To Islam, From an Agnostic

[Ryokan]

Indeed one would expect that in a free enough society* a sizeable minority of women would choose to not wear a hijab at all. Instead one can hardly find an uncovered muslim woman even in the West where they should not, in theory, fear of anything. I don't think these comparisons with the limits of freedom in the West can make islam look better.

Really? It must be different where you live. I see quite a lot of them, including quite a few politicians.

And I've been to Islamic countries where it's just as uncommon. I remember seeing one girl with head covering in Bosnia. I remember it because it was so unique. This was far out into the rural areas, where they're a bit more conservative when it comes to religion.

In Turkey there's a few more, but still quite few. The vast majority of women I see there wear normal clothes as you would expect in a European country, with a few exceptions here and there.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Nope.
That is not actual Christian theology.
Not even close.

I'm willing to listen then. Why did Jesus leave, never to return? It seems like a broken promise to me.

 

[Kopji]

Oddly enough, we didn't cover that, but the information is readily available via Google. So you're looking at the influence of Eastern Christianity on the writings and beliefs of early Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Islam


It's interesting that you should mention that, since Muhammad has more in common with Jesus than the progenitors of Judaism in the way he's portrayed as closer to infallible. The Jewish patriarchs, like Abraham and Jacob, have their flaws and often behave in dishonorable ways, like how Abraham lies that his wife is really his sister, or how Jacob cheats Esau out of his inheritance and later their father's blessing. So I'm left wondering how people find figures like Muhammad or Jesus relateable, because their examples are impossible to follow.

Even being an atheist, I'm not sure I'd use those as examples of dishonorable behavior, it could also be understood as a kind of cleverness - like the stories of Jesus outsmarting the religious authorities, or Joseph's treatment of his brothers who threw him into the well. I get your point though.

The basic idea is that deity is outside our view, unknowable: the great author of time and history. All history is understood as being like a great book where we all have a role. To that view, leaders like Noah, Jesus, and Muhammad are as if this unknowable deity occasionally plays a role in his own book. The only real relate-able need is to exist, (and not look too much like George Burns).

 

[metacristi]

Really? It must be different where you live. I see quite a lot of them, including quite a few politicians.

And I've been to Islamic countries where it's just as uncommon. I remember seeing one girl with head covering in Bosnia. I remember it because it was so unique. This was far out into the rural areas, where they're a bit more conservative when it comes to religion.

In Turkey there's a few more, but still quite few. The vast majority of women I see there wear normal clothes as you would expect in a European country, with a few exceptions here and there.

Yes. Thanks primarily to non muslims who succeeded, at least partially, to made them adopt some part parts of Modernity (including via the hated colonialism, secular Turkey is its direct by product for example). But the reality is not so rosy as you try to portrait it, actually there is enough support for the veil in the Quran (if you ask me Quran 24:31 offer more support for the mandatory use of the headscarf) and all schools of Islamic jurisprudence accept that wearing the veil is mandatory. The veil is making its comeback everywhere. History can sometimes repeat itself.

Finally I do not know what you saw but I can say equally well that that it is not a relevant sample (I would rather say in the light of the aforementioned reasons + very few real liberal muslims except a narrow elite that the veil is worn by a majority of muslim women, including in the West, too many for what expected in a free society).

Anyways it is a shame that in the 21st century there are much more (percentual) muslim women wearing the veil in the West than were under the colonialist regime in Egypt at the beginning of the 1950s. One would expect to see a few veils here and there in Europe (it's not only about London but about other parts of Europe as well) but not the big numbers I saw. The veil has pre-Islamic origins and islam only adopted it (Christianity itself was once in the same position). But it is the way in which these religions succeeded in abolishing such outdated practices which gives a measure of their capacity to be in step with the times. Not the case of islam I'm afraid due primarily to some 'defective' religious education and institutions.

 

[ixolite]

An even more important aspect is the model of reality and what it implies about the significance of the world we live in. Medieval Christian theology, similar to Hinduism, asserts that the world we are born into is an illusion. This false world exists to distract us from the ultimate reality, which is called God (or Brahman) and the goal of our existence is to reunite with this God. In Christianity, this world is a corrupt fallen creation, and should only be used and exploited on our journey back to God. We should not be tempted by material things, and knowledge about this world only amounts to knowledge of an illusion.

WTF? Um, no.

This is the very reason why Islam underwent a period of enlightenment in the Middle Ages, with advancements in science, philosophy, medicine, the arts, and mathematics, such as the invention of algebra. At its height, the Islamic empire had free hospitals in Baghdad and surgical procedures that were advanced for the time. Islamic scholars were unafraid of studying scriptures from other religions.

The reason "Islam" had a golden age is that it conquered territory so fast that the majority of inhabitants were not moslems at first, while information etc. could flow freely through the empire(s). They HAD to be tolerant, they wouldn't have lasted long otherwise. That's why the rules applying to dhimmis were sometimes relaxed, the kafirs were the majority.

When it ruled much of Europe, the Islamic empire tolerated Christians and Jews. They were free to practice their own religions, as long as they paid a tax for it.

Yeah, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#Restrictions
Life under Islam was peachy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre

Women were originally given more rights under Islamic law than they had under older tribal laws. They had the right to own property, to get an education, to have a professional career, and to divorce. A good source with more information.

Bullcrap, that's pure islamic propaganda. Women had more rights before Islam, see Kadijah Mo's first wife, a businesswomen who took Mo as her boytoy and wore the pants at home, Mo only dared to become such an ******* after Kadijahs death.

Since Mo women are half worth of a male, they get half inheritance and a man's witness is that of two females. Pedophilia (Q 65:4 + 33:49) was allowed in the Koran, as well as domestic violence (Q 4:34) and rape (Q 4:24 and various ahadith).


Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Sunnan Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150:
Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24].


Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 648:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas:
…Then ‘Umar went on relating the narration and said. "I and an Ansari neighbor of mine from Bani Umaiya bin Zaid who used to live in 'Awali Al-Medina, used to visit the Prophet in turns. He used to go one day, and I another day. When I went I would bring him the news of what had happened that day regarding the instructions and orders and when he went, he used to do the same for me. We, the people of Quraish, used to have authority over women, but when we came to live with the Ansar, we noticed that the Ansari women had the upper hand over their men, so our women started acquiring the habits of the Ansari women. Once I shouted at my wife and she paid me back in my coin and I disliked that she should answer me back. She said, ‘Why do you take it ill that I retort upon you? By Allah, the wives of the Prophet retort upon him, and some of them may not speak with him for the whole day till night.’ What she said scared me and I said to her, ‘Whoever amongst them does so, will be a great loser.’ … So, I entered upon the Prophet and saw him lying on a mat without bedding on it, and the mat had left its mark on the body of the Prophet, and he was leaning on a leather pillow stuffed with palm fibres. I greeted him and while still standing, I said: "Have you divorced your wives?" He raised his eyes to me and replied in the negative. And then while still standing, I said chatting: "Will you heed what I say, O Allah’s Apostle! We, the people of Quraish used to have the upper hand over our women (wives), and when we came to the people whose women had the upper hand over them…"

Book 11, Number 2141: Abu Dawood
Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab:
Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715:
Narrated 'Ikrima:
Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,"

Dawud Book 11, Number 2142 wrote:
Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.


Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 132:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Zam'a:
The Prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."


And there you have another reason to hide females under loads of fabric: you don't see any bruises.

I think it's also worth pointing out that belly dancing originated in the Middle East, and was practiced by both the Saracens and the Ottomans.

Except that the bellydancers were men.

There is an old tradition rarely seen of young men bellydancing in long, unrevealing robes with a scarf tied around the hips. They danced in coffee houses, strictly for the enjoyment of men, who were excluded from women's gatherings.

http://www.esto.es/bellydance/english/origins.htm

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

I hope the islamic world will see an enlightment like the christian world has, but I doubt it. There are more modern interpretations of Islam i.e. the 19ers/submitters, but those also deniers and I don't think you can move forward while denying the past.

 

[Earthborn]

Where I live, there is a fair number of Muslims and often I'll see groups of young Muslim women out and about. A lot of the time there is a mixture of looks. Some of them will be wearing head scarves and some not, some in the head scarves will also be wearing tight jeans and tops. Some without the scarves will dress more modestly.

You really must be right behind me, because that is exactly my impression, which according to Metacristi is very unusual!

If in places where muslims are a minority one can see so many covered muslim women then there is a problem with your estimation

I don't see how that follows. I live in a town with a sizeable Muslim minority, my estimation is based on groups of young women speaking the same language between themselves. Of course I can't see what their religious views are, but I think it is reasonable to assume that they share a cultural background and would live with similar social pressures. I estimate that roughly 30% of women with a Turkish background, and about 50% of those with Moroccan background wear headscarves.

But of course I admit that I may be mistaken, among others because even the Quran is unclear about the necessity of wearing the headscarf

I don't think many Islamic scholars think the Koran is unclear about the issue; it is quit clear as it isn't mentioned (unlike the New Testament). There is a verse telling women to cover their breasts.

(although I know very well about the fact that in Egypt for example 90% of women wear hijab).

In some Islamic countries, headscarves aren't considered a religious symbol; every woman is expected to cover their head, no matter what they believe. I wouldn't be surprised many Christian women in Egypt also were headscarves.

There is no mistake though in saying that the coercion existent in the muslim world is far from being on on a par with that in the West.

This sentence does not parse. re you saying the coercion is worse in "the muslim world" or in "the West" ?

You cannot count the uncovered muslims women either and there are basically no reliable polls to settle the problem.

So you don't know either?

However there are theoretical (the hijab signify adherence to the ummah)

Your theory is only as good as the facts it is based on.

and practical reasons (quite many honour crimes in the West related to this)

How many of the very few honour crimes in the West are related to not wearing headscarves?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm willing to listen then. Why did Jesus leave, never to return? It seems like a broken promise to me.

The parousia is part of the promise. Look it up.
He is alive.
Where your error begins is in treating him as Man, not as divine being. The general Christian position (Christology wise) is that Jesus was both man and divine being (the Copts were notable in disagreeing to this in the early days, but there were others), and immersed himself in the flesh to set an example of love and sacrifice for one another --to show the way, as it were.
One way to see His miracles was as a way of getting peoples' attention to the deeper message. There are other ways to view them, about which volumes have been written.

Christian theology posits Jesus as active in his participation in salvation via the person of the Holy Spirit (part of the Trinity) which he passed to the Apostles at Pentecost. Some of the more charismatic devotees and sects take it a bit further, putting Jesus as very much alive and accessible in daily life. For the denominations who treat the wine and bread, consecrated, as The Real Presence during communion (Greek Orthodox, Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Syriac, others) Jesus comes alive to the faithful at each celebration of the formal worship. (IIRC, the oldest record of this sort of eucharistic celebration is the liturgy of St James in the first or 2d century, but I may be forgetting something).
Even without that position of belief, "He's alive" is a common refrain among the Evangelicals in the Protestant denominations.
See also the old form of the RCC doctrine: Christ has died, Christ has Risen, Christ will come again. (In English. It comes off differently in the Latin and in other tongues. That is part of why that English phrase was changed to fit the more literal rendering of the promise made, summed up as "until you return to us." If you ever wondered at why Tolkein entitled his last volume "The Return of the King" it is well to recall that he was a lifelong, devout, and practicing Catholic. Subtle he wasn't. )

In an abstract way (if you take the teachings of the Apostle Paul as a guide) the Faithful are the Body of Christ on Earth in the here and now.
"Wherever two or more of you are gathered in my name, there I am among you" is one of a number of scriptural and doctrinal positions that establish this relationship. Whether or not you accept this is up to you.

When is the Second Coming? Check the various Rapture Bunny websites for predictions. Good luck with the guess work. Scripture suggests that his priority consideration is that the faithful keep the faith that He will return ...

Mark 13: 31-24

31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
34 For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.

You can make of that what you wish. A variety of analyses and critiques of this chapter in Matthew are available for your consideration, if you'll bother to do the research.

EDIT to add:
ixolite and kopji:
Thank you both for adding to my understanding, and for putting the E into JREF.

 

[Darth Rotor]

There is a verse telling women to cover their breasts.

Reason enough to send more drone strikes aimed at madrassas ...

How many of the very few honour crimes in the West are related to not wearing headscarves?

The ones I have read about tend to be about disobedience, and either being too close to their beaus, or hanging out / in a relationship with a man who isn't the one their family wants them to marry. I am sure there are other reasons, but those two seem to stick out from what I've read in the news.
(Mind you, the news only gives you part of the story, at best).

 

[metacristi]

Quran 24:31 is the verse requiring women to cover their chest, unfortunately the pre-Islamic head cover is implicitly involved in that action so the consensus of Islamic scholars has always been that the hijab is mandatory. Check for example this [extremely tedious read]: Surah An-Nur 24:30-31 (scroll down to 24:31). Not surprising the conclusion that those who say that there is no hijab in Islam are not real muslims. I'm afraid Islamic modernizers have a tough task here given that the shortcut 'it is not applicable today' is not an option at this time in Islam. Finally what keeps the real muslim modernizers afloat are much less 'forces' from inside islam as forces from outside, from the West especially who is still setting and preserving the moral standards. Remove that 'pressure' [including via caving in at all requirements of muslims or via demographics in the West itself] and they will go to the bottom without any hope to come back any time soon. Maybe too pessimistic but definitely not without justification, Too much liberalism can sometimes be a death sentence even for the best achievements of humankind.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

WTF? Um, no.

I meant analogous, not identical. Medieval Christian theology holds that the life we live is a fallen state, and our goal is to reunite with God. I suppose my use of the term "illusion" was a misnomer.

The reason "Islam" had a golden age is that it conquered territory so fast that the majority of inhabitants were not moslems at first, while information etc. could flow freely through the empire(s). They HAD to be tolerant, they wouldn't have lasted long otherwise. That's why the rules applying to dhimmis were sometimes relaxed, the kafirs were the majority.

What of their attitudes towards scholarship and ancient writings?

Yeah, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#Restrictions
Life under Islam was peachy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre

But was this the general state of things, or isolated incidents?

Bullcrap, that's pure islamic propaganda. Women had more rights before Islam, see Kadijah Mo's first wife, a businesswomen who took Mo as her boytoy and wore the pants at home, Mo only dared to become such an ******* after Kadijahs death.

So I've heard, and I admit I could be wrong, though I'd still be interested in knowing how commonplace these abuses were, and whether quality of life for women was better or worse overall. For comparison, many things were permitted in the Hebrew Bible, but that doesn't mean the practices were commonplace among the Hebrews.

I hope the islamic world will see an enlightment like the christian world has, but I doubt it. There are more modern interpretations of Islam i.e. the 19ers/submitters, but those also deniers and I don't think you can move forward while denying the past.

What do you think the chances are that Islam will see an enlightenment, all things considered?

 

[John Jones]

I don't think they amount to a sizeable minority though (at least not one expected in a free society). If in places where muslims are a minority one can see so many covered muslim women then there is a problem with your estimation (just go in East London for example and see for yourself). But of course I admit that I may be mistaken, among others because even the Quran is unclear about the necessity of wearing the headscarf (although I know very well about the fact that in Egypt for example 90% of women wear hijab). There is no mistake though in saying that the coercion existent in the muslim world is far from being on on a par with that in the West.

Err I should have answered: 'Really? You cannot count the uncovered muslims women either and there are basically no reliable polls to settle the problem. However there are theoretical (the hijab signify adherence to the ummah) and practical reasons (quite many honour crimes in the West related to this) which point to the fact that a majority of muslim women (too many for a free society) actually wear the hijab. Deluding themselves that they do that freely and rationally.'

I'm sure there is a point somewhere in that multi-paragraph rant, but I can't spot it.

 

[metacristi]

It is indeed. For those who try first to understand the general context in which I said that. You could have kept that rant for yourself ('illuminate' me why you did not do that). It's not my fault that you do not understand or do not want to understand. Like it or not but there are just too many covered muslim women in the West now which to be easily amenable to the simplistic explanation 'it's their free choice, islamic religious coercion has little to do with that'.

The mere fact that the muslim world is the only part of the globe where religious constitutions still survive in spite of centuries of exposure to Modernity (and the personal freedoms are still defined in accordance with sharia) should trigger an alarm bell. Some people just happen to understand that there is a theologically related problem here, much more important than in other religions, and that a liberalism taken to the extreme has inside the germs of its own demise. Nothing in common with 'racism', 'bigotry' and other nonsense with which I am very often attacked, openly or indirectly (actually it is the 'vigilantes' who see everywhere 'islamophobia' who inflame the spirits, unfortunately sometimes, like now, I cannot resist to answer them).

In fact I'm very respectful of other cultures but in no way can I subscribe to cultural relativism and to nonsense like 'racism of cultures' when in fact there is strong reason to think that the Truth is elsewhere (at least in some aspects). Tell the truth and still respect people (preserving as much as possible from their cultures) is a much better alternative.