Muslim women speak out against the hijab as an element of political Islam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A scholar - religious or not - should view texts w/in their context. Let's look at Jewish law, for example. Do you know why camels aren't kosher? b/c the were more important in another role - carrying items

God didn't step in and say - "Hey! The camel is unclean! Don't eat it, or you'll suffer the consequences!"

In fact, if you strip away "God's word," you'll be able to find historical or cultural evidence (sometimes conflicting) to support these outdated rules that were created to keep the masses under control.

Furthermore, if I'm a religious scholar, my lens is already skewed, as I'll always look for ways to DEFEND my religion - no matter how outdated these "laws" are.

We laugh at the thought of the world being flat, yet we embrace head coverings for women! We once believed in sea monsters. The earth was the center of the universe. Remember when women were diagnosed with hysteria? lol!

And yet in some synagogues men and women are still separated b/c women are a distraction. And according to one Islamic "scholar," women stay behind men during prayer b/c it's not appropriate for a woman to bow down in front of a man - sharing a nice view of her ass.

all man-made rules

How can we move forward in society if we're anchored down by these rules written AGES ago? It's frightening to follow such ignorant practices!

YOU aren't anchored down these rules so why don't you move forward already? Is someone holding a gun to your head to follow these "ignorant practices"? Who died and made you vice president in charge of deciding what other people should do?

I mentioned some outdated beliefs that go hand-in-hand with outdated religious beliefs.

Instead of throwing the question back at me, why don't you respond? Or do you believe in sea monsters, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslim men are encouraged to have beard. Clothing wise, as long as it covered between the navel and knee, loose clothing.

The beard is for emulating Mohammed. Who was modest, it goes without saying, but modesty isn't the first reason for the beard.

This was a way to show off their manliness, right?

Well, some women have beards, too, you know. . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslim men are encouraged to have beard. Clothing wise, as long as it covered between the navel and knee, loose clothing.

The beard is for emulating Mohammed. Who was modest, it goes without saying, but modesty isn't the first reason for the beard.

This was a way to show off their manliness, right?

Well, some women have beards, too, you know. . .

No, they're imitating Mohammed. Which some women can indeed do....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are not billions of Muslims. More like 1.5 billion.

Yes, many Muslims read the Quran--more like memorize it--without the slightest idea of what it means. But if you Arab and literate, as Ms. Arafa is, it is not so different from an English speaker reading Shakespeare because written Arabic has changed very slowly relative to written English. With a few aids, you certainly can understand it.

I gather you are not a native Arabic speaker as you seem so in awe of what you present as a document accessible only to those with special knowledge. This is a form of gnosticism, and is totally contrary to the spirit of the Quran.

Interpretation is a different matter altogether. There are many, many interpretations possible. I repeat that true Islamic theologians find the matter of women covering of no consequence as it is such a peripheral issue and so non-central to Islam.

History of fashion is an altogether different matter. The relevant historical fact here is that the hijab is very recent in origin and generations of women did not cover their hair without anyone suggesting they were in violation of Islamic dictates.

You prefer Mr. Yusuf's version. So much so that you linked him twice--no link to Leila Ahmed, who herself does not wear hijab, so--just guessing here--I am pretty sure she does not think it's necessary to enter heaven. (I can't believe you really said that. Really? No hijab, no heaven?)

This, a million times. The whole point of the Quran was that, supposedly, Christians and Jews had got it wrong, so God was finally going to send something so clear that the average person would be able to read and understand immediately. There was supposed to be no need for a hierarchy of theologians to interpret things, at least among the Sunnis.

Which is why it's so annoying to read on DCUM, quite frequently, that "if you disagree, it's because you haven't spent years learning Quranic Arabic and history."

In Islam's early days and for centuries thereafter, many women didn't veil because they worked in the fields or at manual tasks, and a veil would have been impossible to manage. The veil was actually a symbol of class status.

+1 to everything, especially the part that is bolded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is Asra Nomani's name continually brought up because her lifestyle is considered unsavory? What about her co-author Hala Arafa?

It's odd that you invoke Leila Ahmed as an authority for your view when the article cites her as one of the Muslim scholars supporting the interpretation they set forth of the particular Quranic verse in question.

Leila Ahmed is a serious academic on Islam and its history. That is way more than can be said for any of the various so-called scholars whose views on Islam are disseminated on the internet telling women they must wear the hijab or face damnation.

There are hundreds of Islamic scholars out there who can match Leila Ahmed degree for degree, and view covering as necessary. Plus, I really don't think you are qualified to sort the serious from the un-serious. You are armed with nothing but your ardent wish of "how things ought to be" and it just isn't a good yardstick for measuring pedigrees in Islamic scholarship. Just because someone says things you don't like doesn't make them unqualified.

But it was you, or a PP of your views, who trotted out Leila Ahmed as supporting the view that the Quran requires the hijab. That is not her view based on her reading of the texts, and she is far from alone. But the PP somehow felt her credentials were impressive enough to cite her in defense of the view that the hijab is required.

Most of what passes for Islamic scholarship is a joke and is mired in mind boggling literal mindedness that has never experienced critical thinking. This is particularly true in the Middle East where the very bottom of matriculants to universities enter the school of religion because their grades are so low none of the other schools can accept them. They best and brightest go into medicine and engineering; the worst and dimmest go into religion. If it weren't so pathetic, it would be laughable that people look to these so-called scholars for a deeper understanding of their religion.

The situation is different in the West, where there is a long tradition of some of the brightest going into the liberal arts, including theology, and bringing rigorous critical analysis to bear on their disciplines. And this tradition comes to us by way of the Renaissance, which in turn was heavily influenced by the great Muslim thinkers who preceded it. Unfortunately, Islamic scholarship has been in serious decline since.

It wasn't me. I am agnostic on Leila Ahmed and unaware of the rigor of her theological pedigree. I know her primarily as a historian who wrote about women's rights and position in pre-Islamic Arabia, and her views on the subject are far apart from the tired myth of "jahilia was hell for women."

I am merely pointing out that you can't really evaluate the rigor of someone's Islamic scholarship credentials based on whether you personally approve of what you have to say. There are literally hundreds of scholars who believe, based on their studies, that covering is necessary, and it's illogical to discard their scholarship wholesale because you happen to disagree with its conclusions. Furthermore, if everyone who majors in Islamic studies comes from the bottom of the genetic barrel, then this charge would apply equally to Leila Ahmed. Just saying. I don't know you but I am sensing that you aren't really well versed in Islamic scholarship enough to be able to sort out whose daleel (chain of evidence) is right and whose is bogus. You are evaluating scholars based on your personal views about conclusions to which they come, and that's wrong.

Finally, there are like dozens of Western-educated Islamic theologians who all support veiling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A scholar - religious or not - should view texts w/in their context. Let's look at Jewish law, for example. Do you know why camels aren't kosher? b/c the were more important in another role - carrying items

God didn't step in and say - "Hey! The camel is unclean! Don't eat it, or you'll suffer the consequences!"

In fact, if you strip away "God's word," you'll be able to find historical or cultural evidence (sometimes conflicting) to support these outdated rules that were created to keep the masses under control.

Furthermore, if I'm a religious scholar, my lens is already skewed, as I'll always look for ways to DEFEND my religion - no matter how outdated these "laws" are.

We laugh at the thought of the world being flat, yet we embrace head coverings for women! We once believed in sea monsters. The earth was the center of the universe. Remember when women were diagnosed with hysteria? lol!

And yet in some synagogues men and women are still separated b/c women are a distraction. And according to one Islamic "scholar," women stay behind men during prayer b/c it's not appropriate for a woman to bow down in front of a man - sharing a nice view of her ass.

all man-made rules

How can we move forward in society if we're anchored down by these rules written AGES ago? It's frightening to follow such ignorant practices!

YOU aren't anchored down these rules so why don't you move forward already? Is someone holding a gun to your head to follow these "ignorant practices"? Who died and made you vice president in charge of deciding what other people should do?

I mentioned some outdated beliefs that go hand-in-hand with outdated religious beliefs.

Instead of throwing the question back at me, why don't you respond? Or do you believe in sea monsters, too?

I've already responded enough for smart people to understand, but can dumb it down if you like.

I believe in people's right to live as they like. I don't believe in the powers of arrogant DCUM posters to "move forward" the entire religious community to which they are wholly unrelated. I especially don't believe in your ability to subvert religious scholarship because you believe you know better based on nothing but NOT being a religious scholar - as if ignorance qualifies you for anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is Asra Nomani's name continually brought up because her lifestyle is considered unsavory? What about her co-author Hala Arafa?

It's odd that you invoke Leila Ahmed as an authority for your view when the article cites her as one of the Muslim scholars supporting the interpretation they set forth of the particular Quranic verse in question.

Leila Ahmed is a serious academic on Islam and its history. That is way more than can be said for any of the various so-called scholars whose views on Islam are disseminated on the internet telling women they must wear the hijab or face damnation.

There are hundreds of Islamic scholars out there who can match Leila Ahmed degree for degree, and view covering as necessary. Plus, I really don't think you are qualified to sort the serious from the un-serious. You are armed with nothing but your ardent wish of "how things ought to be" and it just isn't a good yardstick for measuring pedigrees in Islamic scholarship. Just because someone says things you don't like doesn't make them unqualified.

But it was you, or a PP of your views, who trotted out Leila Ahmed as supporting the view that the Quran requires the hijab. That is not her view based on her reading of the texts, and she is far from alone. But the PP somehow felt her credentials were impressive enough to cite her in defense of the view that the hijab is required.

Most of what passes for Islamic scholarship is a joke and is mired in mind boggling literal mindedness that has never experienced critical thinking. This is particularly true in the Middle East where the very bottom of matriculants to universities enter the school of religion because their grades are so low none of the other schools can accept them. They best and brightest go into medicine and engineering; the worst and dimmest go into religion. If it weren't so pathetic, it would be laughable that people look to these so-called scholars for a deeper understanding of their religion.

The situation is different in the West, where there is a long tradition of some of the brightest going into the liberal arts, including theology, and bringing rigorous critical analysis to bear on their disciplines. And this tradition comes to us by way of the Renaissance, which in turn was heavily influenced by the great Muslim thinkers who preceded it. Unfortunately, Islamic scholarship has been in serious decline since.

It wasn't me. I am agnostic on Leila Ahmed and unaware of the rigor of her theological pedigree. I know her primarily as a historian who wrote about women's rights and position in pre-Islamic Arabia, and her views on the subject are far apart from the tired myth of "jahilia was hell for women."

I am merely pointing out that you can't really evaluate the rigor of someone's Islamic scholarship credentials based on whether you personally approve of what you have to say. There are literally hundreds of scholars who believe, based on their studies, that covering is necessary, and it's illogical to discard their scholarship wholesale because you happen to disagree with its conclusions. Furthermore, if everyone who majors in Islamic studies comes from the bottom of the genetic barrel, then this charge would apply equally to Leila Ahmed. Just saying. I don't know you but I am sensing that you aren't really well versed in Islamic scholarship enough to be able to sort out whose daleel (chain of evidence) is right and whose is bogus. You are evaluating scholars based on your personal views about conclusions to which they come, and that's wrong.

Finally, there are like dozens of Western-educated Islamic theologians who all support veiling.

NP. Sure, there are many many Islamic scholars who support covering. Does that invalidate the ones that don't? Do you count the numbers, and if more are on one side of an issue than the other, then follow the majority? Islam seems to be full of scholars, who support all sorts of contradictory opinions. I don't automatically assume they are all wrong, or worthless scholars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A scholar - religious or not - should view texts w/in their context. Let's look at Jewish law, for example. Do you know why camels aren't kosher? b/c the were more important in another role - carrying items

God didn't step in and say - "Hey! The camel is unclean! Don't eat it, or you'll suffer the consequences!"

In fact, if you strip away "God's word," you'll be able to find historical or cultural evidence (sometimes conflicting) to support these outdated rules that were created to keep the masses under control.

Furthermore, if I'm a religious scholar, my lens is already skewed, as I'll always look for ways to DEFEND my religion - no matter how outdated these "laws" are.

We laugh at the thought of the world being flat, yet we embrace head coverings for women! We once believed in sea monsters. The earth was the center of the universe. Remember when women were diagnosed with hysteria? lol!

And yet in some synagogues men and women are still separated b/c women are a distraction. And according to one Islamic "scholar," women stay behind men during prayer b/c it's not appropriate for a woman to bow down in front of a man - sharing a nice view of her ass.

all man-made rules

How can we move forward in society if we're anchored down by these rules written AGES ago? It's frightening to follow such ignorant practices!

YOU aren't anchored down these rules so why don't you move forward already? Is someone holding a gun to your head to follow these "ignorant practices"? Who died and made you vice president in charge of deciding what other people should do?

I mentioned some outdated beliefs that go hand-in-hand with outdated religious beliefs.

Instead of throwing the question back at me, why don't you respond? Or do you believe in sea monsters, too?

I've already responded enough for smart people to understand, but can dumb it down if you like.

I believe in people's right to live as they like. I don't believe in the powers of arrogant DCUM posters to "move forward" the entire religious community to which they are wholly unrelated. I especially don't believe in your ability to subvert religious scholarship because you believe you know better based on nothing but NOT being a religious scholar - as if ignorance qualifies you for anything.

DCUM debates all sorts of subjects with varying degrees of rigor and seriousness. You seem to be saying that Islam should be sacrosanct, that we (DCUM generally) will besmirch Islam by discussing it. Is Islam that flimsy, that anonymous internet people cannot discuss it? Why can we not question head coverings, from a feminist, political, or religious perspective?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is Asra Nomani's name continually brought up because her lifestyle is considered unsavory? What about her co-author Hala Arafa?

It's odd that you invoke Leila Ahmed as an authority for your view when the article cites her as one of the Muslim scholars supporting the interpretation they set forth of the particular Quranic verse in question.

Leila Ahmed is a serious academic on Islam and its history. That is way more than can be said for any of the various so-called scholars whose views on Islam are disseminated on the internet telling women they must wear the hijab or face damnation.

There are hundreds of Islamic scholars out there who can match Leila Ahmed degree for degree, and view covering as necessary. Plus, I really don't think you are qualified to sort the serious from the un-serious. You are armed with nothing but your ardent wish of "how things ought to be" and it just isn't a good yardstick for measuring pedigrees in Islamic scholarship. Just because someone says things you don't like doesn't make them unqualified.

But it was you, or a PP of your views, who trotted out Leila Ahmed as supporting the view that the Quran requires the hijab. That is not her view based on her reading of the texts, and she is far from alone. But the PP somehow felt her credentials were impressive enough to cite her in defense of the view that the hijab is required.

Most of what passes for Islamic scholarship is a joke and is mired in mind boggling literal mindedness that has never experienced critical thinking. This is particularly true in the Middle East where the very bottom of matriculants to universities enter the school of religion because their grades are so low none of the other schools can accept them. They best and brightest go into medicine and engineering; the worst and dimmest go into religion. If it weren't so pathetic, it would be laughable that people look to these so-called scholars for a deeper understanding of their religion.

The situation is different in the West, where there is a long tradition of some of the brightest going into the liberal arts, including theology, and bringing rigorous critical analysis to bear on their disciplines. And this tradition comes to us by way of the Renaissance, which in turn was heavily influenced by the great Muslim thinkers who preceded it. Unfortunately, Islamic scholarship has been in serious decline since.

It wasn't me. I am agnostic on Leila Ahmed and unaware of the rigor of her theological pedigree. I know her primarily as a historian who wrote about women's rights and position in pre-Islamic Arabia, and her views on the subject are far apart from the tired myth of "jahilia was hell for women."

I am merely pointing out that you can't really evaluate the rigor of someone's Islamic scholarship credentials based on whether you personally approve of what you have to say. There are literally hundreds of scholars who believe, based on their studies, that covering is necessary, and it's illogical to discard their scholarship wholesale because you happen to disagree with its conclusions. Furthermore, if everyone who majors in Islamic studies comes from the bottom of the genetic barrel, then this charge would apply equally to Leila Ahmed. Just saying. I don't know you but I am sensing that you aren't really well versed in Islamic scholarship enough to be able to sort out whose daleel (chain of evidence) is right and whose is bogus. You are evaluating scholars based on your personal views about conclusions to which they come, and that's wrong.

Finally, there are like dozens of Western-educated Islamic theologians who all support veiling.

Leila Ahmed was born in Egypt and reared there, but her family emigrated to Europe when life became difficult under Nasser. She received her PhD from Cambridge. So her scholarship is in the Western tradition.

Dalil means proof and is used in Islamic law. Are you sure you did not mean isnad, or chain of narrartors of a hadith? I ask because what is being contested here is what is in the Quran and not what it is in the hadith. Hadith are not needed to discern meaning in the Quran, which itsel says its meaning is clear, so whether you are speaking of dalil or isnad it is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslim men are encouraged to have beard. Clothing wise, as long as it covered between the navel and knee, loose clothing.

The beard is for emulating Mohammed. Who was modest, it goes without saying, but modesty isn't the first reason for the beard.

This was a way to show off their manliness, right?

Well, some women have beards, too, you know. . .

No, they're imitating Mohammed. Which some women can indeed do....

I remember reading one interpretation of the beard as a representation of manliness.
http://www.al-islam.org/articles/islamic-perspective-of-the-beard

The Three Aspects Regarding The Beard

1. The beard is a part of the male anatomy which beautifies, gives respectability and adorns the man. (That is only when it is kept in good trim).

2. The beard is a natural inherent part of the biological characteristics of the male gender of the human being, its purpose is to differentiate between the male and the female. This very conclusion is also derived by logical reasoning and intellect. We should also bear in mind that the intellect is one of the most important factors which separates the human being from the other animal species.

3. In answer to the supplication made by our grandfather Adam (as), Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, made the growth of the beard an in-built natural feature of the male, a feature which will continue being such till the day of reckoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A scholar - religious or not - should view texts w/in their context. Let's look at Jewish law, for example. Do you know why camels aren't kosher? b/c the were more important in another role - carrying items

God didn't step in and say - "Hey! The camel is unclean! Don't eat it, or you'll suffer the consequences!"

In fact, if you strip away "God's word," you'll be able to find historical or cultural evidence (sometimes conflicting) to support these outdated rules that were created to keep the masses under control.

Furthermore, if I'm a religious scholar, my lens is already skewed, as I'll always look for ways to DEFEND my religion - no matter how outdated these "laws" are.

We laugh at the thought of the world being flat, yet we embrace head coverings for women! We once believed in sea monsters. The earth was the center of the universe. Remember when women were diagnosed with hysteria? lol!

And yet in some synagogues men and women are still separated b/c women are a distraction. And according to one Islamic "scholar," women stay behind men during prayer b/c it's not appropriate for a woman to bow down in front of a man - sharing a nice view of her ass.

all man-made rules

How can we move forward in society if we're anchored down by these rules written AGES ago? It's frightening to follow such ignorant practices!

YOU aren't anchored down these rules so why don't you move forward already? Is someone holding a gun to your head to follow these "ignorant practices"? Who died and made you vice president in charge of deciding what other people should do?

I mentioned some outdated beliefs that go hand-in-hand with outdated religious beliefs.

Instead of throwing the question back at me, why don't you respond? Or do you believe in sea monsters, too?

I've already responded enough for smart people to understand, but can dumb it down if you like.

I believe in people's right to live as they like. I don't believe in the powers of arrogant DCUM posters to "move forward" the entire religious community to which they are wholly unrelated. I especially don't believe in your ability to subvert religious scholarship because you believe you know better based on nothing but NOT being a religious scholar - as if ignorance qualifies you for anything.

Historians are historians are historians. A religious scholar is an historian with an angle. In order to understand the Quran or the Bible or the Vinaya, scholars study the text and the history around those words. But when you're devout, your interpretation takes a "different" route, as your goal is to "protect the word."

That is all.

But b/c I'm apparently dumb and can't "understand" that a religious scholar's interpretation is the end all, I can't comment on some misogynistic practice called veiling.

Again, PP, I ask you, Why didn't you respond to what I wrote? Do you think the world is flat? that the Earth is the center of it all? that a sea monster sank the ship by the Bermuda Triangle?

all outdated beliefs - just like those preserved in ancient texts like the Quran by brainwashed "scholars"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslim men are encouraged to have beard. Clothing wise, as long as it covered between the navel and knee, loose clothing.

The beard is for emulating Mohammed. Who was modest, it goes without saying, but modesty isn't the first reason for the beard.

This was a way to show off their manliness, right?

Well, some women have beards, too, you know. . .

No, they're imitating Mohammed. Which some women can indeed do....

I remember reading one interpretation of the beard as a representation of manliness.
http://www.al-islam.org/articles/islamic-perspective-of-the-beard

The Three Aspects Regarding The Beard

1. The beard is a part of the male anatomy which beautifies, gives respectability and adorns the man. (That is only when it is kept in good trim).

2. The beard is a natural inherent part of the biological characteristics of the male gender of the human being, its purpose is to differentiate between the male and the female. This very conclusion is also derived by logical reasoning and intellect. We should also bear in mind that the intellect is one of the most important factors which separates the human being from the other animal species.

3. In answer to the supplication made by our grandfather Adam (as), Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, made the growth of the beard an in-built natural feature of the male, a feature which will continue being such till the day of reckoning.

Whoa! Did someone say the beard was beautiful adornment? How can this be consistent with the requirement for modesty? Why aren't men with beards required to cover them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslim men are encouraged to have beard. Clothing wise, as long as it covered between the navel and knee, loose clothing.

The beard is for emulating Mohammed. Who was modest, it goes without saying, but modesty isn't the first reason for the beard.

This was a way to show off their manliness, right?

Well, some women have beards, too, you know. . .

No, they're imitating Mohammed. Which some women can indeed do....

I remember reading one interpretation of the beard as a representation of manliness.
http://www.al-islam.org/articles/islamic-perspective-of-the-beard

The Three Aspects Regarding The Beard

1. The beard is a part of the male anatomy which beautifies, gives respectability and adorns the man. (That is only when it is kept in good trim).

2. The beard is a natural inherent part of the biological characteristics of the male gender of the human being, its purpose is to differentiate between the male and the female. This very conclusion is also derived by logical reasoning and intellect. We should also bear in mind that the intellect is one of the most important factors which separates the human being from the other animal species.

3. In answer to the supplication made by our grandfather Adam (as), Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, made the growth of the beard an in-built natural feature of the male, a feature which will continue being such till the day of reckoning.

Whoa! Did someone say the beard was beautiful adornment? How can this be consistent with the requirement for modesty? Why aren't men with beards required to cover them?

Good catch!

Male beards, like female hijabs, is another element of the neo-Islamism that makes up requirements it says one must follow lest one be damned.

And none of these beard wearing people today had fathers or grandfathers with beards, as you can tell from pictures in the Middle East from those years. Mustaches, on the other hand, were pretty much ubiquitous--nothing religious about it, just a cultural thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Leila Ahmed was born in Egypt and reared there, but her family emigrated to Europe when life became difficult under Nasser. She received her PhD from Cambridge. So her scholarship is in the Western tradition.

Dalil means proof and is used in Islamic law. Are you sure you did not mean isnad, or chain of narrartors of a hadith? I ask because what is being contested here is what is in the Quran and not what it is in the hadith. Hadith are not needed to discern meaning in the Quran, which itsel says its meaning is clear, so whether you are speaking of dalil or isnad it is irrelevant.

I wasn't aware that you have single-handedly decided that hadith has to be excluded from the body of Islamic law foundations. I mean, you are free to think that hadith is irrelevant. You should know that this is a minority position in the Islamic theologian crowd. Most scholars look to strong hadith as examples of how Quranic verses were practiced. But do please feel free to tell Muslims the way they pray is wrong and irrelevant - because you know, the movements of Muslim prayer aren't really outlined in the Quran, but somehow the entire Muslim world knows how to pray.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asra Nomani's name is continually brought up because her decisions and her actions make it clear her judgment is lacking. First, you have a baby out of wedlock and then you drag your three-month old baby to hajj, despite very obvious physical and infectious dangers of doing so? Risking your infant being squashed to death or infected with god knows what? Who does that? Like she has extra babies?

The woman's deranged.

MLK plagiarized. Should that overshadow the good he did?

Nelson Mandela wasn't faithful. Should that overshadow the good he did?

Face it, PP; you have no point.

MLK did not advocate for truth in penmanship, and Mandela didn't chair a Faithful Spouse Club. Their good deeds were unrelated to their sins and are thus not overshadowed by them. Should you be able to push for reforms in Judaism while snacking on a bacon sandwich?

Very good point, PP. Made me chuckle too. Yes, Asra is like the Perez Hilton advocating for homosexual rights in Catholicism.