What Does It Mean to be a Muslim in a Secular Country?

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

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

Saminashah

Why is it so hard for you to admit that your so called stance of ``free will`` is just a diversion or a camoflage, if you will; otherwise you are as indoctrinating as any other John Paul, Choohadas, or Abdul. Why can`t you be honest with yourself. The era of post-modernism is dead and gone. Now people are openly questioning the very basis of morality (or immorality) that a secular ideology promotes. As a matter of fact a secular ideology cannot have moral values in its essence. Don`t you see that this ideology is standing on stilt of propaganda and feels threatened by a little school girls atire. That should be an eye opener. As a matter of fact this ideology is well aware of its inherent weakness and thus it has to resort to lies and propaganda. The propaganda like `women in France are raped to cover themselves` or a helpless third world country can destroy the civilization in 45 minutes and so on and so forth. If what you propose is so good and so appealing to common sense then why can`t it stand on its own merit - why do you need crutches of false propaganda and thus malign others?

correction:

ARE NOT bothered in the West when they wear shalwar suits without hijab

Malik,

1. The French govt AND Muslim project partriarchs are making hijab a big deal. WHY are unemployed, old and teenaged and young men with nothing to do policing girl children who go to school about what they do or dont wear on their heads?

2. Scout brings up a point; why is is not enough to dress conservatively, as many children from all backgrounds do? It isnt enough because then one might be confused with a Pentecostal. What are parents doing when they insist on head scarfs? What IS important is that 1. the wearer is ``branded`` as a stereotypical Muslim -as in a consumer of an ideology its consumers want to ``sell`` and advertise to others 2. it isolates the wearer, as Scout points out, from other students whose fam`s belief system may not be as extreme 3. it casts the wearer in a psychic battle with the institutions with which SHE must interact with.

3. If a young girl or teenager WANTS to wear hijab, more power to her. But the choice must be there. For all the hijab wearing rellies I have, there are several relatives who hated wearing hijab in Pakistan. In their experiences, hijab was a way of marking a woman as inferior, untrustworthy, and object of the uncontrollable lust of men. These relatives are bothered in the West when they wear shalwar suits and NO hijab. So it really depends on the wearer.


4. Can you explain the analogy between circumcising a male infant and forcing a girlchild to wear hijab?

# 39 - ``Forcing a girl child to wear a hair scarf is not the same is forbidding a boy child from watching porn. ``

Samina sahiba - first of all, i feel you are getting into the particulars of the analogy that I used, instead of the message that I wanted to convey.

The message, once again, is this: it is parents` right to instill values in their children, as parents deem appropriate. It could be the wearing of a head scarf by a girl child or the circumcision of a boy child. I don`t see you or anyone raising any fuss about the millions of americans who get their boys circumcised. So then why is it that when a muslim parent puts a piece of cloth on his girl child that all libertarian hell breaks loose and we start talking about the ``girl child`s right to choose``?!!!!

``Along with hijab, parting hair on the middle is the most scientific way to develop intellect and build self esteem for the girls for their life.``

Rahul # 40 - you are right on the mark. Indeed, parting hair in the middle does not add to intellect, neither does wearing or taking off a piece of cloth from head. You are right on!!!

Indeed, no civilization in the history of mankind rose or sank because of how its women dressed. So then why this banning of scarf in France, and why this making it an issue by enlightened folks like Ms. Samainasha? Why all this hoopla in the west about it? Why is West going AGAINST its freedoms to clamp down on how a woman can dress herself?

Hijab adds no more or no less value to the intellect of a woman than the circumcision, or the absence of it, does to a man`s intellect. I hope I have hit a homerun with this cleverly made argument.

I surprise myself sometimes :)

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

a little anecdote that might clarify things:

a few of my female cousins were forced to wear a hijab to school in new york, obviously, in a country such as the US, such blatant and useless display of religion invokes feelings of separatism among the wearer and the children who are observing them, no child want`s to feel so extremely different and it can be detrimental to their self esteem, especially at a time when they should focus on their education.... so basically these three girls would take off the hijab in rebellion as soon as they got out of their parents sight..... they fell into a vicious, lying, hiding from parents cycle ....so what purpose did it serve? the parents didn`t gain anything, and the kids didn`t either..

parents should really draw the line on how strictly they raise their children in terms of religion because this can backfire, and a child who may become a good Muslim in the future, a child who is allowed some freedom to choose and think for herself... may turn the other cheek if they are religiously suffocated by their parents

we have to see the difference between a 9 year old girl forced to wear a hijab (a kid who hasn`t even matured enough to think analytically) and an 18 year old who makes an informed decision about wearing a hijab.

besides, hijabs and turbans and yalmulkas are not natural, if we believe in God and God`s creation, we should be happy with the hair on our heads that we were born with

malik99 #33 I wonder why your parents tortured you into going to school, when there is enormous literature and research available all through the centuries and it is an accepted fact that gulli dunda is the way to go for the salvation of mankind. Ditto about watching porn.
But you are completely on the mark about the hijab thingie. Along with hijab, parting hair on the middle is the most scientific way to develop intellect and build self esteem for the girls for their life. There is no question of discretion to be allowed to the girls. Again, enormous amount of literature is available, Samiinasha is probably behind in her reading or just a hypocrite. malik99, a gentleman that you are, you should let go of the issue.

Malik Sahib,

Let me make this is simple and clear as possible:

Forcing a girl child to wear a hair scarf is not the same is forbidding a boy child from watching porn.

Can you explain how it is similar?

AlephNull

Very good analysis indeed. I totally agree with the view that the true Islam cannot coexist with the non-muslim world and its clash with other civilizations cannot be avoided in the world becoming a global village. In this connection my letter sent to the Daily News today would be of interest. So I copy it hereunder:-

``Terrorism and Religion

This refers to the letter of Kh. Mohammad Bashir Butt titled ‘Terrorism has no religion’ – vide News of 11.1.05.

The writer has quoted a verse of Quran, as usual, out of context, to support his contention that Islam forbids terrorism involving killing of innocent human beings. I quote the full verse 5/32 below: -

“For that cause (murder of a son of Adam by his brother) We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being (Nafsa) for other than manslaughter (?) or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s sovereignty), but afterwards lo! Many of them became prodigals in the earth. (Translation by Pickthall).

In the first place, as is obvious from the above quotation, the decree was meant expressly for the children of Israel and as such why should the non-Israeli Muslims consider it binding on them. Secondly, for the Muslims the Quran does allow, albeit under certain conditions, the killing of human beings if they are considered to be ‘Kafirs’ (non-believers). And what about the sectarian ‘Fatwas’ galore according to which some sects declare members of some other sects as kafirs, murtad, wajibulqatl and what not. And if the poor human being escapes all these fatwas there is the all pervading fatwa of branding one a‘Zindeeq’ (a person who professes to be a Muslim but conceals his kufr). And my God! What name will you give to the killing of a human being in compliance with the fatwa of Imam Abu Hanifa who says, “A Zindeeq should be killed secretly whenever opportunity comes to hand as his ‘Toubah’ (repentance) is not acceptable. And Imam Malik says, Zindeeqs shall be killed and they would not be called upon to repent (to submit touba). (Ahkaamul Quran liljasas 286 J 2)

My dear Khawaja Sahib what will you call all these edicts exhorting killing of human beings if not religious terrorism. Terrorism may have no religion but sectarian religion does have terrorism as it is sin qua non-for its existence and struggle for dominance.``

saminasha sahiba # 34 - My only issue with your arguments, as articulate as they are, is that they seem to be all over the map.

The point that I would like to make in front of you is this: you should be consistent in your analysis. You cannot have one yard stick of freedom for one group, and another for another one. On one hand you are cheering the ``compulsory`` education of children in America, yet on the other hand you seem to be condemning the ``compulsory`` wearing of scarf for girls, if a parent so decides.

The fact that you are lauding ``compulsory`` schooling for kids - instead of giving the kids the right to choose whether they would like to study or not, implies that you buy this argument that children don`t have a well built judgement and that they need to be guided and disciplined where necessary.

My analogy of ``boy watching porn`` had nothing to do with saving electricity costs. It had everything to do with parents` responsibility to instil a sense of right&wrong, values and discipline in their children. In fact, it is the DUTY of parents to do so, using all appropriate means until a certain age. If they don`t do that, they would have failed in their responsibilities as a parent.

Also, the hijab has become deeeply a symbol of female oppression in the eyes of most westerners, and asians (orientals) as well. Hence hijab as a dress code has moved away from a statement of ``female modesty`` into the domain of ``female oppression by ancient inhuman practices``. Even an educated modern woman wearing a hijab voluntarily will have to fight for her rights over this.

It also is a matter of introducing alien lifestyles with certain connotations into the local culture. For example, a couple of weeks ago an indian newspaper carried pictures of two western white women in short skirts/shorts kind of dresses in one of delhi`s markets. Inspite of the large number of tourists visiting delhi, the people in the market protested to the police who asked these 2 women to move from that market due to the objection of the people, although the police and people have no right to object to someones presence. A woman in hijab would not have raised an eyebrow in that market. And the same women on an americaneuropen street would be common scene and women in hijab would be objectionable.

SaminaShah is busy.

ha ha ha