Note: This show was postponed due to technical problems at NoLiesRadio. It has been rescheduled for Tuesday, December 21st, 9-10 a.m. Pacific.
Tuesday, December 14th (rescheduled for the 21st) , 9-10 a.m. Pacific (noon – 1 pm Eastern) on http://NoLiesRadio.org, to be archived here a few hours after broadcast…
Abdul Rahman Mojahed, author of Superior Woman, Inferior Man in Islam argues that the fair sex gets more than a fair deal in Islam – it’s the men who ought to be complaining ; – )
Does this partly explain why women are converting to Islam even faster than men?
If you’re thinking of marrying a Muslima, insist on full disclosure concerning rights and responsibilities. Here’s what she may tell you: “First, you’re going to have to give me a mahr – a bridal gift, a.k.a. dowry. In our middle-class social circles a mere $10,000 or $20,000 should suffice. Then you’ll need to put on a wedding that lasts for a week and feeds most of the city – that’s another 30 or 40 k. Once we’re married, you will be expected to support me and our children in the style to which we are accustomed. I will have the right to work and to earn or inherit as much of my own money as I want, but I won’t be obliged to pay a penny to support the household – you’ll have to do that. If I choose not to work – and frankly, I would rather hang out with my friends, and do some cooking and housework, than slave away in an office or at Wal-Mart – I have the right to stay home and be taken care of. As a Muslim man, you will be expected to lower your gaze and not look at other women. You’ll have to serve me, protect me, and treat me kindly and lovingly at all times. You’ll have to run to the store whenever I ask you, and –“
“Wait a minute, habibati! What’s in this for us guys?”
“Under Islam, you are absolutely prohibited from even looking – much less enjoying – unless you are married.”
“Uh…okay, let’s hurry up and set that wedding date!”
Does this sound like a system that benefits men and oppresses women?! So how come Westerners have it backward?
Good timing Kevin. I have a question. I find it offensive to see little girls at my daughterโs school dressed in head coverings. I think any ritual practice that puts burdens on some segment of the population but not others, especially if the primary rationalizations for the practice are to do with the behavior of the other group, is morally repugnant. It is an insult to reason to call such a practice moral, especially given that it sets a child apart at a time when they need social cohesion, and sets them up for reactionary abuse (for no good reason). Needless to say the notion that Islam preferences women, especially in our context, is absurd. But knowing you are thoughtful, I am really puzzled about how to handle these situations. My moral impulse is to challenge unethical behavior (and this seems like child abuse to me). But I know that other people do not view it as child abuse, and that there is social utility to accepting other cultureโs practices. I just donโt see the value in accepting social practices that seem demonstrably unethical. I want to be tolerant, but I find it troubling to be tolerant of something abusive just because people feel deeply about it. People felt deeply about slavery too, but that didnโt make it right. What do you think?
I think Western culture's degradation of women is what's unethical. The other girls should cover too, as a symbol of "don't look at me sexually." The ritual practice of not covering, and of wearing revealing "f***-me" clothes at all ages, is what is unethical and what constitutes child abuse. Please "crusade" to get the other girls to cover (i.e. dress modestly) and to end the degrading, hypersexualized culture of consumption that's killing the planet.
What's happened to this culture since the sexual revolution of the 60s is grotesque and inhuman. Our grandparents, and today's Muslim mainstream, were/is human
I agree that sexualizing girls is obviously morally repugnant. Anyone who would dispute that is not doing ethics. And yes, our culture is horribly immoral on those terms. A parent who allows a young child to dress like that is not fit to be a parent.
But that does not reply to my question. Why is dressing a little girl in a hijab not a form of child abuse? Why arenโt those parents also (for different reasons) also unfit?
This is not an either/or situation. Both are morally repulsive ways of treating little girls โ or so it seems to me. Why do you not agree? And Kevin, you should know that your response to me is called Tu Quoque, โyouโre one tooโ (in Latin) and it is a well-known fallacy (and as you can see does not even apply as a fallacy). Your instance on the either/or is also a well-known fallacy.
I trust that someone with your intelligence and education can reply with some sophistication. I am not asking to be difficult. I am asking because this really troubles me. I want to be tolerant but this practice seems abusive to me and I donโt know what to do.
To give you some perspective, would you defend female genital mutilation? I suspect not, and you can easily point to the fact that while this practice is done in Islamic societies it is not actually a practice recommended, let alone required, by Islamic law. In this case, we (westerners) look at that culture and say, โNO!โ โYou cannot do that to little girls and claim to be moral human beings! That is abuse and it is wrong and I donโt give a shit why you think you are doing it, it is evil!โ I think you would agree with all of that. What is the difference (other than the standing the practice has in the tradition)? That standing alone is not sufficient moral justification (ethics needs a universal perspective or it is not ethics, it is just prejudice).
So what is the rational justification for Muslim parents treating their little girls like dangerous scum who have to be hidden away from the world (which seems to be the implicit message, is it not)?
Wow.
In case you haven't heard, wearing a hijab – meaning a head scarf – is not a message that "I am a dangerous scum who has to be hidden away from the world," any more than wearing a yarmulke is a message that "my head is constantly scheming up lies and frauds, so I have to cover it from God's view so I can get away with my crimes and help the Elders of Zion take over the world and enslave the gentile cattle." What would you say about someone who claimed that was the message of the yarmulke? So why are you doing the same thing?
The hijab basically says "I am a Muslima and a spiritually-engaged human being." That's why girls and women of all ages wear it when they pray. Secondarily, it says "since I am a religious and spiritually-engaged person, not an object of the sexual gaze, please keep your eyes to yourself."
So why shouldn't Muslim girls wear it as an expression of their religious identity? Is it child abuse for Jewish kids to wear yarmulkes or Christian kids to wear fish pendants or crucifixes? What can possibly be going on in your mind to make you equate the hijab with child abuse?
As for female genital mutilation, it is not a part of Islam. Instead, it is a part of pre-Islamic African culture that Islam has not succeeded in eradicating. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the hijab.
Is this your own position? When I read the Koran, I was outraged that, as I recall, there was a section on Women and a section on Cattle, I believe next to one another; there was no section on Men.
I believe a Muslim man can divorce his wife simply by saying so to her, but a woman can't so divorce her husband, even if he abuses her. And a Muslim daughter inherits only a percentage of what a Muslim son inherits. Isn't this correct? -BH
Dear BH, Your reading of the Qur'an apparently was not a very careful one. The suras titled "Women" and "Cattle" respectively are not ABOUT women or cattle!! Each Sura has a conventional title that comes from some memorable mention of that word or phrase in the Sura. For example, Sura an-Nass is titled "People" but it is only a few lines long and is most definitely NOT a chapter "about people."
Your understanding of Islamic divorce and inheritance practices is likewise distorted. If you're genuinely interested, you'll need to learn about the context of all of the particular regulations and how they all fit into that context and form a gestalt. A.R. Mojahed argues that overall, the sum total strongly favors women over men. Read his book and see if you agree. If not, at least you'll be disagreeing from an informed, rather than ignorant and bigoted, perspective.
Also, if you want to understand Qur'an, by far the best place for an English-speaking Westerner to start is Michael Sells' Approaching the Qur'an. Otherwise it's easy to fall into the kind of mistakes you made here with the "women" and "cattle" confusion.
Dr Barrett:
What about that woman who was flogged for talking to a man? Or the women that are killed by their fathers to protect their ird? Are these just inventions of the corporate media? One doesn't know what to believe anymore. Al Kaida.
Al,
Ronald Reagan used to argue by anecdote. He'd say things like, "I was walking down Sunset Boulevard the other day and I saw a tree and it was emitting SMOG! You know, I'm no expert, but I've heard that trees are the leading source of air pollution."
MEMRI, a Mossad spin-off that furnishes the vast majority of translations from the Arab press to the Western media, also argues by anecdote. MEMRI cherry-picks the entire printed output of the Arab and Muslim worlds in hopes of finding anecdotes that make Muslims look bad. If they can't find anything bad enough, they make it up or mistranslate.
Imagine what a sophisticated PR intelligence operation could do to make America look bad by cherry-picking, mistranslating, and inventing anecdotes about how "Americans really are." For example, imagine how the lurid details about the thousands of booze-fuled spousal murders per year could be used to portray Americans as a nation of drunken wife-killers.
Should America be judged by the worst possible collection of anecdotes dredged up by a PR- intelligence outfit whose mission is to make America look bad? Obviously not. Please extend the same courtesy to the Muslim world.
sounds just as stupid as most other religious systems in this department. over there in catholicism, priests can't get married, so they do it with altar boys.
hooray for god, kevin, our shining beacon of wisdom regarding human sexuality!
I agree about the priestly celibacy thing being…er…unwholesome.
"No monkery in Islam," sayeth the Prophet SAAS.
Muslims can't drool over eye candy or fornicate, so we do it with our spouses. If you think there's something perverse about that…well, you've revealed yourself as an exemplary product of the decadent post-sexual-revolution West.
Kevin,
I've read a number of different independent (and not always Islam favorable) that all report the rate of reversion in America and Canada since 9-11 is 4 women to 1 man…seriously 4/1. God does indeed work the best of plans it seems ๐
-P
Well, if that ratio keeps up, by the time the whole country is converted, every man will get his full quota!
C'mon, guys, what are you waiting for? ; – )
Hi Kevin,
Head coverings are popular in all these religions. When men take on covering their heads with some small bit of fabric that doesnโt get in the way of anything, then it is clearly a symbol.
When a girl is covered so that one cannot see here (to varying degrees) the message clearly is that she should be hidden, since she is being hidden. The symbolic nature of the act is not so obvious given the obvious practical implications of the act.
One is symbolic and taken up by those with power. The other is oppressive and imposed on those without power.
That is first, you cannot defend hiding girls from public view on the grounds that it is merely a symbolic act.
Second, you cannot defend the practice as symbolic, especially as a willful symbolic expression because it is imposed on little girls. I donโt seem to have the same issue with a woman in my class wearing a hijab (as an adult in America it seems clearly a choice), but I am deeply disturbed by little girls in the collegeโs day care or in my daughterโs school wearing a hijab. I am not sure how I would react to a burka. I might not let the woman in my classroom on the grounds that I would not let a man wearing a Klan robe that hid his face into my room either (one seems to me self-hatred and the other hatred of the other, and neither form of hate is acceptable to me as a professor).
The reason the hijab seems abusive to me is three-fold. On the one hand it sends an implicit message to the girl that she is scum and should be hidden from the world. I simply do not see how a child is to interpret their being hidden away, while other girls in their school are not, except as a sign that they are defective. It is psychological abuse.
Second, by setting her apart from male peers she gets the implicit message that she is not as good as they are and so predictably internalizes more misogyny than secular peers. It is psychologically abusive on two counts.
Third, by picking out the little girl as a Muslim (in a culture that is becoming more and more irrationally Islamo-phobic as part of a consolidation of fascism) identifies her to those who would victimizer her for what we can call racist reasons. I agree with the obvious retort that changing because of an oppressor only gives the oppressor more power โ but I would point out this only applies unless one is dead. This is obviously not as important a moral issue to me as the ones above, but I think it bears notice.
Kevin, it seems to me that every rationalization for these practices that I have read boils down to male supremacy. How is the practice anything other than that?
R
PS: I was offering up female genital mutilation as an example of a cultural practice where we can agree. I was hoping the lines of argumentation that you would use to condemn that practice to an African Muslim (where you to engage someone on the topic) might give you ideas for how to reply to me (I am condemning both as equally misogynistic, but since you donโt having that as a concrete reference could be helpful โ or not, it seems, it was just an example that might have been helpful).
R,
A hijab is JUST A HEAD SCARF. It covers the hair. It doesn't "get in the way" of anything, any more than your pants "get in the way" of your ass, which is what you seem to be talking out of.
Cultures and religions differ in what they cover and reveal of the human body. Why are you selectively condemning Islam? Where in the world did your bizarre interpretation of the meaning of hijab come from? Who the hell are YOU to tell Muslim women what their hijab means – and to get it completely wrong in an extremely insulting way, and persist in getting it wrong even after you have been corrected by a Muslim and comparative religion scholar?! How is your pejorative and completely groundless interpretation of hijab different from my facetious interpretation of a yarmulke – other than me being knowledgeably facetious and you being ignorant and bigoted?
And why is hiding girls' hair from view worse than what you do when you put on your pants before you go outside and hide your ass from view? Is the message of your pants "I, R.C., am in essence an asshole, so I will hide myself, by hiding my asshole, because I am such a shameful being?" How is your interpretation of hijab any more accurate than that interpretation of wearing pants?
Seriously, the hair doesn't DO anything, so there's nothing for the hijab to get in the way of. Your pants, however, do very much get in the way of important activities that you carry out regularly, namely excreting, farting, and expelling groundless and foul-smelling condemnations of other people's religious practices, as well as sexual activities that you may occasionally engage in…though if you're as much of an asshole to your wife as you are to Muslimas with these remarks, I'd be surprised if that was much of an issue ; – )
You write that I "can't defend the practice (of covering the hair) as symbolic"?! What else IS covering the hair, or the ass, or any other part of the body, BUT symbolic?
You write that the hijab sends the message "I am scum." No- your making up such a ridiculous lie, completely unsubstantiated by any evidence, easily refuted by anyone, male or female, who practices or knows anything about Islam, sends the message that YOU are bigoted scum.
You write that the hijab sets female off from male and therefore makes the female feel inferior. Is this true about dresses? Purses? Lipstick? Why do you believe that markers of femininity automatically mark the feminine as inferior? (Obviously you don't – you're just selectively picking on Islam and ignoring all the other feminine markers from other cultures, because you are an islamophobic bigot.)
You write that wearing the hijab can expose the wearer to Islamophobia. No kidding – like yours! If this is how someone who has supposedly taken religious studies sees the hijab, obviously we need a crash program for hijab education in all of our public schools ASAP. Tearing the hijab off girls to save them from bigotry would be like forcing black girls to go through skin-whitening treatments to save them from racism, or forcing observant Jews to eat pork school lunches to save them from anti-Semitism.
(continued)
You write that hijab "boils down to male supremacy." In fact, it is mostly women who insist on it, and who push other women (and their daughters) to wear it, as a badge of women's full equality, if not outright superiority (see AR Mojahed's book) in practicing Islamic spirituality. It's a woman's thing. In AR Mojahed's extremely well-sourced view, it underlines the fact that women are in fact the superiors of men in the most important area of life, namely the emotional/spiritual realm, and this is why men have been given fewer privileges and more duties and responsibilities. Much of what men do, in Islam, is about protecting and cherishing women. That's where l'amour courtois came from – straight into southern Europe from Islamic Spain! If it weren't for Islam, Westerners would still be literally owning their women and treating them as chattel, and the whole idea of romantic love as we know it wouldn't exist. (Come to think of it, today's Western sex relations ARE a meat-market. Plus รงa change…)
Please go back and do some sixth grade comparative religion. And please, when you interpret someone else's religious or cultural symbol, be sure to interpret its meaning as it is used in that culture – don't just impose your own meaning on it, especially an ignorant pejorative meaning. To study the meaning of hijab you need to start with the way the term/practice is actually used in that language/culture. (Just like any other term you might pick out of the Arabic/Islamic dictionary.) Since it's Muslim women who use it, start by listening to what they say about it. You'll be amazed…and deeply embarrassed by what you've written here.
Kevin,
Where is this show archived. Instead I see James Petras?
Thanks.
Sorry, it has been rescheduled for next week due to technical difficulties.
good we are going to listen to this one… cause 90% of the zionist islamophobic propafanda iss based on the muslim women… when you invade a country target first the women and make them believe that you are offering paradise and heaven on earth, after this … destroy families… and then make them pay the interest of the interest of the interest of the interest contract in 1840… man and women working pay all taxes… while in islam, no taxes an if so only man are to pay them… amazing isn't it ?
zionists… like said Eric Cantona… ' faut leur donner des idees de temps en temps'…
๐
"First, you're going to have to give me a mahr – a bridal gift, a.k.a. dowry. In our middle-class social circles a mere $10,000 or $20,000 should suffice."
There are no authentic hadith or reports explicitly stating a minimum or maximum amount of dowry. All hadith which explicitly state such things are weak narrations.
"Then you'll need to put on a wedding that lasts for a week and feeds most of the city – that's another 30 or 40 k."
Wrong yet again. Has nothing to do with Islam.
"If I choose not to work – and frankly, I would rather hang out with my friends, and do some cooking and housework, than slave away in an office or at Wal-Mart"
Actually, in his own book he cites a verse from the Qur'an in which it tells woman not to go out of their homes and work like in the days of ignorance.
Of course, if a woman is under extreme need to work, she can! You can eat pork if you are starving!
"You'll have to run to the store whenever I ask you"
Nope, sorry this is not a part of Islam.
Sad, just sad.
A few years ago, in the late 1970s, when I and my family were living near the Welsh border, a brother came to stay. He was beating our ears about how badly women dressed, which is generally correct; but he did rather overdo it. So, when it came time for him to take the train back to London, it just happened to be Market Day in Hereford (where he took the train) so, with a bit of mischievous Schadenfreude, I swung by the fatstock market and introduced him to the county women wearing their stable boots, jeans, long Barbour Coats, and… head scarves. Most of them would have passed muster as wearing tasattur, and yet nobody would think to claim that they were being oppressed by their menfolk. In fact, I would defy such an accuser to take on an English county woman, make his case, and escape unscathed. So, if such a lady dresses like that because she chooses to, and is not the object of criticism, then why should a Muslim woman be who chooses to wear a similar tasattur?
To Stinger: This vignette was meant as a humorous exaggeration of what a man MIGHT hear from a prospective bride. Stinger, you seem to have missed the humor as well as the point.
The way Islamic rules and practices are interpreted depends on the people involved. The amount of the expected mahr depends on many things including social class and individual preference. There are definitely some women from some social classes of some places who would expect a big mahr.
There are LOTS of Muslim women (and men), and plenty of scholars, who are convinced that Muslim women have the right to work if they so choose — not just as a matter of dire necessity.
But you're right that running to the store is not normally part of the Islamic marriage contract…walhamdullilah. (It is however part of the cultural expectation in certain Muslim cultures I'm familiar with.)
Kevin: You say:
"There are LOTS of Muslim women (and men), and plenty of scholars, who are convinced that Muslim women have the right to work if they so choose — not just as a matter of dire necessity."
1. Children are supposed to be raised and taken care of. Fathers are required to work, and they have to work enough to support the family.
Therefore, there is no need for woman to work.
2. Children need to be raised and taken care of. The man is working. The wife is working. Who is going to take care of the children?
And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance. ~ Quran 33:33
As for the Mahr, what Muslim woman expect has nothing to do with Islam. Let's say I expect that God will give me immortality on Earth, I'm a Christian, does that mean that Christianity teaches immortality?
Stinger, I personally agree with you that women with small children generally should not work outside the house, and that Islam supports this. But what about all the women without small children, or without children at all? My own mother stayed home until her three children were in junior high school or high school, then went back to school for a CPA and later worked as an accountant. I don't believe the family suffered from this choice. As I see it Islam is flexible and asks us to use our common sense about these things. "And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display" sounds more like general advice than an absolute rule. Muslims who think this means "keep women completely confined to their houses at all times" are not using common sense, nor are they well-informed about the practices of the first generation of Muslims.
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one the upper hand, 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.
~ Quran 4:34
So apparently, if the man wants to wife to stay home, the women should do so, as the above verse tells women to be "devoutly obedient".
ุงูุฑููุฌูุงูู ูููููุงู ูููู ุนูููู ุงููููุณูุงุก ุจูู ูุง ููุถูููู ุงููููู ุจูุนูุถูููู ู ุนูููู ุจูุนูุถู ููุจูู ูุง ุฃูููููููุงู ู ููู ุฃูู ูููุงููููู ู ููุงูุตููุงููุญูุงุชู ููุงููุชูุงุชู ุญูุงููุธูุงุชู ูููููุบูููุจู ุจูู ูุง ุญูููุธู ุงููููู ููุงููุงููุชูู ุชูุฎูุงููููู ููุดููุฒูููููู ููุนูุธููููููู ููุงููุฌูุฑููููููู ููู ุงููู ูุถูุงุฌูุนู ููุงุถูุฑูุจููููููู ููุฅููู ุฃูุทูุนูููููู ู ูููุงู ุชูุจูุบููุงู ุนูููููููููู ุณูุจูููุงู ุฅูููู ุงููููู ููุงูู ุนููููููุง ููุจููุฑูุง
What if the man wanted the woman to work outside the house – a not uncommon situation in today's world? Should the wife still be "devoutly obedient" ?
As I see it the basic model is for the woman to run the home and nurture the children. Exceptions to this model may be acceptable if there is a good reason.
Kevin, you are raising a question about your own religion when you ask "should the wife be devoutly obedient in that situation"?
I suggest you take it up with some "scholars" if you want to know such things.
Kevin, you state on your show that men have "100 plus times more testosterone than woman".
Way out of it, Kevin. The data shows that men have 10 times more testosterone than woman, not 100!
Hey Mr. Kevin,
I'm a Muslim veiled girl. I don't intend any offence, but I don't think that the way you put the "position of women in Islam" is the very right way. You showed the Muslim girl as a materialistic creature, and men as the hopeless one. This is not the case. You don't have to pay mahr if you don't have enough money. Women are asked in Qur'an to help their husbands and contribute in the financial stability of the household, was it outside the house or inside. They were also asked to care for their husbands, and love them. I know you must know that, but I guess you neglected the fact that marriage in Islam (and in any other religious or social practice) is not about money, it's about the love and the devotion, it's about the connection between two souls. And I don't think in Islam there is any elevation of women on men or vice versa. It's just that women have rights and obligations as men have. No gender is superior and no gender has more privileges. We're equally obligated to do certain things to our community and to each other.
Collin, thanks for the quantitative correction. But my point is still valid. (Try injecting yourself to raise your testosterone level by 1,000 percent – notice any difference?)
John the Baptist, you're the one who's offering your interpretation of Qur'an here!
Rowa, I agree with you. The comic dialogue was not meant as a slander on Muslim women. Instead, it was a humorous exaggeration of the implications of Abdul-Rahman Mojahed's title "Superior Woman, Inferior Man in Islam" in light of the mistaken Western stereotype that Islam discriminates against women. Despite that title, I think the material in Abdu's book supports your interpretation that "no gender is superior and no gender has more privileges."
''And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, Take it and enjoy it with right good cheer.''
Kevin, Absolutely well done! I am a Muslim and I am tired of these uneducated (in Islam) bigots nit-picking their way through Islam, quoting out of context, making insane accusations, telling us Muslims what our religion says and means and the hypocrisy of their views is frustrating to say the least! Some people just want to argue and defame Islam no matter what you tell them brother, but I must say you sure told them.
I love the humour as it shows how silly the opposer's and their views really are, they say we oppress our women…its quite the opposite, but then that is what they have been mind controlled to think and say.
It is so funny and sad at the same time that these people come on here talking of oppression and rights when they suffer both, but don't YET know it…to know more take a look at 'The Arrivals' on You Tube, but as it uncovers many truths that would shake the world out of its sleep and reveal what the Zionists, Illuminati, Freemasons or whatever else they call themselves have done and planned…most episodes have been either removed or silenced…peace.
Few points:
1- The western world in general treats the woman and consider her as a sexual object, open your TV and the first thing you will probably see is an almost naked woman advertising some product.
2- Christianity and Judaism degrade the woman, citing for example:
quoting from the bible ๐ the following verses are addressed to John the Baptiste from his holy book ):
Corinthians 11:5-15
And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head–it is just as though her head were shaved.
6
If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
7
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8
For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
The bible prohibited the woman from inheriting her husband and ignored the widow wife completely:
Numbers 27
8 "Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter.
9 If he has no daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers.
10 If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father's brothers.
11 If his father had no brothers, give his inheritance to the nearest relative in his clan, that he may possess it. This is to be a legal requirement for the Israelites, as the LORD commanded Moses.' "
Notice how the wife (widow) inherits nothing. And notice how the daughter only inherits when no sons exist. Also, the oldest son inherits double the younger son:
Deuteronomy 21
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love,
16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.
17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.
3- The Hijab was known in other religions than Islam including Sikhism, Hinduism, Christianity and Judaism: citing:
A- Hinduism: Rig Veda Book no. 8 Hymn no. 33 V. no. 19 "When Brahma has made you a woman, you should lower your gaze and should not look up. You should put your feet together and you should not reveal what the garment and the veil conceals."
Rig Veda Book no. 10 Hymn no. 85 V. no.30 "Unlovely is the person is the husband who covers his thighs with the garment of his wife."
the Mahavir Charitra Act 2 Page 71 that When Purshuram comes, Rama tells his wife Sita that "He is our elder, please lower your gaze, and put on the veil."
B- Sikhism: "Let living in God's presence, With mind rid of impurities, Be your discipline.
Keep the God-given form intact, With a turban donned on your head."
GGS Page 1084, Line 12
Hejab is not for kids, though. It is an obligation to the grown ups, and the adults only. Once she turns into an adult, it would be better for her to wear it. No compulsion, though.
Hejab does not alienate them. It is "only a scarf'', a hat, anything that covers the head of a "normal human being''. It is people who have fear of the other and the different who alienate people with Hejabs, who refuse to treat them as equal because they are different.
No it is not just a scarf. You all made your opinions about it without even having the guts to ask a Muslim woman??? Is this fair or logical? Gosh, you people amaze me!
It is so many things on so many personal, cultural and religious levels! But of course those of you attacking it and defining it as " offensive" wouldn't stop to learn or even ask!
I find myself powerful wearing it. I go out there and tell every body ''I have the right, and the power to show you what i want and cover what I want''. I don't have to show you what I don't want to show in order not " to offend you". Stop offending me and let me wear whatever I decide to wear. I respect how you dress yourself, so respect my wishes as well. I have the power, strength, and freedom to smartly choose only ONE person of ALL of you, men out there, to see how my hair or body looks like. I go out there to PROVE I am fair enough to keep my sexyness away from other women's husbands. I am responsible enough and considerate enough towards the feelings of the male individuals of my society who are trying to be virtuous. Welcome to real life, where men are attracted to the sexy.
We need to redefine beauty. There has never been only way to look beautiful.
I feel that its modesty to tell every girl out there we are ALL EQUALLY BEAUTIFUL, just like one another wearing the same thing without having to go through hard Hollywood fightings of who is the hottest. I feel I owe it to God to do as he says; as he wants to protect me. I feel I owe that to my self-respect. I feel its fair enough to look modest and beautiful for all the people ,but sexy ONLY to the ONLY ONE MAN ,who I will be smart enough to choose.
I feel as a PERFICTION SEEKER, I have to wear my hejab. To be SOCIALLY responsible.
It helps people, actually forces them, to focus on women's mental and intellectual abilities instead of focusing on their bodies! It is the REALLY offending fact that men treat women according to what they look like. They start sorting them out according to what the look like, not what who they really are or what they are capable of doing.
And that is why i wear MINE!
This fear of the other has got to end!!!!!
Dear friends,
Why are we comparing Islam to other religions and proving that they all called for the same behaviors? There's no need to. We are asked in our holly book to respect all religions despite what they call for. It won't make us look better if we do what all religions asked for, and we don't have to defend ourselves, for doing what we believe in. If someone can't understand, and as a result offend us, we should blame his/her ignorance and pity him/her.
We can't say that westerners use women as sexual objects and westerners can't say Arabs oppress women, because it's a wide generalization and a rule full of exceptions. Some Arabs use women as sexual objects and the western world has its women abuse cases as well.
The veil is something that defines women in Islam. Stating that it also defines many other non-Muslim women who adopts the idea behind the veil, will not make it more or less true. It's true for Muslims, we believe in it. All westerners can do is either respect our freedom of belief, our civil rights of choosing to adopt the veil as an optional act of promotion in our religious status, or they can simply let us be. I don't see why should we defend ourselves.
Islam discriminates in favor of women? Here are some well known Hadith (as least to those of us who know better).
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri
Sahih Bukhari 001.006.301:
"Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."
Bukhari 009.086.098 – Tricks – – – –
Narrated Abu Huraira
The Prophet said, "A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent; and the matron should not be married till she is asked whether she agrees to marry or not." It was asked, "O Allah's Apostle! How will she(the virgin) express her consent?" He said, "By keeping silent." Some people said, "If a virgin is not asked for her consent and she is not married, and then a man, by playing a trick presents two false witnesses that he has married her with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage as a true one, and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, then there is no harm for him to consummate his marriage with her and the marriage is regarded as valid."
Sahih Bukhari 9:88:219
Narrated Abu Bakra: During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."
Sahih Muslim 36:6597
Ibn Abbas reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I had a chance to look into the Paradise and I found that majority of the people was poor and I looked into the Fire and there I found the majority constituted by women.
This is Islam!
"'And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display" sounds more like general advice than an absolute rule'"
Really? It sounds to you that way? Well, what about this verse:
''And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, Take it and enjoy it with right good cheer.''
To me THAT doesn't sound like an absolute rule.
IS HOLLYWOOD ON A MISSION TO SEXUALIZE YOUNG GIRLS?
By Marsha West
January 16, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
There are some disturbing things going on right under parentsโ noses. Their daughters are being sexualized by Hollywood elites who would sell their soul to the devil (perhaps they have) to make a buck and/or to win a coveted Oscar, Emmy, or Golden Globe award. Life is so about them!
Does that not make your blood boil? Where are the womenโs rights groups on this terrible news? Specifically, where is the National Organization for Women (NOW)? They are the self-styled defenders of the female gender, are they not? We now know that exposing girls to sex at a young age is psychologically damaging. Feelings of shame, anxiety and depression result. Depression hurts! Eating disorders destroy lives! Yet……
http://www.newswithviews.com/West/marsha209.htm
Islamophobe, I just need to ask you couple of questions, why do you think you know better ?? If you know better, then should this mean you're using those Hadith to educate us about our religion ?? because you simply think you know better and consequently refuse to hear our own point of view.
The problem is no matter how we (Muslims) tried to prove to you (Islamophobics) that we're as good as anyone else in the world, and that we're given our rights equally and justly, you just won't listen. We speak your languages, you don't speak ours. We know your history and you don't know ours. We keep hearing you talk about us hoping that one day you'd be able to get over your hatred and hear us, but you never do. You assume you know better and that's it for you. Then, enjoy your ignorance and your hatred.
As for us (Muslim girls), you don't know how much blessed we're in Islam. There is no need to say that what you wrote up there has been manipulated to make us look like slaves. You interpreted the first Hadith saying that there's deficiency in my religion, whereas God told me to see it that the Almighty appreciates my weakness and that He's not going to push me into praying or fasting when He knows I might find hardship in them. About marriage, it's enough to say that I've never seen or heard about a girl who gets married by being silent. You ignored your common sense just to attack us, and show that I'm just a commodity. About the woman ruler, this is because women (according to science and facts) are more emotional than men, and this might affect her judgment at times of war.
I'm not deep into religion, but this is how I know it, this is how I was raised, and this is exactly what I see around me in my Islamic and non-Islamic societies.
I hope one day you'd be able to get over your prejudice and your phobia and that we can talk about it in a more civilized manner.