  |
| Author |
|
fenkashi
Dibs on Supreme Overlord
Registration Date: 08.12.07
Location: Canada
Posts: 5733 |
|
|
I'm interested in seeing where this goes, so...
quote:
Originally posted by Roar
On your early question then. This one needs some explanation on Islamic teachings.
The style of clothings come from Middle East traditions, yes, because of the weather and culture there. But the need for covering is based on Islamic teachings. Truthfully, there isn't a need to wear turbans or long flowing robes and all that, so long as the basic rules of covering up is followed. The extent of cover, as previously stated, depends on your school of thought.
To give an example, imagine the era of ladies and gentlemen, literally. Let's say the 40's. Now, imagine the long bellowing skirts, the long sleeves, the veils.
And suddenly the description doesn't seem too far from the basic requirements, does it? In modern terms, wearing a standard office suit with long pants, plus an additional headscarf, already satisfies the basic requirements.
To be a little more specific, upon reaching puberty, a child is deemed an adult, and so is expected to conform to every rule; the time pre-dating their puberty is being a time of non-compulsion, but highly recommended for them to practice it anyway.
Women are to cover every part of their body save their hands and face, while men are to cover from their navel to their knees. Of important note is that the covered parts more or less correspond to what modern society expects the general public to cover anyway; topless men are okay, topless women are not.
The coverage of women is more than a man for two reasons: to protect their modesty, and to protect a woman from the lustful eyes of men. As we can see, both are for the protection of the woman, not to restrict them in any way. Besides, a little extra cloth is hardly restricting.
And so contrary to popular belief, such coverings is not to restrict women in any way. Rather, the opposite is true: fashion for women nowadays focus on revealing more and more skin, otherwise of sexy designs, both obviously intended to lure the eyes of men. The very "liberation" that women fight for (as famously quoted by the French president's wife, who ironically, is a model whose job is to showcase her body) is already by default a tool to makes themselves nothing more than an object of desire, the very opposite of what women rights are fighting for.
An equally important but oft forgotten note is that men are also subject to such rules as well, and yet they receive a lot less attention. Strange but true.
quote:
Originally posted by Orphic
I really don't want to start a separate debate about the coverage of women since we've already strayed a bit from the thread's original purpose, but you bring up some really interesting points about coverage that I'd like to talk about.
For example, are women incapable of lust? If men are allowed to walk around shirtless everywhere, they aren't being protected from the lustful eyes of women.
And the idea that topless men are okay while topless women are not is very much a cultural thing. There are countless cultures where toplessness is not problem in either gender. Why is going topless worse in women than in men, apart from arbitrary cultural difference?
quote:
Originally posted by Roar
@orphic: The word is not "incapable", but the degree of it. And a woman can't rape a man. That particular anatomy needs positive stimulation, if you get what I mean. Also, basing again on the purpose of sex, a man raped won't get pregnant, but the vice versa creates enormous psychological distress on the woman.
So it's not a question about lust, but the resulting effect. Look at the bigger picture. I haven't even touched the subject of accidental incest, which is one of the reason why we prohibit sex before marriage.
Please, continue.
Btw Roar, what? Women are perfectly capable of rape.
__________________
|
|
 08.06.2011, 05:53 PM |
  
|
Farren
Baron
Registration Date: 07.18.07
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 2163 |
|
|
In Australia the authorities are trying to make it illegal for women to wear a Burqa, they pass out fines on the street to women who do wear them and are trying to phase them out from being used in public.
I think Australia are trying to follow the french example on this.
I personally don't feel comfortable seeing anyone in public wearing the Burqa or similar attire, it doesn't matter on there beliefs etc, it makes me feel uncomfortable...It could be anyone underneath it..
basically i feel that its wrong to be in public and have that degree of disguise over yourself.
In public most people cover up, so that all that shows are the face and hands.
Yet to me a large loosely fitted black cloak with a small gap to see has no place in a Western society such as Australia.
Although Australia is a very multicultural country, i still think that such cloaking of one's self in public is not appropriate
__________________
pigeons funk the impossible
Post last edited by Farren on 08.06.2011, 07:14 PM.
|
|
| 08.06.2011, 07:08 PM |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
Before the continuing, I assume I have permission to delve into religion, both mine and others then?
-----
Here's the paradox, farren.
The banning of the burqa was supposed to signal the liberation of women who are forced to cover up.
Yet the very women they were "liberating" are crying foul at the ban for the right to practice their own religion.
Look up the news, there has been a fair amount of protests by these very women in France. I dunno, it's funny how the president's wife had to defend the decision against the very people they were supposed to liberate, lol.
I mean really, putting this debate aside, you gotta admit that the paradox is outright funny. 
-----
@fenkashi: Looking at my last sentence, fen, I refer to the resulting effect. Look beyond the lust, just as you would an extra-marital relationship.
And reverse rape is exteremely rare, and even then it requires the man to be aroused first, so there is still a degree of consent (speaking from a man's point of view). A woman doesn't need to be aroused, which is the underlying argument for "censensual sex" in court.
Not sure what you mean by "continue" though, elaborate please? I'm more than happy to share the explanations of my religion, limited though my own knowledge is.
__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site
quote:
Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|
|
| 08.06.2011, 11:52 PM |
|
Mush
Baron
Registration Date: 07.30.07
Location: South of Canada
Posts: 1810 |
|
|
Right, I was still going to reply to that other topic... but this looks like a good way from getting it dragged out of whack. Thanks fen!
I don't mind when other people wear a burqa, niqab, or other garments, but I do mind like heck when they're doing it unwillingly.
quote:
The coverage of women is more than a man for two reasons: to protect their modesty, and to protect a woman from the lustful eyes of men. As we can see, both are for the protection of the woman, not to restrict them in any way. Besides, a little extra cloth is hardly restricting.
Although I appreciate the gesture, I'm staunchly against someone deciding how I should dress "for my own protection". How much protection I need from men's lustful eyes, and the best means of obtaining that protection, are my decisions and I'm quite capable of making it, as are most women above a certain age.
A little extra cloth is hardly resticting, until it keeps you out of the high school swim team, the dance club, track and field, cheerleading, the machine shop, and all sorts of other activities. Probably the fact that men have those rules receives a lot less attention is because their rules are much less restrictive.
I also think Orphic makes a good point about the implicit inequality of the assumption that women need protection and men don't.
Within most definitions of rape, men can be raped by women. It's probably very rare but I wouldn't rule it out or say that it can't happen. Although most people might think "men are strong and women are weak, how could men get raped?", there's of course a lot of cases in life where the woman is in a position of power and the man is vulnerable. Maybe they're young, maybe they're mentally ill, maybe disabled, or maybe it's just an unusual case. And I wouldn't hesitate to say it would cause extreme psychological distress for the man. I have some male friends who are afraid to even be touched; in high school one used to be teased and sometimes sexually harrassed by older girls, and it took him a long time to get over that.
I don't want to compare one person's suffering to another or understate the emotional damage that female rape victims suffer, but I'm sure that male victims wouldn't have it easy either even if they didn't have pregnancy to worry about. (There's always STDs... ick!). And who would they even turn to for a support group? A lot of people would probably accuse them of making it up, or suggest that they must have enjoyed it, or just laugh at them. It must be very confusing and hurtful.
And the anatomy argument is bogus. "Positive stimulation" does not mean consent.
__________________
|
|
| 08.06.2011, 11:59 PM |
|
Mush
Baron
Registration Date: 07.30.07
Location: South of Canada
Posts: 1810 |
|
|
Eeyah! You beat me to the reply!
I am opposed to a France-style ban, again because I think that religion and questionable fashion are both freedoms we all ought to enjoy.
The rarity of "reverse rape" isn't really the question is it? And although I already wrote above, arousal is not consent nor even "some degree" of consent. And anyway it's not even strictly necessary.
But! Let's move on and delve into religion... One thing I'm wondering is if you could point out the original source, like the Quran passages, that call for covering of women? I'm sorry if it's work... but I am genuinely curious about this... 
*Edit* sorry for the double post 
__________________
Post last edited by Mush on 08.07.2011, 12:08 AM.
|
|
| 08.07.2011, 12:08 AM |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
Whoa, fast reply! Or I need to check the time difference (Canada, right?)
Mm, I think I'm seeing a pattern. And I think I may be at fault, and I should kick myself for doing something I disapprove of myself: giving both sides of the argument.
The full ruling on the covering should be as follows:
"Women are required to cover up to protect themselves from the eyes of men, and men should avert themselves from such lustful views."
(I couldn't find the exact quote from the Quran/Hadith, so meh, my own wording.)
The idea that only women are in the wrong for showing too much flesh, or only men are in the wrong for having a strong libido, is as narrow-minded an argument as a frog in a well. Clearly the blame for any sexual crime can swing either AND both ways.
However, the current discussion is on why WOMEN need to cover up, hence my exclusion of the explanation for men. Apologies again for the confusion caused.
But this part below though, I need to rebutt.
quote:
A little extra cloth is hardly resticting, until it keeps you out of the high school swim team, the dance club, track and field, cheerleading, the machine shop, and all sorts of other activities. Probably the fact that men have those rules receives a lot less attention is because their rules are much less restrictive.
Iran has all the above btw, except for cheerleading, which is a relatively new sport, if you can call it that (I don't, because while it involves acrobatics, the original point is cheering... but this is my own opinion and irrelevant), and machine shop (what the hell is that?).
A point at a time:
Swimming. Lol, with the legality of full-body swimsuits, hardly a problem, ya? And my mom used to swim with full body gear on. Why, is a revealing swimsuit a requirement nowadays?
Dance club. Um what's the problem here? No idea of what it is (never seen one), but I'm pretty sure dress codes is a little lax? Pretty sure leggings are allowed.
Track and Field. Ho boy, I don't even know how to start, because I'm not even aware of any rule of any specific dress code. Especially since headscarf-wearing athletes are already representing Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Teheran and many other countries in the Olympics, speed climbing, sailing, soccer, and a whole slew of other sports. Sorry, you missed me on this one.
Cheerleading. See above. If you consider it a sport... sheesh, cheering as a sport...
quote:
Within most definitions of rape, men can be raped by women. It's probably very rare but I wouldn't rule it out or say that it can't happen. Although most people might think "men are strong and women are weak, how could men get raped?", there's of course a lot of cases in life where the woman is in a position of power and the man is vulnerable. Maybe they're young, maybe they're mentally ill, maybe disabled, or maybe it's just an unusual case. And I wouldn't hesitate to say it would cause extreme psychological distress for the man. I have some male friends who are afraid to even be touched; in high school one used to be teased and sometimes sexually harrassed by older girls, and it took him a long time to get over that.
Okay, physical strength shouldn't even be in this discussion. "Men are stronger than women" is a sick stereotype that even I have trouble swallowing.
Sexual harrassment isn't the same as rape. Again, this discussion is about why WOMEN cover up. If you'd like to include the topic of "Why men cover up less than women", I'd be hapy to oblige.
quote:
I don't want to compare one person's suffering to another or understate the emotional damage that female rape victims suffer, but I'm sure that male victims wouldn't have it easy either even if they didn't have pregnancy to worry about. (There's always STDs... ick!). And who would they even turn to for a support group? A lot of people would probably accuse them of making it up, or suggest that they must have enjoyed it, or just laugh at them. It must be very confusing and hurtful.
Everything a male can suffer, the female can suffer just as much. The difference, as earlier stated, is pregnancy. And that's a pretty huge difference to be worried about.
quote:
And the anatomy argument is bogus. "Positive stimulation" does not mean consent.
Speaking from a man's view? Look up erectile dysfunction, notice how stress is a major part in it.
You just can't get it up without being stimulated, lol, any guy will tell you the same, barring artificial stimulants. In any reverse rape, the women seduces the men in order to get it up, because getting it down is just hard (this part though, can be used as argument for the counter, I admit).
Rape against women requires no such seduction or stimulant, my main point in this argument. Knocking out a man isn't going to get the rapist much fun until he wakes up, but the reverse just isn't true, unfortunately.
__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site
quote:
Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|
|
| 08.07.2011, 12:37 AM |
|
fenkashi
Dibs on Supreme Overlord
Registration Date: 08.12.07
Location: Canada
Posts: 5733 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mushka
But! Let's move on and delve into religion... One thing I'm wondering is if you could point out the original source, like the Quran passages, that call for covering of women? I'm sorry if it's work... but I am genuinely curious about this...
The ones that I know from the Quran are:
"Tell your wives and your daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outergarments over their person (when abroad); this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble" - 33, ayat 59
"And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their adornment except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful" - 24, ayat 31 (lots of debate over "what is apparent of it" but I think most people think of faces and hands).
----
I think women should be free to decide how to dress themselves, obviously. They should be able to follow the Quran and make sure everything is covered whether they're using western dress and a head scarf, or they cover up with a burqa and niqab.
I agree with Roar that covering up, for women, does not have to be restricting in any sense these days, though. Unless of course, the women in question do not have a choice.
Interestingly enough. I know many people who choose not to take hijab because say the whole point of the ayats I quoted above is to avoid unwanted attention to themselves and in the west, that is exactly what wearing a hijab or burqa does.
@Roar, by continue, I meant keep discussing. xP But since you ask, I think it's definitely relevant to think about why men are allowed to cover up less.
__________________
|
|
| 08.07.2011, 01:58 AM |
|
Orphic Okapi
Baron
Registration Date: 04.08.07
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 1335 |
|
|
A few random comments:
Outlawing the burqa is just as silly as forcing women to wear it. The government has no place in such matters. Or maybe we should start outlawing crucifix necklaces, or some nonsense like that. The French ban is thinly veiled xenophobia, and I'm disappointed with Australia for following suit.
A full-body swimsuit is still skin-tight, right? Does the Quran say anything about varying degrees of tightness? Because believe me, a full-body wetsuit is highly capable of arousing men, despite the absense of nudity.
"Men are stronger than women" is, as far as stereotypes go, a pretty factual one. It's a stereotype in that it does not apply in all cases (my younger sister, for example, would probably beat me easily in an arm wrestle), but on average, the male body is designed to develop more muscle mass than the female. It's science.
Do Olympic athletes who wear headscarves also cover every part of their body except their hands and face? Because, scientifically speaking, this puts them at a huge disadvantage. If not, then even if they are wearing headscarves, they are not following the rules of Islam as you see them.
Men can be raped. Rape is being coerced into having sex when you don't want to. This can, obviously, happen to men, whether the coercion is physical or not. And men, unlike women, can very easily be stimulated without wanting to be. I could go on for a while about this subject, but this page covers basically everything: http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/my...t_male_rape.htm
______________________________
But I want to stress my original point. Nudity is not inherently stimulating. It's cultural. Anthropologists study tribes where men and women go about nude all the time; frequency of arousal is no different from in a culture where people wear clothes. Instances of rape are no higher. In other words, there is no inherent connection between sex and nudity. It's an invented connection that exists in "clothed cultures" probably because you have to take off your clothes to have sex. Therefore, nudity becomes erotic though association.
The point I'm trying to make here is that the very idea of having to cover women to keep them from a lustful male gaze is grounded in a particular culture, and does not have universal relevance. Go to a tribe in the Amazon and try to convince the local women that covering up will keep them from getting raped; see how much sense it makes to them.
__________________
 I like tea!
Post last edited by Orphic Okapi on 08.07.2011, 02:17 AM.
|
|
| 08.07.2011, 02:10 AM |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
Just a quickie, some of these points require some research on my part, so I'll skipping those for later.
@fen: The problem with their interpretation is that the quran is not to be taken purely at face value. Scholars study for decades just to be able to understand the verses, let alone decipher them.
Also, understand that making up your own interpretation based on a TRANSLATION is already wrong. There's a reason why scholars are required to be fully fluent in arabic.
Also "choice" is subjective. The same way you just don't break the law because you choose to.
@Orphic: The athletes do, yes. No, it's hardly restrictive, otherwise runners wouldn't wear compression tights. And the disadvantage is minimal at best. And funny you should say this, did you know that the Tarahumara, arguably the best runners in history, run in flowing robes? Adapt and change, and such superficial clothing advantage disappears. I for one run in long pants, and I don't feel any difference. Material so smooth, and I clocked 50min for a 10k race.
Regarding swimsuits. Funny you should mention, because I did mention that the degree of coverage depends on your school of thought. So it really depends on which you follow.
__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site
quote:
Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|
|
| 08.08.2011, 02:06 AM |
|
Orphic Okapi
Baron
Registration Date: 04.08.07
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 1335 |
|
|
I will concede the running issue. I don't know a whole lot about running, to be honest, and I had no business trying to argue from that angle. It's far from my most important point, anyway.
If the Quran does not dictate whether or not skin-tight clothing is okay, that's a serious omission. Skin-tight clothing is enough to arouse almost any man and does nothing to protect women from lustful gazing. And if protection from lust is the whole point of covering up . . . well, that's a pretty big loophole.
A lot of Muslims (at least, Muslims I know, which is admittedly only a few) like to argue that Islam is superior to Christianity because, to be a good Muslim, you have to read the Quran in its original language and translation. As opposed to the Bible, which has been updated hundreds of times and translated into more different languages than any other book ever. Apparently this corrupts the meaning. The Quran, on the other hand, has remained in its original, uncorrupted state, so the meaning is still intact.
Well, the United States Declaration of Independence is a document I have personally read in its "uncorrupted" state - the original, untranslated, unedited version. This document makes the important claim that "all men are created equal." Now, when I read this phrase, and when the majority of Americans hear it, we imagine that "men" means everybody. All human beings. Isn't our country founded on such a nice thought - that all people are equal?
But when Thomas Jefferson wrote this phrase, he didn't mean everybody. He meant MEN, first of all, as in only men and not women. And not all men, either; only white men. And not EVEN all white men; only white men who owned property. So even though the phrase "all men are created equal" has remained exactly the same over time - unedited, untranslated - it has come to mean something entirely different from what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote it down.
This is not actually that relevant, I'm just trying to make the point that reading the Quran in its original form does not automatically get you any closer to what it "really" means, because time and cultural context can totally change the meaning of a seemingly simple phrase. Which is why you have different schools of thought regarding the degree of coverage necessary. I'm not so sure there can really be a "correct" school of thought on the matter, though.
__________________
I like tea!
|
|
| 08.08.2011, 04:41 PM |
|
Saddletank
Miyazaki's Best Friend
Registration Date: 09.28.06
Location: On your case
Posts: 10069 |
|
|
Following on from that, bear in mind the Quran was written in a time and a cultural context that was essentially primitive, peasant and rural, and also an extremely hot climate. The concept of a skin-tight stretchy textile covering that completely concealed women's bodies yet would make their appearance such that it might arouse men's lusts was simply unheard of, thus I think its fair to say that a skin tight bodysuit, even though it strictly is not forbidden by the Quran, can be considered to be inappropriate, in the spirit of the times it was written.
Likewise there are some Christian churches, noteably the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church (until very recently), that took the phrase from the Bible which (and I paraphrase) said "women shall not suffer to speak in church" to mean that women may not be ordained, nor read lessons nor teach at all.
Of course in the time it was written the society was a Jewish patriarchy and women were almost entirely without rights. They ranked down there somewhere between slaves and camels, so its not surprising that such a command was written down. However it is ridiculous to suggest that such a rule might apply in today's western society when women bear every right equal to men.
The command was not that God doesn't want women to preach but that male church elders did not want their chattels to be talking on their patch in those days.
These are two examples, actually from opposite ends that also suggest the exact words of an original church book should not be taken word for word but need to be interpreted and understood in context.
The strength of the Bible having been translated from its original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into various languages leads to many interpretations. In many ways this is its strength because it allows people's minds to think its meaning through. It is of course also its weakness because it allows misinterpretation.
That the Quran has not been translated from its original language is likewise both a strength and, as Orphic points out, its weakness. And whether again a great book has been retranslated or not, does not mean it is not misinterpreted - just look at the weight given to different passages in it between fundamentalists and moderates: Muslims place as many meanings on the Quran as Christians do on the Bible.
If the Quran's original language was to be truly counted as valuable then we would not have different Muslim churches following different beliefs.
__________________
Isakaya High School Roleplaying Info
"An old man like me stands no chance fighting against a high school girl in her underwear" - Oshino Meme, Nekomonogatari (Kuro)
Post last edited by Saddletank on 08.08.2011, 06:47 PM.
|
|
| 08.08.2011, 06:46 PM |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
In the spirit of, uh, conceding, I'll concede the rape issue. Wow that feels weird to say...
quote:
Originally posted by Saddletank
Following on from that, bear in mind the Quran was written in a time and a cultural context that was essentially primitive, peasant and rural, and also an extremely hot climate. The concept of a skin-tight stretchy textile covering that completely concealed women's bodies yet would make their appearance such that it might arouse men's lusts was simply unheard of, thus I think its fair to say that a skin tight bodysuit, even though it strictly is not forbidden by the Quran, can be considered to be inappropriate, in the spirit of the times it was written.
Okay, now THIS, my friend, is a serious error on your part.
The quran is the last of God's words to the human species, and it is intended to last to the end of time. There is no "spirit of the times it was written". It is meant for all people, everywhere, every time, every place. Zero exceptions.
quote:
That the Quran has not been translated from its original language is likewise both a strength and, as Orphic points out, its weakness. And whether again a great book has been retranslated or not, does not mean it is not misinterpreted - just look at the weight given to different passages in it between fundamentalists and moderates: Muslims place as many meanings on the Quran as Christians do on the Bible.
There hasn't been a single example to date that I know of of any two languages, when translated between them, to have the exact same meaning.
I'll explain this together with Orphic's post in a while.
quote:
Originally posted by Orphic Okapi
If the Quran does not dictate whether or not skin-tight clothing is okay, that's a serious omission. Skin-tight clothing is enough to arouse almost any man and does nothing to protect women from lustful gazing. And if protection from lust is the whole point of covering up . . . well, that's a pretty big loophole.
The quran doesn't state at full length what to cover. Adding to that, it is, quite literally, impossible to cover every aspect of anything in perfect detail.
Again, together with saddle's comment, will explain below.
quote:
A lot of Muslims (at least, Muslims I know, which is admittedly only a few) like to argue that Islam is superior to Christianity because, to be a good Muslim, you have to read the Quran in its original language and translation. As opposed to the Bible, which has been updated hundreds of times and translated into more different languages than any other book ever. Apparently this corrupts the meaning. The Quran, on the other hand, has remained in its original, uncorrupted state, so the meaning is still intact.
I agree with their point... if they were talking about modern day Christianity.
Either way, do me a favour: slap those guys for me. Apparently they don't understand the origins of Christianity. Or Islam, for that matter.
quote:
Well, the United States Declaration of Independence is a document I have personally read in its "uncorrupted" state - the original, untranslated, unedited version. This document makes the important claim that "all men are created equal." Now, when I read this phrase, and when the majority of Americans hear it, we imagine that "men" means everybody. All human beings. Isn't our country founded on such a nice thought - that all people are equal?
But when Thomas Jefferson wrote this phrase, he didn't mean everybody. He meant MEN, first of all, as in only men and not women. And not all men, either; only white men. And not EVEN all white men; only white men who owned property. So even though the phrase "all men are created equal" has remained exactly the same over time - unedited, untranslated - it has come to mean something entirely different from what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote it down.
As you mention in your next line, it's irrelevant. And in fact, a moot point. Words by Man hardly bear a candle against holy books, who are supposedto be words of God (to err is human, remember?)
quote:
This is not actually that relevant, I'm just trying to make the point that reading the Quran in its original form does not automatically get you any closer to what it "really" means, because time and cultural context can totally change the meaning of a seemingly simple phrase. Which is why you have different schools of thought regarding the degree of coverage necessary. I'm not so sure there can really be a "correct" school of thought on the matter, though.
So then, after two delays, we get to the real point.
The big surprise: Orphic is correct on this point.
The quran, unlike what many non-muslims believe, is NOT the alpha and omega of the religion. To understand what I mean, we go into detail of the origins of the quran and it's method of interpretation.
The quran was revealed to the prophet in God's own words... as in LITERALLY. As in not in Arabic.
But of course, there has to be an intermediary language, else no one save the prophet could understand. Putting aside the question on why arabic was chosen (that's a VERY long history lesson, so spare me), the quran was then revealed to the people via the prophet in arabic.
So yes, only the prophet knew the real words. So in comes the "Hadith". The hadith, in simple terms, is a collection of the prophet's words and actions, to omplement the Quran. Several of them are obviously his decipher of the words of the quran, when people ask of him the specific meaning.
For example, let's look at a common example: the method of prayers. This isn't written in the quran, and one seeking to attack Islam would see this, as Orphic puts it, a "serious ommision", especially since it is the second most important of the five pillars of Islam, the first being your admittance of the religion itself.
But prayers is an action. So it is through the prophet that the specific details are shown.
Back to topic, the specific details of covering up aren't in the quran, but that is not a "serious ommision" in any way. The quran lists the basic laws, and through the prophet, the specific details are explained.
And all these are in arabic. So it is imperative that any interpretation of any law MUST be done from the original arabic script, because any translation WILL, at some point, change the meaning. Like the meaning of Man, as Orphic rightly stated, which by the way is a common method of attack at the Quran (the translation say "Man", obviously, and people attack that as god being sexist).
For interpretation of any law, there are several requirements in order to do so.
- You must be fluent in arabic.
- You must be knowledgeable of the Hadith and the Quran i.e. previous and parallel laws.
- You must be knowledgeable of the circumstances during the revelation of any specific line of the Quran and/or Hadith.
The third part is what most people are ignorant about. As both of you said, any statement can be misinterpreted, and so this third rule is the safeguard to that. There can be no contradiction with the quran or hadith, however, an important thing to take note.
In final, there is one story in the hadith that you may be particularly interested in hearing. Remember that these are from my memory, so my words, and not to be taken literally: aparently fenkashi is better at that than me, since I just can't find them (shameful me  )
quote:
"One day, the prophet comes across a man who was trimming a tree. He came up to the man and said, "Why are you cutting the tree in such a way? The tree should be left to grow."
"O prophet, I am cutting the leaves and branches so that the tree may grow better."
"Truly I say, you are more knowledgeable than me in this matter."
The weight of this story is the basis of many news laws made for the modern world. For example, there are no rulings for drugs, so parallels are taken; in this case, alcohol. The effects are similar, in the sense that both will cause a person to lose his judgement, and both are destructive to the body.
Another example is organ transplant. Originally, a dead person is to buried in whole. However, if the organs can be used to save another's life, then why not?
So in the context of dress code, the words of the quran and hadith are followed first, then adjusted accordingly according to the situation.
Here are two perfect examples from the hadith of seemingly contradicting natures, but in actuality reflects the above story perfectly:
quote:
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 718:
Narrated Aba 'Uthman An-Nahdi:
While we were with 'Utba bin Farqad at Adharbijan, there came 'Umar's letter indicating that Allah's Apostle had forbidden the use of silk except this much, then he pointed with his index and middle fingers. To our knowledge, by that he meant embroidery.
quote:
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 730:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet allowed Az-Zubair and 'Abdur-Rahman to wear silk because they were suffering from an itch.
Silk is prohibited for men btw, yet in the second hadith, two people were allowed to wear them. Of course, the reason for this allowance is clear: there is an illness to consider. Similarly, while pork is inadmissible, it is allowed when there is nothing else to eat and the person may be in anger of starvation.
The universal answer "It depends" is also the universal answer in Islam.
In further response to saddle, different meanings of the bible exists due to interpretations AND languages. Different meanings of the quran exists due to interpretations, NEVER due to translations. And in that sense, I bravely say that we cut down on a lot more misinterpretatons than for the bible.
But as loose as these laws may be, there are limits. In Mushka's example of sports, for instance. The exclusion of any of such sports are hardly life-threatening, so it isn't even an issue in the first place. After all, if you would put self-interest before your own religion, you probably don't care much for it in the first place, which is the bigger sin.
So for the points I missed in my earlier post, this explanation covers both Orphic's and fen's. In Orphic's case, while it is "safe" for the women from their own men, it isn't when other foreign cultures see them. And if even ONE MAN sees carnal lust enough to commit such crimes, would it not be better to err on the side of caution?
That, by the way, is also in rebuttal of Mushka's point. You women may hold the impression that you know what is enough to cover, but do you reallyknow? Do you really know how to protect yourselves? Because from the number of sex crimes on your side of the world, compared to places like Iraq (of the past) where such crimes were close to non-existent, it's pretty clear, to me at least, that you don't.
And besides, why settle for "enough"? We protect our homes and valuables with so much security, but settle for "just enough" when it comes to our own protection? Really?
Unless you can somehow argue how a tank top and mini shorts worn by a frail 14-yr old is "enough", I just don't see your argument to be valid, if today's fashion is anything to go by.
__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site
quote:
Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|
|
| 08.08.2011, 11:02 PM |
|
husky51
The Old Guy
Registration Date: 03.17.08
Location: Southern California
Posts: 12806 |
|
|
| 08.08.2011, 11:42 PM |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
Correction, husky. The fault, in your example, lies in BOTH. I never said the men cannot be at fault, I said the girl's dressing attracts such men.
In real world context, it's the same as blaming a thief in full... when you walk around blatantly flaunting your cash. And any cop will agree with me.
__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site
quote:
Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|
|
| 08.09.2011, 08:28 AM |
|
Orphic Okapi
Baron
Registration Date: 04.08.07
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 1335 |
|
|
http://www.aina.org/news/20061101120058.htm
http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2007/02...s_in_musli.html
Please don't suggest that there are fewer sex crimes in Islamic countries. There may be fewer reported instances, but this is only because women must produce four male witnesses to the crime and are punished if they don't. How many rapes have ANY witnesses? These laws are absolutely absurd and would prevent any woman from testifying.
But your biggest mistake is in assuming that rape has anything to do with lust. If it does, which it might in some cases, it's marginal. That's why very elderly women and young girls are among the most common rape victims; rape isn't about lust, it's about power. Rapists don't choose victims because they lust after them, they choose victims whom they percieve to be weak and defenseless. Which is ultimately why covering up does nothing to prevent rape, and is, in fact, just another manifestation of male power over women, as is the legal system that virtually prevents all rape from being reported. In its more extreme manifestations, Islam does a lot more to facilitate rape than it does to prevent it.
Look, I live in a country where women can dress however they please. Have I ever been aroused by seeing a women dressed a certain way? Sure. Of course. Has the thought of rape ever so much as flitted through my mind? Never. The idea of rape is so inherently disgusting to me, so thoroughly and absolutely repulsive, I cannot even begin to understand people capable of the act. I am capable of lust, yes. Has this lust ever remotely tempted me to rape anyone? No.
The problem then is not lust itself, but a male population to whom the idea of rape appears attractive, and not utterly disgusting as it should. When a man lusts after a woman and thinks, "Hey, rape, not a bad idea . . ." THEN you have a problem. But where do men think like this? Typically, in societies where women have no power. In societies where it's okay for a man to "teach her a lesson" if she's not covered up properly. There are also plenty of men who think like this in non-Muslim countries, including many powerful men (a certain French director of the IMF, for example) to whom rape is CLEARLY about the exertion of power. And some men who totally lack power, and who only feel they can exert it through rape.
Either way, the victim is not in any way to blame no matter what she is wearing. I don't care if she's completely naked. It is incredibly easy - the easiest thing in the world - to lust after someone and choose not to rape them. Anyone who chooses to rape is not simply making that choice out of lust, but to exert power.
__________________
I like tea!
|
|
| 08.09.2011, 10:42 AM |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Orphic Okapi
Please don't suggest that there are fewer sex crimes in Islamic countries. There may be fewer reported instances, but this is only because women must produce four male witnesses to the crime and are punished if they don't. How many rapes have ANY witnesses? These laws are absolutely absurd and would prevent any woman from testifying.
Wrong.
There are different laws for rape and adultery. This is one of THE biggest misconception about islamic law, although admittedly, one that even current muslim countries seem to not understand.
quote:
That's why very elderly women and young girls are among the most common rape victims; rape isn't about lust, it's about power.
Anyone who chooses to rape is not simply making that choice out of lust, but to exert power.
Wrong on both counts. The targets are as such because they are easier to overpower. It's called "easy prey". The lust is there, they just choose easy victims.
Big difference.
quote:
It is incredibly easy - the easiest thing in the world - to lust after someone and choose not to rape them.
Apparently not to the hundreds of thousands of sex offenders out there.
And herein lies the question of the burqa (face veil), no? When you can't even see the face or figure, how much do these women turn you on?
__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site
quote:
Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|
|
| 08.09.2011, 12:41 PM |
|
Orphic Okapi
Baron
Registration Date: 04.08.07
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 1335 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roarkiller
There are different laws for rape and adultery. This is one of THE biggest misconception about islamic law, although admittedly, one that even current muslim countries seem to not understand.
Clarify please. How does adultery factor in here? If people are misinterpreting Islamic law, I'd like to hear you elaborate on the nature of their misinterpretation.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/...pe_adultery.htm
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/ra...es/blog-271347/
quote:
Wrong on both counts. The targets are as such because they are easier to overpower. It's called "easy prey". The lust is there, they just choose easy victims.
Men do not typically lust after 80-year-old women. Elderly women are also, in my experience, very conservatively dressed, with only hands and head exposed. But I guess they don't usually cover their hair. That's probably what drove their attackers so wild with lust they simply couldn't help themselves.
quote:
And herein lies the question of the burqa (face veil), no? When you can't even see the face or figure, how much do these women turn you on?
Do you honestly believe that if every woman on earth covered up their entire body, rape would vanish overnight?
The laws that force women to cover-up might have been put in place to protect them. They may very well be well-intentioned. But it does seem obvious to me that today, the laws primarily exist to excuse and justify rape. If she wasn't covered up, she had it coming.
The fact is, Iraqi immigrants make up 1% of Norway's population while they account for 10% of all rape perpetrators. Somali immigrants make up 1% of the population and account for 5% of all perpetrators. Obviously there are lots of other factors that could be involved here. I'm willing to admit there is probably a degree of discrimination at work. But immigrants from Islamic countries are now committing a disproportionately large number of rapes all across Europe. Some people have gone as far as to call it a "Muslim Rape Epidemic." Many non-Muslim women who live in predominantly Muslim communities are wearing veils for fear of being raped.
Muslim men are not more lustful than other men by nature. They are not less capable of restraining themselves. There is something else going on here besides lust. You could maybe argue that going from an Islamic society to a society where the majority of women go uncovered makes a Muslim man more likely to commit rape, since he is not used to being surrounded by temptation. But most of the rapes being committed are by second or third generation immigrants - people who have lived in Western society their whole lives.
This is the problem with the coverage laws. If you grow up in a society where women are allowed to go around uncovered, you don't have to automatically judge women as good or bad people based on their clothing choices. If you grow up being taught that it's really bad for women to expose any part of themselves but hands and face, you are going to look at any women who isn't covered and think, "That is an immoral woman. She should be punished. She's asking for it."
Which is why coverage laws encourage rape.
__________________
I like tea!
Post last edited by Orphic Okapi on 08.09.2011, 03:25 PM.
|
|
| 08.09.2011, 02:50 PM |
|
Mush
Baron
Registration Date: 07.30.07
Location: South of Canada
Posts: 1810 |
|
|
quote:
There are different laws for rape and adultery. This is one of THE biggest misconception about islamic law, although admittedly, one that even current muslim countries seem to not understand.
This is not an informative answer, Roar. Did you mean to say that four witnesses are required to prove an adultery, and that those accusing someone of adultery without witnesses should be punished?
In that case, is it also true that a rape victim can report being a rape victim with no witnesses, and not be punished?
This is actually the first I've heard about the four witnesses thing. But after doing some reading up on it, it's not clear to me how rape victims are treated. Some sources, such as the ones Orphic linked to, seem to say that reporting being raped means accusing your rapist of adultery, and thus, you need to provide four witnesses.
So if anyone knows the answer, can they provide a clearer explanation?
__________________
Post last edited by Mush on 08.10.2011, 02:58 AM.
|
|
| 08.10.2011, 02:40 AM |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
Typing on the go again, apologies.
@orphic: Both links you gave, and a few other similarly misleading websites, are common traps for those looking for answers, often giving half-truths and twisting facts to fit their arguments. Try not to rely on them. When in doubt, consult an actual clergy (on future matters). Remember, the internet is seldom filled with truths.
quote:
Originally posted by Mushka
This is not an informative answer, Roar. Did you mean to say that four witnesses are required to prove an adultery, and that those accusing someone of adultery without witnesses should be punished?
In that case, is it also true that a rape victim can report being a rape victim with no witnesses, and not be punished?
1) Depends on the situation and accuser, really.
2) Straight yes.
The incident with the prophet's wife Aisyah is a good example to read up upon. Remember how I said that no law can be contradicting? This is a good example of a seemingly contradicting law, even though it isn't.
Full post when I get back.
__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site
quote:
Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|
|
| 08.10.2011, 03:39 AM |
|
hopexx5
Totoro
Registration Date: 01.17.11
Location: UK
Posts: 698 |
|
|
Trying to make a piece of clothing illegal? People are well in there rights to wear whatever they want, and should to be honest.
__________________
  
|
|
| 08.10.2011, 10:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Online Ghibli
Ghibli Tavern is powered by WoltLab, hosted by Teragon Networks
|
|
