I'm pretty liberal as far as personal freedoms go, and spiritually I'm agnostic.

But, as a woman who believes in equal rights, I am upset at the sight of a female human draped in fabric so as to hide her shape, and even covering her face. All because she is a woman. That image is so striking to me; I can't help but feel that it's pure misogyny, faith or no faith.

The treatment of women in the Handmaids Tale is "faith-based", and was "for their own good", how is this any different?

I realise that Islam and fundamentalism in general is a touchy subject, which is why I'm posting this here.

I want to know, from a feminist perspective, what you all think of this.

I've cruised around on a few sites, and the reasons for wearing the hijab are varied. The last one I heard was from a teenager on Street Cents, saying that it protects her from sexual harassment and women should be modest and not flaunt themselves.

That really struck me as backward. As a feminist, this upset me.

Buuuuut, it's her faith, right? So, where do babble feminists stand on this issue?

Is this something that I could discuss with a woman the next time I see one who wears the hijab? Ask her why she personally feels the need to cover-up? I haven't seen a veiled woman without her husband, and I wouldn't be comfortable discussing it with him.

What do you all think?

http://sisters.islamway.com/article.php?sid=110

http://sisters.islamway.com/viewforum.php?forum=3

"Covering" is not only from Islam of course, here's an interesting site.

http://ice.prohosting.com/veiled/

There have been Muslim feminists who say that the reason they cover up is because it is liberating - that they are not judged by their looks, and there is not any unwanted sexual dynamics when dealing with people, male or female.

However, I'd be willing to bet the veil started out having a lot more to do with property rights (as in, don't be looking at my woman) than liberation, and in countries where the veil is mandatory, I think it's oppression. There are some Muslim women who say that they wear it because they don't want to lead men into sinful thoughts, and frankly, I think if you're wearing it for that reason, then you're allowing yourself to be oppressed by taking responsibility for the actions and feelings of other people. If you're wearing it as a constant reminder and covenant, for your own spiritual discipline, then that's different - I would be willing to consider that quite fine.

However, if it WERE just a spiritual discipline thing, then why wouldn't men cover themselves entirely too? The fact that it's only women who have to do it points, at least in my mind, to a control factor and not just a religious symbol. Especially when taken as a part of the whole religion, in which women are treated unequally in terms of inheritance and personal responsibility.

That was my question exactly, why only the women?

If it were only worn for an expression and reminder of faith, such as Sikh men wearing the turban, I wouldn't be so concerned, but all of the items I'm reading state that women must wear this stuff because they are temptresses and should not tempt men, and if they don't they will burn in hell.

This list was pretty thorough:

http://sisters.islamway.com/viewtopic.php?topic=3367&forum=3

The response he got was met with ire, but in the end, he learned that the women dress this way as an expression of their culture and faith and for the most part were not made to feel inferior because they were women. They were proud to wear the gamrents, so they said.

As for the length, my boss came back from India recently with a much more full understanding of why so many clothes. Heat. That's right, the more clothes you wear, the cooler you'll be. The clothes trap the sweat, so you stay cool. Smelly, but cool.

I think that unfortunately most major world religions share in a profound contempt for women.

quote:

---

There have been Muslim feminists who say that the reason they cover up is because it is liberating - that they are not judged by their looks, and there is not any unwanted sexual dynamics when dealing with people, male or female.

---

Good point. Yet as I see things, covering actually does not mean solving the problem of the non-stop sexualization of women, it is more the method of avoiding it. The challenge is to dress as one wants and still not to be sexualized if one doesn't want to be. To make men (and institutions) unlearn their habits of seeing. I remember from when I frequented a (Christian Orthodox) church as the choir member the dress code for women who would attend the service. Skirts above knees or short pants were strictly verboten. Because, among other things, women looking so seductively would distract men around them and prevent them from communicating with God during the service.

The sexualization of women?
Women are sexual.
Men are sexual.
Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many babies.

quote:

---

Trinity: That was my question exactly, why only the women?

---

quote:

---

Geez, we're an adolescent culture!

---

I've often thought so, myself.

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

-Women only gatherings, presence of men -even when
allowed is not wanted,
-women only support networks
-no pleasing anyone by shaving or peeling one's
hair until committed.
-no tight body hugging clothes
-no exposure of bodyparts that "distract" from looking at the chest, thighs, etc.. to focus on the brain that is at work ..adressing them.

As a man, I admit that I feel more intrigued and attracted by a woman who shows only her two eyes than by one sun-bathing in the beach.. in the nude
Much in the eyes my friends..

No wonder we can communicate with the eyes but than with breasts, buttocks and thighs...

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Riffraff ]

quote:

---

The major hurdle is the lack of education among women in Muslim countries. If you can't read the Qur'aan, you can't ask for the rights granted to you by God.

---

quote:

---

Anyone who has actually bothered to read the Qur'aan will see that women are granted equal rights and what we have come to perceive as part of Islam is actually a conscious effort by men in such societies to pervert the word of God for their own benefits.

---

Really?

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

Somehow beating your wife into submission doesn't sound like "equal rights for women" to me.

4:177. "They ask thee for a decision. Say, `ALLAH gives HIS decision concerning `Kalálah. If a man dies leaving no child and he has a sister, then she shall have half of what he leaves; and he shall inherit her if she has no child. But if there be two sisters, then they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves. And if the heirs be brethren - both men and women - then the male shall have as much as the portion of two females. ALLAH explains this to you lest you go astray and ALLAH knows all things well.'"

Men get twice as much as women for inheritance? Hmm.

4: 4. "And if you fear that you will not be just in dealing with the orphans, then marry of other women as may be agreeable to you, two, or three, or four; and if you fear you will not be able to do justice, then marry only one or marry what your right hand possess. Thus it is more likely that you will not do injustice."

Two, three, or four wives allowed per man? How many husbands are women allowed to have?

Doesn't sound very equal to me.

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]

I'm reading an AMAZING book called "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time". It's all about a guy who goes through seminary, not believing the childhood version of uncritical Christianity, and finding more and more evidence that the Jesus we learn about in church and Sunday School, and even some of the ways He is portrayed in the Bible, is not the same as the historical Jesus.

quote:

---

The rule against such dress (or lack thereof) was put in place so that young males would not be distracted in class.

---

... especially by those midriffs that are less than attractive, eh radio?

quote:

---

Males of high school age get distracted, as you put it, when the wind blows

---

I resent that!

quote:

---

A little more modesty among women (and men, for that matter) would not go amiss in this modern world

---

This idea that boys need to be protected from feminine wiles is straight from the stone age, radio. Too bad the girls aren't "protected" from the sexist messages they encounter every day in school, from teachers calling on boys more often, letting boys get away with intimidating girls with sexual or sexist comments, and the whole culture of girls as cheerleaders for boys whether in science class or football games.

quote:

---

I'll go talk to the student body and see if we can't get blinders on the whole student body.

---

But then we wouldn't be able to see any part of the whole student bawww...

quote:

---

Ahem. Right. Carry on, then.

---

Now you sound freakily like my corps CO.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: SamL ]

Show kids something and tell them it is tres cool.
Then tell them they can't have it because it is naughty. Go ahead and make a rule about it and then complain about the parents ignoring what their children do.

In the 60s and 70s it was those damn long hairs causing all the problems in school. We all know that lead to tight jeans. Then they cut those legs off of them pants in the summer and caused a whole generation of kids to grow up ignorant.

Now it is those bare bellys.

When the suffrage movement heated up (it was actually, in some respects, already very old) in the early 20th century, women were expected to be very covered up, and some felt pretty rebellious about the confining garments that women wore. Bloomer girls ring any bells, here? Completely scandalous in their day.

Muslim or not, we have unhealthy attitudes about bodies. Covering them up isn't going to help. Comments like this:

quote:

---

...whether or not those midriffs are in the least attractive.

---

This is just demeaning. That we still have to stack (so to speak) up to some arbitrary standard of what is attractive or not, that some may have the right to be bare and others do not.... This is just sickening.

Nobody has the right to tell you what to do with your own body. You can cover it up, go bare, or any degree in between and nobody should be allowed to impose their views on you one way or the other.

Edited to add:

At least I've got a good reason for having stretch marks....

And I'd defend Harper's right to bare his boobs any time he wants to.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]

quote:

---

All I have to say is going about half naked with faces painted like clowns is not what the women who began the suffrage movement had in mind.

---

No; they wanted and got the vote. Good for them. Some also had what we'd now consider rather curious ideas; that since women were naturally nurturing and maternal, society would be kinder and gentler with universal suffrage. That didn't work out as planned; or if it did, it was in most unexpected ways.

The point is that we can't expect the goals of the feminist movement, or any movement, to be limited to those of the founders. Movements evolve, and people discover they want different things. Women later discovered, among other perhaps more urgent matters (equal pay, being able to work at any profession, being able to run for office, etc.) that they wanted the freedom to dress as they liked; a freedom they gained, in some measure. Good for them, again. (Though I have to admit that my interest in this isn't purely unselfish... )

Anybody with man-boobs that sway in the breeze AND wears shag-rug for a shirt is scary.

quote:

---

Are they all aspiring Brittany Spears?

---

B R I T N E Y, goddamnit.

quote:

---

And as far as beating your wife to submission, the hadith on the matter is: a person came to the prophet to ask him for his interpretation on the matter of "slapping" the wife if she does not follow the way of god. The prophet was brushing his teeth at the time and when asked what should be used to "slap" the wife, he said "with this" meaning his toothbrush. This clearly demonstrates a symbolic gesture on the part of the husband.

---

Okay, that's fine. So what this comes down to is the argument, "Well, it doesn't say he's supposed to beat her HARD. It's just supposed to be a symbolic punishment."

The point I was making is, you were saying that women and men have equality in the Koran. The amount of force the man is allowed to use against his wife is immaterial; the fact that he is considered the one in charge is enough inequality. Couple that with sexist inheritance laws (a woman's economic position has a heck of a lot to do with how independent she is), and I'm not seeing a heck of a lot of equality for women going on.

It doesn't matter whether Mohammad said to beat a woman severely, or chastise her with a feather. The point is, a husband shouldn't be dominating his wife at all.

As for your claim that only Islam gets singled out for claims of sexism - please! Christianity has tons of critics, particularly feminists, who are all over them about sexist verses out of the Bible, sexist cultural practices among the more devout Christians, and sexist religious doctrines. In fact, I've been one of the most vocal critics around babble regarding sexism in Christian churches, because I have first-hand experience in that regard.

Judaism? Just recently in another thread I listed quotes from the Torah where women get stoned for being raped in a town (she should have screamed loud enough for people to hear her) or for not being a virgin when she is married. I don't like sexism no matter WHAT religion it comes from. The reason I quoted the Koran is because you specifically said that the Koran advocates equality between men and women. I hear this all the time, and see it all the time on the internet, and frankly, I think it's as much a load of baloney as it is to claim that the Bible and Torah are great works of feminist literature.

And besides, using the excuse, "Everyone else does it!" is not a good defence. I'm willing to allow that these books were written in sexist times and they reflect the culture of the time. But in all three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, you still see their adherents today acting out the sexism that has become part of the traditions, and to say that they have no basis in the religious scriptures is wrong. Sure, maybe more liberal theologians can get around those sexist passages and explain them away, or find reasons not to adhere to them - and I'm all for that, believe me! But those conservative religious people who do act out the sexism aren't doing it in a vacuum - there is significant scriptural support for what they do.

quote:

---

As far as men protecting women, this is a reality which is evident even today with special provisions required to protect women from men who are not muslims but enlightened westerners.

---

Again, I say - oh please. I've got news for you - I've seen and heard enough yelling, smacking, and plain disrespect from Muslim husbands toward their wives, to know that it's not just "enlightened westerners" that pose a threat to women. I worked with several Iranian women who told me horror stories about their past marriages to men who treated them like crap. I was married to an Iranian man who treated ME like crap. So this idea that women only need protection from westerners and not Muslims is ridiculous. And before you freak out on me, I'm not saying all Muslim or Middle Eastern men are abusive. I'm simply responding to your implication that it is only westerners who are abusive.

Basically, women need protection from ANY man who treats them badly, whether they are Muslim or Christian or European or Middle Eastern or whatever. There are lots of western men who are nasty and abusive, and there are lots of middle eastern men who are. On the other hand, one of the nicest husbands I've ever known is this one Palestinian guy who lives near me.

You know how women can be best protected from men who would hurt them? By having equal rights, equal opportunity, and no financial, religious, or legal dependence on their fathers or husbands once they are adults. This idea that "we protect our women for their own good because other men might hurt them" is just another way for men to objectify women - it sounds to me more like protecting property rights (don't hurt "our" women) than encouraging autonomy for women.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

the hadith on the matter is: a person came to the prophet to ask him for his interpretation on the matter of "slapping" the wife if she does not follow the way of god. The prophet was brushing his teeth at the time and when asked what
should be used to "slap" the wife, he said "with this" meaning his toothbrush. This clearly demonstrates a symbolic gesture on the part of the husband.

---

So if the wife doesn't do what the man who wrote the book says then another man should beat her.
Why would a god need to beat anyone into servatude? Further, why would a god even care if people were subserviant to it or not?

God schmod, Slick Willy sez quit hitting eachother. Let women walk where ever the hell they want to and get about taking care of your own business.

Quoting Zoot:
--------------------------------------------------...whether or not those midriffs are in the least attractive. (forget who the initial quote was by...)
--------------------------------------------------
"This is just demeaning. That we still have to stack (so to speak) up to some arbitrary standard of what is attractive or not, that some may have the right to be bare and others do not.... This is just sickening."

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

Maybe it would just be better all around if people worried what was on the next person's mind than what was on their belly. Or man boobs as the case may be.

There ar eplenty of examples all over the world were people of various states of undress draw no more attention than a baseball cap. Over here we make it a big deal because we are told to cover up so that we don't influence those of us who can't manage to get over the idea that the body is bad.

A big fat tanned motherfucker is has more appeal than the fishbelly white one.

Think about it. You come into this world naked infront of a bunch of strangers. Next thing you know someone shoves a breast in your face and says enjoy. After that it's a year or two of people taking your drawers down and playing with your shit.

Then the next thing you know, the moment you strip off and run around the yard, everyone has a knyption fit. And that's it for the rest of your life.

quote:

---

Well, Zoot, I agree that people, be they men or women, have the right to do whatever they want, but there is a question of taste...

---

There I would agree with you -- there is that question of taste. On the other hand, one can display bad taste as easily fully clothed as one can in any stage of undress. And there's very little that one can do about it.

I'm in my late 30s and have had 2 babies -- let's face it, my belly's not so trim as it once was. Will I let it prevent me from wearing a bikini? Depends on the day. Would it be in "bad taste" for me to wear a bikini? I don't think so. And I kind of resent the idea that somebody else's notion of taste should dictate what I wear. Snigger at me if you will, but don't fence me in!

But then, I'm something of an exhibitionist....

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]

quote:

---

Then the next thing you know, the moment you strip off and run around the yard, everyone has a knyption fit. And that's it for the rest of your life.

---

quote:

---

Man those where the days! In 65 I thought that women had far to much power. I fought the good fight and all but I found at every turn that it was a woman keeping me down. Not only that but once I found effective ways to fight the corupt female regime, towering male goons were brought in to squash any resistance. Yes yes it was not until the summer of 67 when I ran away from home to the back yard that real negotiation began where later bedtimes and less brussel sprouts became something real to hang on to. But the most important aspects of the "movement" came when supervised tubbies were found to be unjust and showering solo became the rage for many an oppressed kid.

---

quote:

---

I must often enforce the proscription the school has on the exposure of too much flesh in school. I refer here especially to navels and breasts (although the latter is not [are not?] specifically mentioned in the rules). Too many schoolgirls go around with their midriffs exposed, whether or not those midriffs are in the least attractive. The rule against such dress (or lack thereof) was put in place so that young males would not be distracted in class.

Some of these girls, in spite of repeated warnings, continue to offend.

---

. . .and to register my absolute disgust that he prefaced these offensive comments with "As a male high school teacher,"

quote:

---

Too many schoolgirls go around with their midriffs exposed,

---

Oh no!!! Not a... bellybutton!

quote:

---

whether or not those
midriffs are in the least attractive.

---

I think this comment is in extremely bad taste. You're darn lucky your students visit this board (that is, if they don't), because it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility, and I assume they might be a bit shocked at this kind of comment from one of their teachers.

quote:

---

radio: The rule against such dress (or lack thereof) was put
in place so that young males would not be distracted in class.

-------------------------

'lance: Give us a break. Males of high school age get distracted, as you put it, when the wind
blows.

---

Right on, 'lance. Personally, I've never actually observed a fellow highschool male be distracted by some girl's navel. At least not obviously. And if it weren't the navel that were distracting them, it'd be the booger they just plucked from their nose with the end of their pencil (yes, school can be depressing like that sometimes...).

quote:

---

I resent that!

---

well, even though it doesn't apply to everyone, as far as generalizations go, it is one of the more accurate

quote:

---

This idea that boys need to be protected from feminine wiles is straight from the stone
age, radio.

---

quote:

---

But the guys, from what I can tell, are more concerned with skateboarding and getting drunk than any midriff in the room.

---

You may be right, although it could also be that they're too cool to let on. That's how it was when I were a lad, anyhow.

I can't describe the feeling of walking "bare-backed" through a west coast forest on a hot day. It would be a lot more comfortable if there were more people like the couple I mentioned above.

The only thing wrong with older men going topless is it scares the little children and confuses the babies.

It's amazing what we can all learn from each other on religion and culture- Especially on how decency can evolve from it!

My mother in-law took me to a concert about a month ago held by the Bahai CommunityWORLD Religions - Just scroll down to Bahai's.

Anyway, they hosted a performance by the "Wild Fire Dance Theatre", (Did search but-No Link) which is a group of youth from different countries that get together for nine months and perform stage dances,acting, and singing, on social justice issues.

They are Amazing!

Their performance on all the different religions comes to mind when I read this thread.

In this particular performance, their costumes inclided: Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Agnostics, and so on... - What was so breath-taking about it was the way their dance illustrated how religions tend to clash and isolate people from each other...killing each other until there was nothing left...until they were all dead and useless.

But then God arrives and carresses each religion. After this, the different religions rise and dance with each other in such harmony so that only beauty is projected.

WOW!! I will definately see this group again!

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Anuri ]

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Anuri ]

quote:

---

Ah, yes, wonderful. Even in this bold new century, teenage girls continue to be told by male authority figures that their bodies are sinful and bad. And when they're not that, they're ugly. Great.

---

How does a classroom full of Britney Spears and Spice Girls lookalikes foster positive body reinforcement?

quote:

---

Canadian schools should move back to school uniforms. The school enviroment should be more focused on developing young minds, ideas, socialization, and personalities rather than allowing obsessions with bodies, sex, and materialism (designer labels etc.)to run unchecked.

---

quote:

---

How does a classroom full of Britney Spears and Spice Girls lookalikes foster positive body reinforcement?

---

"Positive body reinforcement" is up to the grils and their parents, surely?

Unless of course you think schools should all be boarding schools or the equivalent, with the teachers given nearly complete authority to act in loco parentis?

But apparently you do, viz.:

quote:

---

Canadian schools should move back to school uniforms. The school enviroment should be more focused on developing young minds, ideas, socialization, and personalities rather than allowing obsessions with bodies, sex, and materialism (designer labels etc.)to run unchecked.

---

I see a contradiction, incidentally, between "developing young minds [and] ideas," i.e. developing the capacity for independent thinking, and "socialization."

And I'm probably a bit out of it at my age (and gender), but I'd have thought the Spice Girls were so 1997, already.

[edited to correct reference to previous poster]

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

How does a classroom full of Britney Spears and Spice Girls lookalikes foster positive body reinforcement?

---

Whether or not these girls were emulating pop culture icons was not what radio the school-teacher objected to: it was merely the fact that their bodies were on display--he said so. That was what pissed me off about his post.

quote:

---

The school enviroment should be more focused on developing young minds, ideas,
socialization, and personalities rather than allowing obsessions with bodies, sex, and materialism (designer labels etc.)to run unchecked.

---

The school environment is set by the Principal, Teachers and Parents. Often the feel of a school is an extension of the personalities that influence them most. When all three of these groups work together the students, for the most part, feel this very strongly and respond in a very positive manner.

When even one part of this collaboration fails it can change the feel of a school.

When a school is warm friendly and welcoming, kids find better rolemodels to follow rather than only what they see on tv.

Along with this trio any adult who has something to share with a younger generation would find it rewarding to approach some parent council members and ask about volunteering. Even if it is a one off thing, there is a good chance that you will spark something in one kid and who knows where that can lead.

quote:

---

'lance, it was sheep who wrote that stuff you quoted, not radio...

---

quote:

---

Yeah! Yell at the right person would ya?

---

Ahem. Sorry about that. I've edited my post to correct that error.

quote:

---

Women spend their lives figuring out ways to make themselves more attractive to men,

---

I will fight to my last breath to ensure that those sentiments and attitudes don't rise to power in this hell-bound western country.

quote:

---

We won't hear any more from Muhammed.

---

ALLAHU AKBAR! ALLAHU AKBAR!

it goes without saying that i think that this dude is a total prick. and it looks like i'm going to have to do some damage control here, in my capacity as Babble's official moderate muslim (rep-ra-ZENT!)....

first of all, the sayings of prophet Muhammad cited by our fundie friend are problematic. note that the Hadiith or Sunna of the Prophet, which are accepted by the vast majority of Muslims, are not the Qur'an. the Qur'aan according to Islam is the word of God as communicated to the prophet Muhammad (salli'llahu 'alayhi wa sallama), and belief in the Qur'aan is, i think, implicit in the shahaada or declaration of faith ("there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet). the shahaada is the one (and only?) thing that defines Islam across all of the denominational borders, therefore it's tough--more or less impossible--to have Islam without the Qur'an. literal readings of the Qur'an are extremely problematic, as Michelle has intelligently pointed out. i'll get back to that....

the Hadiith, on the other hand, have zero status in any notion of shari`a whatsoever, in my opinion, and i dare any orthodox Muslim to debate that. as long as you are a Muslim--that is, you accept the shahaada--it follows that the Qur'an is legitimate; questions of authorship, etc simply don't come into play because you've already declared your faith. thus the Qur'an is undeniably the source of shari`a--not a source, the source. there is no need, and in fact no sanction for supplement that is not fiqh. or Qur'anic interpretation. (and i consider myself quite orthodox in saying this). therefore the hadiith are irrelevant as shari`a, except where it they are clearly fiqh (many hadiith that i've seen are not), and even then, they are merely the fiqh (allegedly) of the Prophet, who, indeed, was a human being, and sometimes messed up, as the Qur'an itself states explicitly.

the other problem--and this is massive--is that the hadiith were not sanctioned by the Qur'an, and the recording of the hadiith did not occur within the Prophet's lifetime, but a few generations afterwards. many hadiith are clearly and acceptedly false, and many others are open to question due to faulty asnaad (sing. sanad) or chains of transmission, i.e., "he said that she said that he heard that she said that the Prophet said this." broken telephone. if you were senile or mischievous, mythocentric or politically motivated, you could basically get anything in there by attributing to Muhammad. so much for using the hadiith to justify an anti-feminist shari`a.

so, to me the idea of fiqh (which is all that shari`a really is) from any source other than the Qur'aan is ludicrous. so, what we have left to deal with is the Qur'an itself. again, Michelle pointed to Qur'anic verses that have been translated and interpreted in an anti-feminist manner, and she is right in criticising the translations. but she also makes this point:

quote:

---

more liberal theologians can get around those sexist passages and explain them away, or find reasons not to adhere to them - and I'm all for that, believe me!

---

in dealing with the Qur'an itself as scripture, here's a verse that i like a great deal:

quote:

---

قل لو كان البحر مداد لكلامت ربي لنفد البحر قبل ان تنفد كلامت ربي

say: if the sea became ink for the words of my Lord, the sea would be used up before the words of my Lord.

---

i believe the Bible (or is it the Midraashiim?) says something similar. the Qur'an turned me off majorly at a time when i was reading it literally. it wasn't until i began to seriously deal with literature that i realised what a text might actually be underneath the dogmatic literal level. orthodox Muslims attack those of us who say that the Qur'an is subject to human interpretation--that it's a dynamic palimpsest, a source of inspiration rather than a static text, and that fiqh is more of an art than a science. the reasoning goes that saying that we mere human beings can "twist" the Qur'an trivialises the Holy Book and effaces its sanctity. but what's more awe-inspiring, more sacrosanct than a text filled with infinite potential--a discourse greater than the sea, as the Qur'an says?

of course, in order for us to make fiqh understandable to ourselves as well as to others, we need to consciously operate within certain limits, certain cages, such as reason. the point is that every suura of the Qur'an can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, IMO, and a revolutionary, rational feminist fiqh is what Muslim feminism needs right now. i, a male, certainly have views on gender issues in the Qur'an, and perhaps my voicing them would help, but ultimately i think it's up to the Muslimahs themselves to wrest their religion back from Islamic patriarchy and from non-Muslim literalism (academic/media/popular). no one can speak for them.

i understand that a Muslim scholar is currently working on the first English translation of the Qur'an written by a woman. i've heard that her translation will be just the kind of feminist fiqh that i was talking about. i hope so.

one thing...i can't force you guys to believe in my dichotomy between religion as a reservoir of potential, and religion as it's practised by the orthodox, but i've appreciate it if you'd distinguish between "Islam" and "Qur'anic interpretation" or something like that. i'm both Muslim, and feminist, Muslim, and queer-positive, and though it's radical in some ways (esp. the second) i don't see any contradiction there. so the idea that "Islam" can be nothing more than orthodox or historical interpretation and practise disturbs me. if it were Rabid Gerbil or Ian Fleming saying this, i'd tear into them, but coming from friends, i can understand that it isn't meant to be hurtful.

anyhow, on the fundamental question, as i said, there's no way i can speak for muslimahs, but i think it's a matter of how much freedom of choice you're exercising--and how much pressure is being put on you by your paranoid orthodox parents or peers, or by a masculine culture that values your sex appeal over your being. anyhow, i'm dead tired, my stroke-of-midnigh bagel is waiting on top of my Qur'an, and i've already said something on the Hijab - liberation or subjugation? thread. sorry if this post is at all incoherent....

quote:

---

I'm not totally comfortable with the notion that one can simply discard them from a discussion of Islamic law.

---

sure, that's cool; i understand your discomfort. i'm not saying (or, at least, i hope i didn't say) that the hadiith are completely irrelevant when it comes to islamic law. what i am saying is that the Qur'an is the only legitimate source of islamic law. i.e., a hadiith is at best an example of prophetic fiqh, not a legal article.

quote:

---

I think the problem with dispensing with the Hadith is that they give us the sorts of contexts in which the Qu'ran is to be interpreted, historically. Many things in the Qu'ran make more sense if you have at least some idea of the conditions under which they were revealed

---

there's no question that the hadiith can often help to put Qur'anic verses into historical context, and moderate muslim scholars can often commandeer this context to effect a more reasonable fiqh. this is commendable, and necessary, given the nature of our general understanding of history. on a deeper level though, there's the question, for instance, of whether the Qur'an (or any text) is absolutely moored to its historical context--and therefore to history as we pragmatically and unproblematically conceive of it. when we begin to problematise historiography, linear history, or history period, we run into problems with that kind of contextualisation. so, while it can be useful, it's also deeply problematic. i believe that on some level all texts--especially scriptural texts--exist independently of the logos that we construct to contain them.

anyhow, we don't really seem to disagree on this. you can certainly enrich fiqh by factoring in historical context from the hadiith without elevating the hadiith themselves to the level of shari`a, which is what i'm opposing.

quote:

---

I remember many arguments for the importance of the example of the Prophet

---

i don't mean to belittle the sunna. the sunna provides us with an idealised role model in Hazrat Rasuul-e-Akram, and indeed whether the sunna is veritable or not matters less than whether or not our construction of the Prophet is worthy of emulation. but again, i have a problem with elevating the sunna to the level of shari`a or islamic law, which to me implies the things that are agreed to be mandatory for the maintenance of a muslim identity. you can walk the Prophet's walk, talk the Prophet's talk, and generally follow his fashion, but these things shouldn't be compulsory. there's the argument about the Prophet being the Perfect Man, which i don't buy; it seems like something of a contradiction in terms. i mean, the idea that he was perfect seems to belie the fact that he was human, and after all, Allah rebukes Muhammad in the Qur'an for messing up a couple of times (the most poetic example being the first few lines of Suuratu'l-`Abasa).

quote:

---

You're only allowed to read the Qu'ran once? Then how is it that so many people have memorized passages from it? I have met people who have entire sections from it memorized.

---

LOL!...no, of course you can read the Qur'an more than once...though perhaps there might be a crazy sect somewhere that prohibits it ...hmmmm....

what i meant by "re-reading" was actually "reinterpreting"...i'm just too used to using the words interchangeably, i guess, as in, "how do you read the situation?"

and, yes, many people have actually memorised the entire Qur'an, often at a very early age. we have to be able to remember one or two of the short chapters, at least, because the ritual prayer involves the recitation of a suura (chapter) of your choice. my teacher only managed to pound a few short suuras into my head; each about the length of the Lord's Prayer.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Mohamad Khan ]

Personally, I don't think memorizing scripture verses is a very effective way of becoming a better Muslim, Christian, Jew, etc. There is a bit of a "back to basics" move in the more evangelical churches like the one I go to, to get the kids to start memorizing certain passages of scripture again, like John 3:16, Psalm 23, etc. I remember at the time thinking, well, that's a neat parlour trick, but I don't really think it does much for a kid. Later in life those passages may come to mind, but really, if you're interested in the Bible and in studying your religion, you will do it whether you memorize scripture or not. I've read the whole Bible, and I am pretty familiar with most of the stories in it, etc. Usually when people ask about a story, I know where to find it. But I've only got maybe 3 or 4 verses memorized, and that has just been from hearing them repeated over and over at church.

I was talking to a friend yesterday and we both walked away from Christianity for the same reason -- We cannot live within a religion whose dogma accepts women only as second class citizens.

I don't think Islam is really much different in their dogma or treatment of women. They are second to men in all things.

quote:

---

personally, I think a lot of Christians (I don't know about Muslims) are more into book worship than God worship.

---

you're absolutely right; most religious Muslims treat the book as though it were a god itself, to the point, i think, where they're half-afraid to touch it. personally, i've used it as a coaster for my teacup, trampled it underfoot and fallen asleep on it. what good is it if you turn it into a household deity instead of reading it?

quote:

---

How can it be the "living word" if interpretations and scholarship are not encouraged,

---

absolutely...

quote:

---

and the effort is to keep every single word of it the same as it was 2000 years ago, not taking into account the evolving nature of culture and politics and human enlightenment?

---

i think that you're either saying that a) we shouldn't try to keep the words "the same" in that we should redirect the signifiers to new signifieds, or possibly b) that we shouldn't try to keep the words, the signifiers themselves, the same as they supposedly were 2000 years ago.

with a) i agree wholeheartedly; the effort is ridiculous precisely because we don't even have any clear idea of what those signifiers pointed to 2000 years ago, so how can we match them up again now? but as for b), i'd say that the problem lies with the signified and not really with the scriptural signifiers, which are ultimately nothing (or, rather, they are so over-reachingly everything that they are nothing). the nature of scripture in the Abrahamic religions (or at least in Islam and Judaism) is such that the signifier is divine and unmoveable--but the same has never applied to the signifieds, which have changed radically over the centuries, despite the literalists' fancies.

quote:

---

To me, it doesn't matter whether you make scripture "dead" by writing it down and insisting on never changing it, or by memorizing the exact words and never changing it - that to me is not a word of God that is living and dynamic, and relevant to new stages of human thought and culture. When something is preserved, never to be changed, that is more dead than alive to me.

---

again, if by never changing it, you mean never changing the interpretation, i agree, although i don't think that literature is ever "dead" simply by virtue of its being written down. on the contrary, it never dies as long as somebody is reading it, because its meaning never remains static from person to person or from moment to moment.

quote:

---

In my heart, I know the veil is a symbol of my dignity and value. The veil offers me protection from ogling men.

---

this christian pro-veiling woman seems to argue along the same lines that radio was when he wrote

quote:

---

The rule against such dress (or lack thereof) was put in place so that young males would not be distracted in class.

---

what's with that?! i'm with alix on women covering up:

quote:

---

it puts the responsibility on the woman for the man's thoughts or desires.

---