Wendy's comments (member since May 02, 2009)

Wendy's comments from the Islam group.

I agree with most of what you said. Its hard to know exactly what MOST men and women do across cultures, countries,urban-rural divides, and economic groups. I have to confess that I am much less familiar with Indonesian culture but have heard that it is much more tolerant and moderate in general than say Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan (these days). I am more familiar with Afghanistan...and have Afghan-American friends, and Iranian-American friends mostly. My niece is in Afghanistan at the moment and another dear friend is back, having been doing translating and medical work there.
Its clear that in some countries where it is considered Ok in some circumstances..to beat one's wife, that not everyone does so. However, in the US, in contrast, it is not legal to beat one's wife, regardless of one's religious belief. In my state, parents (Christians) were sentenced to prison for beating their children (the children went to authorities) though the parents claimed it was their God-given right to discipline their children thus.
The parents were immigrants from Ukraine,I believe. The secular law was the protection for the children as it would be for spouses. Most people in the US do not beat their spouses or children and this consensus of behavior is reflected in the law. I suspect it is more difficult to assess standards when the secular law is silent on such matters and the community looks to ancient holy books to go by in the modern world and interpretations of them vary in terms of application
I have no special expectations from Muslims in this forum that differ from expectations of nonMuslims...I suspect we agree more than disagree. I expect to read intelligent discussion on these matters and expect that there are differences of opinions held by Muslims of different cultures just as there are differences held by Hindus, and Christians and Jews. We are all individuals after all.

This is somewhat off-topic but perhaps it could be in a new thread..if it could be moved to begin one
Here is a discussion on wife-beating in Islam with men justifying it on the basis of the Qu'ran. I am interested in comments. Obviously this is another example of people using the Qu'ran (or the Bible) to justify (give reason) for men having the authority over women that women are not entitled to over men...and to rationalize beating as "discipline". Any criticism of this brings the rationalization that Allah gave all men authority over their wives and men know best.
Fundamentalist Christians often resort to the same kind of thing: God created Adam and gave him authority over all things (like a king, or pharoh or tyrant,tribal head (often the head of the extended family)...because at the time the Bible was written this was the common form of governance..no voting or democracy or parliament etc...) and this continues to haunt fundamentalists in all religions....Someone has to be THE HEAD of the family and be in control of it and rule it and this unequal situation means the woman is treated like a subordinate, a child, a dependent, as less capable of making decisions etc. In modern societies, this is more likely to be obviously not justified in many household, in light of the various capabilities of members of a couple, by thoughts of sharing/partnering and defering to each other on matters where circumstances, talent, ability dictates it. The facts, by evidence in real life and in light of modern knowledge and more democratic practices overrule the old ideas and they have given way in practice, being dredged up only in crisis and marital dispute ..often as a last resort when reason fails and more likely in a more fundamentalist household...I want to point out that this kind of thing is not unique to Islam but in the US, few would approve of wife-beating (illegal by secular law) except by resorting to an interpretation of their own religion..ironically, usually NOT condoning it by another's religion.

http://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/base/vide...

I can reference endless examples of NON-Islamic cultural traditions that dictated that women restrict themselves or hide themselves so that they were dependent on male guardians (husbands/fathers etc) of their virtue and reliant upon men for sustenance and word of the outside world. Imagine old China where women's feet were bound and toes curled under, so that they had "lotus" or lily feet...which of course permanently limited their mobility!

Femmy,
To clarify, I have issues with a variety of cultural practices not just in Islamic communities (since the cultural practices vary between communities or societies and there are cultural practices in nonIslamic societies, or cultures which deserve criticism on some of the same grounds). You have wanted to discuss the hijab...and connected it to Islam and that is why its discussed in that context.

The explanation(or rationalization) for the hijab is as reasonable for any custom...which are of course not grounded in reason (and is certainly not applicable to its stated purpose in all contemporary societies), actually, but is rationalized in the context of assumptions about sexual roles, the forbidden, or feared or bad power, or taboos related to sexuality, menstration, or other normal bodily functions common to female humans or the actions or feelings associated with them. Whether its ritualized coming-of-age traditions or mutilation of body parts or segregation of females from males or hiding of body parts, its all custom and a variety of cultures have interesting variations, some dangerous, healthy, or oppressive in affect and some relatively harmless (though used to define "good" or "bad" women/men who do or do not conform and justify certain behaviors to punish, exclude, harass or simply criticize and typecast them..., some practices rationalized or justified in religious terms, some not. Genital mutilation to attempt to reduce sexual pleasure or desire is among the more dangerous, sometimes resulting in death or chronic problems ... Stiflingly hot and hobbling clothing (burqua)is another extreme. In that context, a head scarf seems mild by itself. A requirement to cover one's face is more inconvenient , alienating, and depersonalizing (it seems to westerners). Legal requirements involving a photo ID (passport, driver's license, or school ID)..seem irrelevant to those in whose country, women are not expected to drive, travel on their own, or even (in extreme cases) go to school where "strangers" would evaluate their identification to gain entry or benefits. So one can see that differences in perception would arise...
Its important to recognize (I repeat) that such attire tends to isolate the wearer from the greater community, if one is in a country with different customs or perceptions, without having to conclude which perception is "right" (obviously its subjective).
If I were living in a country where all "good" women were expected NOT To drive (Saudi Arabia), it would be a similar hinderance but societal adaptions would eventually have arisen to ameliorate it for the upper class or even middle class (customary alternative transport/delivery services/expectations on male relatives to provide transportation..or at least cheap taxis!and I might find it something to work around whereas in the US, I would demand access to a car. Modern Saudi women are in some cases rebelling more and more about such circumscriptions since their aspirations and awareness of the arbitrary discrimination of such inconveniences and the silliness of them have become apparent. Women in less modern societies seem interested in removing such limitations when they feel safe to do so, retreating into conformity to even the burqua in times of turmoil,violence and fear... If wearing hijab is a free choice and one does it to exercize pride of belonging to a minority group in a society, and generate interest,that is likely about as effective as a tattoo or other badge of being different and likely is not percieved by the wearer as oppressive but as personal expression. I do not accept that "modesty" is the sole purpose for which ALL women wear hijab, or burqua or veils or whatever. I do accept that many women or girls are taught this is proper and modest and want to be good in this way, just as women or girls are taught certain ways to sit, walk, or wear other things, or talk or whatever...to conform to custom of their community. That such customs may be traced back to male expectations within a particular culture is not demanded of God is also plain to me. I have no objections to those who behave and dress to be "good", "modest" or righteous as long as they do not attempt to judge others as "bad" "wicked" "wanton" or sinful in the eyes of God if they do not conform to that custom especially if they live in a society where such attire is not customary and may convey something quite different or be an impediment to their lives.

As you recall, the Taliban destroyed property of Afghan civilians: musical tapes, records, dvds, musical instruments and beat people for singing. These ignorant and narrow self-righteous men also thrashed women and girls for exposing ankles or other parts of their person...and men who shaved or trimmed their beards ... all considered forbidden by their view of Islam. Meanwhile they brutally killed, maimed and terrorized people in the name of Islam, destroying ancient art(Buddhist sculptures that had stood for centuries)and indulged their own whims...
Ignorance and wanton destruction of people,and beauty. Obviously, that is in contrast to how people of different beliefs (still Muslim) behave.

Many of the cultural or tribal practices in some Muslim countries debase women and people assume its the religion. For example,women not being able to leave their houses without permission of their husband or father or male relative. Women being bought and sold into marraige, traded for property etc... Women being essentially raped at a very young age by old men who bought them for wives and then treated as servants/slaves in multiwife households, not being allowed to leave, not allowed to be educated or follow their own interests, required to hide themselves away in a family house, not being allowed to drive, to associate freely with friends,often not provided medical care because it would mean a male doctor might see them, not allowed to got to a medical facility because no male escort wanted to take the time to accompany them ...and they are forbidden to go out without one. etc etc..., beating women for not obeying husband etc..
I do not see that that is in the Quran but as I mentioned...neither is the hijab dictated in the Quran but the culture starts mandating restrictions that become absorbed into what is considered appropriate in an Islamic home or society. It is important to differentiate where one can.
The worth of a woman's testimony compared to a man's is an example of devalueing a woman...In Christian writings, this kind of devalueing is also there and so cultures have put aside many primitive biased stuff in early writings, except for some fundamentalists.

Tempust,
I agree.
Computers and the internet are more distracting than music..and Mohammed did not use them either. Music can be background for lofty virtuous thoughts. Computers can't.

Christmas is celebrated on the day that was a pagan festival,the date being chosen to coincide with a rival religion's celebration.
If one were to celebrate the birth closer to the day on which Jesus was born (according to the gospels) it would be in a totally different season, not in winter ... Traditions evolve from interweaving of myths, other religion's rituals, celebrations and local customs...and there is a lot of borrowing from various faiths, one from another. It is not surprising that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have a lot in common ...as they do with faiths long since forgotten.
There have been celebrations called by a variety of names about the same time of year in a variety of cultures throughout human history and many faiths have as a poster on another group mentioned..."grafted onto this celebration" symbols or associations with their particular religion which had arisen and grown more popular but definitely did not precede the celebration. The Winter Solstice celebrations/feasts/ceremonies to celebrate after the shortest night of the year in the northern hemisphere is the occasion ..coincident with the series of designated major celebration of importance...
and whether it was Saturnalia, Festival of the Kelends, or the birthday of Mithra... or the later named Christmas which superceded the old associations.....all can recognize an ancient tradition.

762899 Here is a comment from a Muslim scholar on music:
Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and an Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:

“Music is an issue that has been hotly debated by scholars of the past and the present. While many of them have been generally inclined to condemn all forms of music, with the singular exception of ad-duff (tambourine) in weddings, quite a few of them have taken a more positive approach of considering only music containing sensual, pagan, or unethical themes or subliminal messages as being categorically forbidden.

The latter view seems to be more consistent with the general nature of Islam, which is undoubtedly a complete way of life that caters to all of the genuine human instincts and needs within permissible limits. Thus, to say that all music is forbidden in Islam does not seem to agree with the balanced approach of Islam to issues of human life and experience.

Traditions often cited by the first group scholars to justify condemnation of all musical instruments and music, according to some scholars, are considered as either spurious, or phrased in such way solely because of their associations with drinking, dancing, and sensuality.

While everyone agrees that all forms of music that contain pagan, sensual themes, or subliminal messages are clearly forbidden, the latter group of scholars considers all forms of music free of such themes and messages as permissible.

As a matter of fact, we know from the authentic traditions that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, not only allowed music in the weddings but also listened to girls singing: While listening to girls singing on such an occasion, he interrupted them only once when they sang the following verse, “In our midst is a prophet who knows what will happen tomorrow”; whence, the Prophet, peace be upon him, told them, “Cut this sentence out, and continue singing what you have been singing earlier.” There is nothing in the sources to indicate that the above permission is limited to the occasion of wedding, as some people tend to think.

In light of these, according to the last mentioned group of scholars, music that is deemed to be free of un-Islamic and unethical themes and messages, the same is true of musical instruments so long as they are not used for the above, have been considered as permissible.

According to my reading, some form of music making by humans may have even predated speech...
Music is found in all cultures and peoples and originally seems to have been participated in by all and not something that only some people performed (sang or played instuments) while others listened. That idea and custom developed much later...

The book This is Your Brain on Music goes into the way sounds are interpreted by the brain and essentially translated into music and how we are affected by it. It explains the relationship between language and aspects of music like pitch or tone and how language development seems to be aided by musical training.

Some languages are much more keyed to rising and falling tones (like Chinese)...and most languages inflect words so that tones go up when a person means to ask a question and down for emphasis. We are so attuned to sound that we can recognize individual voices because of their timbre, and usual pitches just as we recognize melodies or the characteristic timbre of a particular music instrument familiar to us in our culture..

Aliya,
I am reading a good book called "This is Your Brain On Music". It is very enlightening.

OH. Sorry. You are correct. But you agree? And so it would not be appropriate for women who are not Muslim to wear a hijab when in your country or in a Muslim country?

In Afghanistan, girls who are only 9 or 12 are often married off to adult men. They may have had an early menses but I think they are still children.

Everyone wears clothes. Yes. We wear them to keep warm, to protect us from the sun,wind or weather. We wear them for more than comfort. We wear them to look attractive to ourselves, to others( this is where individual or cultural style or fashion may come in). We wear some kinds of clothes to reflect status or to indicate profession or to signal that we are at leisure or are "on duty" (like a uniform). We often wear specific clothes to suit a purpose (like skiing or swimming or gardening or running or to ride horseback or whatever...). We often "dress up" to attend specific kinds of social functions which call for fancier attire..We also wear certain clothes to fit into a mood or setting ...for fun...like wearing a cowboy hat, boots and western attire to go to a rodeo...Costume parties are an example of this...
We certainly wear clothes that are "socially acceptable" normally within our particular culture or society. This means that when we go into another society or country, we often adopt different attire often so as not to offend. This means when we go to a country where women do not wear pants in public, we consider that in choosing what to wear on the street...(I did this years ago in Spain when that was the case..Not the case now). We may choose to "fit in" with the place we are so as to communicate that we respect that community or culture and are not really so different than they. The difference may be that I am not constrained by my culture as much as perhaps others in other countries or cultures. Yet there are places where women go topless without guilt shame or fear. So there are certainly variations.
Clearly, however, by your initial question...about haaram clothing and Muslim women who do not wear the hijab, that seems to be not considered nice to do, and a violation of Muslim identity or faith by some. So that is a difference and seems foreign. It is not the wearing of hijab but the apparent moral imperative to wear it that seems foreign but that does not mean its different that say Amish or Mormon customs (religious) or traditional attire that is not religion based.. I am suggesting that one's faith does not have to be tied to a particular clothing style or garment.

So "guarding one's body" means from men's lustful gaze AND from actions men might take towards one"?Both?

And at what age should women/girls begin to do this?And at what age is it considered ok to NOT do it anymore? Surely, (to use an extreme example), a 75 year-old or older is not enticing or tempting a man if she does not cover her head? or is it indeed, merely custom?

So the protection is from men's lustful gaze or is it from actions?
I agree that social customs in many societies require more coverings for women because breasts on women are considered sexual which is only an issue for men since they are utilitarian for women who nurse their babies...and that latter function is their main one. Again, this has to do with men's views of what is sexual and sexually arousing...to them. However, Muslim men do wear swimsuits or shorts in America and no one seems to mind or find it shocking.

Catholic women used to have to wear something on their heads when they went into a church. Not being Catholic, I have not personally observed how rigorous that custom is now...in America.

Mormons in America have a requirement of wearing what non-Mormons call "magic underwear" that is required in their religion but obviously, it is worn UNDER clothing.

It is theorized that clothing taboos or mandates, help a religious community keep its members visibly and often social apart from the wider community so as to preserve adherence to the group and discourage young people from fraternizing or marrying outside their religious community. However, this is where all in the community (male and female) must observe rules which make them appear foreign, strange or different from the wider society in which they find themselves. This seems true of Amish or Mennonite sects.
Clearly, Muslim males in America largely blend in. Pashtun men do not wear traditional Pashtun garb that they would wear in their home country.
Yet traditional attire for women seems to be more considered correct and explained in terms of Islam when its clearly also cultural, tribal or locality-based.

I think that you make a good point but it does seem that the heavier responsibility comes down on the women who seem to not only have to control their own passions but have to cover much more of themselves and have to wear specific garments to do so. Men do not have to cover their hair. Women can have short or long hair, curly or straight of whatever color and somehow,just having hair requires women to wear specific "hiding" garments. Not only do they have to cover what in most societies would consider private, they must cover their heads, hair and sometimes even their faces? (Fortunately, not all societies have adopted the extreme "modesty" of covering all but eyes, hands and feet.! What do men have to cover?
Muslim men in my country can wear modern attire of any color or style. Muslim women from specific subcultures from some countries cannot. I have Muslim friends (female) who do not wear hijab or similar but do tend to dress more conservatively in terms of modest necklines, length of dress/pants and long sleeves.These are young women born in my country and they do not, certainly, invite lewd male attention and are considered quite respectable except by those who disapprove of, essentially, all women other than those who follow their own interpretation of Islam and the culture of their own homeland...which means they disapprove of nearly ALL women in the US where they live. Other women, often those married to immigrant Muslim men, or who are themselves from lands where it is expected, wear clothes traditional to that culture including the hijab or similar long loosefitting attire
Here they are not generally considered any more responsible in guarding their body than those who do not adopt such attire. As I said, the Muslim men, Jewish men, Christian men, Hindu men, and atheist men seem to wear the same clothes. Its only the women ...who must adopt specific costumes. Odd , is it not?

How much of the hijab-wearing is Islam and how much is really a variant of the control of women's clothing to reduce their assumed evil sexual power over men (who, it must then be assumed, are so unable to control their own selves that women must take the responsibility ...AND blame, when they find themselves attracted)?
Incidently, this latter concern about women is reflected in a variety of cultures which was/is then, mirrored in the dominant version of the Abrahamic religion in that culture.... (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) ...This was particularly true prior to the modern era.

I suppose its easier in a culture (Not religion) to marry off daughters/or trade them for property when all women are sequestered and hidden so that their individual characteristics and charm cant allow the prospective grooms/men in general to think of them as unique individuals...as unique and worthy of being treated as equals, not property. It is appalling how women in rural Afghanistan, for example, are treated, traded, sold, and considered as totally to be directed by men, without their own aspirations or dreams considered. This, however, is not necessarily to be blamed on Islam but the rural tribal culture. The women and girls must stay behind the family compound walls most of their lives and are considered damaged if they are seen by men outside the family. Many are married off to their cousins ...even their FIRST cousins. The high death rate of girls and women there is in part due to the high percentage that are married off and made to service their older spouse before they are physically able to safely bear a child without dying or severe damage to themselves.. They also often have no prenatal care nor have a health care professional with them during labor or birth, which is more likely due to the male concern that a male doctor might actually SEE his wife in examining or facilitating her safely getting thru a pregnancy/birth.
So sad.

Islamic dress is defined differently depending upon which country one lives in. Thus, Islamic dress (ie modest attire for women) is different in different countries..even different in different Muslim countries. It is often confused with the traditional attire of desert people of Arabia.