Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

Or that women should simply show modesty with their hair as well as dress, by wearing it plain (undyed, uncurled, unperfumed), putting it up in buns or even keeping it cut short.

Anyway, can't you see how sexist it is to think that women don't simply have hair, but instead they're always using it to "attract members of the opposite sex".

Women have breasts too - is that sexist?

There's *no* disagreement in this thread that the Quran wants women to cover their breasts. The disagreement is over how to interpret it's silence about hair.

Actually, you are confusing two things: 1) what the Quran says, and 2) whether what it says makes sense. You think it's sexist that women are asked to cover their hair and men aren't. But you are OK with women being asked to cover their breasts, and men allowed to go about in their shirtless glory. That, too, is sexist in that it treats sexes differently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

Or that women should simply show modesty with their hair as well as dress, by wearing it plain (undyed, uncurled, unperfumed), putting it up in buns or even keeping it cut short.

Anyway, can't you see how sexist it is to think that women don't simply have hair, but instead they're always using it to "attract members of the opposite sex".

Women have breasts too - is that sexist?

There's *no* disagreement in this thread that the Quran wants women to cover their breasts. The disagreement is over how to interpret it's silence about hair.

Anonymous wrote:I don't blame Muslim PP for constantly contesting what others say by putting down their authority to say it.

I feel sorry for her because she was taught to defend her religion solely by saying this is what so and so supposed authority has said rather than by using critical thinking to lay out a reasoned rational defense of her beliefs.

She has been taught a winning attack on others' reasoned views consists simply of dismissing them solely on the grounds that they are not a regurgitation of what some supposed scholar who has undergone years of study has said, never mind the quality of that scholarship.

She is not unlike those Christians who cannot defend their beliefs except by quoting verses from the Bible.

Anonymous wrote:I don't blame Muslim PP for constantly contesting what others say by putting down their authority to say it.

I feel sorry for her because she was taught to defend her religion solely by saying this is what so and so supposed authority has said rather than by using critical thinking to lay out a reasoned rational defense of her beliefs.

She has been taught a winning attack on others' reasoned views consists simply of dismissing them solely on the grounds that they are not a regurgitation of what some supposed scholar who has undergone years of study has said, never mind the quality of that scholarship.

She is not unlike those Christians who cannot defend their beliefs except by quoting verses from the Bible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

God didn't say women are responsible for men's urges. He also asked men to lower their eyes and control themselves.

Jesus said that. "But I say to you, anyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it away...." Harsh, maybe, but it puts the responsibility where it belongs. Is there a comparable Quranic verse?

Why SHOULD there be one? Why do you want Islam to be just like Christianity?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

God didn't say women are responsible for men's urges. He also asked men to lower their eyes and control themselves.

Jesus said that. "But I say to you, anyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it away...." Harsh, maybe, but it puts the responsibility where it belongs. Is there a comparable Quranic verse?

Why SHOULD there be one? Why do you want Islam to be just like Christianity?

Huh? PP said "God asked men to lower their eyes..." I wasn't aware that's in the Quran and asked for the verse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

Or that women should simply show modesty with their hair as well as dress, by wearing it plain (undyed, uncurled, unperfumed), putting it up in buns or even keeping it cut short.

Anyway, can't you see how sexist it is to think that women don't simply have hair, but instead they're always using it to "attract members of the opposite sex".

Women have breasts too - is that sexist?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

God didn't say women are responsible for men's urges. He also asked men to lower their eyes and control themselves.

Jesus said that. "But I say to you, anyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it away...." Harsh, maybe, but it puts the responsibility where it belongs. Is there a comparable Quranic verse?

Why SHOULD there be one? Why do you want Islam to be just like Christianity?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Words fail.

You're talking to me. I did, however, do two semesters of Islamic history in college (as part of a Middle Ages history major). I have also read the Quran, including tracking the changing historical context as the Quran was revealed. Willing to bet I know more about it than you do. I haven't been posting much on this thread, but if academic creds are an issue for you, than as a non-Muslim I may have better creds than you.

I can't tell if I'm communicating with an adult DCUM'er or an arrogant tween brat here. How old are you? This much I know, your two semesters in college don't put you on quite the same standing as Leila Ahmed, Karen Armstrong, and Mark Jeurgensmeyer, Muzammil Siddiqi. Muslims will not be interested in your interpretation or opinion, either.

The point, which you're apparently incapable of addressing, is that you're wrong about your own religion when you keep insisting that decades of study of history and Quranic Arabic are necessary. Or that in the absence of decades of study, Muslims should all to listen to a priestly class of your vaunted theologians. (Which of the many individuals and schools of theologians, BTW?)

Pretty sure Karen Armstrong agrees with me on the issue of decades of study not being required. You're saying something antithetical to the stated purpose of your own holy book. Not to mention, putting interpretation in the hands of men with their own cultural biases and agendas when it comes to things like veiling.

Being unable to address the point, you go for cheap insults. And since when does citing writers like Karen Armstrong, without mentioning her position on veiling, constitute an adult way to conduct an argument?

She isn't saying decades of study are required to understand her religion. She is saying that those who DID put decades of study toward understanding it happen to understand it better than you, my little two-semestered darling.

Your sad, repeated attempts to change the subject aren't going to get you out of this. Not are the childish insults.

Once again, the whole point of her holy book is that she should be able to read it and come to her own conclusions.

Denying this makes her (and you) sound either brainwashed or extremely ignorant.

She HAS come to her conclusions, but you happen to not like them. That's why you stomp your feet and call her ignorant. You DON'T want her to come to her own conclusions. You want her to agree with you, and it makes you angry that she doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

Or that women should simply show modesty with their hair as well as dress, by wearing it plain (undyed, uncurled, unperfumed), putting it up in buns or even keeping it cut short.

Anyway, can't you see how sexist it is to think that women don't simply have hair, but instead they're always using it to "attract members of the opposite sex".

Anonymous wrote:

Of course it irks me - and many others.

It took about 1300 years for the Greeks to establish their religious framework - finally dying off around the 4th C. So it takes time for these beliefs to form and then they're given a "structure." Christians believe their religion is as old as Christ - or "evolving" after the death of Christ. So that's about 1900 years or so. And Islam is even "newer," about 600 years old.

So what you THINK is the word of God is only a set of beliefs created by men.

Hinduism is interesting b/c although there's a belief in one supreme being, this being is represented by "minor" gods who oversee specific areas. So if you want money, you pray to one god - Lakshmi, I believe. traveling? pray to another

Geography defines culture and culture creates belief systems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

God didn't say women are responsible for men's urges. He also asked men to lower their eyes and control themselves.

But if they should slip and keep their eyes up, the veiling will kill all sexual urges.

Hail to the veil, I say!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Words fail.

You're talking to me. I did, however, do two semesters of Islamic history in college (as part of a Middle Ages history major). I have also read the Quran, including tracking the changing historical context as the Quran was revealed. Willing to bet I know more about it than you do. I haven't been posting much on this thread, but if academic creds are an issue for you, than as a non-Muslim I may have better creds than you.

I can't tell if I'm communicating with an adult DCUM'er or an arrogant tween brat here. How old are you? This much I know, your two semesters in college don't put you on quite the same standing as Leila Ahmed, Karen Armstrong, and Mark Jeurgensmeyer, Muzammil Siddiqi. Muslims will not be interested in your interpretation or opinion, either.

The point, which you're apparently incapable of addressing, is that you're wrong about your own religion when you keep insisting that decades of study of history and Quranic Arabic are necessary. Or that in the absence of decades of study, Muslims should all to listen to a priestly class of your vaunted theologians. (Which of the many individuals and schools of theologians, BTW?)

Pretty sure Karen Armstrong agrees with me on the issue of decades of study not being required. You're saying something antithetical to the stated purpose of your own holy book. Not to mention, putting interpretation in the hands of men with their own cultural biases and agendas when it comes to things like veiling.

Being unable to address the point, you go for cheap insults. And since when does citing writers like Karen Armstrong, without mentioning her position on veiling, constitute an adult way to conduct an argument?

She isn't saying decades of study are required to understand her religion. She is saying that those who DID put decades of study toward understanding it happen to understand it better than you, my little two-semestered darling.

Your sad, repeated attempts to change the subject aren't going to get you out of this. Not are the childish insults.

Once again, the whole point of her holy book is that she should be able to read it and come to her own conclusions.

Denying this makes her (and you) sound either brainwashed or extremely ignorant.