"Ni Putes, Ni Soumises" - Fadela Amara
- Thread starter Rick van Opbergen
- Start date
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things) and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, or their brothers' sons or their sisters' sons, or their women or the servants whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers, turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.” (Quran 24:31).
“O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.” (Quran 33:59)
“O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.” (Quran 33:59)
Thanks for the searching moghrabi. I read both, but I still do not see how you can conclude from this that women should wear a hijab. Quran 24:31 says "... they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty ...". This does not say that they should draw a veil over their head.
Neither does the second text (Quran 33:59). This one says " ... tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) close round them (when they go abroad) ..." Again, this one does not mention specifically that women should wear a veil over their head.
Neither does the second text (Quran 33:59). This one says " ... tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) close round them (when they go abroad) ..." Again, this one does not mention specifically that women should wear a veil over their head.
Where do you put a veil around you, Rick. Now the translation takes 75% of the meaning. I sure know that when you translate something from A to B the meaning would change. Trust me on this. It clearly says that a woman must cover her face and head and her arms but not the hands.
Another note I would like to mention. Why do Christian nuns wear what they wear. Cover their heads and layer after layer of clothing. And in black so not to show inside.
When a woman goes to see the Pope, why is it required for her to wear something on the head and cover her face. I saw a pic of Nancy Regean looking like she was wearing it when she met the Pope.
Another note I would like to mention. Why do Christian nuns wear what they wear. Cover their heads and layer after layer of clothing. And in black so not to show inside.
When a woman goes to see the Pope, why is it required for her to wear something on the head and cover her face. I saw a pic of Nancy Regean looking like she was wearing it when she met the Pope.
I still don't agree with you. Looking at the second translation, the word "cloak" is translated as a "veil". A cloak, however, is a cape, not? What is the chance of misinterpretation?moghrabi said:
I really don't know why Christian nuns wear what they wear. And when a women visits the Pope by the way, it seems that she really does not have to cover up her head or her face - looking at this photo I found on the Internet.
Look moghrabi, I'm not trying to tell here that hijabs are bad, should be forbidden whatsoever. When it's a woman's own choice to wear a hijab (and I'm sure there are a lot of Muslim women, if not the far majority, who make this choice, with of course exceptions like Taliban-ruled Afghanistan or ayatollah-ruled Iran) I am fine with that. What this discussion is about, in my opinion, is that Fadela Amara has made certain remarks about the hijab - one them being that according to her, the hijab is not described in the Quran as necessary - which we are now discussing. Not?
I agree. That is her interpretation of the meaning of Hijab. I say she is wrong because when I used the word cloak then the meaning is gone. It states in the Quran it is a Hijab. What English word can I use.
The Hijab is not compulsory. Most women do not wear it yet they believe it is in the Quran.
As for the Christians, All I siad is I've seen nancy in a veil like thing. I don't know if this is required or necessary.
I wonder if a Muslim woman goes to see the Pope. They might ask her to take off all her clothes fearing she is a terrorist. LOL. The Pope might get a bit excited there.
The Hijab is not compulsory. Most women do not wear it yet they believe it is in the Quran.
As for the Christians, All I siad is I've seen nancy in a veil like thing. I don't know if this is required or necessary.
I wonder if a Muslim woman goes to see the Pope. They might ask her to take off all her clothes fearing she is a terrorist. LOL. The Pope might get a bit excited there.
I did a small search on the Internet, and one of the sources (LINK) said that the hijab is not mentioned in the Qu'ran, but it is mentioned in the Hadith of Sahih Bukhari - the source also states that there are "numerous versions" of this text (although the one which states the hijab is generally regarded as the standard one, according to the source).
Rick van Opbergen said:
Why are you soliciting Canadians for their opinion on a subject they are scarcely equipped to understand? They simply don't have the vocabulary and background necessary to comprehend what is going on in France...
If I use words like "cité", "Seine-Saint-Denis", "HLM", "intégristes", "brigades", "petit caïd", "tournantes", etc. it is highly unlikely that anybody on this board is going to understand what these things have to do with your question -- and yet they are at the core of the debate in France.
People are not forced to participate in the discussion. I'm focusing on the people who DO have an opinion about this - like moghrabi. And the questions Fadela Amara askes about the hijab for example are not only appliable to France.
Re: RE: "Ni Putes, Ni Soumises" - Fadela Amara
Indeed. But as I mentioned before Canadians don't have the background to see through moghrabi's BS when he writes things like:
The secular nature of the French nation was enshrined in their constitution long before Islamic fundamentalists first appeared and started making trouble.
Fadela Amara is not on the attack -- rather, she is on the defense. It is the republic and its institutions which are under attack by fundamentalism.
When a female social worker on the government payroll refuses to shake hands with male clients -- that's an attack on the secular nature of France.
When a merchant violates the terms of his supermarket franchise by refusing to sell porc and wine -- that's an attack on the secular nature of France.
When girls attend public schools in ostentatious religious dress -- that's an attack on the secular nature of France.
When non-muslim women are aggressed in the streets by fundamentalist for the religious crime of dressing too feminine -- that's an attack on the secular nature of France.
In another ten years it will be Canada's turn to enjoy moghrabi's nightmare...
Rick van Opbergen said:
Indeed. But as I mentioned before Canadians don't have the background to see through moghrabi's BS when he writes things like:
moghrabi said:
The secular nature of the French nation was enshrined in their constitution long before Islamic fundamentalists first appeared and started making trouble.
Fadela Amara is not on the attack -- rather, she is on the defense. It is the republic and its institutions which are under attack by fundamentalism.
When a female social worker on the government payroll refuses to shake hands with male clients -- that's an attack on the secular nature of France.
When a merchant violates the terms of his supermarket franchise by refusing to sell porc and wine -- that's an attack on the secular nature of France.
When girls attend public schools in ostentatious religious dress -- that's an attack on the secular nature of France.
When non-muslim women are aggressed in the streets by fundamentalist for the religious crime of dressing too feminine -- that's an attack on the secular nature of France.
In another ten years it will be Canada's turn to enjoy moghrabi's nightmare...
Re: RE: "Ni Putes, Ni Soumises" - Fadela Amara
Wait a minute. I think you are taking things out of context. I never ever said i supported or did not support the wearing of Hijab. All I was doing is expalining to him that the Hijab is mentioned in the Holy book of Moslems. I also said women are free to wear it or not. I never mentioned France or Canada. That is all.
As for the woman who says is not in the book, yes she is wrong. I was not preaching the Hijab.
So before you call my posting BS, read carefully what I was trying to do. He asked a question and I was giving him my opinion.
First you attack him for soliciting opinions and then attack me for giving an answer. Make up you mind.
Mediana said:
Wait a minute. I think you are taking things out of context. I never ever said i supported or did not support the wearing of Hijab. All I was doing is expalining to him that the Hijab is mentioned in the Holy book of Moslems. I also said women are free to wear it or not. I never mentioned France or Canada. That is all.
As for the woman who says is not in the book, yes she is wrong. I was not preaching the Hijab.
So before you call my posting BS, read carefully what I was trying to do. He asked a question and I was giving him my opinion.
First you attack him for soliciting opinions and then attack me for giving an answer. Make up you mind.
Re: RE: "Ni Putes, Ni Soumises" - Fadela Amara
You claimed the Hijab is never worn under duress. This is BS. I know of one such woman in my own apartment block who was pressured by the other muslim immigrant women into wearing the Hijab. She conceded, in a conversation with my wife, that even her own husband is against her wearing it. However, she countered saying it is difficult for muslim women to do otherwise.
She's actually one of two muslim women I know who came to Canada with their heads uncovered, but after a few months of freedom were pressured from within the diaspora into wearing the Hijab.
You failed to cite a specific reference in the Quran dictating that the head must to be covered.
The quote: "they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof" , does not clearly state as you claim "that a woman must cover her face and head and her arms but not the hands."
Your opinion is based on poor scholarship tainted by male chauvinism.
Aye, because soliciting opinions from uncontested individuals who don't know what they are talking about is a sure-fire way to misinform the readership.
moghrabi said:
You claimed the Hijab is never worn under duress. This is BS. I know of one such woman in my own apartment block who was pressured by the other muslim immigrant women into wearing the Hijab. She conceded, in a conversation with my wife, that even her own husband is against her wearing it. However, she countered saying it is difficult for muslim women to do otherwise.
She's actually one of two muslim women I know who came to Canada with their heads uncovered, but after a few months of freedom were pressured from within the diaspora into wearing the Hijab.
moghrabi said:
You failed to cite a specific reference in the Quran dictating that the head must to be covered.
The quote: "they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof" , does not clearly state as you claim "that a woman must cover her face and head and her arms but not the hands."
moghrabi said:
Your opinion is based on poor scholarship tainted by male chauvinism.
moghrabi said:
Aye, because soliciting opinions from uncontested individuals who don't know what they are talking about is a sure-fire way to misinform the readership.
I do not know why you are attacking me personally and calling me names. Rick asked a question and I answered it.
1) You can not base your knowledge about the Hijab from 2 new immigrant ladies who are pressured to wear it. This is called peer pressure. If her husband is against it then she should be without it.
2) I did not fail to cite a reference. You failed to read:
http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=2981
3) Attacking someone for presenting his knowledge is not intelligent in itself. It shows your weakness.
4) This is a free forum where I was asked a question and I gave an answer. You are free to do more research into it or take it as is.
nowhere in this post I was preaching the Hijab. But to actually tell me that a new immigrant lady told your wife and then in turn told you in nothing I call informed person.
1) You can not base your knowledge about the Hijab from 2 new immigrant ladies who are pressured to wear it. This is called peer pressure. If her husband is against it then she should be without it.
2) I did not fail to cite a reference. You failed to read:
http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=2981
3) Attacking someone for presenting his knowledge is not intelligent in itself. It shows your weakness.
4) This is a free forum where I was asked a question and I gave an answer. You are free to do more research into it or take it as is.
nowhere in this post I was preaching the Hijab. But to actually tell me that a new immigrant lady told your wife and then in turn told you in nothing I call informed person.
There is a difference between "strict" muslims and the "not-so-strict" muslims.
Here in Canada, in some Fundamentalist Christian churches, women must have long hair and must wear dresses with sleeves.
It's amazing how we as Canadians fail to understand that British law was written around the Ten Commandments. (Some laws that were said to be written by the "finger" of God!)
I can recall not being allowed to eat fish on Friday. It was not against Canadian law. Other people who were not Catholic did not voice an opinion one way or the other.
But, in Catholic circles, anyone eating meat on Friday was said to be "unclean".
I felt obligated to follow the church teachings and felt in my heart that it was law.
I watched a program about some school kids in France and where they debated the new law concerning wearing religious "hats".
It reminded me of the No-Meat-Friday trip. If I had of been asked as a kid if I agreed with this rule, I probably would of wholeheartedly agreed. I was raised in a strict Catholic home. My oldest sister entered a convent at 16. Me and my twin were altar boys.
Religion is pyshcological terror!
We have the law of the land and the laws of God. Each fighting for "reasoning" within our "covered" heads.
I sure wish that people would be just as worried about hungry stomachs in this world as they seem to be about hungry minds.
While hungry minds are enlightening, hungry stomachs are frightening.
I've been trying to follow this developing story, here in Canada.
It has some suitability to this topic. (I think.)
Sharia law tribunals divide Muslim Canadians
September 08, 2004
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1094680399477_11?hub=Canada
Muslims in B.C. want to apply Islamic law to disputes
By Douglas Todd and Krisendra Bisetty
August 28, 2004
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/08/158752_comment.php
Muslim leaders 'scared of the rights of women'
The decision to impose Sharia law will affect a Muslim community split along cultural, national and ethnic lines
By Paul Weinberg
September 16, 2004
http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=34084
Why Sharia Law must be Opposed
Viewed September 27, 2004
http://www.ntpi.org/html/whyoppose.html
Report: Muslims have right to use religious law
By Keith Leslie
December 20, 2004
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2004/12/20/791270-cp.html
Calm
Here in Canada, in some Fundamentalist Christian churches, women must have long hair and must wear dresses with sleeves.
It's amazing how we as Canadians fail to understand that British law was written around the Ten Commandments. (Some laws that were said to be written by the "finger" of God!)
I can recall not being allowed to eat fish on Friday. It was not against Canadian law. Other people who were not Catholic did not voice an opinion one way or the other.
But, in Catholic circles, anyone eating meat on Friday was said to be "unclean".
I felt obligated to follow the church teachings and felt in my heart that it was law.
I watched a program about some school kids in France and where they debated the new law concerning wearing religious "hats".
It reminded me of the No-Meat-Friday trip. If I had of been asked as a kid if I agreed with this rule, I probably would of wholeheartedly agreed. I was raised in a strict Catholic home. My oldest sister entered a convent at 16. Me and my twin were altar boys.
Religion is pyshcological terror!
We have the law of the land and the laws of God. Each fighting for "reasoning" within our "covered" heads.
I sure wish that people would be just as worried about hungry stomachs in this world as they seem to be about hungry minds.
While hungry minds are enlightening, hungry stomachs are frightening.
I've been trying to follow this developing story, here in Canada.
It has some suitability to this topic. (I think.)
Sharia law tribunals divide Muslim Canadians
September 08, 2004
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1094680399477_11?hub=Canada
Muslims in B.C. want to apply Islamic law to disputes
By Douglas Todd and Krisendra Bisetty
August 28, 2004
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/08/158752_comment.php
Muslim leaders 'scared of the rights of women'
The decision to impose Sharia law will affect a Muslim community split along cultural, national and ethnic lines
By Paul Weinberg
September 16, 2004
http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=34084
Why Sharia Law must be Opposed
Viewed September 27, 2004
http://www.ntpi.org/html/whyoppose.html
Report: Muslims have right to use religious law
By Keith Leslie
December 20, 2004
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2004/12/20/791270-cp.html
Calm