Origins of Hijab

Quite an accurate account of the genesis of Hijab. Sometimes I wonder why Orthodox Christian Women in Europe also cover their heads.

Gill Sahib

Great read. Just a few days ago I read Naguib Mahfuz`s book, `Palace Walk` the first of the Cairo Trilogy and was moved by the wonderful depiction of the life of women in Islam. The hijab or purdah a central prop to the stage of male and female dynamics in the Islamic society. It was proof of a woman`s purity and muslim identity. I agree with what you say in your article. Here are three reasons women who wear Hijab have given to me at various times:
1. A symbol new immigrant women wear to reassure her husband that she is subordinate, will not assert her superiority in anyway, or rock the family boat.
2. Pride about one`s Muslim roots.
3. An obvious signal to the world that she is not interested in any advances. Great idea by the way...(In Canada, I met the heroine of the movie we were both acting in, who was as can be imagined a very beautiful and alluring woman. Outside the set, she wore a hijab. She told me she does it so that she always has a reminder to be guarded against temptation such as drink, drugs and men).

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Urstruly,

Orthodox Christian women in Europe and various parts of the world cover their heads because in one of the Pauline epistles, i believe it is 1 Corinthians, but perhaps in another one as well, Paul exhorts men to pray with their heads uncovered, but women with their heads covered, and for women to keep themselves covered. i remember during Bible study one evening, how one of the Orthodox priests explained that the `tradition` of covering heads came more out of the culture at the time.

didn`t know if you actually wanted an answer, but thought i`d offer one response anyways. :)

gill sahib,

...... the faithful can always come up with good reasons to do or not do something .......... you can always find all kinds of silly reasons to justify ridiculous and cruel practices ............. what are you going to justify next? ... slavery?.... concubines? .... wife beating?..........

For an agnostic, it seemed that Quran used to be the best tool for the last prophet to sort out pretty much anything that was going on in his life; from his harem to not having a male offspring (ref: Surah-e-Kausar).

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Regarding the last para - why is it that only muslim women who feel the need to assert their identity? What about muslim men? Why a symbol that connotes female subservience/subjugation when women as such are discriminated against? Isn`t it peculiar that in the face of xenophobia they want to (according to the author) separate themselves even more? Is the size of the veil proportionate to the assertiveness? I wonder if the egyptian graduate students with their fully veiled wives in tow are expressing their muslim identity through their wives?
I grant that there may indeed be women who have examined the issue and wear the veil as a way of asserting themselves. If these women are otherwise integrated then they may end up teaching the larger society that veil is not something to be feared, reviled or looked down on. However, it seems to me, that a large number of veiled women do it as a matter of habit (hehe). It`s a sign of female oppression and being proud of it. (For what it`s worth, I`d rank high-heels almost up their with the hijab - worn to satisfy women or to make up for lack of self esteem.)

Dear Inter-actors:

Some of you have taken me quite wrong. I`m quite open-minded; I`m a freethinker. My daughter does not wear a hijab; it`s her own choice. If one day she decided to wear it; it will still be her choice. Let me tell you a real story; I have probably mentioned it some place else also.

A Yemeni young lady is a supervisor in a bank in Detroit. Whenever I went to the bank, I saw her modestly dressed in western clothes. At first, I thought she was an Indian lady (I found later that she has Indian roots). Later on, I came to know her better because she helped me in getting a mortgage loan from the bank. She told me her parents or grand parents were Indian who had gone over to Yemen and settled there. She is a very nice, refined and enlightened lady (she has an MBA).

After a month or so, when I went to the bank again, I saw her wearing a hijab. I casually mentioned about it and then she opened up. She said, ``by the grace of Allah, I now have the courage to wear the hijab. I don`t care what others may think about me. It`s my choice and I`m going to wear it.``

What right do I have (or others have, for that matter) to impose my will on her and dissuade her from wearing the hijab? I believe she should have the right to decide for herself. Why are the people so hooked up on a piece of cloth which some women choose to wear. If they choose not to wear it, well and good. If some girls choose to wear miniskirts, it`s their choice and the society allows it. And wearing a miniskirt is no sign of refinement either; it`s just a dress.

Incidentally, the article was written to provide a historical perspective as to how the hijab was introduced in the Muslim culture. The focus of the article was not to support or condemn it. I believe some of the inter-actors are male chauvinists; they are deciding for the women what to wear and what not to wear. If a woman wants to wear a hijab, it`s not my place to criticise her.

Best regards and take a deep breath, let it go real slow,

Mohammad Gill

I have to apologise for the numerous postings of my response. It`s not my doing; somehow the computer went berserk. Seeing so many of them, embarrases me.

Let me request the editor to delete the superfluous repitition of my response. Thanks.

Mohammad Gill

I think there is something wrong with a society where a woman has to wear a hijab to feel ``liberated``, compare the rude stares and eve teasing incidents in western countries compared to islamic countries.

``by the grace of Allah, I now have the courage to wear the hijab. I don`t care what others may think about me. It`s my choice and I`m going to wear it.`` ............. this is what i call ``in your face islam``.......... next thing you know she will be demanding the right to blow herself up to please al-lah ............detroit is not safe any more ..........

http://www.hindu.com/2004/06/24/stories/2004062402521000.htm

From hijab to jilbab

By Hasan Suroor

Shabina Begum`s is a perfect case for the authorities to ``discipline`` her guardians for depriving her of her legitimate right to education.


FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD Shabina Begum is like any other normal girl of her age, and given a chance she would, presumably, be doing what teenagers do — go to school, have fun in the playground, wear what they fancy and, generally, indulge themselves. Instead, it has fallen to her to become the public face of a campaign by radical Muslim groups to push for an ``Islamic`` dress code in British schools.

Shabina stopped attending school two years ago after she was told that she must conform to its dress policy, which is flexible enough and allows Asian pupils, for instance, to wear salwar-kameez. But her family, apparently egged on by fanatical elements in the community, insisted that she must be allowed to wear jilbab — a full-length burqa-type robe — and took the school to court claiming that it was trampling on her ``religious`` rights.

Last week, the High Court in London ruled in favour of the school saying its decision was not discriminatory and did not breach the girl`s human rights as claimed by her counsel. The Judge held that the school`s uniform policy had the ``legitimate aim`` of properly running ``a multicultural, multi-faith secular school,`` and the limitations imposed on Shabina were ``proportionate`` to that aim. After the verdict, the school urged her to return, but her family refused accusing it of Islambophobia.

From all accounts, the school in question — Denbigh High School in the predominantly Asian area of Luton — is by no means illiberal. Nearly 80 per cent of its pupils are Muslim and the fact that Shabina`s family drew no support from other Muslim parents appears to vindicate the school`s claim that they are perfectly happy with the present uniform policy, which, the authorities say, was agreed in consultation with the community taking into account the religious and cultural sensitivities of the students.

It is suspected that the whole controversy has been stirred up by an extremist group, Hizb-ur-Tahrir (HuT), whose supporters include Shabina`s elder brother, Shuweb Rahman. The group, which is banned in Germany and some West Asian countries, is said to be using the unsuspecting teenager for its own ends. Indeed, the judge hinted at outside influences when, underlining her brother`s pro-active role, he said: ``One wonders why it should have been her brother who articulated what the claimant was perfectly capable of saying herself.`` He also noted that Shabina had been happy to wear the school uniform for two years, and wondered why she had suddenly changed her mind.

The verdict, predictably denounced by the usual suspects in the Muslim community, has been widely welcomed as a much-needed precedent, which, hopefully, will discourage this sort of frivolous litigation in future. But the Shabina case raises issues that will not go away in the current climate of increasing cultural and religious militancy. The basic question is: to what extent can a secular state in a multi-racial and multicultural society be forced to accommodate the competing cultural and religious rights of individual citizens without disrupting social cohesion? And, as one commentator asked, can educational institutions be allowed to become religious battlegrounds in the name of promoting multiculturalism?

Increasingly, what is happening on the pretext of claiming such ``rights`` is an abuse of multiculturalism, which, far from contributing to diversity, encourages separateness and plays into the hands of racist groups. Already, the Shabina Begum case has been seized by the tabloid press to fuel anti-Muslim prejudice amid warnings that Britain is in danger of being ``swamped`` by burqa-clad women and bearded men in quaint dresses.

The fear of a right-wing backlash apart, there is a secular case for the state to start resisting patently sectarian demands, dressed up as religious or cultural rights. There is a growing view that the time has come to draw a line beyond which the state should not bend even if it means losing a few votes. ``If a line is not drawn, the next demand may be for permission to wear a burka, or to be excluded from lessons taught by men... . This could be followed by the desire to be absent from lessons five times a day to pray,`` says Terry Sanderson of Britain`s National Secular Society.

A case such as Shabina Begum`s is particularly disturbing, considering its long-term implications for her future. Here is a girl who has been denied her right to education by her own people who would rather that she remains uneducated than wear a school uniform happily worn by hundreds of other Muslim girls. In a country, where parents are sent to jail for the anti-social behaviour of their children, Shabina Begum`s is a perfect case for the authorities to ``discipline`` her guardians for depriving her of her legitimate right to education. And, for once, nobody is likely to object to the Government playing the ``nanny.``

Oh, OK, let me see, is this what the author and some of the interactors are trying to say? That . . . Muslim women have to preferably wear a Hijab/burqaa because Muslim men cannot be trusted to behave decently? Next logical step, therefore, is probably to jail Muslim women. Oh wait, that`s already been done, it is part of the Great Arabian Kulture. Been there.

The author makes one BIG error in his summing up. That the Caliph provides political power while the Imam provides religious direction. In reality, in this day and age, the Caliph is probably not relevant anymore, having been swallowed up by the Imam at many places.

The other mistake he makes is when he presumes that ````the debate on hijab in the Western world will continue```` . . . truth is that the main relevant people in this debate, the Muslim women themselves, are not part of this debate. Let us try to rectify that first before laying all the blame on the doors of Western Xenophobia.

Look within first, another great advice from The Book, if you will recall?

hamidm2:
Sir. you`re entitled to your own opinion. The Yemeni lady is enlightened as I said in my post. She is an MBA and if she chooses to blow herself up (which I believe she will not do) just to please you, it will still be her own choice and she may have a reason to do that. Generalizations are always hazardous. If you read my article a little more carefully, you will understand the rationale of the article. We should not be unduly judgemental.

You can express your ideas in an article of your own. But in an inter-act of my article, it creates an impression as if I am being accused of things which I didn`t say. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Gill Saheb:

You started the articel with the following sentencs.

[The pre-Islamic society in Arabia, the so-called jahiliyya, was structured in a way that the women were totally handicapped; the men dominated in every conceivable way. The women were owned by men just like any other piece of property ]

Would you be kind enough to enlighten us with the status of Khadija in the jahiliyya? To the best of my knowledge, she owned big business, inherited property and business from first husband and family, hired and fired employees, proposed marriage to the person of her liking, remained the only wife until her death etc......How many of such jahililyya cases do you know in 21st century Pakistan???

According to Karen Armstrong, the veil was taken from the Byzantine society (which was considered the most sophisticated in those days, both by the christians of western europe and by the muslims of the middle east).

SameerJB:
I had also written in the article: ``However, all the women in Arabia were not hapless, disadvantaged, or without material resources. There were women of wealth also in the society who owned their own businesses and had their own free will and ways in day to day life. But such women were few and far between. Khadija, Prophet Muhammad;s first wife, who had employed Muhammad to manage her business, was one of them. The wives of the aristocrats had social status which was due to their husbands` endowment. Generally, the women had a miserable lot.``

The caliph and Imam as two conceptual icons were quoted from Mernissi to underline the fact that there was no equivalent word for female power. These two icons had only masculine connotation.

I had also mentioned, ``But since hijab had been formally ordained by the Quran, there was no going back and it stayed irrevocably in the Muslim world.`` I had continued with a quotation from Mernissis to emphasize the women`s justified resentment regarding hijab. But I will reiterate that if a woman wants to wear hijab of her own free will, I do not have any business of imposing my will on her to not wear it. To me hijab is just a piece of apparel and if the law of the land does not ban it, women should be free to wear it if they want.

Mohammad Gill

Gill Sahab,

I really like the historical treatment of the subject, complete with anecdotes from early Islamic history.

``There are two icons of real power in the Muslim culture and power structure, at least conceptually, namely the caliph who has the supreme political power and the Imam who is the religious head`` I`m not sure what `fiqh` of Islam you are talking about. To the best of my knowledge, `Caliphate` combined the roles of temporal and ecclesiastical power in one. Caliph was supposed to be a man who would lead the Muslim community in prayer as well as battle. It is not for no reason that the first four Caliphs are labelled `rightful` Caliphs; they successfully discharged both these responsibilities.

In my opinion, the veil debate should be the last priority. If I were a Pakistani/Muslim I would start a campaign against that ghastly law which requires a Muslim woman to bring 4 `pious` Muslim males to prove that she was raped. This is misogynous!!

[The pre-Islamic society in Arabia, the so-called jahiliyya, was structured in a way that the women were totally handicapped; the men dominated in every conceivable way. The women were owned by men just like any other piece of property]

Not that it is any better today. At least in the pre-Islamic times, this evil was confined to the Arabian peninsula alone. Today, the malaise has spread throughout the Muslim world. Every atrocity on a woman is justified in the name of religion. For instance, the law in Pakistan requires a rape victim to produce 4 pious Muslims as witnesses to get the rapist convicted. If at all there are (were?) 4 witnesses, why would they stand by and watch the gory spectacle? Either they would resist the rapist, or join in themselves. And what if there are no witnesses at all? Does it mean there was no rape? And all this BS in the name of Islam.

#14 by hamidm2

[............detroit is not safe any more ..........]

ROTFL!!

``However, all the women in Arabia were not hapless, disadvantaged, or without material resources. There were women of wealth also in the society who owned their own businesses and had their own free will and ways in day to day life. But such women were few and far between. Khadija, Prophet Muhammad’s first wife, who had employed Muhammad to manage her business, was one of them. The wives of the aristocrats had social status which was due to their husbands’ endowment. Generally, the women had a pitiable lot.``

Is it any worse than the situation today in most islamic societies?

Re. muslim women wearing hijab in the western countries, I had until recently strongly supported the right of women to wear whatever they want. A hijab wearing woman poses no threat to anyone nor does she hurt the sensibilities of most people. However, I have now changed my opinion on this issue. It is now more a political than a religious/cultural issue of in-your-face islam. A woman who, until yesterday, was wearing a western dress and suddenly switches to hijab seems to be saying that she is not part of the Canadian/American/French/British mainstream and will never become part of the mainstream. Kar lo jo karna hai! In that sense, hijab has become a threat to the society from a religious belief which treats the host society as dar-ul-harb.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Quite an interesting historical perspective, Gill Sahab. I admire your manner of precisely stating things in a coherent manner.

To add on to the ``Women-wear-hijab-due-to-acts-of-men`` gripe...If I`m not mistaken, Muslim men are also ordered to lower their gaze in the presence of women. My question is: If patriarchal values had not prevailed (?) in the system, would it be possible the other way round ? (Men in Hijab and Women ordered to lower their gaze in the presence of men)?

We live in interesting times.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Gill sahib is not up to snuff on history. He has relied on Fatima Mernissi, a Moroccan professor for some historical data. Google search appears to show that her credentials as historian are not immaculate. She appears more of a women rights advocate.

Mr. Gill himself does not appear to have any historian credentials and the only way we can analyze this article is by gut feeling.

I have serious misgivings about the three men and Zainab account as quoted by Mr. Gill. That would be against all Arab cultural and social behavior. Arabs, even to this day would not allow three men with their wives or sisters or even mothers in one room. The Prophet may be “The prophet” but he was an Arab too and was raised in a tribal society. There is no way he would have left his new wife in one room ALONE with three men. This does not make sense.

“They were used to free sex and uncontrolled drinking;”

There is no evidence in history to confirm this either. Most of the Arabs were poor folks and a very small number of people could afford luxuries. There was no reported ``Caligula`` in Mecca before the Prophet. This is lifted right out of some third grade Islamic book with nothing to substantiate this alleged “Free Sex” and “Uncontrollable drinking” in Mecca.

Gill Sahib’s reference to Khadija as sort of an independent woman is not accurate either. She was Christian and was married twice before she married the prophet. Her brother-I forgot his name now- actually was responsible for the business. She inherited money from her dead husbands and she did not make that money. So how was she independent?

It seems that for sometime Prophet did work for her but did he work for her after the marriage is kind of murky. She was sixty five years old when she died. The Prophet was still in Mecca at that time but we find no information if Khadija left him any money or her brother inherited it all. It clearly appears from other historical accounts that the Prophet did not own a house in Mecca and he migrated to Medina from Ali’s house. Even that is not supported by any historical evidence. But that would be too much to discuss for this irrelevant article anyway.

Hijab is an Arab tradition and passing it off as something Muslims of the other countries should emulate is part of the game fundos are playing now in the Muslim dominated countries.
Indian and Pakistani Muslim women use Dupatta and that is good enough to meet all religious requirements. It covers the chest and can cover the head if so required. Dupatta represents our culture too. We don’t need to follow Bedouins.

Gill Sahib’s reference to Khadija as sort of an independent woman is not accurate either. She was Christian . . .

Khadija was Christian? I thought she was Jewish. . .

Interesting article. I learned some history that I did not know already. Thanks Mr. Gill.

While it is true that at one time (in the 7th century) the hijab might have made sense does it do so now? Also, what was an elevation of status in the 7th century is perhaps not so any more. Muslim women are some of the most repressed people in the world. Not every Muslim woman, of course, before the brickbats begin, but in theocratic Muslim states. They have little control over their bodies, their likes and dislikes, marriage (ignorning Islam`s assertion that women have the right to choose), etc. etc. Individual women within these societies may succeeed in carving out some independence for themselves but by and large their state remains appalling.

Also, there are varying accounts of the status of women in pre-Islamic Arabia. In a largely tribal culture, the rights of women varied from tribe to tribe. Portraying pre-Islamic Arabia as universally intolerant and cruel towards women I think is rather simplistic and, is one of the ways, in which Muslim women are taught to be thankful that their status was elevated into what it is now.

There were female goddesses being worshipped in Arabia at that time which is one of the indicators in pre-history of the status of women. Like the other Judeo-Christian faiths, goddess worship seemed to have been one of the biggest threats to Islam. For example, a pre-Christian goddess was transformed into the Whore of Babylon in the Bible. Regardless, historically, many tribal women had the right to choose who they married, were regarded as equals, could initiate and get divorced (a right that Muslim women still do not have) and were quite free to do as they wanted with their bodies.

Was there oppression and female infanticide? I am sure it was and that it was widespread. Tribal societies were arenas where the strong oppressed the weak and women were physically weaker and, therefore, less desirable in some (perhaps even most) tribes.

My point is, that as Muslims, and as Muslim women especially, we need to look at and examine and re-examine our long held beliefs and assumptions before we can make real progress. Why do we call pre-Islamic Arabia the age of Jahiliyat (with all its connotations)? Primarily because that is what the Quran calls it. My point is we cannot prove the Quran is right or wrong based on the Quran itself. These things have to be exmained with academic rigor, using historical analysis. Both the hypothesis of an argument and its proof cannot be the same or be from the same source.

The hijab has been so politicised recently in this strange wave of Islamic feminism. You accept your own lower (yes, to my perhaps culturally biased eyes it is so. and I am not just talking hijab here) status in society to prove that you are emancipated. Frankly I don`t care if women choose to wear hijab or not. It is a personal choice, I am told. I am not so sure it is that.

More on that later.

I write this as a Muslim woman who feels increasingly against the wall. To be honest, I practice a pick and choose religion. I pick the elements I feel okay with and discard the rest. I am sure many others do the same. I am a Muslim and will always remain so but I find myself alienated from it because fundamental feelings that resonate within me are sometimes opposed to what the Quran teaches. Yet, I cannot be anything else. On the other hand, I find myself more and more troubled to claim allegiance to a religion that considers me inferior. We need to move our religion forward, to not stagnate in the 7th century. If Islam was a radical new movement at that time why are some of its practioners so intent on making us return to that time? I want us to capitalize on the spriit of that radical change, not make the change itself frozen in time.

Yes, I am sure I will get slammed for this for being anti-Muslim by some while others will see me as a convenient tool to beat up (figuratively) Muslim interactors on this board. My goal is not to be either. Unfortunately, neither on this board nor in life can I control what is made of my words here today.

Peace

noorlain

Thanks for the info but I was looking for an answer similar to these lines:

1.A symbol to reassure her husband that she is subordinate, will not assert her superiority in anyway, or rock the family boat.

2. Pride about her Christian roots.

3. An obvious signal to the world that she is not interested in any advances.

so no thanks

A huge amount of problems people in Muslim countries face can be attributed to ONE source: the lies Islam has spread about pre-Islamic societies. In order to be a Muslim, blind and uncritical unacceptance of those lies appears to be a requirement.

The fortress of Islam, otherwise, becomes a house of cards.

great news: a third state in Germany has banned teachers in public schools from wearing the hijab. ha! ha!

next step: tax beards in pakistan. (like Peter the Great did in Russia to bring his kulaks up to the 17th century).

Hijab alienates Muslim women from the mainstream, at least in the western societies. It pushes them to the periphery, creates a ghetto-like environment for them and cuts them off from the normal social interactions and friendships, closing many doors of opportunities that would otherwise be available to them including in the labor market.

#23 Dost ji..right on...often another issue very similar to hijab is sikh turban...most sikhs who wear turban in US/Canada/france etc used to wear it since they were 10 year old and then migrated to West...80% of them give it up but the ones who keep it they did not start wearing it to make in your face statement towards western people. Most of these are genuinely religious people who have been unable to change inspite of living here for decades. Imagine a Sikh who comes cleanshaven from India and starts wearing Turban as a reaction to make a benign political statement ..well..he will fall in the same in your face category.

``M.B.Z.Isphahani on June 24, 2004 6:30am PT``


This has to be Benz Zakar of yore/CNN days ....


So you are hiding/active here now ... :)

Mr. gill: suppose Karen Armstrong is accurate (and I have found her accurate in everything I checked). All this veil business is then nothing more than aping the west...... of the 9th century AD.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

tahmed is funny.

Gill is qouting you Quranic ayah which are clearly mentionin hijab, and he still finds karen armstrong reliable.

Some people...

Huh? …granted, beating wives is a bad idea … but what’s wrong with concubines and slaves?

…what’s next? banning cigarettes, tariffs on european sports cars, expensing stock options? What’s a man, cursed with refined tastes, to do in this day and age? Watch temptation island and that $#%&ing bachelorette? ? I hope not! ... man ... talk about cruel and the usual punishment ...

… btw, what about your post on sex? You can’t renege now … you know ...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

dullabhatti, kaurasach:
Something similar took place among the sikhs during the eighties. Some, who had shorn their hair and had come cleanshaven from India, grew long beards and started wearing turbans. This was less frequently out of religious introspection and more frequently out of identifying with the sikh political movement back home. Their assuming of these identies was also regarded as a political statement at that time. There was also significant pressure from the community, such as restricting Sikh Society executive positions to turbaned sikhs with unshorn hair. More recently, there have been attempts to amend the gurudwara act to restrict voting rights to turbaned sikhs. The normal practice among clean shaven sikhs here is to have a small beard and wear a turban over shorn hair while visiting the gurudwara on Sunday.

dost-mittar,

As a member of a first-generation community, can you please tell me what`s wrong with an `in-your-face` attitude? And I am asking this as in-your-face as possible :-)

A discussion that was between I think Vertex and another about exactly this issue on the previous Hijab board was quite informative. Needless to say, I think he was spot-on. The crux of his argument was that in-your-face expressions of `otherness` is part and parcel of this culture, so that alone is an insufficient reason to question the Hijab.

This leads, of course, to your `dar-ul-harb` statement, which is rather uncalled for. The implication being of course that the Hijab is in fact an expression of political hostility, rather than assertion of identity or the perceived fulfillment of religious obligation. There is a world of difference, the difference only being bridged by projected sentiment which is more an act of hostility towards the Muslim community rather than one emanating from it. Such sentiment should not be pandered to.

There is hypocrisy at work (which I am not accusing you of, btw) when those who suggest that the Hijab will somehow lead to ghettoization yet express a sentiment that those who wear it at work, etc. are being condemnable social miscreants. Here, by not being ghettoized, they are being offensive, and the only solution is to have them either ``conform`` (or rather, to placate) or to ghettoize. It`s no doubt a nice position to occupy for those who wish to be antagonistic...

escapist: on Quranic ayah - been there, done that. have reminded people on chowk many, many times on chowk to read the full Quran, and to use their common sense when reading it, rather than quoting isolated ayahs as if the Quran was a chemistry book of forumulas.

have reminded them of the above so many times that am fed up of reminding them. I think muslims take off their brains as well as their shoes when they start talking religion. That is the conclusion I have reached after three years of scientific research on chowk.

KauRay: Two of my best mates are turbaned. We all immigrated about the same time. I took it off after few years they stuck to it...many times they had discussions whether to take it off or not...not very religous in the traditional sense....it is more a cultural thing for them...older they get more chances to stick to it...but as you said both of them are more successful than me...in fact quite an accomplishment for both.
idhar asiN kuttay khasi karday rehnday aan.:-)

KauRay: Two of my best mates are turbaned. We all immigrated about the same time. I took it off after few years they stuck to it...many times they had discussions whether to take it off or not...not very religous in the traditional sense....it is more a cultural thing for them...older they get more chances to stick to it...but as you said both of them are more successful than me...in fact quite an accomplishment for both.
idhar asiN kuttay khasi karday rehnday aan.:-)

dostmittar: thanks for pointing out sikh example after 1984 incidents...I was to add that in my first post today but had to get away quickly so left it out...not only in Canada/US, in Punjab also there was a wave to keep beards and turbans amongst sikhs in 80s..most of it was political sentiment and have faded as quickly as it came...this Hijab wave is very similar to that...it is a political statement of defiance if particularly excercised by groups of people...(individual might have genuine reason of her own.).

Hiding face behind hijab for the sake of avoiding lustfully gazing men is no longer valid in the western societies where more and more Muslim women are turning to hijab, more for in-your-face political statement than avoiding to be lustfully looked upon. The standards of beauty, sensuality, sexuality and lust have moved away from face to other body parts in the west, at least. Yamila Diaz-Rahi would still be lustfully looked upon by men in her two tiny piece swimsuit wether face covered with hijab or not. My hunch is that like obese anti-abortion activists by the roadside every Sunday, the bodies behind most of hijaban converts are such that they do not induce lust even without hijab, except may be for Urdu poets who restrict describing beauty and lust to the facial parts. So the reason to wear hijab on the first place is no longer valid.

dost-mittar #various
The year the Southern Baptists distributed pamphlets on occasion of Diwali, calling Diwali a `a festival of darkness` because `devilworshipping ignorant Hindus` celebrated it, that was the exact same year we made it a point to put up a bright lighted sign outside, spelling out `Happy Diwali` to the general public.

Sometimes individuals feel that boundaries have to be drawn which others can not violate. A hijab as setting up a personal boundary need not be a bad thing. However, if it is a part of a wider agenda, like an across-the-board insistence of a community on glorified isolation, then boundaries like hijab are not a good thing. It all depends.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

SaimaShah:

Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate and value your views regarding the `very sensitive` issue of hijab. wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

ankit #236
``jus wanted to add that it is convenient to say that what teesta seetalvad professes is not secularism. ``

Not sure what you mean, but I will point out that it is convenient for Hindutva-vadis too, who inspite of many years in power have not stopped holding others responsible for their their own blatant biases and biased actions.

all `in your face` attitudes are not necessarily controversial/frowned upon. hijab is associated with islam and if islam/its practitioners had made generally positive contributions to the contemporary world, hijab may actually have become respectable/non-issue for non-muslims as well.

the practitioners of islam as a society (exceptions apart), in modern times, have not presented the world with any praiseworthy thoughts/deeds...in fact, quite the opposite has happened. hence the aversion to hijab/jilbab, etc.

there is a natural process of enticement among the sexes as nature (god) defined. its basic birds and bees. just like it would be wrong to remove color or perfume of flowers to ensure that wasps are not atracted, it is wrong to interfere too much in natural selection processes among the sexes. a large jijab is undue interference which may cause devastating ecological damage.

on the other hand a nice hijab as a fashion accessory (remebmber the stuff about freedom to express oneself) would be dandy.

Some ideas.

1. zari border hijab.
2. thong hijab.
3. lace-border.
4. see-thru
5. hijab with a cellphone earpiece
6. hijab with holders for soda/beer cans with a straw for drinking

The Rediff Election Special / Amberish K Diwanji in Godhra

In Godhra, Muslims don`t matter

April 20, 2004


In Godhra, the marginalisation of the Muslim is complete.

The BJP does not care for them. ``They are not going to vote for us, so why
bother?`` asks Dr Chandrakant Pandya, who sat in the party`s city office while
its candidate Bharat Solanki was out campaigning in the villages.

Pandya was the first, and last, person to allow me to use his real name. All the
others that I met in the city over the next four hours insisted that I not
mention their names. And the photographer who accompanied me to Godhra remained
unemployed: no one -- Hindu or Muslim -- wanted his photograph taken, while we
did not want to shoot political workers!

Back to the Muslims. The BJP does not give a damn and says so openly.

But the Congress is also unwilling to touch the Muslims with a barge pole, and
says so too. In fact, a Congress leader in the city, manning the party`s
electoral office, proudly said there were no Muslims either in his office or
involved in the campaign. ``They have no choice but to vote for us, so why do we
need to bother with them?``

The Congressman did give me his name, but then requested that I not mention it.
I suspect that even the name he gave me was a false one.

The Congress and its candidate Rajendrasinh Patel are busy wooing the Hindus.
They have deliberately kept all Muslims out of the campaign, or even any
official position in the party. The aim is clearly to appear to be a party of
the Hindus, for the Hindus and, most important, by the Hindus. Even mild
interaction with Muslims could spoil this cultivated image.

A Hindu (in this city the only identity that matters is the community) who owns
a handcart selling plastic toys at an important road crossing insisted the city
is peaceful now. ``It is all the politicians who come from outside and create
trouble,`` he said.

The vendor said the campaigning has been low key, a sentiment others shared.
``Everyone is tired,`` he said, ``because during every election, communal tensions
rise.``

After the Sabarmati Express compartment was burnt on February 27, 2002, just
outside Godhra station, the city itself remained peaceful even as communal
frenzy and carnage tore through central and eastern Gujarat. But Godhra`s peace
was deceptive: there were riots last year during the Ganesh Chaturthi
festival.

A Muslim sitting in a small restaurant along with his friends near the notorious
Signal Falia area (the men who torched the train carriage allegedly hailed from
this quarter) insisted that no Muslim had pelted stones on the Ganesh
processions as alleged by the police. ``Are we mad to do such things?`` he
asked.

``The politicians do it to create trouble. Hindus and Muslims live in peace. We
trade with them. In fact, one of the partners of this shop that you are
standing in is a Hindu. If Hindus were enemies, would I work with them?``

But it proves a case of the man protesting too much. Muslims and Hindus do
trade, but beyond this token dealing there is no interaction at all between the
communities.

In Godhra, Mohammed Ali Jinnah`s words seem so prophetic today: Hindus and
Muslims are separate peoples forced to share a common space. And they do so by
living in different localities, which are referred to, rather unimaginatively,
as `Hindustan` and `Pakistan.`

The Muslim shopkeeper admitted that perhaps this is not the best way to live,
but then pointed out that it is because the Muslims are not in the Hindu areas
that perhaps no one was killed, a sentiment Hindus agree with. But living
separately means the two communities are just that: two different communities.

The Muslims are also extremely resentful of the daily humiliations they suffer.
``Our boys are just picked up at random by the police and accused of being one
of the hundreds who participated in torching the train. When a lawyer went to
defend some of them, he too was booked and jailed,`` said the Muslim shopkeeper
who outwardly appeared calm.

This is the biggest grouse of the Muslim community in Godhra today: that young
men are just picked up at random whenever the police feel like it. The police
station in this area, just outside Godhra railway station and running parallel
to the tracks, is buzzing with policemen.

Those arrested for their alleged involvement in torching the train are booked
under the Prevention of Terrorism Act; this means they can be locked up for up
to a year without trial or being brought before a magistrate. And with local
Muslim leaders out of action, it is difficult to get them out of jail.

Years ago, a social scientist studying communal riots had made a wry
observation: Muslim areas have police stations; Hindu areas have schools.

In Godhra, this was how it happened. The government-run school in the Muslim
area was shut down. The reason given was that there are not enough students.
But as the Muslim shopkeeper said, ``Keep the school open and students will
come.`` Now students have to trudge far to private schools. Given the grinding
poverty so very evident, many will drop out before they matriculate; few, if
any, will go beyond that.

Muslims see no scope of getting government jobs; and the factories in and around
Godhra, which lies in the industrial belt of Gujarat, are slowly shutting down.
They run petty businesses, where margins are paltry. Others work as truck
drivers and cleaners, or operate garages.

Many young Muslims in this area are involved in the transport business, but no
one actually owns a truck; they just can`t afford to buy one. So they rent
trucks from the owners, which only reduces their earnings.

I met a Hindu shopkeeper who runs a shop adjoining the Muslim locality. He
declared in front of a small crowd that had gathered that many of his customers
are Muslims, and then loudly proclaimed that Hindu-Muslim relations are fine
and that it is only the media that keeps seeing divisions in the city. He said
people vote on the basis of performance and the Congress might have a chance.

After 30 minutes of discussing sundry issues of little relevance, most of the
others in the shop had left. That was when he visibly relaxed and let his guard
down.

``I will only vote for the BJP,`` he told me conspiratorially. ``I can`t risk the
Congress returning to power because then the Muslims will get the upper hand
and make life hell for us.``

The shopkeeper admitted he had never had any problems with Muslims. ``In fact,
whenever things get difficult, it is the Muslims who come and tell me to shut
my shop; they don`t let it be damaged as they know me.``

He even admitted he quite dislikes the BJP, especially local MLA Haresh Bhatt.
``That man is terrible,`` he said. ``I was in difficulty last year and he just
won`t help any of us. But even then I will vote for the BJP.``

His explanation revealed sharp business logic. ``Look, the BJP will form the
government at the Centre. So it is better to vote for Solanki than Patel, who
will end up in the Opposition.``

Asked if he faced any trouble, he laughed and seconded what the Muslims had said
earlier. ``Today, no Muslim dare do anything. The police now simply pick up
anyone even thinking of creating trouble and lock him up on the charge that he
was a conspirator in the Godhra massacre.``

Two years on, the Godhra incident continues to cast a long shadow over the city
and its people. The election is of little importance to the people here. It
will make no difference to their lives.

dost-mittar #23: ``hijab has become a threat to the society from a religious belief which treats the host society as dar-ul-harb. ``

You seem addicted to the word, ``dar-ul-harb.`` :-)

I have been a Muslim all my life, and have hung around with Muslims most of my life. Yet I have never heard them use this word. The only place where I have seen it is in writings of a tiny group of Muslim writers. Even Maulana Fazl etc. rarely, if ever (perhaps never) use this term. Yet you use it all the time........ And so many Indians on this site, use it all the time. Why do you think that is? Why do you see dar-al-harb everywhere.

P.S. Hoping for something different than the generic, ``I only see it because the Muslims see it`` type of an answer. Since, you seem to use it more than the hundreds to thousands of Muslims I may have run across in my life.

digit:
``As a member of a first-generation community, can you please tell me what`s wrong with an `in-your-face` attitude? And I am asking this as in-your-face as possible :-)``

Simply put, it invites an in-your-face backlash. Yesterday, a muslim organisation in Ottawa published the results of its survey which showed that 75% of the muslims think that they are under suveillence. I think that this partly reflects the paranoia of the muslim community, but is also a reflection of the subtle hostility they encounter in their daily lives. I am now retired but still go for a beer with my old colleagues on Fridays. The resentment of these people is quite evident, despite all the sweet talk we hear on TV from the politicians of all stripes. The resentment is greater among the qubecois (we usually go to a pub in Hull) as they have this notion of social contract which expects a higher degree of adjustment on the part of the immigrant.
If this is the situation in the `civil` civil service town, one can imagine the situation in blue collar surroundings.
A couple of years ago, I had argued with tahmed on the opposite side; namely he was opposed to hijab and I supported it.The situation has changed since then.

sadna:
As I pointed out in my post to dullabhati/kaurasach, there is a difference between religious/cultural identities and political identities. When a high school girl born in Canada wears jeans and skirts and switches to hijab when she goes to university, it is not an assertion of religious but that of political import.

Your reference to southern baptist is not quite relevant. Their objection was to religious symbols; people lighting their houses were not considered to be a threat to anyone. In fact, the same people also object to Halloween as pagan worship. Moreover, they are themselves somewhat marginal and do not represent the mainstream

If people want to make a political statement with their hijab or turban (or with anything else) what is wrong with that? And what kind of radar do individuals possess, who can pick out who is making a political statement and who is not making one?

Are they bothering anyone, by making such a statement?

I don`t have any friends who wear hijab, but I do have Sikh friends and colleagues who wear turbans and who do not wear them. I never really bothered about why they do or don`t wear it. Maybe they wear it to make a political statement. Maybe to make a religious statement. Maybe a cultural statement. Or maybe just because they were brought up that way.

What the hell business of it is of mine, as long as they don`t harm me? Which they haven`t, so far?

When one starts commenting on the intentions (which are obviously unknown) of certain actions of others, which are causing no harm to one`s own self, one crosses the line, and becomes a bigot. I am truly amazed at the biases and prejudices and pre-judgements individuals indulge in on this site........

I will start complaining, if a hijaban or a turbaned Sikh use the cloths of their hijabs or turbans to choke me. Until then, live and let live. Let people make any statement they want. It is the spice of life. As long as one is secure in one`s own personality and doesn`t have any complexes, one will not be affected by such statements. If one is not secure in one`s own skin, one will always feel threatened or annoyed by those who do things differently (for whatever reasons)......

Romair#55:
``You seem addicted to the word, ``dar-ul-harb.`` :-) ``

This is what reading quran and hadis can do to one. :). And it is a very succinct and precise term which needs no elaboration.

More seriously, I think that this is the concept that drives the likes of Mohammad Atta and other followers of OBL. They are not even practising muslims in many cases but are fired with the zeal of political islam.

I have been to both Bangladesh and Pakistan. My observation was that Bangladeshi muslims are more devoted to their religion in terms of religious piety than Pakistanis. Yet, Pakistan is more troubled by jihadis than Bangladeshi. A possible explanation is that Pakistanis are more interested in political than religious islam.

...But you are right! Not too many muslims wake up every morning thinking of the ways in which they will try to expand dar-ul-islam. And I may have given that impression with the frquent use of that term.

dost-mittar #56
``Your reference to southern baptist is not quite relevant. Their objection was to religious symbols; people lighting their houses were not considered to be a threat to anyone. In fact, the same people also object to Halloween as pagan worship. Moreover, they are themselves somewhat marginal and do not represent the mainstream.``

Their objection was not to religious symbols, it was to Hindus remaining Hindus and not converting to Christianity - that was what the pamphlet was about(it was reported on in the NY Times too, later).

I would not call them marginal, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are both Southern Baptists of some color(Clinton condemned the pamphlet and Carter has parted ways with the main Southern Baptists over the role of women in ministry). Moreover, these people are likely to command more organisation, more membership and more funding than any Hindu group in the US does, I will bet.

The point was that a perceived violation of boundaries of individual or group autonomy does lead to overt assertions of identity as response, as happened with increased appearance of turbans after 1984 and increased appearance of Muslim-specific dress in India after 9/11 (which is what I heard).

sadna#59:
``The point was that a perceived violation of boundaries of individual or group autonomy does lead to overt assertions of identity as response, as happened with increased appearance of turbans after 1984 and increased appearance of Muslim-specific dress in India after 9/11 (which is what I heard).``

Wasn`t there a backlash against the sikhs and isn`t there now a backlash against the muslims? It is probably less pronounced in India since hijab, burqas and beards are well-entrenched in the public mind as benign symbols of religious as against political identity. The Indian cinema has been promoting the stereotypes of kind and gentle bearded Kareem Chacha and the pious, kindly burqa clad hameeda chachi for ever. It is not the same here!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

T ahmed.

again useless rhetorics.

If you think Gill has used those verses out of context, do let us know. Instead of telling us how ``you have been there and done that``.

DullaBhatti # 45

(idhar asiN kuttay khasi karday rehnday aan.:-) )

HA. HA. HA. You come out with the most genuine Punjabi Quotes :-)

There is one valid point that people seem to be missing here . . . while religious signs or gender defining apparel is one thing, blocking the economic/cultural amancipation and awareness and rights of a complete gender is another.

The full cover hijab/burqa, to the non-Muslim eye, and probably to the realistic Muslim eye also, seems to designate a major gender bias. Against women.

The chunni/veil, with Hindus/Sikhs/Christians and even many Muslims, on the other hand, does no such thing.

escapist: that was a statement of fact. not rhetoric. and these are questions below. not rhetoric:



1. what is important in the Quran (hint: read where it says that those who..have nothing to fear on the Judgement Day).



2. what part of the body does the Quran specifically call for being hidden (hint: it aint the head.)



These are BASICS to which the entire muslim world turns a blind eye. The hijab is a stupid act of political statement (no different than the black glove used by blacks in the US in the 1970`s). If anything, by directing attention to the wearer, the hijab is a direct violation of the spirit of the Quran.



and I have said this a zillion times on chowk, and didnt want to waste my breath with the hypocrisy of the islamist chauvinist pigs anymore.

#57 by Romair on June 24, 2004 4:33pm PT

Yes, in democratic societies people have the right to adopt hijab in the manner they deem it fit (with or without a piece of cloth, or with just modesty in their daily conduct ) - provided they do not infringe upon any of the rights of the individual citizens.

Agreed, but the problem starts when the Islamists try to force a particular interpretation of `hijab` upon others and then run all over the streets with acid or batons in their hands trying to enforce it!!!

So the only issue is that of `hijab` versus the `ordinary citizen rights` in a democracy!!!
Can we tolerate our women folk not covering themselves appropriately before others just because she thinnks it goes against her right to live her life the way she wants to without breaking any law in the modern democratic societies??

Answer this- and you would know where you stand!!!

The age old concept keeps on coming back as Fatima Mernissi and others keep on bringing new books to the market. I am not sure if you have looked into the recent one by Imam Feisal on ``What`s Right With Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West.`` Some excerpts are quite interesting. Since I have met him in person a few times therefore it`s easy to see where the writer is coming from.

[Unfortunately, it has been politicized in several western countries which seem to be paranoid of the Muslim culture.]

I disagree with your take. There are very valid reasons behind the paranoia. The current affairs will continue to impart their negative effect.

[In the face of this opposition, many non-Arab Muslim women have also started wearing it to assert their Muslim identity.]

True. Sometimes it`s to assert their identity but other times it`s the inner call that makes some women take that route. Some people listen to their inner call and act upon it whereas others ignore that. It`s very personal and does not require another book of analysis in my opinion. To give an example: One of my aunts, a senior vp at a large financial institution in manhattan, took that route a few years back. She has been with the bank for over 15 years or so. I remembered her telling me about the request she had submitted to secure some privacy for her prayers almost a decade ago. The request was accepted. Out of the blue, in the last few years, she has started covering her hair with a scarf. To top it all, she went up to her management team to explain her step due to the visibility of her position. By the way, she just got promoted to an avp last year. Her promotion took place despite the fact that she wore a scarf. I am sure the journey was not as smooth and rosy as I have tried to portray, but I have always appreciated the fact that she never allowed that to be a road-block. Last but not least, her surroundings (western) appreciate her experience and talent as a person with little focus on her head gear, race, ethnicity or gender. So, there are all kinds of examples one can look into.

Karauasch # 4

(I saw a documentary about Iran where women (chador clad) and men ``marry`` (he he) for a few hours. Some of these contracts take place in a mosque.)

Fiqhe Jafferiah is more liberal, generally more educated and is more organized. Although it suffers from the usual drawbacks of a formal dogma - meaning spiritual diktat of Mulla - and alien to the concept of democracy.

Incidently, how many women wear Hijab, Niqab or Burqa in Pakistan? An insignificant minority.

The village Women (around 70 %) who pick cotton, milch cattle or do household jobs have never even heard of these terminologies.

The NWFP women take Chaddor. Only Jamaat Islami women wear Niqab with a vengeance. Hijaab is worn more as a rebellion or a fashion statement in a very small group of upper class women.

Burqa in Pakistan has almost become non-existant unlike Afghanistan.

Doppatta or Chunni is the standard head cover.

It appears that the expatriot Muslim women have taken up this more seriously than others.

Zahraj:

Thanks for your valueable input. Such personal experiences are more to the point than the ravings emanating from pre-formed prejudices. In my own department, there is an Arab woman holding a responsible position who wears a hijab. I have attended meetings with her, no body feels odd that she wears a hijab. It will be hard to believe that she is coerced by her family to wear it; as a matter of fact her family may be looking upto her.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

THE NEED FOR MODESTY IS THE SAME IN BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. AS CHASTITY IS A VIRTUE FOR MALE AND FEMALE IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY CONCESSIONS

The need for modesty is stressed for men too as in Sura Al Noor, Verse 30,

``Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purify for them ......``

And then the need is stressed for females to be modest and observe pardah (not hijab). It comes in next verse i.e., Sura Al Noor, Verse 31,

``And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and gueard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments ....``

So if we go the Islamic version then typical horney men should first have to leave their immodest evil x-ray eyes and then female are to observe pardah. Its similar to the idea that the prostitution can only be ended if men stop going to prostitutes.

Dont use pardah as an excuse to hide females behind thick walls of clothes ... first get ur (and offcourse mine too) eye lids in position and then talk about pardah.

#50 by malyck on June 24, 2004 1:22pm PT
ankit #236
``jus wanted to add that it is convenient to say that what teesta seetalvad professes is not secularism. ``

Not sure what you mean, but I will point out that it is convenient for Hindutva-vadis too, who inspite of many years in power have not stopped holding others responsible for their their own blatant biases and biased actions.

INEVER PASTED THIS MSG ON THIS ARTICLE MY MSG WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT ......... WHERE DOES THIS COME FROM ........... CHOWK STAFF I NEED AN URGENT REPLY

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Hijab is very different. I cant explain why by logic. Its not a mere religious symbol.

e.g. if i see a Hassidic Jew in a bowler hat and hair-locks, what comes to my mind? Diamond merchants, bagels, sleazy camera shop owners on 42nd street, Amsterdam, Lox, whitefish, bad smell of chicken-soup, yeshiva university etc. no fear is felt.

if i see a turban sikh, it flashes bhangra, fish koliwada (or amritsar), bhangara, sardarji jokes, SikhLi, sport for support (or is it the other way), kadha prashad, sunday TV bhajans
sung by bhais, Langar at Hemkund-Sahib, little kid in kuch-kuch hota hai, field hockey, tire-shop owners, truckers, drunkern fights during Vaishakhi Celbrations, and other stereo-types (no, seeing a turban does not flash Economist from LSE).

hijab triggers folks jumping out of WTC towers, fierce-looking mujis carrying RPGs, the long sword on the Saudi flag, riots and communal conflicts, worrying future for poorer, ill-prepared oil states, indoctroinated gulf workers, talak-talak-talak, all the past conquering dynasties, pity for the hijaban (they somehow look sad).

So, logically, Hijab should somhow induce the feeling of peace in us (that the hijaban feels), but the left-side of the brain just does not co-operate. We need about at-least 50 years of peace with 200 Nobel Prize winners from the peaceful religion, 20% of them as women, and Al-Jazeera discussing Bahrain Stock-Exchange (and only one bombing per month), to make the left-brain co-operate with the right side.

dost-mittar #60
I agree with you about cause and effect and what is the judicious thing to do in such circumstances. But what to do, inside every individual resides a satyagrahi as Gandhiji knew:). It depends on community leaders whether this fervor is channeled into positive directions.

Ok y’all … here’s a good one … “What’s right with Islam” …by none other than the honorable Imam Sahib. Must be a pocket version … no more than 12 pages … including a verbose, repugnant introduction… followed by a call of unity to the psychotic ummah … while reminding them of the hadith that beating of wives should not leave a permanent mark on their skin (“it’s the women’s skin … not the men’s … you moron …" Imam Sahib was once heard screaming out aloud during the jumma khutba ...)

These ullema are not making any sense ... this includes those grown and bred in the US … white and black … who basically suffer from a cultural inferiority complex … and yearn to be one with the ancient civilization of concubines, slaves, and bloody battles. Of course, watching Dianne Kruger in Troy only makes them more nostalgic. And this includes that bay area idiot … hamza yusuf … who went on the air awhile back singing praises of Muhammad’s midnight flight to the seventh cloud … it didn’t occur to him that the chief was probably referring to the sexual ecstasy of sleeping with a 14-year old … huh? did I just say that …?

Freethinker: First of all congrats for spearheading the corner of ``Science and Sciencibility``. To be honest, it was kind of surprising to find ``you`` addressing this topic. I wanted to share with you some links on Imam Feisal:

1. http://www.interfaithhome.org/index.asp?section=1
2. http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s1075592.htm
3. http://www.asmasociety.org/about/b_rauf.html

Interestingly, the Imam has a major in Physics. There is another very smart guy, a scientist by background, who speaks very eloquently on the subject of religion and specific nuances. I think the said gentleman headed the department of physics or engineering at a prominent university in Iran. He left Iran after the revolution and is probably somewhere in Europe, if I am not mistaken. I have forgotten his exact name, but it`s something Nasir or Nasr. I have watched a few of his interviews at the interfaith discussions a few years back and he was solid and impressive. Nothing like Hamza Yousaf. I cannot stand that fellow! Somehow, I have always had more respect for both religious and non-religious people with a background in science/engg/technology. They don`t push Muslims to go back to the dinosaurs` times and live a destitute`s life in caves. I cannot generalize that for all the enlightened muslim teachers, speakers and preachers since I have not established a personal contact with all of them to pick their brains. Still my observation is based on my personal experience and liking. Also, something I really appreciate in the above two guys is the little focus on hijab, jilab and other derivatives. They have more focus on spiritual enlightenment.

The world will not fall apart if a woman does not cover her breasts or rear or upper arms or ankles. Some disturbed men may fall apart but that`s their issue. And, they should be treated accordingly for their mental disorder. The rest of the world ought to move on towards productivity, search for internal balance and enlightenment. There are 100s of other recommendations in Islam for living a productive and harmonious life, but surprisingly a certain category of muslims pays far more attention to the concepts of hijab and jilab(i do not even know what that stands for - probably a cousin of hijaab) than anything else. It`s a little weird.

``The pre-Islamic society in Arabia, the so-called jahiliyya, was structured in a way that the women were totally handicapped; the men dominated in every conceivable way. The women were owned by men just like any other piece of property (many would probably like to argue that they still are!). They could acquire them, use them, and dump them in whatever way they wanted with impunity and without any moral compunction or punity.``(Gill)

PreIslamic? -- are we sure -- looks more like -- Ahade Jahiliya -- never ended for us -- the Post Islamic Muslims....

it is well -- its alive -- and it is KICKING -- in`Post Islamic` Wahabi Arabia -- in Post Islamic Talibani Afghanistan -- in Post Islamic Hudoodi Pakistan -- in almost all the Post-Islamic Muslimistans of the entire world -- in 2004....

btw -- will anybody care to explain why we Muslims should have such -- extraordinary pathological FETISH -- with a very ordinary common-place HAIR on a hirsute Muslima`s head...... ?

why such paranoia -- such obsession to cover it up....?...why to make such a beautiful thing so ugly...?

#76: [To be honest, it was kind of surprising to find ``you`` addressing this topic. ]

This topic = Hijab.

Zahraj:

I am familiar with the works of Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr. He has published a lot on Islam. One of the things that ticked me off was his attempt of Islamising Science. I tried to understand how it can be done but I did not quite understand it. It is like putting a label of Islam on Science. I think it`s hypocritical but then I might be wrong. I personally believe what the Muslim world needs is the development of scientific knowledge; its acquisition not a claim to its ownership. How is one going to Islamise Quantum Mechanics and Theory of Relativity, for example? And to be honest, this is not needed.

In my opinion, hijab is not such a big issue. It should be left for the individual women. If any woman wants to wear it, it should be her choice. If she doesn`t want it, she should go without it. In the Middle Eastern countries, it is imposed by the society. This imposition should go away. Some of these countries are still in the medieval times. Every change is intolerably too slow. But then force is also futile. Let the globalization do its work. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Following is from another board..and perhaps, relevant here..

I am trying to quote exactly the way it has been written..words in bold are by the writer himself...

Quote:



What is deemed good and bad by a believing Muslim ( a Mu`min ) , when restricted to application at an INDIVIDUAL level , is never a problem.



It is when that concept is thrust upon others in SOCIOLOGICAL INTERACTION does the problem start.



There is no problem when a Muslim believes that he is doing good to HIMSELF by praying, fasting, charity, Hajj pilgrimmage, and belief in Allah and his prophet(s), and preventing HIMSELF from doing bad by abstinence from alcohol, pork, idolatry, usury etc.



Many such INVARIANT Decrees are there in ALL religions, to foster personal spiritual growth for the average Joe Bloe.



Dualistic sects of Hinduism have a plethora of such ``Yama`` and ``Niyama`` ( dos and donts ) for believers.



The problemstarts when this ``good`` and ``bad`` comes in the way of SOCIAL INTERACTION with members of OWN community and members of a DIFFERENT community.



By enjoing others to do what YOU feel ( or learnt from your religious upbringing ) to be good , and preventing others from doing what YOU feel ( or learnt from your religious upbringing ) to be bad is at the heartof EXTREMIST BEHAVIOUR in ALL religions, whether you like it or not.



The Jews had their share in the ancient times, in their dealings with Midianites.



The Christians had their share in the Dark Ages, in their Crusades and Inquisitions.



The Hindus had their share in the degenerated evils in the preceding 1000 years of Ossified Caste System by Birth, Widow-Burning and other such horrible acts of ommission and commission.



All of the above are examples of EXTREMIST and INTOLERANT behaviour generated by the URGE for enjoining OTHERS to do good and preventing others from doing bad.



Islam is no exception.



Muslims - especially those of the Ahle Hadith and Salafi brand - have taken it upon themselves to purify Islam and Muslims from the Shirk of Sufism that has crept in from the mellowing influences of Hinduism, Kabbalistic/Essenic Judaism and Gnostic Christianity.



They sincerely believe - and they have the inviolable ``word of God`` to support their claims - that they are doing good to themselves and others by



(1) enjoining other Muslims to do good ( Tableeghi Jamaat ) by becoming PURE and unadulterated Salafi Muslims ( and joining their Jihad by pen or sword ) and becoming a