Origins of Hijab

rajsingh1:

Post # 92

The hijab that is the topic of so much heated discussion, particularly in the west, these days began in the Muslim society as I have described in the article. So the title of the article is quite appropriate.

The ``need`` kind of veil that you alluded to, is for the conditions out in the desert and not in ``the streets of Medina``. And this kind of veil is needed by every one, i.e., by both men and women. So this again is not the object of controversey.

A couple of years back, I had written an article on `Burqa` at The Pakistan Link. In that, I had mentioned a North African tribe, Tuareg. The Tuaregs are by and large Muslims and they have a matriarchal system in which men veil their faces while women go unveiled. The women are the leading part of the society. This veil has nothing to do with the traditional hijab, as much as I know about it. This is their tribal `thing`.

I had a Tuareg watchman in Nigeria. He and his male friends always covered their faces.

Mohammad Gill

Freethinker: I would like to see your perspective from a very different angle. Keeping that in mind, I`d propose the following:

[Religious metaphysics, physics, and philosophy can be a complex mix and many people may not be able to handle it in a well-adjusted and well-aligned manner.]

Religious metaphysics, physics, and philosophy can be a complex mix and many people ``may handle it completely differently even`` in a well-adjusted and well-aligned manner.

Freethinker


Post # 89

Quote:

``I provided some historical background in my article of its introduction into Muslim culture.``

Introduction of Hijab into Muslim culture (probably this will make more sense/better case, going by the article) is different from the title of the article, which is `` Origin of Hijab`` For, it is highly unlikely that Hijab would have been introduced as part of any religion. It is more likely that it was very much in use more as a matter of NEED than being a part of culture or any religion (referring to origin of Hijab).

In sand/desert, one has to cover one`s face as a matter of need and situation at that time would have been more difficult (lack or roads, means of transport and other things) than it is today. Perhaps, it has been overlooked that even men too cover their face/s when in desert. Need, for covering the face would have developed/culminated/evolved into culture, tradition, and then part of religion.

Three organised religions have come from Arabia/from that area and all three do have similar dress code for their preachers/religious hierarchy. And Islam is the youngest religion. So ...

#84 by vertex
rajsubghi1,
#85 by Ralph

If I may butt in…

Ralph, there is no such thing as “Muslim Liberal”. When you use this term you are mixing two different schools of thoughts and often they don’t meet in religious background.
The correct term should be “moderate Muslims”.

This is now an important debate; how to separate moderate Muslims from the Islamic fundamentalists who have fascist outlook of the world. If moderate Muslims are not separated from the OBL types, the west would continue to be hard-pressed to deal with them (OBL types) militarily. Once West takes the military path as it pathetically did in Iraq, it will continue alienating the moderate Muslims thus increasing terrorist support in the Muslim countries. It sounds like a catch 22 situation but it should not be so hard to separate both groups.

The OBL types mostly have their ideological support in two countries now i.e. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The west is right in identifying these two countries for ideological turned around. Both countries will need strong support from the West to stay this course. But the problem arises when the West or its leader, the US itself, gets caught in an ideological struggle within its own populace like it is now. It is likely that West may not be able to sustain the political will and this menace may not be tamed and eventually eliminated in the near future.

PS.
vertex, Hamidm-
Knock it off, You two are better than this.

Zahraj:

Religious metaphysics, physics, and philosophy can be a complex mix and many people may not be able to handle it in a well-adjusted and well-aligned manner. Much of metaphysics is subjective, and some philososphy may be sometime pointless and trivial like postmodernism. Physics and physical science lay emphasis on experimental and observational verification and its scope is necessarily limited for this very reason. I had discussed this issue partially in one of my earlier papers ``Limitations of Science``. If one is seeking answers for the metaphysical questions related to the reality of God, eschatology, and other esoteric questions, physics cannot much help in this quest. So Seyyed Nasr lost interest in Physics and sought peace and tranquility in religion and metaphysics. He tried however to correlate his areas of fundamental interest with science but such correlation is at best superficial.

Coming back to hijab, I provided some historical background in my article of its introduction into Muslim culture. My personal view is that the Muslim women have been repressed far too long by the well-meaning male chauvinists. The religious injunctions need to be reinterpretted to suit the modern conditions. And reinterpretation of Quran, particularly on the issues which relate to the women, should be done by the Muslim women scholars. They should not be terrified into silence. I agree with you when you say ``Muslims have a lot more to look into than wrapping themselves in the confines of a scarf.`` But it`s a battle of the Muslim women and they should fight it. They should not leave it for the men to fight it for them. The women have a lot more to fight for than the veil. Shariah prescribes, as I had described in my article also, that a woman does not have any right to become head of a Muslim state. I believe this is wrong and the option should be available to the women. In the interacts to my article, I guess, there were only two Muslim women, if I figured out correctly. The field again was dominated by the males who laid down what the women should do and shouldn`t do. If you have not read Mernissi yet, please do so. She is one heck of a fighter for the Muslim women`s rights.

You had asked me how I got interested in the hijab issue. For the obvious reason that it has become a hot potato in the western world.

One of my sons is looking for a wife and one of the girls that came under consideration wears a hijab. My wife asked my opinion. I said if hijab does not bother my son who has to live with his wife, it`s not important for me. However, it never became a big issue because the girl`s parents did not pursue the proposal any further for some other reasons. The girl is in Pakistan and probably she didn`t want to come over here.

Thanks for your interacts. Wish you well.

Mohammad Gill

hamidm2,

``vertex is the kind of pathetic drivel that goes to show that a large number of ``moderate`` muslims, regardless of their protestatations to the contrary, are terrorist sympathisers``

LOL, no, people like you keep spewing out the same kind of pathetic drivel that only exposes you for what you are...closet fascists. And what gets my goat is when fascists start demanding the pacifist credentials of others.

``vertex seems to suggest that somehow the civilized people of the world are to be blamed for hunting down the criminal vermin who use the scriptures to justify their crimes against humanity``

Well you see, I am accusing some people who claim they are civilized as being no better than the supposed vermin they are chasing. Your causation is wrong. America planning to attack Iraq prior to 9-11. Needless to say, using scriptures or invoking `freedom` dogma to commit crimes against humanity is exactly the same, something you and your ilk are incapable of comprehending.

`` ............ the cops are being blamed for ``greater`` violence by the criminal who is guilty of ``lesser`` violence !``

Well, yes! The cops are beating the snot out of rodny king. They’re the ones raping the j-walker. They`re the swat team who doesn`t negotiate, they blow up the entire city block without even evacuating it. Very good analogy, sir! And that you find nothing wrong with this is exactly what I find disturbing...

......post #84 by vertex is the kind of pathetic drivel that goes to show that a large number of ``moderate`` muslims, regardless of their protestatations to the contrary, are terrorist sympathisers ............. in this silly post - unless i am wrong - vertex seems to suggest that somehow the civilized people of the world are to be blamed for hunting down the criminal vermin who use the scriptures to justify their crimes against humanity ............ the cops are being blamed for ``greater`` violence by the criminal who is guilty of ``lesser`` violence !........... this is the kind of jihadi logic that befuddles the hijab covered head and creates suiciders and homiciders .............

#78 by nasah on June 26, 2004 9:09am PT

Wah nasah saheb!

Rajsingh1

Unfortunately the political variant of Islam has turned out to be the best platform for the maniacs like OBL to mobilize gullible persons onto their so called path of Jehad.

Freethinker: Thank you for spelling out his name. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to browse through his work in depth. But his stance on certain core issues is beautiful. I am not surprised on his efforts to further develop physics. That`s something in the blood of these physicists, regardless of their religiousness or irreligiousness :)

Muslims have a lot more to look into than wrapping themselves in the confines of a scarf. It does not mean that the appropriate chapters/surahs do not hold much weight. Ironically, crimes happen where women are wrapped. Rapes take place where women wear dupattas/shawls/chadors. Debauchery and lies are preached and religiously practiced in countries claiming to have roots based on the principles of Islam. If you review the lay of the land, it`s like reading a comic strip. In my view, wherever men are weak, unbalanced and insecure, women will have to bear the brunt.

rajsinghi and vertex

Muslim `liberals` don`t engage in debate with the supporters of the terrorism or the terrorists themselves because there is rarely such a person as a Muslim `liberal.` Most often a Muslim `liberal` is an Islamic extremist in a liberal`s clothing. His or her job is to defend and justify terrorism and Islamic murders by inventing excuses and feeding Islamic victimhood.

rajsubghi1,

It is a sadist who demands that the perpetrators of a lesser violence explain themselves while at the same time ignoring and even supporting a greater violence.

The ``alleged`` terrorists (they are, btw, but I just thought I`d adopt the patronizing language of the article you psted) do take sanction from history (which is reflected in scripture), however the idea is that they are defending and not waging war for the sake of it (which is a view that is projected, rightly imho, on the West by the alleged terrorists). Thus, the debate isn`t weather they are scriptually right or wrong, but weather their premise for waging this alleged Jihad is sound or not.

No one, not the allegedly benign Hindus or the allegedly advanced Westerners would tolerate what these terrorists accuse the West of doing. The question is, then, is there any substance to their rhetoric? And so at least on this matter, people are thinking on the right track...and the relative lack of support (say a tens of thousand active supporters to hundreds of thousands of military personnel on the other side plus massive public opinion) seems to indicate that this is for the most part a one-sided conflict...

It is one thing if a pacifist demands an explanation for a violent act, but when an activley war waging people do the same, the net effect is hypocrisy and not a valid ethical challenge.

i am waiting for urstruly`s next article on Hijab..

That should be good. (If he writes on this issue I suppose)

In continuation to the previously quoted post...

QUOTE:


If you talk injustice, you are on a slippery slope that leads to millenia of unresolved history.



What intrigues me is
notthe burning desire among Muslims to liberate MUSLIM lands ( lands that had ONCE been conquered by Muslims ) and recreating the dream Caliphate of Caliph Umer Farooq, but the undeniable fact that the Terrorists are able to present irrefutable scriptural sanctionto act upon it, and the Muslim intellectuals - so vehement in presenting the ugly face of modern powers - keeping mum about that.



Why is there nary a word except the cliche of ``Islam stands for peace`` ? Just like the DEMAND of Muslim intellectuals for a resolution of Palestine question and other such hypothetical ``injustices``, why don`t we see them DEBATE in mosques and open fora with these TERRORIST sympathising Salafi Alims with some passages from the Quran and Sunnah to counter their forceful arguments and shut offthe recruitment pipeline of these terrorists all over the world ?



Surely this isn`t difficult, if the brightest minds at Al-Azhar , Lahore, Aligarh and the US-based CAIR volunteers get their acts together and get going ?



So, why not ?

rajsinghi1

Muslims themselves won`t agree that ``Islam is no exception.``

Islam is not a religion of the self, but a religion of the other. Take out that otherness from Islam, and nothing remains, except some inane rituals like how one should clean up after relieving oneself. That is the knowledge base of Islam.

Following is from another board..and perhaps, relevant here..

I am trying to quote exactly the way it has been written..words in bold are by the writer himself...

Quote:



What is deemed good and bad by a believing Muslim ( a Mu`min ) , when restricted to application at an INDIVIDUAL level , is never a problem.



It is when that concept is thrust upon others in SOCIOLOGICAL INTERACTION does the problem start.



There is no problem when a Muslim believes that he is doing good to HIMSELF by praying, fasting, charity, Hajj pilgrimmage, and belief in Allah and his prophet(s), and preventing HIMSELF from doing bad by abstinence from alcohol, pork, idolatry, usury etc.



Many such INVARIANT Decrees are there in ALL religions, to foster personal spiritual growth for the average Joe Bloe.



Dualistic sects of Hinduism have a plethora of such ``Yama`` and ``Niyama`` ( dos and donts ) for believers.



The problemstarts when this ``good`` and ``bad`` comes in the way of SOCIAL INTERACTION with members of OWN community and members of a DIFFERENT community.



By enjoing others to do what YOU feel ( or learnt from your religious upbringing ) to be good , and preventing others from doing what YOU feel ( or learnt from your religious upbringing ) to be bad is at the heartof EXTREMIST BEHAVIOUR in ALL religions, whether you like it or not.



The Jews had their share in the ancient times, in their dealings with Midianites.



The Christians had their share in the Dark Ages, in their Crusades and Inquisitions.



The Hindus had their share in the degenerated evils in the preceding 1000 years of Ossified Caste System by Birth, Widow-Burning and other such horrible acts of ommission and commission.



All of the above are examples of EXTREMIST and INTOLERANT behaviour generated by the URGE for enjoining OTHERS to do good and preventing others from doing bad.



Islam is no exception.



Muslims - especially those of the Ahle Hadith and Salafi brand - have taken it upon themselves to purify Islam and Muslims from the Shirk of Sufism that has crept in from the mellowing influences of Hinduism, Kabbalistic/Essenic Judaism and Gnostic Christianity.



They sincerely believe - and they have the inviolable ``word of God`` to support their claims - that they are doing good to themselves and others by



(1) enjoining other Muslims to do good ( Tableeghi Jamaat ) by becoming PURE and unadulterated Salafi Muslims ( and joining their Jihad by pen or sword ) and becoming a true Saif-ul-Islam in such organisations as Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Al-Muhajiroun and the various shades of Al-Badr. The prime example of this is the spurt of volunteers from EDUCATED Muslims from as diverse areas as in UK, Europe, Asia, America and Africa, in the fighting forces of Taliban and Al Qaeda.



(2) preventingthe Hypocrites and Apostates ( Murtads ) from doing bad such as injecting their Kufr/Shirk ( polluting and idolatrous ) ideas that are deemed harmful for the Islam as they LITERALLY find in the Quran and Sunnah. The Fatwas against Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen, and the tendency of Honour Killings among as diverse an ethnic mix as Kurds, Arabs, Malayasians and Indian subcontinentals, are proof of this terrorist behaviour.



(3) preventing the imaginary Yahood-Hunood-Nazara Axis from doing bad to the Muslim Ummah by launching a full-frontal Jihad to liberate the imaginary Dar-ul-Islamof the Muslim glory days from occupiers and collaborators, and creating the staging ground for the FINAL ASSAULT on the Dar-ul-Harbto bring the whole world into submission, as literally foretold by the the Quran, Hadiths and the Sirah.



In conclusion of this point, let me repeat the salient points.



The Five Pillars of Islam are not a problem at all. It is the THEOLOGICAL component ( and the ritual component ) of Islam, and is a PRIVATE MATTER between the INDIVIDUAL believer and his perceived Creator.



The problem is the SOCIOLOGICAL doctrine of Islam, and how the invariant decrees in THAT field ( and the LITERAL interpretation thereof ) may be a cause of social tension, and a breeding ground of EXTREMIST and TERRORIST behaviour.


http://www.peoplesforum.com/cgi-bin/forum?14@96.T9b2aTWrfs9.431576@.6b699029/5265

Zahraj:

I am familiar with the works of Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr. He has published a lot on Islam. One of the things that ticked me off was his attempt of Islamising Science. I tried to understand how it can be done but I did not quite understand it. It is like putting a label of Islam on Science. I think it`s hypocritical but then I might be wrong. I personally believe what the Muslim world needs is the development of scientific knowledge; its acquisition not a claim to its ownership. How is one going to Islamise Quantum Mechanics and Theory of Relativity, for example? And to be honest, this is not needed.

In my opinion, hijab is not such a big issue. It should be left for the individual women. If any woman wants to wear it, it should be her choice. If she doesn`t want it, she should go without it. In the Middle Eastern countries, it is imposed by the society. This imposition should go away. Some of these countries are still in the medieval times. Every change is intolerably too slow. But then force is also futile. Let the globalization do its work. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill