I’m open to debate and dialogue but I don’t get a faith where women are not considered on the same level as men.
I have muslim family. I have seen this in action.
Dialogue with Muslims
- Thread starter AdamP88
- Start date
- Status
I have muslim family. I have seen this in action.
B
Bakmoon
Guest
If one wants to make claims about what Muslims believe, one should point to the primary sources of Muslim belief (i.e. the Qur’an and the authentic Hadith), as otherwise there is the distinct problem that one might confuse issues which are the result of the mixing between culture and religion as being a part of the fundamental teachings of the religion itself. Not to say that means these things aren’t problems, but cultural-religious problems need to be approached from a different perspective than problems of a doctrinal nature.
You seem to be saying that it is a key teaching of Islam that women are inferior to men, rather than this being a cultural-religious problem .Can you point to specific points raised in the Qur’an or the Hadith that indicate that women are not considered the equals of men?
B
Bakmoon
Guest
So you are saying that you can say that something is a fundamental teaching of a faith without having to give any sort of evidence from that religion’s primary sources?
I did not say it was a fundamental teaching of the faith. Don’t put words in my mouth.
I simply said that the way that women are treated by many of the Islamic faithful seems to contradict anything which would indicate that women are seen with honour and dignity…
This may well not be a teaching of true Islam.
B
Bakmoon
Guest
If it isn’t an actual teaching of Islam, then it should be addressed as a cultural issue. The proper way to go about it would be to criticize how women are treated in the Muslim world by contrasting it with the actual teachings in the Qur’an and the Hadith. If it is an actual teaching of Islam, it should be demonstrable by consulting the Qur’an and the Hadith.
H
Hunter24
Guest
Firstly, history is truely a story of succesions of conquerors and migrations. those “Christian lands” were untill the 5th century mostly pagan and that transition was far from peaceful or volentary in many cases, and ruled by the pagan Persians, Greeks, Hittites, Assyrians, and Babylonians each with distinct religions before that, the Muslem Arabs were simply next in line. the Christian Byzantines have just as much claim to that land as the Persians, Greeks, Hittites, ect. and anyone who lived to see any of these conquering empires is long sense dead.
Also, they pillaging discribed in those accounts was the standard practice of ancient armys, and the same practice happened more often than not when Christians conquored Muslems, vice versa, or any other group did so, religiouse or not. it was a rare and noble thing for an ancient conqueror to restrain his army from pillaging.
D
dzheremi
Guest
There was no Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire until 340 AD, and Christianity was not the religion of the Empire until 380 AD, so…yes?
Again, sure, but so what? I posted those accounts to show what the Arab conquest did. It seems like they inherited many lands via this kind of military conquest that the poster I was responding to asserted accomplishes nothing. Particular for the Muslims (as they have yet to be driven out from the majority of the lands they conquered), it accomplished quite a lot.
H
Hunter24
Guest
Your correct it did accomplish quite a lot, Im just pointing out that realy it is foolish to dwell on and complain about things that happend over 1200 years ago, and had happened in prior to that. Im pagan and the religions mine is based on were almost wiped from the face of the earth by Christians, but that was a long time ago and i only bring it up when Christians try to paint themselves as the eternal victim. But i would agree with you, millitary conquest has and still does accomplish quite a lot.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I believe that it is every Christian’s responsibility to know their own history, including the ugly bits, because when people start believing that “the Muslims (or whoever) were simply the next in line” or “military conquest never accomplishes anything”, they lose their strength and become complacent in the weakening of their communities by the forces of the devil. If we had not kept the Coptic language in our liturgies, for instance, this link to Egypt’s Christian (and, in a nod to your religion, pre-Christian) past would be gone, and we’d have 8-12 million people who could conceivably wrongly come to believe that their actual culture and origin is Arab, and hence become apathetic about the encroachment of the religion of the invaders (because then, of course, the Arabs wouldn’t be seen as the invaders that they are). History is important. Muslims know their own history; we should too (including the history of Christian-Muslim engagement, to keep this post at least tangentially related to the OP).
HG of Bishop Thomas on Islamicization and Arabization, or why it is important to know history. As HG points out, this is still going on for ~14 centuries and counting. It’s not dwelling on the past at all.
HG of Bishop Thomas on Islamicization and Arabization, or why it is important to know history. As HG points out, this is still going on for ~14 centuries and counting. It’s not dwelling on the past at all.
F
fnr
Guest
Well said! When I said that military conquest accomplishes nothing, it’s just for that very reason. The Kingdom of God was not won by conquest of the sword or spear, but by the the king who died on the cross. The Book of Acts shows us Stephen’s martyrdom as the place where he saw heaven.
Conquest, by any means and for any cause, cannot be made holy. This is a major difference between Christianity and Islam. Jesus died in Christianity, instituting his Kingdom, what Paul called the Kingship of Christ. In the Quran, Jesus could not die because it implicitly assumes that death the Gospels portray would be defeat, and God cannot be defeated. They believe that Jesus will come back to fight in the army of the mahdi and kill the Antichrist. So, he is not the Messiah who died on the cross to Muslims, but the general leading an army to slay evil.
When Christianity tries to justify conquest – Crusade, Reconquista, colonization of the Heathens of New Spain – people die, and somehow, the narrative of history turns murderers into saints.
F
fnr
Guest
Resistance to conquest is not the same as conquest. Preserving Coptic is resisting conquest. The Maronite church can claim a similar preservation of their history. The Greek Orthodox survived under centuries of Ottoman rule. The Basques survived and preserved their culture under the literal onslaught of Catholic Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War (think Guernica) and the 35 years of Franco. And in a totally ecumenical matched set of evil and good, French Protestants in Vichy France hid Jews from the Catholic collaborationists working with the Nazi war machine.
K
Kouyate42
Guest
…except you’re wrong. The Qur’an states that both men and women as Muslims are equal, although it must be said that different roles are required of both genders.
Here are some Qur’an verses which prove my point. All bolding is mine for emphasis.
The only criteria for distinguishing people is good works and faith:
[49:13] O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of GOD is the most righteous. GOD is Omniscient, Cognizant.
Equality of genders in the eyes of Allah:
[33:35] The submitting men, the submitting women, the believing men, the believing women, the obedient men, the obedient women, the truthful men, the truthful women, the steadfast men, the steadfast women, the reverent men, the reverent women, the charitable men, the charitable women, the fasting men, the fasting women, the chaste men, the chaste women, and the men who commemorate GOD frequently, and the commemorating women; GOD has prepared for them forgiveness and a great recompense.
[40:40] Whoever commits a sin is requited for just that, and whoever works righteousness - male or female - while believing, these will enter Paradise wherein they receive provisions without any limits.
Islam also forbids the killing or abandonment of baby girls, simply for being girls:
When one of them gets a baby girl, his face becomes darkened with overwhelming grief. Ashamed, he hides from the people, because of the bad news given to him. He even ponders: should he keep the baby grudgingly, or bury her in the dust. Miserable indeed is their judgment.(16:58-59)
When one of them is given news (of a daughter) as they claimed for the Most Gracious, his face is darkened with misery and anger! (They say,) “What is good about an offspring that is brought up to be beautiful, and cannot help in war?” (43:17-18)
Islam, unlike some forms of Christianity, also places equal responsibility on both Adam and Eve for falling into sin. Eve herself is never solely blamed for any wrongdoing:
The devil whispered to them, in order to reveal their bodies, which were invisible to them. …Their Lord called upon them: “Did I not enjoin you from that tree, and warn you that the devil is your most ardent enemy?” (7:20-22)
Don’t get Islam and cultures mixed up, something which is always too easy to do.
K
Kouyate42
Guest
Modesty is a command to ALL believers and goes beyond mere clothes, which to be fair are only a small part of Islam, and goes for every thought, word, deed and behaviour.
There is also no ‘clothing of Islam’ either…saying that is like saying ‘Western clothing’. There’s a wide variety of clothing in Islamic culture, and there is no rule to say what any woman or man SHOULD wear based on any Qur’an verse I’ve read.
Plus, tell me the difference between this:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
and this:
http://images02.olx.com.pk/ui/3/92/17/53278517_1.jpg
One is a gallibya, worn by men. The other is an abaya, worn by women in the Middle East. That’s the only difference.
And while we’reon the subject, the hijab is subject to much debate as to whether it’s a requirement of Islam,and there are a LOT of women who choose not to wear one at all.
D
dzheremi
Guest
The galabeya is also worn by Coptic priests, but in black, not white as in the picture.
Is there a reason why black seems often to be the preferred color for women’s dress in the Arabized Middle Eastern Islamic cultures, compared to white for men? A friend of mine from Saudi once pointed that out. “We need white clothes because the sun is so hot”…well, what about the women? They must be roasting, if they wear a full the full garb rather than just the headcovering!
Of course, in many other places like Africa, there is virtually no distinction to be made between the traditional clothing and the Islamic, since it’s all quite colorful, and the traditional dress generally included some kind of headcovering to begin with. Also, among Iranians I have noticed that women are always very colorfully and impeccably dressed (at least among the young Iranian women I have known; if you see a girl in a headscarf and perfectly put together modern clothing, chances are she’s Iranian…no frumpy black sheets for them! At least not here in the West, or, it would seem, in the cosmopolitan parts of Iran).
Is there a reason why black seems often to be the preferred color for women’s dress in the Arabized Middle Eastern Islamic cultures, compared to white for men? A friend of mine from Saudi once pointed that out. “We need white clothes because the sun is so hot”…well, what about the women? They must be roasting, if they wear a full the full garb rather than just the headcovering!
Of course, in many other places like Africa, there is virtually no distinction to be made between the traditional clothing and the Islamic, since it’s all quite colorful, and the traditional dress generally included some kind of headcovering to begin with. Also, among Iranians I have noticed that women are always very colorfully and impeccably dressed (at least among the young Iranian women I have known; if you see a girl in a headscarf and perfectly put together modern clothing, chances are she’s Iranian…no frumpy black sheets for them! At least not here in the West, or, it would seem, in the cosmopolitan parts of Iran).
K
Kouyate42
Guest
There’s actually a practical reason for that. During the nomadic days of Arabian culture, even before Islam, things such as plants or beetles for clothing dyes were scarce and so expensive. However black was much easier to make, as it used goat’s milk which was easier to obtain (most tribes would have had these).The galabeya is also worn by Coptic priests, but in black, not white as in the picture.
Is there a reason why black seems often to be the preferred color for women’s dress in the Middle Eastern Islamic cultures, compared to white for men? A friend of mine from Saudi once pointed that out. “We need white clothes because the sun is so hot”…well, what about the women? They must be roasting, if they wear a full the full garb rather than just hijab!
Of course, in many other places like Africa, there is virtually no distinction to be made between the traditional clothing and the Islamic, since it’s all quite colorful, and the traditional dress generally included some kind of headcovering to begin with. Also, among Iranians I have noticed that women are always very colorfully and impeccably dressed (at least among the young Iranian women I have known; if you see a girl in a headscarf and perfectly put together modern clothing, chances are she’s Iranian…no frumpy black sheets for them! At least not here in the West, or, it would seem, in the cosmopolitan parts of Iran).
So black is a common colour in a lot of Middle Eastern countries, whilst in others, where dyes were easier to make and use, other colours tended to dominate. Synthetic dyes have made it easier in many ways for even relatively cheap clothes to be made.
I
IbnFiktur
Guest
Interesting factoid (this is something that perplexed US troops in the region as well)
D
dzheremi
Guest
Ah, I see. Thanks for your explanation, Kouyate42. That makes sense.
Ibn Fiktur: I have actually heard that before regarding veiling in black among the nomadic Tuareg (Tamashek/Tamajaq) of Mali and surrounding regions, who are famous for having veiled men. But, while they will veil in black, their other clothing is usually blue, as here:
http://www.cristinakessler.com/images/tuareg-men-camels_small.jpg
When I saw the Tamashek blues/rock band Tinariwen (from Kidal, Mali) live in concert a few years ago, all the men in their group dressed like that. But then again, they are not Arabized in the way that others like the Egyptians, Libyans, and others around them are, so they’ve kept their traditional customs until today. (The Tamashek are classed, linguistically, with the other “Berbers” of North Africa like the Shilha, Cheloui, etc., but the degree to which any given tribe is Arabized generally has to do with the policies of the national government; hence, Berbers in Algeria are more heavily Arabized than those in Mali, which is at best peripheral to the Arab cultural center, and not graced with Arabizing regimes as the Imazighen of Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, etc. are, to varying degrees.)
Ibn Fiktur: I have actually heard that before regarding veiling in black among the nomadic Tuareg (Tamashek/Tamajaq) of Mali and surrounding regions, who are famous for having veiled men. But, while they will veil in black, their other clothing is usually blue, as here:
http://www.cristinakessler.com/images/tuareg-men-camels_small.jpg
When I saw the Tamashek blues/rock band Tinariwen (from Kidal, Mali) live in concert a few years ago, all the men in their group dressed like that. But then again, they are not Arabized in the way that others like the Egyptians, Libyans, and others around them are, so they’ve kept their traditional customs until today. (The Tamashek are classed, linguistically, with the other “Berbers” of North Africa like the Shilha, Cheloui, etc., but the degree to which any given tribe is Arabized generally has to do with the policies of the national government; hence, Berbers in Algeria are more heavily Arabized than those in Mali, which is at best peripheral to the Arab cultural center, and not graced with Arabizing regimes as the Imazighen of Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, etc. are, to varying degrees.)
T
Trebor135
Guest
Cool (no pun intended
), thanks for the link. I never knew that a loose-fitting black `abaya would actually be a blessing.- Status