(September 17, 2022 at 7:50 am)Leonardo17 Wrote:

(September 17, 2022 at 6:52 am)Eclectic Wrote: The law of hijab in Islam indicates that Muhammad Rasulullah was a mental illness.
Scientists have resided among the completely naked African tribes and have reported that there has never been a rape of women.

In Iran, the clerics say that if the women do not hide themselves, we should make the city insecure with the help of the police and thugs.

A few days ago a young girl was killed by police for lack of scarf.

As I said. I grew up in this culture (in Turkey). I don't agree with the idea that the prophet ever said or ordered something like that. This is all an issue of wrong, biased and evil interpretation of people who love to manipulate other people by using a distorted version of the original religion (just like the catholic church in the middle ages).

The laws of Islam are a stone that a madman called Muhammad Rasulullah threw into the well 1400 years ago and now 1000 wise men cannot lift it out of the well.
I know that the religion of Islam is satanic and that Allah is an evil monster or demon who falsely called himself the creator of the world, I fight against Islam.
do not be scared! Allah is a bastard devil, and I saw that only Iranians who are savages, thieves and weak-minded people believe that Allah is the same God.
In Christianity, it is said that any prophet who denies the crucifixion of Christ is the Antichrist, and Muhammad and Allah have denied the crucifixion of Christ in the Qur'an and Hadith. Muhammad = Satan's servant and Allah = Satan.

I am not a Christian. But since Muhammad said that he is the follower of the way of Christ, I said this so that you know that according to the religion of Christ, Muhammad is the Antichrist.

(September 17, 2022 at 11:19 am)Leonardo17 Wrote: - You are talking about issues that have to be debated. Another debate in France is on wetter the bikini-like hijab must be allowed in beaches or not. In some beaches it is forbidden. In Germany, on the contrary, this dress called Hashmi (or something) is being promoted in public swimming pools for hygienic reasons. So who is right?
   All I am saying is that the debate must be held.
 
But this issue is mainly a cultural issue. Not a philosophical one. Women (and their entire family and in some case, their entire society) want to keep the veil because at some point in history (for whatever logical or illogical reason) this has become a general norm for society. And now they are resisting the change toward a more secular and modern society through their attachment to that object. This is the core of the issue. Indeed it is very similar to the gun-control issue or the debate on the right to abortion in the U.S.A.:
 
- He / She doesn’t want it
- Why?
“God says no” or “It is in the constitution”
(Are you out of your mind?) J)

Yes, I think so too. This is an issue that has to be worked out, over time, and it's likely that not everyone will be happy with the result. 

We have to be understanding and patient with the debate.

(January 23, 2020 at 8:32 pm)Sal Wrote: There is something sinister about a woman being forced to wear the hijab, and especially the niqab, obviously.

I find it ironic that islamic women talk about being a preference - in western countries, where Islam is the minority - while women are chastised for removing them in Islamic dominated countries. Don't they see the contradiction here?

Everyone knows that this is about scholastic thought vs. secularism. Everyone knows it. No one realy cares about modesty in our century. And the issue of chastity is an anthropological phenomenon. Some sort of superstition I would say. If chastity is broken (whatever that may mean) everyone has to die. That’s the unfortunate situation of a whole geographical region where monarchs / dictators and clerics cleverly use religion as a mean of promoting their own personal power over the population. So they see no problem in distorting religion itself and in keeping their population completely ignorant about the real facts of the Islamic religion. It is a situation that is similar to Christianity in Europe before the renaissance and the reforms of Persons like Luther etc.

One more reason for the free world to free itself as soon as possible from its dependence on Middle Eastern oil and Gas supplies and turn itself to cleaner energy sources including nuclear energy.

(January 23, 2020 at 10:07 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(January 20, 2020 at 4:34 pm)Prycejosh1987 Wrote: I agree with you. Its not a sin to show off your body but it is a sin to deliberately entice others to sin by looking at you. Making people fall in lust over you would be sin. Rightly so. I think we should have laws that make sense not like sharia law which makes no sense whatsoever.

If a particular religion wants to have a dress code under threat of expulsion, they can knock themselves out, that's their right. But the government/law should never enforce any kinds of those codes. If looking at a woman is a "sin", that's between you, your god, and your church. The government should have no concern over that.

- There is also an issue of laicity. Laicity is different from secularism. According to this no one can display or promote their religion in public areas, for instance in school or universities or in public offices (like the Parliament or senate for instance). If you want to wear a cross for instance, you have to put it under your skirt when you enter the school building. Of course you can do whatever you want when you are in the street or in the shopping mall. But in public buildings, religious signs are forbidden. That’s Laicity.
So there is naturally a debate in many countries on this issue.
Of course the debate is open to everyone. But my point of view is that the religion itself does not promote this type of behavior, that the issue is cultural more than religious, so 1) The person herself (according to me) should not act as if she has such a superiority complex and if she can’t (because most of them are forced to wear this dress even if they live in Europe or America or are being brainwashed on this issue from a very young age) then 2) governments should accept this issue as a cultural issue rather than a religious issue and therefore allow them to wear whatever dress they like.
-     Still I don’t like it and I will keep totally not liking it.

(January 24, 2020 at 4:46 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(January 24, 2020 at 3:01 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: As do men, but not if they go to some other places like a nudist beach, while women in Muslim countries don't have that kind of freedom and must be covered all the time everywhere.

I have said a couple of times now that rules for modesty differ from place to place. Nude beaches are not the same as supermarkets. 

What you say about Muslim countries is oversimple. It's normal in some Muslim countries, but not in others, that women must be "covered all the time everywhere," when they are not at home. You perceive this to be a lack of freedom. They perceive it to be a normal sense of modesty. 

Hijabs are banned in Tajikistan, a Muslim country, and in government offices in Tunisia, also Muslim. They were banned at Turkish universities until very recently. Standards vary widely among Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia is strict and may require a full burqa. Other countries think a simple headscarf is enough. Peter Hitchens has written about his travels in various Muslim countries, and how he saw many women who had the headscarf pushed so far back as to make it meaningless, and did so with impunity. When the US can refrain from overthrowing a Muslim country's secular leadership, standards seem to loosen.

Ilhan Omar continues to wear a scarf, while her teenage daughter doesn't. Do you think that Omar lacks freedom? Or is this a choice she makes?

But there is also this: Proponents of the head scarf in Turkey are constantly seeking to promote their behavior as the true rule imposed by the Religion and as a necessity for truly Turkish families.
 
The issue has been politicized to its core since many decades and in my country, it’s almost the same as wearing a MAGA hat or a black shirt (like the Italian fascist used to do) and a symbol of belonging to / an unity with the “muslim wolrd) That is Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran Etc…
 
- Of course I am not saying that all women with a headscarf are the same. But I think you are looking at a good 50%. Without any exaggeration. Because you would be surprised how some of them can be even more fanatical than their husbands, fathers, brothers etc…
 
- Tajikistan is not a true country. It’s only the backyard of Russia like all Turkic states of Central Asia.
 
Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco etc. are very underdeveloped countries where religious traditions are very strong everywhere because religion is basically the only thing the people of an economically underdeveloped country can turn to.
 
/What we have to look is the religion itself. The religion itself does not have such a mandate. Yet dictatorial rulers always seem to be more than willing to promote such things that are visible and sold to the general public as “a necessity dictated by our values and traditions”.
 
As I said. There needs to be a distinction between the religious, the political and the cultural.
 
I am of the view that there is nothing religious left in the practice of wearing the headscarf or the Hijab

(January 24, 2020 at 2:57 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(December 10, 2019 at 10:18 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: The original purpose of what has now become traditional dress was modesty, and arguably justified as a way to protect women from rape in a barbaric time and region, but now it's purpose is tradition and a way to announce that you're a Muslim.

I wouldn't put it like that. In all of antiquity even outside Islam, girls and women were seen more like property than equals. Sure it was to prevent rape, but more so that your property doesn't get damaged. 

Even in America females were blamed for their own rapes and women just hundred years ago were expected to dress a certain way too, even if not covering up their heads.

Body autonomy for women has been a recent progress in the west. While I would never suggest banning the hijab, I would argue what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has, being a former Muslim herself. I would argue that while Muslim women in the west have the freedom to wear it, that is not the case in much of the Middle East, it is mandatory, and the woman can be punished or even beaten for not wearing it. It is gender role clothing, just like LDS and Amish and it is patriarchal in meaning.

Of course they should have the freedom to wear it. What I am saying is that we are talking about a cultural practice that is based on what you are pointing to. Women being more objects than persons. And there is a number of Islamic scholars who will point to the fact that Islam was a religion that promoted gender equality. The veil / or hijab if you like, is a remnant of pre-Islamic Arab tradition that sees women as property and promotes polygamy like many ancient cultures.
 
Polygamy on the other hand, is said to have been temporarily promoted by the prophet as a solution to heavy causalities among the men in the ranks of his army.
 
In a nutshell: There is a lot of distortion of the original religious message of Islam. So one who wants to understand it has to do a certain amount of research.
 
Another example is female genital mutilation. No one can show me any proof that it has anything to do with religion. Yet it is widely practiced in north Africa as a part of their “belief system”. So do we tolerate that as well?
 
So there is an issue of tolerance. But this is not religious tolerance. This is the tolerance of a worldview with religious connotations that is basically a cultural and / or political worldview. What they are doing is to hide their narrow worldviews and totally rustic even barbaric way of life (that they don’t want to give up because of this or that reason) behind some fancy words.
 
/But this is also not an issue. People should have political freedom and freedom to express their cultural values as well.
 
All I am saying is: This is not religion. This is how they chose to interpret religion. And it’s totally their own problem. Not mine.

(January 24, 2020 at 9:35 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(January 24, 2020 at 8:23 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: There are differences between men and women biologically; and it was even proven scientifically that many hormones in a man's body are absent or lacking in a female's and vise versa.

Men are not equal to women at least biologically; we didn't even go to the effects of different hormones on the brain. Saying both are equal is a very loose and ambiguous claim. Ignoring this fact brings issues to the society, and maybe the shocking numbers of divorce in the U.S and Europe is an evidence to that; it's very wrong to insist on calling "oranges" "apples". They are equal though in terms of rights.

Women are not the same being as men, we can start at the evolutionary roles that both did based on the nature of their bodies -men hunt; women raise kids-, archeology proves too how ancient people knew these roles based on the de-facto capabilities they are born with.

These days trans and gender fluid people are asking us to look again at what we used to call biological differences. The whole thing may not be as simple as we thought. 

Nor am I convinced that gender roles in certain hunter/gatherer societies were as hard and fast as we might think. And even if they were, we're not hunter/gatherers any more. People are adaptable. 

The main thing is that we not reify tradition or habit and declare it to be pre-determined. It's nomos, not physis. Things change, and that's OK. 

Quote:I think and believe that nothing is wrong with women, but everything is wrong with the male-culture that enforces its image on women, forcing them to satisfy the male mind at all times -like making them dress as sluts to enjoy looking at them-.

This I think is very relevant. Social pressure on women is very strong. 

I know it's not either/or, but sometimes you see side-by-side photos of women in which people claim liberation has occured: on one side they are wearing hijabs, and on the other side mini-skirts. Yet both choices may have been determined by others. Give up your hijab and wear this designer outfit. Liberate yourself from tradition so you can participate in the fashion which the media tell you is the only attractive thing. 

If we say that someone is free because she dresses just like an American, that may be too simple. There are also pressures to dress like Americans that are, in their own ways, difficult to avoid. 

I think it is probably easier, in one's own mind, to flout dress codes that are imposed from above, and harder to ignore dress codes imposed by one's peers. I used to live in a little Japanese rural village where the high school had a strict dress code. The boys' solutions to this were hilarious. For example, they would sew purple silk linings into their pockets that weren't visible during the day, but on the train ride home the would pull the pockets inside out to show their disobedience. It was a lovely decadent touch. When I lived in Spanish Harlem I used to see Catholic high school girls getting on the subway and rolling up the tops of their skirts, to make them much shorter. 

This is in contrast to the high school I went to. We had no official dress code, but we all dressed exactly alike, and this was enforced by peer pressure. Ill-fitting jeans, or the wrong brand, brought mockery all day long.

The historical explanation for this phenomenon goes like this: In ancient times, if you had big muscles you were the master of the world. Today if you have big muscles they will put you to the gate as a security at best. In war-like societies of ancient-Greece or Rome it was normal for women to have a life that is basically limited to the marital institution.
 
What does a man do today that a women can’t do?
 
So all of this is absurd.  
 
I am of the view-point that a believer in any religion has a duty of knowing his/her religion correctly.
 
I think that a Muslim women who come to America could at least try to fit in in a way that she still remains comfortable with herself. Ok one must tolerate her if she doesn’t, But she still has no duty of attracting all the attention on herself. When I go out nobody knows about what my religion is. So does every Muslim woman have the duty and obligation of telling the world “Hey look! I am a believer. I Truly am”  
This is not how I see things:
 
No one knows about my religious / spiritual convictions. And I usually won’t talk about these issues unless I really want to. What do you think I would do If someone forced me in any way to display say, my political views 24/7, 365 days a year? Of course I would refuse. Besides most of them are forced to wear the Hijab or are being brainwashed to wear it. And I believe it to be very uncomfortable in summer and in winter too.
 
That dress was meant for the Arabic desert of the 6th century AD. And it was the best technology of the time. Male persons of the Sahel region also wear dresses that cover their entire heads and body to protect themselves from the effects of the sand and the sun. It was a clever dress at the time. It is perhaps even so today if you go to the desert without any sunscreen etc. But hanging around like this in the middle of a modern metropolis I a cultural phenomenon. Not a religious one.

(January 27, 2020 at 9:07 am)R00tKiT Wrote:

(January 26, 2020 at 11:11 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: The hijab is insanely sexist

The hijab is, more importantly, none of your business.

(January 26, 2020 at 11:11 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: and a complete symbol of the oppression of women

And curiously they never complain about being oppressed, so I would say you're putting words in their mouths.

(January 26, 2020 at 11:11 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: Women are gorgeous, beautiful beings

Yeah and that's why they wear the hijab. Thanks for pointing that out.

(January 26, 2020 at 11:11 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: The control is the fear that, if she had the freedom to choose for herself, she'd have any man she wants and then some, because she can.

She can still have any man she wants while veiled. This is retarded, sir.

1) Of course not. Is there anything about a body that is not my body that can be my business?
2) I / He is not puting any word in nobody's mouth. The officail view on that is: If she is >18 it's her decision. Whatever the reason she can do it. If she is <18 that's very problematic. Even in America. Because she will be likelly to keep wearing it because she has learned it to be the good thing and no one will be able to teach her otherwise in the future.
3) That can be relative. Very relative. Let me ask you a question: How do you know if you want to mary a girl who is wearing the Hijab?
Answer: In ancient times the mothers, and sisters of a man would go to the public bath, to check if the girl (her body) was suitable for their sons / brothers etc...
So how do I even put that into practice today if the idea somehow crosses my mind?

- No I mean. One has to think in term of the century he / she is linving in. This isn't the time of Persian Kings etc. If you know what I mean.

4) Egodeath: I won't go into that. 

Yet: All man seeking enormous amounts of power (Like Hitler or Stalin for instance) Have also had specific roles that were defined for each gender. This is a technique for holding society under your grip. If you subdue the female, you can also subdue the male, than you have a conformist / obedient society. 

Once again: Totally un-Islamic. 

4)

(January 27, 2020 at 9:53 am)R00tKiT Wrote:

(January 27, 2020 at 9:45 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It's rather difficult for oppressed women in an insanely patriarchal society to speak out about their oppression.  That's kind of definitional.

Boru

There are european/american women who wear the hijab by choice, too, you know. So try including this category in your next unproved claim.

- There is no issue on that. An adult person can decide wathever she does with herself in general. That cannot be our concern. 

I am not talking about mockery or anything like that. BUt I still have the right to think that it's inapropriate in the 21st century. That's my personal opinion and I have the right to say it. 

/Opression of women in a similar manner is also very widespread among Christian or Hindu communities. In fact, that's what I have been critisising all the time. Basically. I think these people also need to have a better understanding of their religion (I am not going into the details here).

What is the point in addressing a discussion that is over two years old? Even if the participants are still here, they've shown no sign that they intend to be actively involved.