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

[DarlingDuck]

.

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 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.

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"

"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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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?

people posting

Erm, if someone talks about Islam being good for women regarding the Sharia Council and then that council is shown to be most anti women. That council has supposed pro women actions that can only be so because some Islamic scriptures are even more anti women what do you suppose one does? Ignore it?

I'm not sure the purpose of a feminist discussion about wearing something, that for most, is a symbol of oppression that we must thank people for their POV. I'm not sure anyone's take on wearing the Burka would make me change my mind, that is not the reason for debate. Just the same as women who wear it don't thank me for my perspective. What an odd request.

I'm pretty sure Goth you don't politely tread around the boards thanking people for their point of view.

Actually, these debates have actually given me a good understanding of issues related to feminism, that need to be addressed and questioned within Muslim communities, and have led to me making and responding to threads on Muslim forums with renewed perspective and understandings of the issues, so I am able to express my thoughts and feelings in a more effective manner.

So thanks for your perspectives, it helps me develop.

Hi nailak - Sorry, I didn't mean to desert you. RL got busy and when I checked back on this thread, it looked a bit scary tbh.

Why would you like to ask me? To clarify, it was my DGF (not DGM) who was the hajji although DGM is also very devout and was doing her daily prayers until her knees failed her.

It is not my personal belief that Quran is complete, perfect, and all you need to know to be a good Muslim. It is what Quran says. Surely you know this better than I do, and I hope you won't make me search for quotes.

Also, it is not that I don't "believe in" Hadith. My point is that they are not even hearsay but Chinese whispers. Who knows which of them Mohammad actually said or did?

For example, did he really condone FGM? Even if that quote is correct, why should it mean that girls' genitals should be cut now? Maybe he said it because he knew he couldn't just make them stop the tradition of FGM so hoped to at least lessen it.

so how does that effect the way we pray, the way we do zakat, halal our meat, do haj etc? because it is all based on hadith? how could we be a muslim without hadith? and if your gm didnt wear hijab as she believed Quran was complete, then how did she know how to pray?

I think you actually have a point about the fgm, it is possible that he meant to lessen the harm, as he knew he couldnt stop it, that is an interesting perspective for me to explore further.

Also fgm is one of the things i have been discussing on muslim forums, we are all agreed pharonic curcumcision is a terrible assault on any girl, the sunnah circumcision is clitoral hood reduction, which is also done as a cosmetic procedure. The effect of this procedure is to expose the clitoris and cause increased arousal for the woman. however islamic fatwa sites such as islam q and a state the purpose is to reduce the desire of the woman, which makes her closer to perfection.

firstlt i dont understand how it could reduce desire, the answer given was in hot climates woman without this procedure randomly have strong desires when going about their day to day business :s so i dont understand then if we accept this as true that this would be a sunnah for people not living it hot climates.

anyway i am not convinced of that.

secondly i dont understand why a woman would reduced desire would be closer to perfection.

my first instinct was to argue that any husband would prefer a wife would increased desire, why would you want to have to pester your wife for sex when she could have a healthy sex drive which has been diminished, that is a bit weird and rape like,

then due to my exposure to feminist thought i realised this is still valuing a woman through a mans eyes, if you understand what im saying, and surely a womans worth is more then that, so how would it benefit the woman if she has lower desire?

Haj & zakat are widely talked about in the Quran although I don't remember to which detail. Of course, there is tradition re how exactly Muslims pray etc that was supposedly detailed by Mohammad.

My DGM doesn't wear the hijab now but she used to, apparently, because her father expected her to. Then she married my DGF, who expected her not to, and she hasn't worn it since. None of it very feminist, I'm afraid

Quran is actually very clear that God expects Muslim women to wear the hijab/headscarf. It is also very clear that he doesn't expect women's faces to be covered. This is actually corroborated by the Hadith, since you are such a fan, where Mohammad apparently said everything should be covered except hands and face.

So, going back to the subject of this thread, I reiterate that there is absolutely no valid religious reason to cover one's face.

"in hot climates woman without this procedure randomly have strong desires when going about their day to day business"

That is one of the weirdest things I have ever heard mentioned on an Internet forum, and that is against some competition! What now, when it's hot outside, us women get insatiably horny, like the proverbial bitch in heat???

I agree with all you said on this subject. FGM is completely indefensible, less so than male circumcision which at least leads to better hygiene and protects against penile cancer and HIV transmission.

I find the burkha medieval and I can't accept it as a liberating garment. I just can't. I can't accept that it's okay for women to cover their faces as if strangers seeing their eyes, nose, lips, hair is a dreadful thing. It's inhumane.

As a feminist I also can't accept your T shirt wearing male accompanied by his burka-clad wife.

No amount of religious justification or cultural relativism can change my mind. It is wrong

"the purpose is to reduce the desire of the woman, which makes her closer to perfection."

Surely, desire is in the head/hormones, not sensitivity of the clitoris or the penis.

All they are achieving by cutting the clitoris is decreasing the pleasure women get from sex. It sounds like a tool of oppression to me.