcensorship is saying that the only valid interpretation of the Qu'ran is a literal one, and he says that this is because most of the world's Muslims interpret it that way, and because that was the spirit and intent of the book back when it was written. And his argument is also that if you argue that it was written in a historical time when those attitudes were prevalent, then the book belongs in a museum because it's historical revisionism to now say, "Well, the book is still valid, and it's still a holy text, and the book is inspired by God, and God is neverchanging - but now we're going to interpret those sexist passages in a way that makes our modern sensibilities feel good."

And I think it's a valid viewpoint to hold - that people who follow scriptures literally (and please don't tell me there aren't millions who do - from all of the monotheistic religions) are in the dark ages, and those who claim they want to "modernize" the scriptures by either ignoring or explaining away the sexist parts have their heads in the sand as to the true nature of the book. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this viewpoint, but I think that's what fightcensorship is saying.

A lot of people have left Christianity for that very reason - because they don't want to do the mental acrobatics and apologetics that are necessary to explain away sexist or homophobic passages of the Bible, or to try to claim that the people of 2000 years ago didn't have sexist or homophobic intent when they wrote the scriptures. I know what those claims are, and I respect people who follow the religion in a "modern way" if they can explain to themselves, to their satisfaction, why their modern views can be encompassed by an ancient book full of sexist stuff. More power to them. But I can't do it, and apparently neither can fightcensorship.

Where fightcensorship and I differ, however, is that I don't assume that because I reject the "modernization" of the Bible, that others cannot interpret the Bible in a modern way that gives them comfort.


Dear Michelle,
Thank you, exactly what I meant.
And those who believe they know how people should live because of their "Modern Personal" interpretations (that is not believed by nearly all of the Muslims on the face of the Earth and was not believed for over 1400 years!!) should be based on Quran and it is justified because it is the God's word still have many challenges to answer:

1- Shouldn’t the God’s words be clear? Especially when he is not present to defend of what he said?!!! If you can change the meaning of words and change it in a way you like it and others still believe the way they read it is the correct one, I say that text is a waste of time for both groups.

2- Proving it is actually the word of God, making it worth for all of those “mental acrobatics” hassles!

When even $20 bills have a lot of counterfeit detectors inserted in them, what are the proofs that Quran is from God and not from a mouth of a human being who lied?


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 15 March 2004 11:55 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As for the 1% business, well, the current situation in the Muslim world is

a. Actually quite recent and connected to recent history.
b. Not as bad as fightcensorship makes it out to be--ie, I know a lot of Muslims on various parts of the politico-religious spectrum, but not very many who match his damning evaluation of them and their faith. But it's a matter of perspective.

As for the mental acrobatics business, this is moving onto quite another topic, which is the matter of faith in general, not Islam. I think this is quite a complicated topic that I doubt can be properly discussed in the context of this thread. Fightcensorship and Michelle are arguing for a position of (at the very least) agnosticism, so I guess people who want to discuss that ought to start a thread on it or something.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 15 March 2004 01:56 PM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Agnostics have a valuable perspective when we are discussing religious clothing and expressions of feminism.

Michelle's are the most valid points on the thread from my point of view, though, I don't mean to imply that she agrees with ME on the statements, but, I do agree with her.

Where she and I differ, I think, is that she is more tolerant of the "creative thinking" that is needed to actually interpret cloaking religious clothing, (almost always worn by fundamentalists) as feminist statements. It's oil and water to me.

When I see a woman in a hijab, burka, or hijab and veil I feel uncomfortable because they are symbols of oppression and literal belief in ancient, sexist, superstitious texts. I feel the SAME way when I see Mennonite women and Amish Women wearing bonnets, ground-length skirts and plaiting their hair all the same way.

I can see the value in spirituality, in festivals, in some tradition. We hold parties and meals in our house for the changes of season and we exchange gifts and such, but, really, it's just a mishmash of things that I like and things that I appreciate.

I just see us all as human beings. Primates living on a rock orbiting a yellow star. That millions of people would hide parts or all of their bodies from eachother based on what one of those primates wrote down at one time is really disturbing to me.


From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
H Vincent
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4721

posted 15 March 2004 03:23 PM      Profile for H Vincent        Edit/Delete Post
I really can't see the problem with a woman wearing what she wants.

Who gives a toss how uncomfortable you feel about something someone else is wearing? You don't like it? Good for you. Don't wear it. Just because an article of clothing symbolizes something for you does not mean it carries the same significance for the person wearing it. Who died and made you planetary god of fashion?

The arrogance of deciding for somebody else what it appropriate to wear is so hypocritical in this thread. If somebody said she should not be wearing a g-string and pasties you would be all over the person saying a woman can wear what she wants. And you would be right. She wants to wear it - good for her. Maybe it means something to her that we can never understand.

Rolling around the planet telling people what's appropriate based on what we belive is crap.

She wants to wear a frickin horned helmet, lip-discs, full body tatoo and wrapped up like a mummy. Great. That's her choice.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 15 March 2004 03:39 PM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah yes, that's all this is, isn't it? Fashion.

Silly me, I thought that religious garb MEANT something.

I'd love for this issue to be so simple, Mr. Vincent.


From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
H Vincent
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4721

posted 15 March 2004 03:54 PM      Profile for H Vincent        Edit/Delete Post
Apparantly it is simple for this woman who wants to wear it. Leave her alone. Her reasons are her own. She does not have to explain herself to anyone.

Who are we to tell her otherwise?

It is very simple. Don't tell others what they can wear.

Maybe people from other cultures feel uncomfortable around you if you walk around with your head uncovered. Are you going to change to appease them?

We in the west seem to think we have all the answers. We don't.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 15 March 2004 04:01 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We in the west seem to think we have all the answers. We don't.

You sure seem to think you do, to feminist issues anyway.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 05:14 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by H Vincent:
I really can't see the problem with a woman wearing what she wants.

Who gives a toss how uncomfortable you feel about something someone else is wearing? You don't like it? Good for you. Don't wear it. Just because an article of clothing symbolizes something for you does not mean it carries the same significance for the person wearing it. Who died and made you planetary god of fashion?

The arrogance of deciding for somebody else what it appropriate to wear is so hypocritical in this thread. If somebody said she should not be wearing a g-string and pasties you would be all over the person saying a woman can wear what she wants. And you would be right. She wants to wear it - good for her. Maybe it means something to her that we can never understand.

Rolling around the planet telling people what's appropriate based on what we belive is crap.

She wants to wear a frickin horned helmet, lip-discs, full body tatoo and wrapped up like a mummy. Great. That's her choice.


Yeah, you are absolutely right!
We should let people wear Nazi armbands. That's their choice and if somebody says it symbolizes something she/he is a freak!!! Can you tell me the difference?
This thread started claiming it symbolizes something! Not just a piece of garment.
You are insulting them!


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 15 March 2004 05:21 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I think we reached the Godwin's Law point a while ago.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 March 2004 05:23 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, people ARE allowed to wear Nazi armbands if they want to, if I'm not mistaken.

H Vincent, those of us who criticize the feminist analysis behind the wearing of the hijab aren't saying that we want to curtail anyone's right to wear them. People can wear whatever symbolic clothing they want, for whatever reason they want. But people also have the right to analyze and criticize those symbols differently.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 05:38 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by H Vincent:
I really can't see the problem with a woman wearing what she wants.

Who gives a toss how uncomfortable you feel about something someone else is wearing? You don't like it? Good for you. Don't wear it. Just because an article of clothing symbolizes something for you does not mean it carries the same significance for the person wearing it. Who died and made you planetary god of fashion?

The arrogance of deciding for somebody else what it appropriate to wear is so hypocritical in this thread. If somebody said she should not be wearing a g-string and pasties you would be all over the person saying a woman can wear what she wants. And you would be right. She wants to wear it - good for her. Maybe it means something to her that we can never understand.

Rolling around the planet telling people what's appropriate based on what we belive is crap.

She wants to wear a frickin horned helmet, lip-discs, full body tatoo and wrapped up like a mummy. Great. That's her choice.


Yeah, you are right!! That’s her choice in addition to “her husband’s choice”, “her family’s choice”, “her Mufti or Mullah’s choice”, “her ideology choice” (you may call it her religion), “her God’s choice”. It is not all HER choice!!!! Can you understand that? It’s not that simple as body tattooing!!!!


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 15 March 2004 05:45 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
fightcensorship, you are "making blanket accusations against groups of people" if you can't admit that for some muslim women your statement "It is not all HER choice!!!!" is not true.

For sure, too many women in the world don't have a choice when it comes to wearing a hijab, but I don't presume to know the mindset of all Muslim women (as you seem to), and I chose to believe some Muslim women who say they wear the hijab out of personal choice without any coersion (religious, martial or familial). I realise this is not your experience with Muslim women wearing the hijab, but can you at least admit it might be true for some?

[ 15 March 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
H Vincent
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4721

posted 15 March 2004 05:47 PM      Profile for H Vincent        Edit/Delete Post
Michelle you are 100% correct.

What bothers me is that we all have so little knowledge of that culture but feel able to judge it.

I feel it would be wrong to brow-beat women who come to Canada and wish to dress in that manner simply because 'we' don't approve.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 March 2004 05:54 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think there are a lot more women in North America who wear it of their own free will, fightcensorship. I find it hard to believe that they're all being oppressed.

However, I also don't buy this idea that women wear hijab because the only way to be treated with respect is to cover yourself from head to foot, and then call that a feminist choice and response to oppression. Especially considering that the hijab is the clothing for women that Muslim men who run countries like Iran and Saudi insist upon pain of flogging or death that women wear.

To me, that's like saying, "Men won't stop attacking women at night, so I'm going to stay home after dark every day and call it a feminist choice."

[ 15 March 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 05:59 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Actually, people ARE allowed to wear Nazi armbands if they want to, if I'm not mistaken.


Thank you for correction. Depends where you live.
I meant letting people wear it without any consideration that is not just fashion, it means more than that!


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
athena_dreaming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4574

posted 15 March 2004 06:10 PM      Profile for athena_dreaming   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmm. YOu see, to me, I can't see the feminist value in miniskirts, lipstick, high heels and tube tops. Each of those items is the product of years of sexism that sell women on the basis of their sexuality. None of them have a history of liberation.

Yet when a woman who wears them tells me that doing so makes her feel strong, confident, and good, I shrug my shoulders and accept that what she presents as her mental state is accurate. Heck, sometimes, I even join them, and get all gussied up in the modern equivalent of repressive garb from our society.

So if a woman wearing a hijab tells me that doing so makes her feel strong, confident, and good, I ... shrug my shoulders and accept that what she presents as her mental state is accurate. I don't understand it, but I don't have to.

Some women choose to stay home and raise children as a feminist choice. As we all know, being a SAHM is an institution with a long history of sexism and oppression in our civilization and others. As is the tradition of changing one's name at marriage. Yet if a woman I know chooses one of these options and says it is, for her, a feminist thing to do, who am I to contradict her?

IF it is possible for a woman of our culture to take tools and symbols of the oppression of women from our history and turn in into a personal source of pleasure and strenght, why is it not possible for women from other cultures to do the same?


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 06:14 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:
fightcensorship, you are "making blanket accusations against groups of people" if you can't admit that for some muslim women your statement "It is not all HER choice!!!!" is not true.

For sure, too many women in the world don't have a choice when it comes to wearing a hijab, but I don't presume to know the mindset of all Muslim women (as you seem to), and I chose to believe some Muslim women who say they wear the hijab out of personal choice without any coersion (religious, martial or familial). I realise this is not your experience with Muslim women wearing the hijab, but can you at least admit it might be true for some?

[ 15 March 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


YES, for some it is absolutely true, but for most of them it is not, but for some of them you are right.

I only wanted to say it is not always her choice!

Can you please let me know the other "blanket accusations against groups of people"?


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 06:31 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I think there are a lot more women in North America who wear it of their own free will, fightcensorship. I find it hard to believe that they're all being oppressed.



You are right! Not all of them but most of them!


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 06:43 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by H Vincent:
Michelle you are 100% correct.

What bothers me is that we all have so little knowledge of that culture but feel able to judge it.

I feel it would be wrong to brow-beat women who come to Canada and wish to dress in that manner simply because 'we' don't approve.


I feel confident that I have enough knowledge of that culture.
There is no question that Muslims should be free to wear what they like. Meanwhile I feel it is my right to discuss why they choose that type of garments and why it is called a manifest of feminism.


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 March 2004 06:57 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by H Vincent:
What bothers me is that we all have so little knowledge of that culture but feel able to judge it.

It's true that I don't have firsthand knowledge of the culture. But having been married to an Iranian for several years, I've learned a lot more about it from him, and have been exposed to a lot more of the culture than your average WASP North American. Doesn't make me an expert by any means, but I've read enough and been close to enough Muslims to not be completely ignorant on the subject.

Doesn't mean I'm right, of course. And I certainly wouldn't privilege my own experience over that of Muslim women themselves (although I have had pretty much all of my ideas on this issue influenced by conversations with Muslim men, and women both veiled and unveiled). Everyone has their own opinions on the topic, and my analysis certainly isn't the only one, just as no feminist analysis can be considered to be universal.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 15 March 2004 06:58 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Almost all the women I know who wear it (and that's quite a few by now) have no family history of it nor family encouragement to wear it, and in a lot of cases take considerable flack from family members---who also consider themselves just as Muslim!---for choosing to wear it. The most browbeating I have heard is children trying to convince their parents to wear it, or between sisters. But the caricature fightcensorship paints is probably only true in some cases--a sadly significant number of them that come from certain particular demographic groups. But not even close to universal.

I suspect neither fightcensorship nor I know all that much about every Muslim woman in North America or even in Egypt, Iran, etc, etc, despite we are the most likely ones were to be acquainted with a lot of Muslim women. Consequently, I guess both of us should perhaps be cautious in making too broad, aggressive generalizations on their behalf? Not that we can avoid it, but perhaps we can be less arrogant about it?


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 06:59 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by athena_dreaming:

So if a woman wearing a hijab tells me that doing so makes her feel strong, confident, and good, I ... shrug my shoulders and accept that what she presents as her mental state is accurate. I don't understand it, but I don't have to.

IF it is possible for a woman of our culture to take tools and symbols of the oppression of women from our history and turn in into a personal source of pleasure and strenght, why is it not possible for women from other cultures to do the same?


That's why it is better to understand it.

Because it is STILL symbol of oppression! It is STILL symbol of "religious apartheid", it is STILL symbol of ....all that I said above..., and none of them has been challenged yet!

If they want to wear, that's fine! (We should not be that stupid like some Muslims in Islamic countries to force women to wear as some of us like), but atleast it's beter to know what it represents...


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 07:11 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
Almost all the women I know who wear it (and that's quite a few by now) have no family history of it nor family encouragement to wear it, and in a lot of cases take considerable flack from family members---who also consider themselves just as Muslim!---for choosing to wear it. The most browbeating I have heard is children trying to convince their parents to wear it, or between sisters. But the caricature fightcensorship paints is probably only true in some cases--a sadly significant number of them that come from certain particular demographic groups. But not even close to universal.

I suspect neither fightcensorship nor I know all that much about every Muslim woman in North America or even in Egypt, Iran, etc, etc, despite we are the most likely ones were to be acquainted with a lot of Muslim women. Consequently, I guess both of us should perhaps be cautious in making too broad, aggressive generalizations on their behalf? Not that we can avoid it, but perhaps we can be less arrogant about it?



Good points.

Yes, my sad caricature painting as you said is sadly true!

Which one was too broad that was not corrected? I will be more than happy to do so.


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fightcensorship
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5135

posted 15 March 2004 10:46 PM      Profile for fightcensorship     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
Actually, I think we reached the Godwin's Law point a while ago.

You are right! I am sorry. It was too aggressive.


From: London | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 15 March 2004 11:07 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is too long. Maybe we could try again, with fewer exclamation points.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca