The Christian Science Monitor has a four-article feature package on the hijab in the paper today. The main story is Behind the veil: Why Islam’s most visible symbol is spreading. The others are: The Muslim veil: modesty has its own style, Wearing the Muslim veil in America: What it’s like, written by a Muslimah intern on the Monitor’s staff, and an unsigned editorial by the Monitor’s editorial board stating their position on the hijab and drawing attention to the rise of Islamic feminism.
The Christian Science Monitor is a secular publication.
Buzz 11:57 am on December 14, 2009 Permalink |
The editorial is nothing but true.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 12:11 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink |
The editorial contains some truth but also a good deal of nonsense.
Overall I find it completely offensive, but who am I to challenge the Islamic knowledge or understanding of the “Koran” of the Christian Science Monitor’s editorial board.
Buzz 12:20 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink |
Uh….you be someone with proof.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 12:22 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink |
Not sure I understand your comment.
Buzz 12:25 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
If you’ve got a verse, bring it.
Otherwise you have cast a doubt on some Muslim’s understanding of Koran with no proof. Just inuendo.
Buzz 12:27 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
Failing that, just point out some ‘nonsense’ in the editorial so that I may know the difference.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 12:42 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
What “Muslim’s understanding of the Qur’an?” I referred to the editorial which was written by the editorial board — I don’t believe there’s even a Muslim on that board.
Now, why would anyone make a categorical statement interpreting a religious text of another faith without any knowledge whatsoever? How arrogant. I can’t even imagine sitting down to write a statement like “The Torah clearly says…” or “The Buddha taught…” And they do so after acknowledging in their other article that they are contradicting the overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars.
The only Muslim they quote for the understanding of the Qur’an they quote in their editorial is Ashraf Zahedi, a sociologist.
If they wanted to say, “some ’scholars’ say the Qur’an does not require covering the hair then that would be one thing…but it is they, not I who are saying that the vast majority of Muslim scholars simply don’t understand the Qur’an…only they do.
I also find offensive the silly notions that there are vast committees laboring apparently in secret or something in Turkey who are going to come out with a new understanding of hadith that somehow revolutionizes the tradition. I mean, come on. What in the world is this supposed to mean. I highly doubt anyone could come up with any opinion that someone in Islamic history hasn’t voiced before. Whether those opinions become accepted or not is something only time can tell. No committee, of however many Turks (or any other group) is going to suddenly change the way Muslim scholars think about texts that they have been studying for hundreds of years.
Actually, I certainly agree with what you quoted, that going to the actual sources of the religion is the best way to advance the treatment and status of women (and men, incidentally) in Muslim societies but it has to be done in a way that actually respects the texts as sources of guidance, not one that simply uses them to try to justify one’s own preconceptions.
Certainly tyrants and ideologues of all stripes and persuasions throughout Muslim history have tried to use the texts for different purposes and they’ve always found or forced scholars to ratify their positions, but this doesn’t really prove or mean anything.
Allaah knows best.
midwinterspring 12:56 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
“I also find offensive the silly notions that there are vast committees laboring apparently in secret or something in Turkey who are going to come out with a new understanding of hadith that somehow revolutionizes the tradition.”
For what it’s worth, the Turkish scholars seem to agree with you.
Buzz 12:56 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
Yeah, I unintentionally assumed and conjoined the unnamed editorial board with the Muslim contributors of the articles in the CSJ piece.
That may or may not be true.
You may think the committees in Turkey or Kuala Lampur are nonsense, but the editorial simply reports what is going on. No nonsense there. It may be threatening, but it is not a lie.
It pain me to see JAFIs misinterpret the genius of the Qur’an. The liberating aspects. Worse still is the inside job done on the Book. We are both agreed that the Qur’an is the best source for Muslim women to establish their rights. This is the main gist of the article.
A revolution is indeed going on and traditionalists of all persuasions are going to have to struggle in the most honorable and scholarly way to justify the status quo.
Here is another such debate going on in Iran:
InsideIRAN
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 1:10 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
Buzz,
It’s not threatening in the least.
Other than that, I agree with the tone of your last comment, although I have a sneaking suspicion we would disagree about what the “genius of the Qur’an” is, let’s just leave it out there and both agree that there is such a thing which we both celebrate.
My original point stands in that I think people like you and I and some of those mentioned in the piece can work together as long as silly mistakes like trying to argue against hijab are not made.
Buzz 1:34 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
Ha. Yes. We can work together as long as we are agreed that Hijab is a personal discretion rule of dressing and speaking modestly and that no where in the Qur’an does it require that women place a piece of cloth over their head or face.
I am relieved that you are not threatened and that, in the future, there should be no need to react to such editorials in a huff.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 1:45 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
I guess we can’t agree.
I didn’t like the editorial, but the huff was all for you Buzz and your ridiculous “nothing but true” comment.
By the way, why can’t you just be honest? I hate disingenuous arguments, really. So hijab is a “personal discretion rule” because it’s not commanded in the Qur’an…..what would be the alternative? That it be enforced? I’m sure you think that whether a woman shows cleavage or not is also a “personal discretion rule” even though according to your reading that is explicitly prohibited by the Qur’an. And I’m sure I could make a long list of explicit commandments in the Qur’an that you think are “personal choices” so your whole Qur’an discussion is just a red herring.
That is the mistake you’re making and why we can’t work together.
Buzz 1:49 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
You tend to exaggerate everything.
It is a common problem.
That, in my opinion, is the real problem and the distance between us.
Buzz 1:58 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
Let me end on a point of clarification.
By “everything” exaggerated, I only mean key points of debate.
Asserting the editorial is affirming vast committees are overturning sahih muslim tomorrow or that personal discretion means women can go with their breasts hanging out.
Yes, I don’t think hijab is something the Community has to impose on their women. It is their choice on how to define their Muslimness. As with you and me.
The problem, in general, is hijab is a symbol for a whole lot of “nonsense” that has been inserted in the “Deen.” Blaming the West or America for these problems or using them to obscure these problems will wear a little thin at Jum’a khutbas eventually.
Then where will we be? With the same problems of denial and reassessment.
That is all I have to say.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 2:11 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
The problem buzz is that I can’t tell whether you want hijab to be a “symbol” or you’re bemoaning the fact that it is a symbol.
I would prefer to say that I try to focus on key points of debate rather than that I “exaggerate them”. I think this is important to having substantive conversations…maybe it’s a “socratic” or “lawyer” issue I have, but I think it’s sometimes worth unpacking our contentions to see what the real differences are and to see how arguments we often make that “seem right” don’t really address the question.
Maybe it doesn’t work over the internet (although people don’t like it in person either). Maybe you just have to make sure the other person is interested in that kind of conversation. Allaah knows best.
thabet 2:33 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink |
Erm, the evidence for this claim? I’ll avoid the debate above me (good luck to both sides!), but this quote is silly and is an outcome of The Downward Spiral Of Islam Thesis wherein “Islam” has been “stagnant” since the year 1100.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 2:43 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink |
Thabet,
I agree that it seems to be largely framed in the “Downward Spiral of Islam Thesis” framework and was therefore part of the “nonsense” to which I originally alluded.
However, I actually think the claim could be at least partially defensible. Certainly, the number of literate Muslims actively thinking about and talking about these issues is higher than ever before. This is primarily a function of advances in technology, literacy, and standards of living.
Of course there is a great contrast between the type of intellectual activity of medieval Islamic scholars, versus literate middle class lay Muslims today, versus scholarly Muslims today of a variety of different traditions, etc. etc. are wide ranging and difficult to compare.
Buzz 2:50 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink |
Look friends:
One can take a statement in isolation and defend or ridicule it.
The editorial was attempting to state that women are becoming Islamic scholars and reevaluating eras of paternal interpretation of Qur’an and Hadith.
No where is the editorial asserting that the intellectual tradition of Islamic philosophy came to a screaching halt with Suhrawardi or Mulla Sadra or that nothing new has been said since Charlemagne.
The evidence is in the editorial.
But we don’t discuss.
Buzz 2:54 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink |
If you think Women gaining a stronger voice in Islam is silly, so be it. Atleast that addresses the statement in context.
Buzz 3:40 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
Shame on me. I exaggerated. If I “unpack the discussion” without inserting my own straw, I should say:
If you think the argument that women gaining a stronger voice in Islam and the reevaluation of Islamic tradition with the perspective of gender neutrality will spark new intellectual discussion in Islam … is silly, so be it.
Buzz 12:23 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink |
from the Muslim Veil in America article:
F*ck the naysayers. I love America.
AA 2:44 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink |
I’m not sure why would they identify it as Islamic Veil. What is Islamic about a piece of cloth? It is a Pakistani veil when adopted by Pakistani females; an Indian veil when adopted by Indians; an Egyptian veil when adopted by Egyptians ….
Crabby 3:21 am on December 15, 2009 Permalink |
In speaking about hijab/veiling, I realized nobody has touched upon the topic of awra. It is because of awra that one has to cover.
aziz 10:35 am on December 15, 2009 Permalink |
actually, i did:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/the-burka-and-the-bikini.html
Crabby 7:35 am on December 16, 2009 Permalink |
Your emphasis is on the cloth that is the proxy for power – the tool of oppression against women by men. Its a very western, modern talk.
The more relevant treatment of awra is the concept that almost the whole body of a woman is her privates to be covered. Khaled Abou El Fadl gave a good quick treatment on it, search for “Women as an ‘Awra” with the quotes in google. Ali Eteraz abuses it funnily in his old (and I’d say legendary) post “How to denude a niqabi”.
Crabby 7:52 am on December 16, 2009 Permalink |
Oh and a traditional explanation can be found in “The Fiqh of Covering One’s Nakedness (Awra)” by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari