Asa feminist what do you think about the burkha/niqab, liberating or oppressive?

tbh Anne i feel like its my duty to do dawah, and even if i am unlikely to change the views of the posters, that there are also lurkers, and even if the people posters cant understand/dont agree with what i am saying, maybe a lurker can see the sense, where as if i dont post then people will be free to say what they want without another viewpoint, so those lurkers would not get to see another pov.

thats why i am compelled to keep posting on the thread, even though i get a headache.

and i am wondering where cote has got to, i have questions for her, she doesnt believe in hadiths, and says Quran is complete, but im wondering how her mashallah hajji grandmother knew how to do hajj, or pray without hadiths?

Goth isn't the only one who believes this thread has descended into, nay has always had an undercurrent of Muslim bashing. No, I'm not a Muslim. This isn't self-interest, but I abhor it when people use the same tactics on someone else they would cry foul on if used upon them.

Time and again, I have seen, for example, MRA's, MRA sympathisers and/or MRA sock puppets use identical tactics against women and feminists specifically. They can start with what seem like fairly innocent, if a bit cack-handed questions of feminists. The feminists give benefit of the doubt and respond as straightforwardly as they can. Then the "enquirers," who at first claim to know little of feminism (hence their inquisitiveness) come back with a pot pourri of quotes they've found online to contradict what the feminists have said. The feminists then try to explain (e.g. it's a misquote, it's quoted out of context, not all feminists think the same, etc.) Then, the "enquirers" probe some more, often adding little barbs questioning the feminists sanity/intelligence/credibility/etc., and it goes on, and on and exhaustingly flipping on.

But, that's what the goal of such MRA "enquirers" is - not to listen, not to learn, not to consider or reconsider their views. They know what they believe. They are either just looking for further evidence to support what they believe (and if they don't get it, they're happy to poke and provoke until someone responds as they want,) or they are intent just in winding up and causing distress to the feminists they "engage" with. Sometimes it's both.

Different subject matter here, but imho, the tactics are identical, and it stinks.

I am beginning to feel that you are being antagonistic towards me Goth.

You came on this thread specially to tell us that we were Islam-bashing.

I say I dislike the burka I am accused of bigotry.

I point out misogyny I am accused of bullying.

I actually read posts and try to address the points in them and I am told I 'pick apart'. (why write a post if you don't expect people to comment on it?)

I question further and point out inconsistencies and I am accused of wanting to antagonise.

I don't think I'll bother engaging with you again. It's obvious you only want to discuss with people who agree with you.

Many thanks to Nailak however. You have been very nice. I might not agree with or understand your beliefs, but I appreciate that they are sincerely held. Maybe one day I will find an answer to the why that I am constantly asking. I certainly hope so.

Goth believe what you will - it was obvious from your very first post on this thread what your attitude was.

Yes, my questions are beyond the OP. That happens in threads sometimes, as they develop. So what?

Gratitude? Am I expected to say thankyou everytime someone posts something? People rarely thank me on threads. I think nothing of it.

No one has to justify their beliefs. That is your insecurity speaking - you have stated it several times. I am not eager to trip anyone up, but if I find holes in an argument, or see that points have simply not been addressed, I see no reason why I should pull my punches and not say so simply because the subject is religion. Religion does not deserve some special privilege exempt from examination and analysis. If it can stand up to criticism without immediately resorting to accusations of bullying, then it can make for interesting debate.

I did not post here to antagonise. But you know what? No religious person of any stripe, Muslim, Christian, whatever, has ever been able to properly explain to me why they read things that are not written in their various texts and still accept the original as the truth, or add so much that the original meaning is completely changed. They are always ready with accusations of bullying or bigotry if pressed on this. I expected your reply to be exactly as it was.

Furthermore, if questioning misogyny within religion is being antagonistic, then I am proud to be antagonistic. Nothing should be beyond criticism. If you don't like it, then it is your prerogative to address the points made if you choose.

Your questions are far beyond the op and everything she says, you pick apart. There is not the slightest bit of gratitude that she's answering your questions, instead the attitude is very much that she should justify her beliefs with yourself and others eager to trip her up. It's very unpleasant behaviour.

I'm very familiar with being asked about my beliefs on and offline and I've learned the difference between geniune curiosity and someone just wanting to antagonise, your behaviour and that of others falls into the latter category.

Goth From the very beginning of the thread you came on with accusations of Muslim-bashing, wailing about bad treatment. From where I am standing it looks like you are ready to cry foul at the slightest question. Why is that? I have no intention of bullying Nailak - I have asked her questions. She is free to ignore them if she wishes. I have not called her vicious names or made wild accusations against her. I have responded to her arguments - why would I not? If you don't like my responses, you can tell me why, explain where I am going wrong, refute my logic instead of making generic accusations of bullying and nastiness.

I did not cut and paste from an anti-islam website, I have only used quotes from the shariah council website, and these were originally provided by another poster. If this is bullying, then frankly you are oversensitive.

This thread has gone so far beyond the original OP and has descended into the usual cutting and pasting attacks on Islam.

It is nasty bullying done in the supposed name of women's rights, although since any Muslim woman who comes on here is treated like crap, I have to doubt the sincerity.

Nailak

nailak "when explaining hadiths words that are not actually there are used in the rulings? ie in my example the word desire is added in explanation?

and in the context where the wife is using sex as a weapon or to manipulate, then the angels will curse her ie she is in the wrong?"

why would you do this? If the words are not there in the text, then that is not what it says. You might WANT it to say something else, such as desire or consistently, but it DOESN'T SAY IT. It doesn't even imply it. Nowhere in the hadith quoted does it imply "using sex as a weapon or to manipulate" I'm sure if god wanted those words in the original text, he would have seen to it, so to me it seems really odd to add them. It's as though the original text is not good enough and you feel you have to alter it.

As I said before, I see this a lot with religious people and it makes no sense at all.

However given that further interpretations of Islamic rulings has lead adultery 'victims' to receive lashings I think this 'women manipulating men with sex' is on very dangerous ground. I would imagine not a single Islamic country has a law on marital rape.

i think it is relevant tbh, to demonstrate how when explaining hadiths words that are not actually there are used in the rulings? ie in my example the word desire is added in explanation?

and in the context where the wife is using sex as a weapon or to manipulate, then the angels will curse her ie she is in the wrong?

but anyway, i am not a sheykha or a muhadith

"the original text is in Arabic, yabu to expect a translation to be exact"

why would that be unreasonable? Perhaps I should tell you that I am actually a professional translator. Although there have been many instances where I was unable to find an exact word to use to translate, I have always been able to render the meaning. I see no reason why this should not be the case with religious texts.

Your info about the kiss is irrelevant, although frankly it seems ridiculous to have rulings on this sort of thing. What possible circumstance or context could there be to make the hadith I quoted reasonable? Without adding words that are not actually there.

the original text is in Arabic, yabu to expect a translation to be exact, and also hadith comes with a circumstance, and with other hadiths on the topic from which rulings are derived.

for example there are two hadiths about kissing your wife while fasting in Ramadhan.

In one example Muhammad said it is permissable,

in the other he said it is not permissable.

because he was responding to the questioners specific circumstances.

i.e one was an old man and the other a newly wed,

therefore by using these hadiths in combination the ruling was derived that kissing your wife in ramadhan is permissable if you dont fear it will cause desire, or lead to breaking fast.

if i just read one hadith then i could say "it is wishful thinking to think you can kiss your wife in Ramadhan, it doesnt say in that one hadith anything about desire, etc etc"

nailak this is something I find frequently with religious people. You are reading things that are not in the original text. I call it wishful thinking. It does not say 'consistently' or any synonym thereof, it does not mention whether or not she might have a reason, it does not even consider her reasons. The implication is that it could be a one-off that she is being cursed for.

seriously?

you do know that one hadith doesnt make a shariah ruling dont you?

anyway this hadith is only saying that if a woman consistently denies her husband intimacy with no reason, then she is in the wrong.

also the bit about being angry proves that marital rape is not allowed in islam.

nailak As quoted previously on the thread, from the shariah council website:

"Narrated by Abu Hurayrah that the prophet said, "if a man calls his wife to his bed and she does not come, and he goes to sleep angry with her, the angels will curse her until the morning."

I fail to see how there can be many interpretations of that, wishful thinking aside.

erm? since when is there only one interpretation of any religion?

posies reading what you have just posted, I find myself wondering how any woman can sincerely and honestly believe that this is divinely inspired, the one true religion.

If a child's parents are divorced, at what age is it suitable for them to live with the father?

Answer:
Abdullah bin Ams bin Atas (RA) reported that a woman said:
'O Messenger of Allah. For this is my son, my womb has been a container, my lap has always carried him and my breast has been a feeder. His father now claims to take him away from me'. The Prophet (SAW) replied: 'You are more deserving to keep him as long as you don't marry.' (Ahmad, Abu Dawud).

Abu Huraira (RA) reported that the Prophet (SAWS) has given a lad a choice between his father and his mother. (Ahmad, Ibn Majah, Tirmidhi)

It is reported by Umarah Al-Jasmi (RA) that he said: 'Ali (RA) gave me a choice between my uncle and my mother and I was either seven or eight at that time.' (Al-Baihaqi)

Till the age of seven the mother has the sole right to have the custody of the child if she marries someone who is not related to the child, she loses her right in the custody. If the child were still under seven, he would be given custody of a female (preferably among the mother's relatives like his maternal aunt or grandmother). But if he is above seven, he is no more in need of a woman's care and he is to be in custody of the father. If the woman did not remarry, the child is given the choice to stay either with the father or mother. Whatever the choice he (the child) takes the other party will not be denied to see the child on a regular basis.

Basically if Islam wasn't so ingrained with sexism the Council could give the gift of sexist justice. Having Sharia is a definite admission that Islam is terribly sexist.

posie i am none the wiser, what exactly would you ban? the council? but if unorganised individuls give islamic khula then that is ok?

khula is supposed to be given by judges, or Qadis, not imams,

an imam doesnt have any minimum level of education/ knowledge etc, he is just a pious person who is able to lead the prayers, give sermons and is respected in the community.

a judge has to study jurisprudence in depth.

there is no reason why individuals who are qualified could not perform this function.

However it seems a group of muslim organisations and leading, well known sheykhs, and judges, decided that they need to organise this process, make it easier for women to know who to go to, how to contact them, where to go etc, because if you tell the majority of muslims to go to a sheykh/ qadi they would not have the first clue how to go about finding one.

However in doing so, other qualified people are under pressure to not step on the toes of shariah council, i use this phrase as it is an actual quote of what a sister was told.

so unless you pay the fees, travel to one of the offices etc it is hard to get khula.

on top of that, in some cases they have been inefficient, loosing paperwork and keeping women hanging on etc.

on top of this judges abroad will say you need to get the khula from the authority in the country that gave nikkah, as they cant quite get round the idea the shariah council is not actually a legal authority.

Yes, looking at the Sharia Councils pre historic ideas I would absolutely ban such sexist and vile crap from these shores. Christ alive, some of it was straight out of a Harry Enfield sketch... women no your place.

I will copy and paste a few ideas from their website to illustrate my point.
(I promise to quick search and not get very picky searching for things endlessly just to make Sharia look ridiculous):
Marriage in Islam is intended to protect the chastity of men and women alike, therefore it is the woman's duty to respond to her husband's requests for conjugal relations. She should not give silly excuses and try to avoid it.

The warning given to women whose husband is angry with her reaches such an extent that it would shake the conscience of every righteous wife who has faith in Allah and the last day. She is told that her prayer and good deeds will not be accepted, until her husband is pleased with her again.
Conclusion:
After this advice, if your wife should persist upon not responding to your sexual needs then you should divorce her. This is because a woman who can not have conjugal relationship should not be married in the first place.

Would you mind to tell me that if someone got married in Muslim countries, in where he can legally marry more than one wife and he did it. Then he plans to emmigrate to UK. Will his polygynous marriage be still valid? Or he needs to divorce some of his wives and remains only one wife?

Answer:
He should try to keep both wives. Either visiting the one, in her Muslim homeland from time to time if he can afford to do so or to bring one of them to U.K. through a valid visa. Just emigration to U.K., is not a valid reason to divorce one of them.

My name is Sister xxxx and i am applying for university this year, i wish to apply to study Medicine, however i was unsure about the shariah concerning the study of a subject where students have to undergo activities such as; Autopsies, human disection and touching male patients; hence seeing people's awrah. Please advice me in the best way with references to hadith (if possible) and islamic shariah law
Answer:
Assalam o alaikum,
Muslims do need female doctors, especially for the treatment of ladies. To become a doctor, you have to go through all such topics as you mentioned. It is a necessity because there is no other way to learn medicine. Sometime you have to tolerate a lesser evil to avoid a bigger one. So you can study in a medical college, preferably in a women college if available and then, after graduating, just treat the women only.

It is obligatory for a woman to cover her whole body whenever she comes out of home in accordance with the saying of Allah.
'O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when out of doors): That is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.' (33: 59).

The Arabic word for outer garment used in the Qur'an is 'Jilbab'. It is reported in an authentic hadith the when this verse was revealed, the women in Madina wrapped themselves in such a way that their heads used to be seen as if crows were upon them. They just left their eyes open to see the way when they walk.

A woman is required to cover her head whether she is alone or in presence of someone else in accordance to the saying of the Prophet (SAWS):

"Allah does not accept the prayer of an adult woman without s scarf".

As to why she is required to cover her body in such a way, the answer is that the woman herself is 'Awrah' (meant to be covered).

The main objective behind is to cover her eyes of the non-related (Mahram) men to avoid attraction or temptation. The display of the beauty or the part of woman and free mixing with men lead to scandals like that of Mr Clinton & Monica which is not acceptable in Islam which invites for a clean and pure society.

nailak perhaps you can help us to understand something. Why is there a need for a shariah council? Can individual imams not perform the islamic divorces you have been referring to?

isnt that the case already? isnt that the case with the shariah council?

Nailak I think it is clear what posie is trying to say. She means that there is no place for shariah to have jurisdiction in the uk. You are free to follow its precepts in private if you wish.

cantspel so you would beable to have a religious marriage with an imam, that is also registered civilly,but not a religious divorce, only civil one?

i do accept that islamic communities have issues, and there are issues with shariah court, but i dont see how preventing women in abusive marriages from getting a religious divorce that would allow them to move away from their husbands, and move on with their lives, and remarry within their religion, without feeling as if they have still responsibilities as a wife to their ex, as they were married in religious and civil manners, and just divorced in civil manner would be helpful.

posie i know it is not a neccessity under uk law to have a religious marriage, but with your statement that there is no place for shariah law, would you say there is no place for shariah marriages? so would you ban marriages that follow shariah rulings?

shariah law encompasses everything, not just these matters, such as the saying of salaam, how to treat family and neighbours, how to pray, when to pray, how to give zakaat, how to fast.

if you are saying there is no place for shariah law, then you have to understand that you are saying that there is no place for any of this, as all islamic practices are covered by shariah law. so basically you are saying there is no place for practicing islam.