Imperial bans Hijab

[peacedove]

[quote]Imperial College London has issued a ban on its staff and students wearing hijabs or hoodies in its buildings as part of an effort to improve campus security.[/quote]

education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,1648360,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704

very interesting, indeed.

im not sure how it affects it legally, as though it is writteninto the contract, it is left to the couple usually to decide how and when it is to be handed over.
so for some reason, my parents wrote what i can only describe as a minuscule sum of money in my marriage contract, and since iw as just so happy to be getting married to him, didnt think to question it, . well, whats the point in asking for such a tiny sum? i spend more than that on a months grocery shop!

Diresct quote from your link Hercules

'In this verse Allah Almighty has allowed men to slightly beat their wives in certain situations to stop them if they crossed God's limits regarding the husband's rights, but never allowed harsh beating, as how we see men beating their wives nowadays.'

It also says t is forbiddeni

mb the hitting is symbolic, you aren't allowed to hit your wife because you sleep with her, because she is your partner and companion in this life and the hereafter, because a man being (generally) bigger could do damage, because it doesn't fit with the keeping in kindness which is stipulated.
Certainly the Prophet (pbuh) adivsed against hitting a woman.

That's one interpretation.

mb, isnt that a bit of a fundamentalist, black and white approach????/
dont get me wrong, i thik wife beaters should be locked up, and the key thrown a way. BUT if i accept that there is one God, and that mohammed is his last messenger, and that the Quran is the true word of God, then i have to accept what it says. iyswim. you cant just pick and choose those bits of religion you like. elsewhere in the quran violence is abhorred, especially so against the weak, so i know that the essence of islam is anti violence. and i must trust that God had some reason for allowing this.

Hercules, it wasn't my interpretation it was the one you linked to.

I realise that in other areas it says different things, but as the koran is soppost to be infalable, doesn't this verse worry you at all?

God has a reason for letting men slightly beat their wives?

Another explanation says that the Arabic word: "idribuhunna" used in the Noble Verse 4:34 above is derived from "daraba" which means "beat". The issue with all of the Arabic words that are derived from the word "daraba" is that they don't necessarily mean "hit". The word "idribuhunna" for instance, could very well mean to "leave" them. It is might be like telling someone to "beat it" or "drop it" in English.

Wife beating anytime and for any reason is prohibited in Islam.

Stitch, I'm asking this in al honesty, isn't the Koran accepted as the fundimantal truth? My undertanding is that it is seen as the word of Allah Given to Muhammed, and as such isn't possible of mistake, in the caes of the Arabic version. Am I wrong?

mb, i guess its down to faith.

to use an example, my dh has the right to divorce me purely by saying so. i have to go through the courts. true, this goes against my feminist values, but, i also know that our marriage would have lasted about five days if i had this right. as it is, i am constantly asking for a divorce![at least once a week, but ive got quite a bad marriage, whichis another topic entirely, ] so, in my instance, its best that i dont have this right, iyswim.

ues, mb, thats right.
but, as i said, that youhave to have faith that God knows what he is doing.

I accepted that was said later in he article Hercules, and posted as such a little while ago. But the first paragarph is as I posted, word for word. If the writers didn't think that , why is it the first paragraph inthe article?

You are taking one sentence which has different meanings and the meaning you attach to it is contradicted elsewhere in Islam.

While I can accept that god may in all probability know what he is doing , I have grave worries that people do, and to give one type of person the right to 'slightly ' beat another worries me deeply.

And casts grave doubts over the standing of men and women and their relative rights

True, hercules, but doesn't that one worry or upset you at all? and how do crtracdictions stand withing a text which is seen as error free?

But there isnt the right. Beating is forbidden. Muhammad (pbuh) never did this and spoke against it.

(ps I have similar worries about the Epistles of Paul !)

But if the second translation is the right one then where is the contradiction?

mb, theres another verse somewhere in the quran that talks about marrying a slave if she gets pregnant, i cant quote surah, and verse number to you, as i am not as knowledgable as i pretend to be, but i remember this really worried me, as sex outside marriage is a big nono.
mom tried to explain it tome, and i didnt find her explanation satisfactory. it was to do withthe fact that slave didnt mean the same thing as it did in the american south, which is the meaning we all associate it with. and something about this being after a time of war, and lots of widows about..... i found it unsatisfactory as an explanation.

but i trust in God, so have to accept that he knows what he is doing, or it all falls to bits

So why is that text there?

BTW I'm not a Muslim.

True hercules, but the people who posted the link you made, seem to think that the first translation is correct.

i havent thought this much about my religion for a long long time, (my mom despairs of me!)
thank you mb, for making me think about my faith so much

I guess it's like anything. People will chose to interpret things to suit their own purpose. Dreadful things have been done in the name of Islam that contradict it's key principles.