Hijab

[nefraiko]

he just doesn't let go hein jean grey hhhhhh

so what's your reply to this ? you can't let him have the last post !

interesting

 

[Osmon]

I won't marry a women with her face in a clothing prison but I won't marry a ***** who been everyone toy either.

 

[Aim64C]

I am not Muslim but I think Hijab's are beautiful but when looking up images of them I found that some people think they should not be worn and the women who choose to wear them are obviously offended by this. My question is, why do people think women should not wear the Hijab? I don't get it.

There are many forms of dress that are similar to the Hijab, though mostly because they serve a practical purpose of protecting from the sun while working or the like. I don't see anything wrong with them in most cases.

Other than being muslim, of course - but that is less to do with the specific style of dress and more to do with the fact that they are part of a murderous cult (in which case, forbidding them would just make it more difficult to pick out who is most likely to spontaneously explode).

Anyway - from a security standpoint, however, if a place of business or private airline, or whatever wants to secure their infrastructure and require searches - then the Hijab should be removed for a proper personnel inspection to make sure there are no surprises halfway through the trip/show/etc.

From a personal standpoint - they have a limited practical purpose of protecting the wearer from sun, sand/wind, and that's about it. I don't really find them to do much in terms of attractiveness, however. Men in those regions still divorce their wives because they claim they were misled about her 'beauty.' So, it's really just a failed policy from a religious standpoint.

Same with the Burka - although at least that has the 'total mystery except for the eyes' factor going for it. The Hijab shows 'too much' to really make things mysterious, while showing too little to really make women much more than a uniform blob. Oddly enough, the Burka hides enough that you want to see who the eyes belong to.

Of course, half the time, they are trying to run you over with shopping carts - so it's more like the mystery as to whose ass is about to need cleaned up in aisle five.

 

[Alice in Noodleland]

I saw a film actually an omnibus featured on a cable channel about this. Got me interested because I want to understand this thing.

Its about a Muslim girl studying arts in France and she has an Art defense to present about a certain Painting. The thing is the head committee is asking her not the put the hijab while doing the presentation.

I cant remember what she exactly said in front of the committee . While she was doing her art defense presentation she was also explaining the importance of wearing hijab for her.

The topic is about Intimacy.

 

[Uchihakil]

if one is a muslim,its an order from God as a female to wear a hijab, if you trully believe in that God, then you know he will reward you for obeying him in the hereafter, if you doubt him and think its oppression, then you will surely see(reffering to muslim women)

 

[NaNaNaaaaa]

I only asked a simple question, look at all the reply's

 

[Ansatsuken]

"No one is truly free, they are a slave to wealth, fortune, the law, or other people restraining them from acting according to their will."
Euripides

Unfortunately for Euripides I never a slave to everything he said. I dont know maybe he lived in country where he saw people became slaves to all that. But to tells you and him I'm free. You dont know me and how I thinking, thats all you need to know.

What kind of freedom you want?

 

[Laraib]

So you're saying "you should wear a hijab to not get raped" :lol people shouldn't be raped in the first place, a girl isn't still asking for it even if she's showing too much. :lol

Prevents.

 

[Conspirator.]

I lol'd hard u know :bdpf:

Well obviously I'm right. The Truth is God. The Truth is infallible as their definitions align with each other perfectly. Therefore we can conclude God is infallible too. Ty, and God rules. :bdpf:

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

I only asked a simple question, look at all the reply's

That's what happens when it's about Islam. Non-Muslims freak out.

The answer to that question is simple. Ignorance, intolerance, and perversions, are all reasons why. There should be no reason to not allow a woman to wear a hijab of her own free will, because that in itself would be oppression.

You can argue for the ones who are forced to wear it, but what possible arguments could be made against one who chooses to do so?

 

[Lord Tywin]

I only asked a simple question, look at all the reply's

You are welcome

You must be registered for see images

 

[GinkgoLeaf Girl]

I only asked a simple question, look at all the reply's

Lol, it was an interesting read... For the most part *_* Do you feel like you have an answer to your original question?

 

[Avani]

I was talking about this one:

You must be registered for see links

The one in which you told me not to reply :| And it was edited.


Okkayyy I missed it for some mysterious reasons.

Doesn't excuse your constant misunderstanding since you are making wrong conclusions from the part you directly quoted.

Ah, again making references to what I am and whatnot...

I replied your argument directly. See-

"Either you are saying the religious rules of dress are thus applicable on women only and men can avoid following it to avoid looking out of place or it fits both.. "

So I am not relying on who you are to thrash your argument but pointing out that you brought in irrelevant fact which is against your own cause. ^^

Either you are saying the religious rules of dress are thus applicable on women only and men can avoid following it to avoid looking out of place or it fits both.

You're actually being ignorant to the fact that different rulings go for men and women in islam regarding the topic of dress code we're discussing.


Women with a burqa or hijab do stand out from men, so I don't even know what you're trying to prove here.


On the other hand, men should grow a beard, f.e. That makes them pretty easy to distinguish from women. (And don't try to bring up that tranny singer :|)

So, men and women can be distinguihsed from each other. Thus, even if you apply the ruling on not to be too vain, on both men and women, being vain is different in men's and in women's case, as their dress codes are different in the first place. So, it's actually your point that is moot, not mine.

What you replied has little to do with what I posted. I think people should be allowed to make their own choices and not forced to dress in a certain way but in a reasonable way. So I don't understand principle behind such a dictate. I find it really questionable. Why such an emphasis on not looking like a non-Muslim?

Care to share why they must look different than the Kufrra or whatever you call non Muslims and inform us why such a distinction must exist?

How so? Are you suggesting that a bracelet can't be seen on one's hand? And anyway, the thread is about hijab in case you haven't noticed so far, and hijab does allow some jewelry to be seen, but even so, even in the strictest interpretations, women can show jewelry to relatives, and can wear them in family events. While men can't wear such jewelry. So my point still stands.

You are not even funny at this point. Only use for bracelet at this point would be for recognizing whose wrist it is. Yeah it was half a joke. I am glad she can show her jewellery to sisters though.

How so? You still haven't explained how is it bad that muslims should dress differently from non muslims?

You are the one who posted that religious tenet so you should explain the merits of Muslims dressing up differently than non Muslims. So far you haven't told us a single logical reason for this segregation by dictating a sort of uniform.

But you keep demanding that I tell you when it can be seen as bad - How would you react if US government passes a bill that people must not dress up similar to middle eastern/Asian people and must look distinct from them? Will it be 'good' or ' bad'?

It's also kind of reminds me different dress codes issued to certain communities throughout the history like yellow badges, red robes etc. So yeah I ask the logic behind such a suggestion.

You still haven't refuted my reasoning that if women are oppressed by their specific dress code, then muslim men are also oppressed by their prescribed dress code.

You are telling us all how oppressive the religion is. By all means keep going. But if you are asking how the idea of modesty and feeling superiority over it results in oppression -

Many news siteshave quoted that in European cities which let "refugees" in , local police is issuing women warnings to not let their daughter go out alone in the areas where the refugees are settled at least to avoid 'misunderstanding' and resultant 'attacks'. So presence itself is already come down to women's rights and way of life getting restricted because of a foreign culture.

There are poets from medieval period who show "purity" of woman with the description "Asuryasparsha"= " the one who even the sun hasn't touched.. talk about unhealthy women deprived of essential sun light even as a result of Purdah.

And in the last things go this way:

Pathan 1: Hey, I shot your wife dead for dishonoring you- she was looking out of her window at the third floor- such a shameless *****!

Pathan2 : Thank you brother, but relax my pride is intact. Here I dragged out her body to show everyone that the one you shot was only my maid and not my wife.

- Saadat Hasan Manto ( If I remember correctly- he was the one to narrate this anecdote.)

If this kind of mentality is not oppressive and loaded with false sense of honour and modesty...

Religions have always been used as tool for oppression. They do not dictate such rules for spiritual advancement but for their sociopolitical goals and better control over the masses. Women getting the worst deal out of it and end up depending on feminine wiles to make a place for themselves in such a society.

So again, what is this info that you used against me?

None. You are using it against yourself.

Okay, I didn't know I can't join teh discussion. Next time vm or pm her if you want only her to know...

You can but then you get what's coming your way. I don't owe you any warning.

Well ofc that makes sense, though I guess british law did affect indian law, and well, the british law was affected by roman law, and so was international law. But that's far fetched.

Yeah but we study it in the Indian context so it doesn't involve learning Latin as a language.

Nah, I like people who stand up for their rights and women's rights...but no need to be so arrogant about it,

Yay! I got a patron to "patronize" me! Too bad I wasn't looking for one.

and guess what, even if I had a crappy reading comprehension and even if I misread your posts, well we all make mistakes and you could get the point through without making references all the time about my abilities. Especially that, again, I really didn't think you'd mind me answering to your post to OP, considering how you interfered last time with my debate with Aim64c...besides, I really didn't see the rest of your post after telling me not to reply to you.

You have been attacking me for over a year. I don't own you any politeness.

And as for interfering -all of my arguments with you have been result of you replying something I said to someone else- only exception are the ones when you made direct comments over India. And that was the last time. But when you keep jumping in all the time you get the same treatment at one point back and since we are under constantly attack under that kind of implication so yes I object to that.

Also, you seem to be fixated on 'winning' this. This is not a court, and it doesn't matter what I study. I could be a chimney sweeper, that's just not a valid argument. (Now you may ask why then, I bring up you being a mod...well simply because I think that a mod should be someone to look up to...someone who can stay objective and respectful because having an important position means more responsibility. )

You have not replied even one of my point directly and chose to focus on trivial observations surrounding it.

In fact when you were handed over direct quotes and made to revisit my post you admitted to misreading it only to continue asking the same question again - explaining the logic and merit of which is your responsibility.

That's^ how a severely underhanded and crafty but intellectually lame attempt to win a losing argument look like.

But really, you don't have to believe me. I just think you're a nicer person in real life than in our debates :|

Aww I am being nice enough. The attitude you get from me is the one you have towards me. Fantasizing about my RL do you any good.

 

[Luciform]

i wear hijab (a normal hijab) . i did it cause i want to. and i didn't bother anyone with that.

 

[SasukeTheEmo]

Unfortunately for Euripides I never a slave to everything he said. I dont know maybe he lived in country where he saw people became slaves to all that. But to tells you and him I'm free. You dont know me and how I thinking, thats all you need to know.

What kind of freedom you want?

Define freedom.

 

[Natsu Shazneel]

i wear hijab (a normal hijab) . i did it cause i want to. and i didn't bother anyone with that.

I see so you work as a spy for some agency. You plan to take over the world?

 

[Babadook]

Doesn't excuse your constant misunderstanding since you are making wrong conclusions from the part you directly quoted.

Which part? My problem was with you telling me not to reply to you. How did I misunderstand that?

I replied your argument directly. See-

"Either you are saying the religious rules of dress are thus applicable on women only and men can avoid following it to avoid looking out of place or it fits both.. "

So I am not relying on who you are to thrash your argument but pointing out that you brought in irrelevant fact which is against your own cause. ^^

I never said you rely on my identity to 'trash an argument', but simply making constant references to me, calling me a liar etc. is ad hominem argumentation. You require 'real arguments', despite to my very first post, in which I quoted the article, citing the Quran, the Sunnah and scholars. All you could say that I shouldn't link you articles as you don't care, and ever since you just keep telling that that info is against me, without explaining how so.

I only brought the dress code of men into the picture to show that if - by your logic- women are oppressed by the hijab, then men are also oppressed, f.e. because they have to grow a beard, or they also have to cover certain body parts.That was my point, and you just don't wanna see the forest from the tree. You got hung up on the ruling that muslims should dress differently from non-muslims. So what? Do you want to wear the hijab? No. So apparently you don't wanna dress like muslims either. Gee.

What you replied has little to do with what I posted. I think people should be allowed to make their own choices and not forced to dress in a certain way but in a reasonable way. So I don't understand principle behind such a dictate. I find it really questionable. Why such an emphasis on not looking like a non-Muslim? "

This is what you posted:

"Either you are saying the religious rules of dress are thus applicable on women only and men can avoid following it to avoid looking out of place or it fits both."

Again, there are different rulings on dresses for men and women. Some are applicable to both, some are only applicable to men, and some only to women. I don't know what else you're trying to say here. Care to explain ?

Care to share why they must look different than the Kufrra or whatever you call non Muslims and inform us why such a distinction must exist?

It's not necessarily a must. Islam is reasonable, and many prohibitions are nto absolute. F.e., it would be quite hard to apply such a ruling on those of us living in minority in the West.

Anyway, here is what it's supposed to mean:

"Clothing that involves imitation of the dress traditionally worn by non-Muslims, such as the type of clothing worn by monks and priests and wearing a cross. This also includes clothing that is specific to a certain religion, for the Prophet May Allah's peace and blessings be upon him said, “Whoever imitates a people is one of them.” (Sunan Abu Daawood: 4031) This imitation extends to wearing clothing of religious significance. Imitation of this type is a sign of weakness and lack of confidence in the truth one adopts.
Imitation here does not include wearing clothing that is predominant in one’s country even if such dress is worn by the majority of non-Muslims, for the Prophet May Allah's peace and blessings be upon him used to wear clothing that was common amongst the Quraysh pagans with the exception of those clothing items that are expressly forbidden."

You must be registered for see links

You are not even funny at this point. Only use for bracelet at this point would be for recognizing whose wrist it is. Yeah it was half a joke. I am glad she can show her jewellery to sisters though.

Nicely evadign the point that we're first and foremost talking about hijab in this thread ^_^

And again, even in thecase of burqa, the point is that a girls' beauty is for her family in the first place. Why would strangers drool over her?

You are the one who posted that religious tenet so you should explain the merits of Muslims dressing up differently than non Muslims. So far you haven't told us a single logical reason for this segregation by dictating a sort of uniform.

It's quite interesting you're asking for an explanation despite first you said you don't care about more info. Inconsistency yay.

Apart from the above, here is some more info. Care to read?

It is from the beauty of our deen and its divine design from Allaah (S.W.T.) that our deen allows us to imitate non-Muslims in many ways and to take part in other areas like food, dress and the general lifestyle of non-Muslims. This is important because our deen does not limit us from imitating to the point that our lives become severely restricted. As long as we are careful from doing anything which is clearly forbidden in Islaam or are doing something that is clearly only a non-Muslim practice, then taking part in most activities is totally halal. For example, it is forbidden to imitate by wearing the same clothing priests wear or the turban like members of the Sikh sect. There is plenty of evidence supporting this, for example:

1. During the time of the Prophet, anyone seen wearing red clothing were considered non-Muslims. When the Prophet spotted one of the companions wearing two pure red garments, he quickly told him, "These are the clothes of the kufar and you must not wear them again." [Reported by Imaam Muslim] Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) had prohibited him from dressing in two pure red garments because these garments distinguished people as non-Muslims at that time. The prophet forbade Muslims from wearing any clothing that were strictly identified as clothing only a non-Muslim would wear.

2. However, this does not mean that the Prophet did not wear the same types of clothing that non-Muslims wore; in fact, he wore the same type of clothing as most of the people in the non-Muslim society that he lived in. He preferred to wear Omani and Yemeni clothing, made and worn by non-Muslims, mainly Christians. What made it halal for him to wear this clothing was that both the Muslims and non-Muslims wore this clothing, and since he (S.A.W.) had no intention of imitating the non-Muslims, then his clothing choices were permissible. He was careful from wearing clothing that specifically only non-Muslims wore. In fact, he preferred to wear a type of material called ‘Hibara’ made of cotton or linen, and even died wearing this type of clothing as his wife Aisha (R.A.) recalled, "He died in two Yemeni dresses." [Reported by Imaam Muslim and others]

According to the Prophet, the best way to dress is to wear whatever is available, most practical, comfortable, and cost effective. 1

Typically, much of the clothing that is worn by non-Muslims is halaal for Muslims to wear as well; however, if your intention is to imitate non-Muslims or you are dressing in a certain way just to fit in with a certain group, then this is prohibited. Your actions are judged by your intentions. If for example, you like what some non-Muslims are wearing and you want to wear a particular outfit or style, then it is okay if there is no Islamic evidence that prohibits it, and as long as you have no intention of imitating them. And Allaah (S.W.T.) is the only One who knows your true intentions.

Islaam’s teachings have remained the same over the centuries, yet have adapted very well to constantly changing societies. Its teachings encourage us to take whatever is good and to leave whatever is bad, from Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Islaam does not frown upon the growth of our intellect, rather it teaches us to continuously strive for knowledge, even if that means taking ideas from other cultures and people. I ask Allaah (S.W.T.) to make us among those who listen to this speech and benefit from its message.


But you keep demanding that I tell you when it can be seen as bad - How would you react if US government passes a bill that people must not dress up similar to middle eastern/Asian people and must look distinct from them? Will it be 'good' or ' bad'?

It's also kind of reminds me different dress codes issued to certain communities throughout the history like yellow badges, red robes etc. So yeah I ask the logic behind such a suggestion.




You are telling us all how oppressive the religion is. By all means keep going. But if you are asking how the idea of modesty and feeling superiority over it results in oppression -

Many news siteshave quoted that in European cities which let "refugees" in , local police is issuing women warnings to not let their daughter go out alone in the areas where the refugees are settled at least to avoid 'misunderstanding' and resultant 'attacks'. So presence itself is already come down to women's rights and way of life getting restricted because of a foreign culture.

There are poets from medieval period who show "purity" of woman with the description "Asuryasparsha"= " the one who even the sun hasn't touched.. talk about unhealthy women deprived of essential sun light even as a result of Purdah.

And in the last things go this way:

Pathan 1: Hey, I shot your wife dead for dishonoring you- she was looking out of her window at the third floor- such a shameless *****!

Pathan2 : Thank you brother, but relax my pride is intact. Here I dragged out her body to show everyone that the one you shot was only my maid and not my wife.

- Saadat Hasan Manto ( If I remember correctly- he was the one to narrate this anecdote.)

If this kind of mentality is not oppressive and loaded with false sense of honour and modesty...

Religions have always been used as tool for oppression. They do not dictate such rules for spiritual advancement but for their sociopolitical goals and better control over the masses. Women getting the worst deal out of it and end up depending on feminine wiles to make a place for themselves in such a society.




None. You are using it against yourself.




You can but then you get what's coming your way. I don't owe you any warning.



Yeah but we study it in the Indian context so it doesn't involve learning Latin as a language.




Yay! I got a patron to "patronize" me! Too bad I wasn't looking for one.




You have been attacking me for over a year. I don't own you any politeness.

And as for interfering -all of my arguments with you have been result of you replying something I said to someone else- only exception are the ones when you made direct comments over India. And that was the last time. But when you keep jumping in all the time you get the same treatment at one point back and since we are under constantly attack under that kind of implication so yes I object to that.



You have not replied even one of my point directly and chose to focus on trivial observations surrounding it.

In fact when you were handed over direct quotes and made to revisit my post you admitted to misreading it only to continue asking the same question again - explaining the logic and merit of which is your responsibility.

That's^ how a severely underhanded and crafty but intellectually lame attempt to win a losing argument look like.




Aww I am being nice enough. The attitude you get from me is the one you have towards me. Fantasizing about my RL do you any good.

 

[Babadook]

Doesn't excuse your constant misunderstanding since you are making wrong conclusions from the part you directly quoted.

Which part? My problem was with you telling me not to reply to you. How did I misunderstand that?

I replied your argument directly. See-

"Either you are saying the religious rules of dress are thus applicable on women only and men can avoid following it to avoid looking out of place or it fits both.. "

So I am not relying on who you are to thrash your argument but pointing out that you brought in irrelevant fact which is against your own cause. ^^

I never said you rely on my identity to 'trash an argument', but simply making constant references to me, calling me a liar etc. is ad hominem argumentation. You require 'real arguments', despite to my very first post, in which I quoted the article, citing the Quran, the Sunnah and scholars, all you could say that I shouldn't link you articles as you don't care, and ever since you just keep telling that that info is against me, without explaining how so.

I only brought the dress code of men into the picture to show that if - by your logic- women are oppressed by the hijab, then men are also oppressed, f.e. because they have to grow a beard, or they also have to cover certain body parts.That was my point, and you just don't wanna see the forest from the tree. You got hung up on the ruling that muslims should dress differently from non-muslims. So what? Do you want to wear the hijab? No. So apparently you don't wanna dress like muslims either. Gee.

What you replied has little to do with what I posted. I think people should be allowed to make their own choices and not forced to dress in a certain way but in a reasonable way. So I don't understand principle behind such a dictate. I find it really questionable. Why such an emphasis on not looking like a non-Muslim? "

This is what you posted:

"Either you are saying the religious rules of dress are thus applicable on women only and men can avoid following it to avoid looking out of place or it fits both."

Again, there are different rulings on dresses for men and women. Some are applicable to both, some are only applicable to men, and some only to women. I don't know what else you're trying to say here. Care to explain ?

Care to share why they must look different than the Kufrra or whatever you call non Muslims and inform us why such a distinction must exist?

It's not necessarily a must. Islam is reasonable, and many prohibitions are not absolute. F.e., it would be quite hard to apply such a ruling on those of us living in minority in the West.

Anyway, here is what it's supposed to mean:

"Clothing that involves imitation of the dress traditionally worn by non-Muslims, such as the type of clothing worn by monks and priests and wearing a cross. This also includes clothing that is specific to a certain religion, for the Prophet May Allah's peace and blessings be upon him said, “Whoever imitates a people is one of them.” (Sunan Abu Daawood: 4031) This imitation extends to wearing clothing of religious significance. Imitation of this type is a sign of weakness and lack of confidence in the truth one adopts.
Imitation here does not include wearing clothing that is predominant in one’s country even if such dress is worn by the majority of non-Muslims, for the Prophet May Allah's peace and blessings be upon him used to wear clothing that was common amongst the Quraysh pagans with the exception of those clothing items that are expressly forbidden."

You must be registered for see links

You are not even funny at this point. Only use for bracelet at this point would be for recognizing whose wrist it is. Yeah it was half a joke. I am glad she can show her jewellery to sisters though.

Nicely evading the point that we're first and foremost talking about hijab in this thread ^_^

And again, even in thecase of burqa, the point is that a girls' beauty is for her family in the first place. Why would strangers drool over her?

You are the one who posted that religious tenet so you should explain the merits of Muslims dressing up differently than non Muslims. So far you haven't told us a single logical reason for this segregation by dictating a sort of uniform.

It's quite interesting you're asking for an explanation despite first you said you don't care about more info. Inconsistency yay.

Apart from the above, here is some more info. Care to read?

"It is from the beauty of our deen and its divine design from Allaah (S.W.T.) that our deen allows us to imitate non-Muslims in many ways and to take part in other areas like food, dress and the general lifestyle of non-Muslims. This is important because our deen does not limit us from imitating to the point that our lives become severely restricted. As long as we are careful from doing anything which is clearly forbidden in Islaam or are doing something that is clearly only a non-Muslim practice, then taking part in most activities is totally halal. For example, it is forbidden to imitate by wearing the same clothing priests wear or the turban like members of the Sikh sect. There is plenty of evidence supporting this, for example:

1. During the time of the Prophet, anyone seen wearing red clothing were considered non-Muslims. When the Prophet spotted one of the companions wearing two pure red garments, he quickly told him, "These are the clothes of the kufar and you must not wear them again." [Reported by Imaam Muslim] Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) had prohibited him from dressing in two pure red garments because these garments distinguished people as non-Muslims at that time. The prophet forbade Muslims from wearing any clothing that were strictly identified as clothing only a non-Muslim would wear.

2. However, this does not mean that the Prophet did not wear the same types of clothing that non-Muslims wore; in fact, he wore the same type of clothing as most of the people in the non-Muslim society that he lived in. He preferred to wear Omani and Yemeni clothing, made and worn by non-Muslims, mainly Christians. What made it halal for him to wear this clothing was that both the Muslims and non-Muslims wore this clothing, and since he (S.A.W.) had no intention of imitating the non-Muslims, then his clothing choices were permissible. He was careful from wearing clothing that specifically only non-Muslims wore. In fact, he preferred to wear a type of material called ‘Hibara’ made of cotton or linen, and even died wearing this type of clothing as his wife Aisha (R.A.) recalled, "He died in two Yemeni dresses." [Reported by Imaam Muslim and others]

According to the Prophet, the best way to dress is to wear whatever is available, most practical, comfortable, and cost effective.

Typically, much of the clothing that is worn by non-Muslims is halaal for Muslims to wear as well; however, if your intention is to imitate non-Muslims or you are dressing in a certain way just to fit in with a certain group, then this is prohibited. Your actions are judged by your intentions. If for example, you like what some non-Muslims are wearing and you want to wear a particular outfit or style, then it is okay if there is no Islamic evidence that prohibits it, and as long as you have no intention of imitating them. And Allaah (S.W.T.) is the only One who knows your true intentions.

Islaam’s teachings have remained the same over the centuries, yet have adapted very well to constantly changing societies. Its teachings encourage us to take whatever is good and to leave whatever is bad, from Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Islaam does not frown upon the growth of our intellect, rather it teaches us to continuously strive for knowledge, even if that means taking ideas from other cultures and people. I ask Allaah (S.W.T.) to make us among those who listen to this speech and benefit from its message. "

You must be registered for see links

As you can see, the reason behind the rulign is that muslims are not to imitate non-muslims...in their lifestyles, in their habits, in their religious practices. It's prohibited to wear non-muslims clothing with the intention of becoming like them, or assimilating. Intention is very important in islam. But ofc, if you just wear the clothes for practical reason, it's ok.

Based on your logic, muslims not drinking alcohol should also be seen as a form of an oppressive, segregative dictation. Which is bs.

But you keep demanding that I tell you when it can be seen as bad - How would you react if US government passes a bill that people must not dress up similar to middle eastern/Asian people and must look distinct from them? Will it be 'good' or ' bad'?

I'm not American so I wouldn't care probably And if you have a problem with that, you might also have a problem with France banning the hijab.

On a more serious note, as I've pointed out above, it doesn't constitute an absolute prohibition. Even the sentence you highlighted from the article, uses the words 'imitate' and 'unique to kuffars'. Yes we are not supposed to imitate non-muslims as in adopting their lifestyles. It doesn't mean we must look totally differently. Where did I even say that? So your little attempt at making an analogy has failed. Also, care to mention today a clothe that's unique to non-muslims? There are not too many, in this globalized world.

It's also kind of reminds me different dress codes issued to certain communities throughout the history like yellow badges, red robes etc. So yeah I ask the logic behind such a suggestion.

Wrong analogy, again. Yellow badges, stars...etc were forced on jews, minorities, etc.

But the ruling we're talking about doesn't say that non-muslims must wear distinctive clothes. The ruling is for muslims. Just like, f.e. Jehovah's Witnesses also prohibit skirts that don't cover the knee. It's not a rule imposed on them by the government, it's their own rule. Just like muslims not imitating non-muslims in the habits, is our rule. I have to abide by it, not you. Noone said you have to wear a yellow badge to be different from us.

You are telling us all how oppressive the religion is. By all means keep going.

Really? How so? And finally you've shown your true colors. It always comes down to muslims and islam is this and that bad. I don't know what personal reasons you have against muslims...maybe some of them caused harm to your relatives in the indo-pakistani wars...who knows. Or it's just the usual historical grievances...But just because there are bad apples...even if this number is very high...don't generalize. Again. You make a statement: that the religion is oppressive. Why? Because women and men have to wear certain clothes? And? Again, you can't go around all naked not even here. If I tried to do that, I'd be fined for public misdemeanour. Gee, how oppressive. Sure, you can be naked at the nudist beach, but that's all. Again, don't tell me that just because at certain places you can be naked (f.e. at the doctor's), it is in general possible everywhere.

But if you are asking how the idea of modesty and feeling superiority over it results in oppression -

But for the hundredth time, I never denied that it can result in oppression, just like, as you mentioned, yellow badges that the jews had to wear, which had nothing to do with islam. Actually, it had nothing to do with religions in general. So you don't ned religious dress code to use clothing for oppression, besides, anything can be used as oppression. Don't blame the weapon for the murder. And don't blame the law just because some people can't keep it. It'd be quite foolish.

Hijab is not meant to be oppressive.

"O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful."

You must be registered for see links

That is the reason why women are supposed to wear the hijab: so that they won't be abused. This is the theory. Of course practices are not always following the theory, but that's not islam's fault.

Another verse where hijab is prescribed:

"And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed."

You must be registered for see links

It nowhere mentions oppression. Nowhere does it say that women have to wear it because of social conditioning or because their husband or father want her to. It mentions Allah.
"...turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed."
Women have to wear the hijab for Allah.

Can it be abused? Sure, who the hell would/could deny that? I definitely don't and didn't. So get over yourself. At this point you're just trying to use some negative examples to defame islam. But we're talking about the ruling here. The theory. The religion. Not how some people abuse it. So don't say islam is oppressive.

And again, you still haven't answered, if women are oppressed by the hijab, then men are also oppressed by their dress code. Which begs the question: who oppresses who now?

Many news siteshave quoted that in European cities which let "refugees" in , local police is issuing women warnings to not let their daughter go out alone in the areas where the refugees are settled at least to avoid 'misunderstanding' and resultant 'attacks'. So presence itself is already come down to women's rights and way of life getting restricted because of a foreign culture.

And? What does that have to do with the hijab and the rulings I mentioned?

There are poets from medieval period who show "purity" of woman with the description "Asuryasparsha"= " the one who even the sun hasn't touched.. talk about unhealthy women deprived of essential sun light even as a result of Purdah.

And in the last things go this way:

Pathan 1: Hey, I shot your wife dead for dishonoring you- she was looking out of her window at the third floor- such a shameless *****!

Pathan2 : Thank you brother, but relax my pride is intact. Here I dragged out her body to show everyone that the one you shot was only my maid and not my wife.

- Saadat Hasan Manto ( If I remember correctly- he was the one to narrate this anecdote.)

What does that have to do with islam?

If this kind of mentality is not oppressive and loaded with false sense of honour and modesty...

But that has nothing to do with hijab and the rulings in question.

Religions have always been used as tool for oppression.

Yeah yeah I guess that's why the first jews, christians and even muslims were persecuted and oppressed. But yeah, religions often, throughout history, were used for oppression. Kind of like the hunted becomes the hunter. The question is, are they meant as oppression? You'll say yes, I say no.

They do not dictate such rules for spiritual advancement but for their sociopolitical goals and better control over the masses.

1) Tell me, what do you mean by spiritual? What do you mean by spiritual advancement? And what rulings according to you would further spiritual advancement?
2) You ignore the fact that religious people also form communities. Or, let's say, societies. Societies do need rules to exist.
3) What sociopolitical goal and what control over the masses do you think could have been meant and achieved by the hijab, for instance? Like, ok women have to wear the hijab. And? How is that controlling them? Especially that I quoted the Quran, which says that the purpose of the hijab isto protect the women from harrassment. From this point on, as I consider teh Quran as God's word, I don't really care what you think about it, or how some muslims are trying to use it for oppression. It is not meant for 'controlling the masses', unless you think that all rules and laws are for controlling the masses, and you're suggesting anarchy. But again, it's another question that anything can be misinterpreted and abused. It doesn't mean that was its original purpose. Just because some people cheat on taxes and claim back extras, it doesn't mean tax laws were meant for some people to benefit by damaging others. Just because some people use ties to hang themselves or choke others, it doesn't mean ties were meant for murder. Don't be silly.

Women getting the worst deal out of it and end up depending on feminine wiles to make a place for themselves in such a society.

Even in liberal, secular, developed countires women are abused and exploited. You don't need religion for that. As I said, a true gentleman will respect women regardless of them wearing the hijab or not, but a thug will rape them with or without the hijab.

None. You are using it against yourself.

You still didn't explain, how so.

You can but then you get what's coming your way. I don't owe you any warning.

Ok so if I dare to quote you and reply to you, I deserve a torrent of insults. Seems legit.

You have been attacking me for over a year. I don't own you any politeness.

Ira. Seriously. Please. At least try to keep up the image of objectivity. In the past year, this is the 3rd thread in which we're talking. In the first thread, you basically agreed with Aim64c that genocide against the palestines is justifiable. of course I'll disagree with such a statement. Then I only pointed out that we have gypsies, who are supposed to originate from India. You tok it in the wrong way, apparently. I didn't even say they are bad persons in general, and by no means I said anything bad about India or Indians. I even sent you a pm apologizing for any misunderstanding. If you take it as an attack, you're not normal, sorry.

Then, in the second discussion, I was trying to point out that the syrian conflict is not a local one, and that Europe has a responsibility of accepting refugees. You brought up India. I just pointed out that India has nothing to do with the discussion. Then Aim64c posted examples of muslims committing crimes here and there- among others, in India. So, it was he who brought up India not me, again. I gave a counter to every point of his. I didn't pick on India, you singled it out of a broader context of my post. I didn't say anything bad about your country, I just mentioned a fact as a counter to Aim64c's post. If you take that as an attack, you're not normal.

Yet in the meantime, you're continuously making insults about me and my religion. You also accuse me of lying, and trying to defame your country, when in fact I never did that. I never ever said anything bad about India or Indians. I even admitted that I have no problem with India or Indians. So, you're the one lying, and even now trying to make it seem as if I was attacking you.

And as for interfering -all of my arguments with you have been result of you replying something I said to someone else- only exception are the ones when you made direct comments over India.

Again, we only had a debate in 3 threads, including this one. Yet you're talking as if I 'assaulted' you like a hundred times and as if for no reason I had something against you. Which I'm telling you again, is not the case. I never said anything bad about India- I also only replied to what you and Aim64c brought up about India. Also, if you have the right to stand up for your country and quote me on it, I also have the right to stand up for my religion when you tell someone else that it is oppressive. End of story.

And that was the last time. But when you keep jumping in all the time you get the same treatment at one point back and since we are under constantly attack under that kind of implication so yes I object to that.

What same treatment? For every 10 insults you make about me, I answer with 1-2 counters at best. So what same treatment? Even now, to your reply to OP, all I did was quoting an article. You could have just ignored it, or you could have asked me to delete it- as I always offer you that I'm willign to delete troublesome posts that you find offensive, if you'll do teh same. You never took my offer. I always ended these debates with pointing out that I have nothign against India- yet you say I must be lying. That's not an argument. That's an ad hominem accusation.

And again, I nowhere read in the rules that I can't quote you, or else I'll get a shitstorm of accusations in the name of same treatment. Really, it's just disgusting now. I never said anything bad about your country- yet you accused me of trying to defame you. I quoted you politely and linked an article- you say i'm attacking you. You've thrown like a dozen insults at me just in this thread- yet you say I'm just getting the same treatment.

You have not replied even one of my point directly and chose to focus on trivial observations surrounding it.

Let's start over again.

What are your points exactly?

a) That the hijab is oppressive? By that logic, men are also oppressed because of their dress codes.
b) That islam is oppressive because it has dress code in the first place? Ok then all contries are oppressive in a way.
c) That it's bad that muslims shouldn't imitate the clothing of non-muslims and shouldn't wear things that are unique to the non-muslims? Well, as I pointed out, it refers to not adopting the habits and lifestyles of non-muslims, but it doesn't mean we can't wear similar clothes at all.
d) That you're ok with the hijab as long as noone tries to force it on you? I've got good news, noone said that you have to wear it. or at least I didn't. Only muslim women have to wear it.
e) That it can be used for oppression? I never denied that. Anything can be used for oppression.

In fact when you were handed over direct quotes and made to revisit my post you admitted to misreading it only to continue asking the same question again - explaining the logic and merit of which is your responsibility.

I didn't misread it. I didn't see it at all to read it.

I quoted the article for one purpose: to show that men have a dress code. You stared picking certain rulings, which you totally misunderstood.

That's^ how a severely underhanded and crafty but intellectually lame attempt to win a losing argument look like.

How so? As a gmod, you are supposed to enforce the rules of NB and ban/infract people if they break them. However, if you yourself are generating a flamewar, insulting others, how can you claim the moral upper hand when banning others? That was my point.

You say I don't deserve politeness- because ...why exactly? You say because I'm attacking you? I might be attacking your points, but I almost never say anything about your person. Even this was only meant to address your position and role on NB. Not your person. I only make counters when you're overdoing your insults, but in my first post, I didn't say any such thing. I just linked an article, trying to explain why hijab is not meant as a form of oppression. If you take it as an attack- maybe you should really reconsider posting at all. Anyway, it's quite childish to say 'if you're not polite I won't be polite either, or you startd it, so I'll do the same'.

Again, which argument I'm losing?

Aww I am being nice enough. The attitude you get from me is the one you have towards me. Fantasizing about my RL do you any good.

That was meant to be a compliment. I can hardly imagine that you get this butthurt in real life too.

 

[Aim64C]

I see so you work as a spy for some agency. You plan to take over the world?

Sort of.

Women in Islam are property stocked for the purposes of breeding. That said, it should be expected that anything important seen or heard will be relayed back to a militant cell, even if not by her intention.

 

[BLAZE]

Sort of.

Women in Islam are property stocked for the purposes of breeding. That said, it should be expected that anything important seen or heard will be relayed back to a militant cell, even if not by her intention.

Lel and this guy is not banned for Spewing horse$3it

Maybe one day Muricans will put a bamboo in his ass when he tries to create his Supremacist Racist country like him :lol