All I saw was your question about catholic school girls.
Eh? Do you find girls wearing dresses in Pakistan without pants underneath? No, the standard outfit is to wear a suit, which you surely know consists of both loose-fitting pants and a long tunic.
Actually the “standard” outfit in public is a burkha, but under that most women wear a salwar kameez or suit.
Uh… perhaps you could reproduce it because that one certainly disagrees with what you’ve said so far.
But if you wear one of those over your pants, your pants are merely undergarments, and the function of not showing the outline of your body is performed by that garment.
Yes, I’m one of those Stupid Islamophobic Bigots who are trying to Spread Division on this Board…Shame On Me.
Condone what? Beating a woman for wearing pants? Go read the Quran and tell me where it says that. Or don’t, and believe me that it doesn’t say that.Yes, I’m one of those Stupid Islamophobic Bigots who are trying to Spread Division on this Board…Shame On Me.
Yes, Islam is really a Harmless Religion Hijacked by a Few Fanatics and so on and so on…Gotcha.
Those Hadiths and Islamic Law, plus Passages in the Quran themselves that in one way or another condone this are not REALLY about Islam. Gotcha again, Amy.
Interesting that you quote fatawa (rulings) by Salafi ‘scholars’ who are a heretical group and not part of ahul Sunnah wal jamat, therefore their rulings are false because they have no authority (i.e. they have no chain of narration from Muhammad (pbuh) to the present day). Thats like blaming the Pope for not allowing blood transfusions (re: JW beliefs). Tell me where in the most authoritative work in the Hanafi Madhhab (rite) Radd al Mukhtar does it mention that wearing trousers is punishable in a court of law? Or any authoritative work in either the Maliki, Shaf’i or Hanbali Schools (Like ibn Qudama, Salafis aren’t Hanbali’s). Where? It is true that men should not dress as women and vice versa (actually whats that got to do with trousers?) but are all sins punishable in a court of law? Since when?
Hi Men0wjv,the Deuteronomy example you have given is not a Catholic teaching. It never originated from Catholicism. I never heard anyone think otherwise…till now.
I’m not hear to start an argument, at all. My point really was, is it ok to just flick through another’s religious book or teachings with no knowledge and then come up with something and then blame the other for it? I’m trying to show what folly such thinking is.
Exactly
that is my exact point. Is it fair to blame ‘the Muslims’ for fringe groups that are rejected as false for being heretical?I think that all religions, christianity included, are guilty of forcing their views on others, when they can get away with it. To “defend” such actions by your particular affiliation as being done by “fringe” or “heretic” types is outrageous. Whipping a woman in public like this is disgusting and satanic. No one deserves this kind of treatment, even if they are “wrong!” There should be no buts about it. By their silence, many “good” muslims do seem to support this kind of thing. It is hard to tell what they “officially” teach as so many of them contradict one another, and like other religions, including “christian” ones, they have many marvellous excuses to reason away behaviors and beliefs that they know are wrong.Like I said are we really that dissimilar?
Exactly
men0wjv , you critcize the fatwa though it dosn’t state any punishments .
Thanks for that, maybe you could translate what it says, I have to say my Arabic is a bit shaky and so I wasn’t confident enough to dissect it.
Despite the fact that tight fitting clothes are impermissible (for men and women) in public – interestingly, despite the responsibility a person carries in this matter the sin falls on the onlooker - there is no worldly punishment for a woman who just wears trousers, which is what the point being made is. So these Sudanese people mentioned do not practice Shari’ah (since there is no evidence to support such a claim) but something else and therefore Islam cannot be blamed.
Whilst we say the Salafis are still Muslim because they don’t deny something fundamental to the religion, they are at variance with the majority in serious matters and so are of the ‘fasiqin,’ you can learn this from Al Azhar (my teacher having been there) or Al Qarawiyyin (my other teacher having been there) or the ulema in Damascus (my other teacher being there) or the classical works on heresiology; the Salafis being likened to the Khawarij. Maybe my simile was a little out since JW’s don’t qualify as Christians in a traditional sense, perhaps some puritan type protestant group may have been a better.
I agree
I’m not defending them, infact I’m a ‘good’ Muslim categorically speaking out against themTo a novice, of course it would be difficult to find the official teaching.
