quote:

---

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

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

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

THE CANADIAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS
MEDIA COMMUNIQUE

October 14, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To learn more about Islamic History Month Canada visit:
www.islamichistorymonth.com

For more information about CIC visit:
www.canadianislamiccongress.com

CONTACTS:

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

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

I'll tell you what I think:

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

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Why is it "disgusting"?

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

At your service!

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Mona

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

it is nowhere present in the true religion of Islam

---

quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Shura 24:13 is about adultery not rape, and means that if one person accuses another of adultery, they must produce "four witnesses" in support of the accussation.

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

the star

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

searchable Koran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

No one "called" for this.

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

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

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

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

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

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Proletariat ]

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

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

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

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

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

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

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

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

She says this about that:

quote:

---

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

---

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

Fundamentally it has nothing really to do with traditional Islam.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Look at this from far above:

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proletariat:
That's transgendered to you bitch!!!

---

quote:

---

That's transgendered to you bitch!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
If someone were to write misinformed things about Jews here that spread disinformation tailored to promote intollerance, I would feel obliged to respond.

---

There's a rather large gulf between writing "misinformed things about Jews" and "writing misinformed things about Judaism".

I think Islam - like Judaism and Christianity and all the rest - is a superstition not worthy of rational human consumption. That's just my opinion.

But even if someone doesn't share my opinion, why would progressive people waste two seconds defending the doctrine of any religion? Why not do as we do in the trade union movement and ban discussion of religion in our meetings, because it's inherently divisive and has nothing to do with our common cause?

That two mens' discussion is described as a "pissing match" is insulting and carries a man-hating tone, in my opinion.

It invited a response for which, it appears, the poster has been suspended or banned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bliter:
I shall not be so cowed as to not comment.

---

Now, isn't that a lovely example of entrenched societal male superiority notions.

quote:

---

That two mens' discussion is described as a "pissing match" is insulting and carries a man-hating tone, in my opinion.

---

Well, that would be your opinion and nothing more than that. Furthermore, your calling me a man-hater is beyond belief, especially in the feminist forum.

quote:

---

It invited a response for which, it appears, the poster has been suspended or banned.

---

It was not an invitation to respond, it was a statement of their needing to stop, as the men dominating the thread had been asked to do numerous times.

quote:

---

If input from males is not wanted in the Feminist forum, should it not be clearly stated?

---

A couple of gentlemen here have gone off on tangents which while they may be interesting in themselves are peripheral to the original post. Maybe start a thread elsewhere and knock yourselves out.

A reminder from writer which is still timely...

quote:

---

Okay, folks. I started this thread in the feminism forum for a few reasons.
One of them was to ensure that it did not become over-run by the opinions of men. Especially when it comes to opinions about women's oppression here in North America.

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

Many thanks.

---

quote:

---

I shall not be so cowed as to not comment.

---

“Cowed”? How cute, I could just bite your head off.

So I will.

Nothing in this thread invited sexist remarks like “bitch” or “cowed” or accusations of man-hating. Michelle, who is the mod by the way, articulated the situation quite clearly, no inviting was done. But here you are forcing your opinions on us.

Babble is a progressive space, and truly progressive men get that they shouldn’t talk over women’s voices on women’s issues and take it with grace if called on getting to carried away with their need to debate. It’s not rocket science on how discourse about Feminist issues should be conducted, women talking about themselves get priority. They are kind of default experts on their own experiences. The only people who don’t get it and need it spelled out don’t belong here in the first place.

When women want/try to discuss something, especially between women of different cultures, men just take over the whole discourse, and take it in their own direction and it keeps happening time and again, as this time it is different somehow.

Then women do not bother continued discussion and the thread dies, with so much left unsaid between the women who had been participating.

I mean, is it an unconscious action of dominance and control, or an active action? Because it just keeps on happening even by long term community members here.

Frankly, I want to hear what Mona, and other Muslim women have to say about this and their ideals of modesty and where they come from, and how wearing a hijab prevents them from being objectified, or how it is helping their own perceptions of not being objectified because of it.

And I want hear what other, non-Muslim, women think about this and how they feel. And how they feel about "modesty" and what it is exactly to them.

Does covering up preventing men's gaze falling upon mean controlling one's persona/body, or does it mean something else?

Edited cause I did not really want to know why it is men keeep on doing it.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Thanks oldgoat, and scout well put.

But really, I want to know, why is it when women want to discuss something, especially between women of different cultures, men just take over the whole discourse, and take it in their own direction?

Then women do not bother continued discussion and the thread dies, with so much left unsaid between the women who had been participating.

I mean, is it an unconscious action of dominance and control, or an active action? Because it just keeps on happening even by long term community members here.

Frankly, I want to hear what Mona, and other Muslim women have to say about this and their ideals of modesty and where they come from, and how wearing a hijab prevents them from being objectified, or how it is helping their own perceptions of not being objectified because of it.

And I want hear what other, non-Muslim, women think about this and how they feel. And how they feel about "modesty" and what it is exactly to them.

Does covering up preventing men's gaze falling upon mean controlling one's persona/body, or does it mean something else?

---

I can certainly see how "covering up" could be empowering and could help with the whole objectification thing. I think there are some troubling aspects. For example, sometimes (only sometimes, note) I think the status quo is simply accepted - what about changing a society that objectifies women? And sometimes (again, only sometimes, because I have seen muslims make this very point) I think insufficient allowance is made for cultural differences - in western cultures, uncovered hair does not have the meaning it does in some other cultures, just as uncovered breasts have a different significance in different parts of the world. (In fact, if you allow for cultural differences, I do "cover up". In my culture, though, that doesn't mean covering my hair. But I realize that it does in other cultures, and in those cultures, I would cover my hair.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
I can certainly see how "covering up" could be empowering and could help with the whole objectification thing.

---

Seriously, I can't, for me it is like the old days when women were accused for being their own instruments of why they were raped, because of the way they were dressed, or not dressed.

quote:

---

I think there are some troubling aspects. For example, sometimes (only sometimes, note) I think the status quo is simply accepted - what about changing a society that objectifies women?

---

Agree with you, and it is my perception, accent on my perception, that women are objectified, no matter their dress, just for differing, or perhaps the similar reasons.

quote:

---

(In fact, if you allow for cultural differences, I do "cover up". In my culture, though, that doesn't mean covering my hair. But I realize that it does in other cultures, and in those cultures, I would cover my hair.)

---

Granted, and agreed one should follow cultural lines when in and amongst those of a different culture who are the hosts, for a short period of time.

quote:

---

On the other hand, I think that muslims (and others) who point out that the way western women are compelled (and it is "compelled") to dress is objectifying are absolutely correct.

---

I can understand how different people might and do view covering up as empowering, but for me, I just don't. Likewise, I don't think dressing in next to nothing is empowering. Either way women go we are damned if we do and damed if we don't.

Rather, a survey of religions throughout the world indicate not that the doctrines are determined by the ideology inherent in the text, but that they actually are an expression of the cultural norms of the society in which the religion is being practiced. In other words the text is deemed to mean what is commonplace in prevailing cultural attitudes, and at the service of the privilege.

This discussion is often framed as a dichotomy of the religious vs. the secular, but one can actually see the same processes take place in so-called secular societies as well. The creation of a parliment invoking seperation of church and state did not automatically liberate women, and in fact women had to struggle variously against the prevailing cultural norms that protected privilege to establish themselves as fully entitled persons in society and it was nearly one hundred years in Canada before sex discrimination was outlawed in the constitution.

We can see this all over the world, sexist traditions being authorized by "secular" authorities, and even left-wing ones. Daniel Ortega and his Sandanistas are standing firmly against abortion. Russia during the Soviet period, despite the official imposition of socialist non-sexist norms, was often quite sexist in many ways, in tune with Russian cultural traditions.

Guess what? Stalin was not only a tyrant, but he was also sexist, even though he was totally anti-religious.

On the other hand we can also see numerous cases where some religious doctrines expressly assert non-sexist interpretations of their text, against traditions, such as the early Quakers (Margaret Fell) or more recently in the Canadian United Church. Likewise there are numerous Islamic sects which lionize women, against local tradition, such as the Sufis of Herat.

The biologist who ran Saddam Hussein's bio-weapons program, wore Hijab.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The problem is Cueball, that religion in all it's forms has been used to keep women down. That's fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
The problem is sexism. Period. If that sexism comes from religious texts, it is not out of bounds and I won't have anyone determine for me when and how I am other women are to define what sexism is, and when and what sources it derives from.

---

How many women lead the CIC? I see women's names at the end of this callout, but what I want to know is, how many women have real power in that organization? Precious few, I see. One, by my count.

How many women have real power and real leadership positions in mosques? I'm not talking token positions (I know all about those, having been a churchgoer long enough) but actual real positions of power.

I know that she is not restricted to publishing on "womens issues", that much I can say. I find her regressive , frankly in a lot of ways, (even racist in fact -- she claims that Jews invented racism through the concept of "chosen people") but she does not appear to be "voiceless," or particularly restricted in what she can talk about (from the CIC Web site):

For example: Living Conditions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank -- Wahida C.Valiante

MANAGING ISLAM'S CIVIL WAR? Wahida C.Valiante

That said Elmasry is definitely the head honcho.

There seems to be a lot of talk about obsequious Muslim women going around, but from what I can see Monia Mazig, the Khadr mother and Valiante don't seem to fit the stereotype, despite the fact that they all wear distinctly Muslim dress.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

If you think someone trying to respectively engage with you about what is an is not sexist, and how sexism is expressed in ideologies, including religious ideologies, and interpret such as "telling" you what to think, then there is really no point in discussing it. I agree.

---

Well, you sure put me in my place. You weren't talking down to me (or us) after all with this:

quote:

---

The problem is not pointing out sexism in religious doctrine. The problem is asserting that those concepts, which are largely interpretted from the traditions and texts of those doctrines, are necessarily concretely embeded in the docterine by the authority of the text.

---

Which is essentially a tautological proposition. What are you saying? We are reading sexism into things where sexism does not exist? Can you break this down in plain English here? Because the sentence makes no sense. What "authority" of the text? The reader, the interpreter? What? Who? Who is asserting what concepts where and when?

BTW, just to be clear, my problem isn't so much with the manner of dress (because I know there are lots of strong women who choose to cover for reasons other than the usual patriarchal ones) - my problem is with who is requesting it of us and why. That matters. In this case, it sounds like a pretty conservative religious organization is trying to appeal to left-wing women with anti-oppression principles to don traditional religious garb. It feels like a trick. It matters who asks. I might feel differently if it was an anti-racist feminist women's group asking us to show solidarity in order to protest some sort of injustice (like, say, if they were to make veil-wearing illegal, or, say, forced Muslim women to unveil for bus drivers and polling station clerks).

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:

Which is essentially a tautological proposition. What are you saying? We are reading sexism into things where sexism does not exist? Can you break this down in plain English here? Because the sentence makes no sense. What "authority" of the text? The reader, the interpreter? What? Who? Who is asserting what concepts where and when?

Break it down hammer!

---

What I am saying is that I agree that sexism is the problem. I am going on to say that there is no way of showing that it is a problem specific to religious ideologies, or more prevalent there.

You seem to think that it is. Was the stratified male/female roll-modelling in national Socialist Germany authorized by religion? Not really. Did women automatically get voting parity with the seperation of church and state? No. Was Soviet society non-sexist? No.

Am I, a person who is avowedly agnostic, and completely a-religious not being accused of latently sexist attitudes completely seperate from my beliefs, right here and now? Yes I am.

It seems you both think it is perfectly possible for sexist attitudes to be latently expressed regardless of ideology or belief. Yet somehow at the same time, you (Stargazer) think that religions are particularly prone to sexism.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
So, Cueball, it sounds to me like you're describing the Muslim equivalent of Phyllis Schlafly. It's amazing how patriarchal organizations and religions can find so many women willing to oppress their sisters in order to get positive strokes from the guys in charge.

---

Sure possibly. However, my point is that this phenom appears neither less nor more among Muslim women than Christian women, or women from the rest of secular society. There is nothing particularly Muslim about it. For instance Anita Bryant.

On the other hand the opposite seems also to be true, so we have Monia Mazig, for example, and numerous other women who are Muslim, who wear Muslim dress, and express much more Liberal ideas, and are quite vocal as well, though the media seems to pay much less attention to them.

Maliah Chisti comes to mind.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Capitalism is inherently sexist. Does that make you feel better? Should I just stop with the religious context now? Will that make you feel better?

This thread has been rife not just with the idea that religion is a more sexist paradigm that "secular" ideologies, but even that Islam is more inherently sexist than Christianity.

Here one person in the conversation did not simply say, "oh I think its silly for the CIC to ask for non-Muslim women to wear pink Hijab", they went on to say that Muslim people "promoting" their religion with non-Muslim women was "disgusting."

Lots of religions cross promote their icons. Nothing unusual about it, nor is it particularly "disgusting," IMO.

To me this just looks like the CIC trying to "normalize" themselves in a Canadian context, by attaching themselves to a popular cause. It is a very typical kind of manipulative populist branding used by all kinds of organizations.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Proletariat stated clear falsehoods, such as that Sharia is a literal rendering of the the Qua'ran. Not just this, but it was asserted that all forms of Islamic thought must assert the fundamentalist Salafist view. In other words, all Muslims must be Fundamentalist Salafists. All of them.

This would be like putting the United Church in the same category as Gerry Falwell.

I see no reason not to correct people making false statements that are an essential part of a narrative that promotes bigotry against ALL Muslims.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Two persons.

---

Oh, you are correct it was 2 people, Elysium started it. Ok 2 males and you, cueball, had the progession of discussion. All the while being asked to cease, as you were males. However, you were not to be stopped, and would not start another thread about it.

So excuse me, if I think your assertations where sexism does, or does not, exist to ring a little hollow. You don't even see your own.

quote:

---

I see no reason not to correct people making false statements that are an essential part of a narrative that promotes bigotry against ALL Muslims.

---

Of course you don't, that is the point, we are are concerned with, right here in this thread, and forum, what promotes SEXISM. And allowing you to takeover our forum and threads, because YOU feel the cause is just, does just that!

Edited to add: It appears that some "progressive" men feel that bigoty, is more important than sexism, and sexist actions, to address. And that sexism should take a back seat and be forgotten about when dealing with matters of bigotry. Sadly it is not seen that sexism, is just another form of bigotry. Trivializing sexism is what is being done.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Also, I don't think that pointing out patriarchal portions of any religious doctrine should be out of bounds. I support women's rights first and foremost and for me religion, in all it's major forms, has been the bane of our existence.

---

In fact I had been ignoring this thread, after specifically stating: "Since you insist, I will desist."

Unionist did not see fit to start a new thread as a forum for debating my points, nor did Stargazer, in support of him. I see no reason not to respond directly to arguements and charges against me. Or is the Feminist forum meant to be a place where some Babblers can take pot-shots at other Babblers, to which they may not respond or explain themselves, because they are males "taking over" the discourse, while other males may use it to argue points, as long as they are supported by a female voice?

I think if people are going to use this thread as a means of debating me and my ideas and personally attack me, as you have, at least I should have the right to defend myself. If not then start a thread in a forum, where I can.

PS: Unionist, there is no difference between Proletariat's talking points on Islam, and the "Chosen People" talking points used by antisemites. And no, Remind, I do not think that religious bigotry trumps sexist bigotry.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

So, this set up a strange dichotomy where things I was saying were being discussed, and challenged, while at the same time I was being told that my reentry into the discussion was not welcome.

Please stop cueball. Vision artist made some very good points that do not need to be shunted aside because you want to get into a meta debate on your being included or excluded.

Having said that, it does apparently seem you believe bigotry over rides feminism, or you would not have continuesd in here so long after you said you were leaving.

The discourse was not about cueball!

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

Please take a step back and review all of the information you are bombarded with daily; whether it be tv, newspapers, magazines, feminist publications, popular books-- Muslims are (and have been for decades) villified and the subject of spins and biased media representation, pigeon holing, stereotypes and generalizations. Back to feminism, I remember in every book, conference, or film festival representing women of color, there would always be a token story similar to the usual saudi princess that ran away to America to learn about blue jeans and freedom, screaming "yes, I am oppressed Muslim women, please come save me and enlighten me". Ok, so she probably exists. But is that the voice of the MAJORITY of Muslim women? No.

Please read cueball's comments, otherwise I would have to repeat everything he said, because really, it hits a lot of key points home.
'Fundamental' 'Extremist', 'Wahabist' Islam is a very new rendition of Islam. Read about Women in Islam in the time of the Prophet Muhammad, in the generations after that when thousands of women scholars studied along side their male counterparts, and were also teachers in these scholarly circles (and still are at the most popular islamic universities like Al Azhar in Cairo, Egypt). Female circumcision, wife beating, honor killings, forced burqas, refusal of the right to education and working in the workplace, and other misogynistic/oppressive CULTURAL traditions did not exist in the beginnings of Islam nor does it in the original preserved text, nor does it exist amongst mainstream sunni scholars. General sexism and male dominance is very prevalent in Muslim societies! But I contend that it is not due to the religion, it is due to the sexist tendencies of the men (and women) who allow it and feed into it. And since it was not prevalent in the first or following Muslim societies, some writers reflect that this misogynistic thought that crept into religious thought is a result from biblical "original sin"-type thought, where women is temptress and is the cause of mankind's fall from grace (Islam does not believe in this). Furthermore, all Muslims believe that Islam effectively abolished sexism (including female infanticide), racism, and classism in the Arabian society it first arrived to.

And yes, Islam is what is classically defined as a monotheistic, patriarchal religion, and there is no interpretation that can sugar coat that. But I, too, believe like cueball said, "in many aspects the Qur'ran can be shown to be far advanced of either the Torah or the Bible" and gives more liberties and protections for women[, men, and children] (in my view) than any other society ("a grouping of individuals characterized by common interests and distinctive culture and institutions")I know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Can a self-centered view come to see itself asd self-centered and overbearing without becoming even more self-centered and overbearing in its process of arguing whether it really is or is being misunderstood, since from the self-centered view it isn't, it is just following Main Program? Can anyone else - indeed can the original issue be perceived - be heard in such a din?

---

You would probably best be able to answer that Martin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Cueball, look over my posts. Not once did I ever say or state that you were not welcomed in this discussion, nor that you were "taking over". Seriously. You'll have to trust me on this one. Look over my posts. This is getting silly now.

---

Not you, Remind was saying I was taking over -- (she has just said it again.) But the two together created a strange dichotomy where you were engaging what I was saying while Remind was stating I should not be engaging at all. I think if you read my last post you will see that is what I was trying to say.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision Artist:

And yes, Islam is what is classically defined as a monotheistic, patriarchal religion, and there is no interpretation that can sugar coat that. But I, too, believe like cueball said, "in many aspects the Qur'ran can be shown to be far advanced of either the Torah or the Bible" and gives more liberties and protections for women[, men, and children] (in my view) than any other society ("a grouping of individuals characterized by common interests and distinctive culture and institutions")I know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision Artist:
And even though everyone is attacking Cueball, I think you should respect him

---

Cueball is respected as a member of this forum. And no one is attacking him, what is being attacked is his, and other male participation in this thread, over riding what women want to discuss/say about this topic. And making it male voice orientated. It is in the feminist forum for a reason.

quote:

---

...and other misogynistic/oppressive CULTURAL traditions did not exist in the beginnings of Islam nor does it in the original preserved text, nor does it exist amongst mainstream sunnischolars.

---

Now really this is where the problem lies for those who want to understand the nature of Islam, does it not? According to what I have read, Shia came before Sunni, and Sunni are decendants from the Jannissaries. And therein lies the at odds of belief systems between the sunni and shia.

quote:

---

General sexism and male dominance is very prevalent in Muslim societies! But I contend that it is not due to the religion, it is due to the sexist tendencies of the men (and women) who allow it and feed into it.

---

This is what has been said, over and over, here for years,and not just in relation to Muslim culture, but all religious cultures. And indeed within secular society.

quote:

---

But I, too, believe like cueball said, "in many aspects the Qur'ran can be shown to be far advanced of either the Torah or the Bible" and gives more liberties and protections for women[, men, and children] (in my view) than any other society ("a grouping of individuals characterized by common interests and distinctive culture and institutions")I know.

---

Oh, choosing the best of a bad lot, is what you are saying?

Major religions of NO stripe has been good for women!

* the rights and dignity of women
* the rights and dignity of children
* the rights and dignity of people with "non-standard" sexual orientations
* the right of people around the world to live in peace and not fight "faith-based" wars with each other
* the right of people to fall in love and marry outside their religious sect
* the right of the masses (not just the priesthood) to literacy and education
* the importance of respecting the discoveries of science as opposed to the "revealed" nonsense of various hokey old books
* Darwinian evolution as opposed to creationism
* the need for children to be in the same schools rather than be segregated according to the superstition of their parents
* the need for rational verifiable explanations of the world rather than fairy tales
* fill in your own.

Isn't it odd that organized religion, which pats itself on the back as being the moral "leader" of the society, indeed the fount of all morality, is usually the last to abandon the kinds of evils I have listed above?

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
When women want/try to discuss something, especially between women of different cultures, men just take over the whole discourse, and take it in their own direction and it keeps happening time and again, as this time it is different somehow.

Then women do not bother continued discussion and the thread dies, with so much left unsaid between the women who had been participating.

I mean, is it an unconscious action of dominance and control, or an active action? Because it just keeps on happening even by long term community members here.

Frankly, I want to hear what Mona, and other Muslim women have to say about this and their ideals of modesty and where they come from, and how wearing a hijab prevents them from being objectified, or how it is helping their own perceptions of not being objectified because of it.

And I want hear what other, non-Muslim, women think about this and how they feel. And how they feel about "modesty" and what it is exactly to them.

Does covering up preventing men's gaze falling upon mean controlling one's persona/body, or does it mean something else?

Edited cause I did not really want to know why it is men keeep on doing it.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Every religion I know - without any exception whatsoever - has to be dragged, kicking and screaming - long after society as a whole has made an advance - into recognizing:

* the rights and dignity of women
* the rights and dignity of children
* the rights and dignity of people with "non-standard" sexual orientations

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Do I take it you are referring to the major religions stemming from the Middle East? I cannot see how many of the traditional religions of Turtle Island failed in this regard. And my apologies for the thread drift, if anyone wants to respond to this pop over the the FN forum, please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Cueball is respected as a member of this forum. And no one is attacking him, what is being attacked is his, and other male participation in this thread, over riding what women want to discuss/say about this topic. And making it male voice orientated. It is in the feminist forum for a reason.

---

Is that right? I haven't overridden any women, as far as I know. In fact, I only posted against Elysium, and Proletariat, both males. Stargazer doesn't seem to think that my discussion with her was unwarranted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Every religion I know - without any exception whatsoever - has to be dragged, kicking and screaming - long after society as a whole has made an advance - into recognizing:

* the rights and dignity of women
* the rights and dignity of children
* the rights and dignity of people with

---

Really? And I thought it was the Quakers who first recognized women as equals in their society, while the rest of England was under the boot of patriarchal monarchy? In fact the Quaker movement was one of the first movements to challenge the absolute authority of males in English society, and an essential force in the movement toward enfranchisement and equality for all.

Why do Quakers wear hats indoors? Because George Fox, founder of the Quaker church, (along with his wife Margaret Fell AKA Margaret Fox -- I have an original copy of her book on theology at home ), was famous for saying "I will show obesiance to no man under god."

A fairly egalitarian assertion for the 17th centiry. Further I would argue that most socialist humanist morality is a direct derrivative of Christian theological concepts, and that Christianity in its essence is not just a humanist ideology based on the idea that people should be nice to each other, but actually a revolutionary ideology attacking unfettered capitalist relations, and imperial Roman opression.

In fact even Frederick Engels, asserts that "original sin" was the first "equality."

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

In contrast with almost every other organized religion, the Society of Friends (Quakers) have allowed women to serve as ministers since the early 1800s.

---

Emphasis added.

As far as revolutionary socialist Christianity, I will also grant you that it may have played a positive role a few thousand years ago.

quote:

---

Ghaffar Khan was a champion of women's rights and nonviolence. He became a hero in a society dominated by violence; notwithstanding his liberal views, his unswerving faith and obvious bravery led to immense respect. Throughout his life, he never lost faith in his non-violent methods or in the compatibility of Islam and nonviolence. He viewed his struggle as a jihad with only the enemy holding swords. He was closely identified with Gandhi and he is known in India as the `Frontier Gandhi'.

---

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

El-Farouk Khaki (born October 26, 1963) is a Canadian refugee and immigration lawyer and human rights activist on issues including gender equality, sexual orientation, and progressive Islam. He is the New Democratic Party of Canada's candidate for the House of Commons in the riding of Toronto Centre in a by-election which must be called within six months of July 2, 2007.

---

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I respected Oldgoat's request not to post here but comment on my offending post did follow that request.

Scout:

quote:

---

Nothing in this thread invited sexist remarks like “bitch” or “cowed”...

clip

And for the record I don’t hate men, I just hate you.

---

I have never posted to be hurtful on any forum but I see quite a bit of irrational hatred happening here.

quote:

---

In Christianity, liberation theology is a school of theology that focuses on Jesus Christ as not only the Redeemer but also the Liberator of the oppressed. It emphasizes the Christian mission to bring justice to the poor and oppressed, particularly through political activism. Some elements of certain liberation theologies have been rejected by the Catholic Church.

At its inception, liberation theology was predominantly found in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council. It is often cited as a form of Christian socialism, and it has enjoyed widespread influence in Latin America and among the Jesuits, although its influence diminished within Catholicism after the Vatican issued official rejections of the theology in the 1980s and liberation theologians were harshly admonished by Pope John Paul II (leading to the curtailing of its growth). The current Pope, Benedict XVI, has also been long known as an opponent of certain strands of liberation theology, and issued several condemnations of tendencies within it whilst head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

---

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I do want to hear what you are saying, though I suspect, my internalized operant conditioning to a secular society, and white feminist thought, will not afford maximum understanding.

---

I lived my free and secular life, without God, without faith, and even without rules. I've been there, done that. And I still was not happy. I started studying all belief systems, philosophies, and ideologies. And in the end, Islam made sense.

Unionist, I would love to give excerpts and proofs from our books that prove Islam gives all of those rights, and more (rights to animals and plant life), but I don't know if that should be a seperate thread.... it's up to you guys if you want to challenge me

And so as not to go into religiousity, I can say my experience after wearing a jacket and placing a piece of fabric that normally went around my neck in winter, over my head/hair full time totally changed the way primarily men, and women dealt with me. And so as to take it into a sociology discussion: I brought up in the beginning how I interviewed women for a documentary I was working on, who felt the need to shave their heads, and felt liberated doing so (not only because it feels good to not have all of that heavy hair on your head!). Why should these women have to do that to be left alone and respected my men? Yes, Why can't men just control themselves? What can we do in society to change that?
And why, when a woman shaves her head, especially as a feminist stance, why does a change in dress- pants, baggy clothing usually accompany this move? Why does removing the overtness of her sexuality feel liberating to her? And why on society do women, who decide to cover up, or shave their head, or dress more manly have to feel alienated if they reject looking like barbie dolls and flaunting their sexuality?
Both hijabi women and shaved head women told me that men started respecting them and their ideas more once they removed the overt sexual components of their dress or appearance. ["Ok, i'm following you, but how is hair 'overtly sexual'? I agree! But go asked the women who shaved their heads...] Why? Are men better able to focus on our minds when they are not distracted by the other things? That sucks! Men have to change themselves, not us.

But do they? So far, no. In the Quran it tells MEN to lower their gaze in the same sentence it tells women to. Ladies if a Muslim man flirts with you, you can flat out tell him he's out of bounds in his religion. Men are prohibited from flirting and making sexual advances at women outside of marriage. They have to cover most of their bodies, too. Men in the middle east actually cover from head to toe- in modesty. Wierd, you say. Some ppl think if women all dressed modest, then men would have to behave themselves. I know in Muslim communities, that's what I see. I'd like to hear from Amish women or women in puritan/covered communities, and see what they think.

Actually, never mind. This thread is over 100 posts (didn't notice before I posted this) so I'm going to close it.

[ 26 October 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]