Hijab/headscarf for Muslims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Covering (and its many levels) is due to a bastardized interpretation of the Quran.

So I ask this - Who - MALE or FEMALE - interpreted the Quran in this manner, forcing women to cover from head to toe?

I think we have an answer and it certainly won't receive approval from Gloria Steinem.

Sure. Whatever you say, o the mufti of DCUM.

Please enlighten us then.

The Quran discusses modesty. It encourages women to cover their heads and necks and to only show "flashy" accessories to their husbands and close family members.  still ridiculous, as it's "wisdom" from some ancient text

But do tell us how it went from head to full body armor.



This about says it all. What a twisted view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Covering (and its many levels) is due to a bastardized interpretation of the Quran.

So I ask this - Who - MALE or FEMALE - interpreted the Quran in this manner, forcing women to cover from head to toe?

I think we have an answer and it certainly won't receive approval from Gloria Steinem.

Sure. Whatever you say, o the mufti of DCUM.

Please enlighten us then.

The Quran discusses modesty. It encourages women to cover their heads and necks and to only show "flashy" accessories to their husbands and close family members.  still ridiculous, as it's "wisdom" from some ancient text

But do tell us how it went from head to full body armor.



This about says it all. What a twisted view.

Please give us the Quranic citations for what you state above. I understand you are anti-hijab and anti-religion in general. Still, it would be nice if you gave the basis for the "facts" you asserting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Covering (and its many levels) is due to a bastardized interpretation of the Quran.

So I ask this - Who - MALE or FEMALE - interpreted the Quran in this manner, forcing women to cover from head to toe?

I think we have an answer and it certainly won't receive approval from Gloria Steinem.

Roshan Qasem, 11, will be joining the household of Said Mohammed, 55; his first wife; their three sons; and their daughter, who is the same age as Roshan.

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5541006&date=2011-06-01

Another free female in the world of pedophiles.

[Anonymous]

I find it interesting that PP is insisting that knowing the correct practice of Islam is very abstruse and requires years of study or, for those unable to do that, guidance from someone who is.

This is so contrary to the roots of Islam. Muhammad was ILLITERATE. Why would he found a religion that was so dependent on literacy to be practiced correctly? Isn't he himself the primary example of the correct practice of Islam without benefit of study?

Furthermore, he specifically brought monotheism to the tribes of Arabia, the vast majority of which were outside settlements and nomadic. They were thus illiterate and had no special imams or teachers among them to instruct them in the way PP is insisting is necessary for centuries and centuries.

I am now seeing this trend toward the modern hijab, which was unknown throughout almost all of Islamic history, as part of a larger trend toward making Islam a gnostic religion, whose true teachings are accessible only to the specially initiated, the members of the club as PP puts it.

Muhammad must be rolling over in his grave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that PP is insisting that knowing the correct practice of Islam is very abstruse and requires years of study or, for those unable to do that, guidance from someone who is.

This is so contrary to the roots of Islam. Muhammad was ILLITERATE. Why would he found a religion that was so dependent on literacy to be practiced correctly? Isn't he himself the primary example of the correct practice of Islam without benefit of study?

Furthermore, he specifically brought monotheism to the tribes of Arabia, the vast majority of which were outside settlements and nomadic. They were thus illiterate and had no special imams or teachers among them to instruct them in the way PP is insisting is necessary for centuries and centuries.

I am now seeing this trend toward the modern hijab, which was unknown throughout almost all of Islamic history, as part of a larger trend toward making Islam a gnostic religion, whose true teachings are accessible only to the specially initiated, the members of the club as PP puts it.

Muhammad must be rolling over in his grave.

One of the best and most interesting posts in this thread. Thank you, sir.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that PP is insisting that knowing the correct practice of Islam is very abstruse and requires years of study or, for those unable to do that, guidance from someone who is.

When you have a question that isn't obvious on its face, then yes, guidance from someone more educated in the subject than you is needed. The Quran has a ton of vagueness, contradiction and outright error; it's not unfathomable that more explanation is needed to those who need it.

Anonymous wrote:This is so contrary to the roots of Islam. Muhammad was ILLITERATE. Why would he found a religion that was so dependent on literacy to be practiced correctly? Isn't he himself the primary example of the correct practice of Islam without benefit of study?

There are all kinds of reasons people found religions - the thirst for power and social advancement is principally in the lead. Since he broadcast the thing, he hardly needed to study it. Incidentally, he was permitted things other Muslims weren't, so he couldn't be an example in all things.

Anonymous wrote:Furthermore, he specifically brought monotheism to the tribes of Arabia, the vast majority of which were outside settlements and nomadic. They were thus illiterate and had no special imams or teachers among them to instruct them in the way PP is insisting is necessary for centuries and centuries.

Yet there is a ton of evidence in the hadith that starts with "So-and-so asked so-and-so what to do in situation X". So apparently they did have questions that they brought to those they thought knew better - their special imams and teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Covering (and its many levels) is due to a bastardized interpretation of the Quran.

So I ask this - Who - MALE or FEMALE - interpreted the Quran in this manner, forcing women to cover from head to toe?

I think we have an answer and it certainly won't receive approval from Gloria Steinem.

Roshan Qasem, 11, will be joining the household of Said Mohammed, 55; his first wife; their three sons; and their daughter, who is the same age as Roshan.

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5541006&date=2011-06-01

Another free female in the world of pedophiles.

a different take

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2C3JBdv520
They Don’t just Dance…The Afghan tradition of "bacha bazi" - recruiting young boys for sex


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09BRI.html?_r=0
The Bride Price
an article on the child bride mentioned above

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that PP is insisting that knowing the correct practice of Islam is very abstruse and requires years of study or, for those unable to do that, guidance from someone who is.

When you have a question that isn't obvious on its face, then yes, guidance from someone more educated in the subject than you is needed. The Quran has a ton of vagueness, contradiction and outright error; it's not unfathomable that more explanation is needed to those who need it.

Anonymous wrote:This is so contrary to the roots of Islam. Muhammad was ILLITERATE. Why would he found a religion that was so dependent on literacy to be practiced correctly? Isn't he himself the primary example of the correct practice of Islam without benefit of study?

There are all kinds of reasons people found religions - the thirst for power and social advancement is principally in the lead. Since he broadcast the thing, he hardly needed to study it. Incidentally, he was permitted things other Muslims weren't, so he couldn't be an example in all things.

Anonymous wrote:Furthermore, he specifically brought monotheism to the tribes of Arabia, the vast majority of which were outside settlements and nomadic. They were thus illiterate and had no special imams or teachers among them to instruct them in the way PP is insisting is necessary for centuries and centuries.

Yet there is a ton of evidence in the hadith that starts with "So-and-so asked so-and-so what to do in situation X". So apparently they did have questions that they brought to those they thought knew better - their special imams and teachers.

See in Protestant Christianity we're allowed to interpret for ourselves what unclear passages of the Bible mean.

[Anonymous]

Did you need special reassurance that Protestant Christianity is different from Islam? Or are you playing the "find 19 differences" game?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that PP is insisting that knowing the correct practice of Islam is very abstruse and requires years of study or, for those unable to do that, guidance from someone who is.

When you have a question that isn't obvious on its face, then yes, guidance from someone more educated in the subject than you is needed. The Quran has a ton of vagueness, contradiction and outright error; it's not unfathomable that more explanation is needed to those who need it.

Anonymous wrote:This is so contrary to the roots of Islam. Muhammad was ILLITERATE. Why would he found a religion that was so dependent on literacy to be practiced correctly? Isn't he himself the primary example of the correct practice of Islam without benefit of study?

There are all kinds of reasons people found religions - the thirst for power and social advancement is principally in the lead. Since he broadcast the thing, he hardly needed to study it. Incidentally, he was permitted things other Muslims weren't, so he couldn't be an example in all things.

Anonymous wrote:Furthermore, he specifically brought monotheism to the tribes of Arabia, the vast majority of which were outside settlements and nomadic. They were thus illiterate and had no special imams or teachers among them to instruct them in the way PP is insisting is necessary for centuries and centuries.

Yet there is a ton of evidence in the hadith that starts with "So-and-so asked so-and-so what to do in situation X". So apparently they did have questions that they brought to those they thought knew better - their special imams and teachers.

Would a Muslim make this argument? The Quran, as God's own words, is supposed to be eternal, infallible, and without ambiguity. I'd be interested in hearing from one of the Muslims here as to why extensive study and guidance are necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
See in Protestant Christianity we're allowed to interpret for ourselves what unclear passages of the Bible mean.

And in traditional Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam, we are not. It gets kind of tiresome that folks expect every other faith tradition to be just like Protestant Christianity (which BTW, historically still had limits on what you could believe).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
See in Protestant Christianity we're allowed to interpret for ourselves what unclear passages of the Bible mean.

And in traditional Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam, we are not. It gets kind of tiresome that folks expect every other faith tradition to be just like Protestant Christianity (which BTW, historically still had limits on what you could believe).

I'm not Muslim, but my understanding was always that the Quran was supposed to be accessible without a priestly class to tell you what to believe. This explains why the (Sunni) Muslim theological leadership is very diffuse/diverse. But it doesn't explain the development of a (Sunni) priestly class in the first place.

I think that's what PP was getting at with the Protestant analogy, but I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

I think in traditional Protestant Christianity, while there was no priestly caste at least officially, there were very defintely parameters to how the scriptures could be interpreted. Luther and Calvin allowed no heresy for sure! Recent mainline Protestant laissez faire attitudes have very little to do with orthodox Protestantism of any brand!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
See in Protestant Christianity we're allowed to interpret for ourselves what unclear passages of the Bible mean.

And in traditional Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam, we are not. It gets kind of tiresome that folks expect every other faith tradition to be just like Protestant Christianity (which BTW, historically still had limits on what you could believe).

I'm not Muslim, but my understanding was always that the Quran was supposed to be accessible without a priestly class to tell you what to believe. This explains why the (Sunni) Muslim theological leadership is very diffuse/diverse. But it doesn't explain the development of a (Sunni) priestly class in the first place.

I think that's what PP was getting at with the Protestant analogy, but I could be wrong.

a priest, by definition, is someone with a defined ritual role. Presiding at sacrifices, giving communion. That is different from a jurist/scholar/teacher - the role of imams and rabbis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
See in Protestant Christianity we're allowed to interpret for ourselves what unclear passages of the Bible mean.

And in traditional Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam, we are not. It gets kind of tiresome that folks expect every other faith tradition to be just like Protestant Christianity (which BTW, historically still had limits on what you could believe).

I'm not Muslim, but my understanding was always that the Quran was supposed to be accessible without a priestly class to tell you what to believe. This explains why the (Sunni) Muslim theological leadership is very diffuse/diverse. But it doesn't explain the development of a (Sunni) priestly class in the first place.

I think that's what PP was getting at with the Protestant analogy, but I could be wrong.

That the Quran is not accessible without expert interpretation is clear on its face.

As for the development of a priestly class, the reason is only one no matter what the religion: job security.