- ... the notion was quite foreign to Roman culture.
Vestal virgins in ancient Rome:
Posted on 06/09/2002 6:36:32 PM PDT by vannrox
Liberation by the Veil
Modesty and chastity , very important ideologies with Islam, are achieved by prescribing standards on behavior and the dress of a Muslim. A woman who adheres to the tenements of Islam is required to follow the dress code called Hijab, other synonymes are Veil, Purdah, or just Covering. It is an act of faith and establishes a Muslim's life with honor, respect and dignity. The Hijab is viewed as a liberation for women, in that the covering brings about "an aura of respect" (Takim, 22) and women are recognized as individuals who are admired for their mind and personality, "not for their beauty or lack of it" ( Mustafa ) and not as sex objects.
Contrary to popular belief, the covering of the Muslim woman is not oppression but a liberation from the shackles of male scrutiny and the standards of attractiveness. In Islam, a woman is free to be who she is inside, and immuned from being portrayed as sex symbol and lusted after. Islam exalts the status of a woman by commanding that she "enjoys equal rights to those of man in everything, she stands on an equal footing with man " (Nadvi, 11) and both share mutual rights and obligations in all aspects of life.
Men and women though equal are not identical, and eachcompliments the other in the different roles and functions that they are responsible to. " From an Islamic perspective, to view a woman as a sex symbol is to denigrate her. Islam believes that a woman is to be judged by her [virtuous] character and actions rather than by her looks or physical features" (Takim, 22). In the article, "My Body Is My Own Business", Ms. Naheed Mustafa , a young Canadian born and raised, university-educated Muslim woman writes, "The Quran [ which is the Holy Book for Muslims] teaches us that men and women are equal, that individuals should not be judged according to gender, beauty, wealth or privilege. The only thing that makes one person better than another is his or her character." She goes on to say, "In the Western world, the hijab has come to symbolize either forced silence or radical, unconscionable militancy. Actually, its neither. It is simply a woman's assertion that judgement of her physical person is to play no role whatsoever in social interaction."
Muslims believe that God gave beauty to all women, but that her beauty is not be seen by the world, as if the women are meat on the shelf to be picked and looked over. When she covers herself she puts herself on a higher level and men will look at her with respect and she is noticed for her intellect , faith ,and personality, not for her beauty. In many societies, especially in the West, women are taught from early childhood that their worth is proportional to their attractiveness and are compelled to follow the male standards of beauty and abstract notions of what is attractive, half realizing that such pursuit is futile and often humiliating (Mustafa). Chastity , modesty, and piety are promoted by the institution of veiling. The hijab in no way prevents a woman from playing her role as an important individual in a society nor does it make her inferior." (Takim,22)
A Muslim woman may wear whatever she pleases in the presence of her husband and family or among women friends. But when she goes out or when men other than her husband or close family are present she is expected to wear a dress which will cover [her hair and] all parts of her body , and not reveal her figure. What a contrast with Western fashions which every year concentrate quite intentionally on exposing yet another erogenous zone to the public gaze! The intention of Western dress is to reveal the figure, while the intention of Muslim dress is to conceal [and cover] it, at least in public (Lemu,25).
The Muslim woman does not feel the pressures to be beautiful or attractive, which is so apparent in the Western and Eastern cultures. She does not have to live up to expectations of what is desirable and what is not. Superficial beauty is not the Muslim woman's concern, her main goal is inner spiritual beauty. She does not have to use her body and charms to get recognition or acceptance in society. It is very different from the cruel methods that other societies subject women, in that their worth is always judged by their physical appearance. The are numerous examples of discrimination at the workplace where women are either accepted or rejected, because of their attractiveness and sex appeal.
Another benefit of adorning the veil is that it is a protection for women. Muslims believe that when women display their beauty to everybody, they degrade themselves by becoming objects of sexual desire and become vulnerable to men, who look at them as " gratification for the sexual urge"(Nadvi,8). The Hijab makes them out as women belonging to the class of modest chaste women, so that transgressors and sensual men may recognize them as such and dare not tease them out of mischief" (Nadvi, 20). Hijab solves the problem of sexual harrassment and unwanted sexual advances, which is so demeaning for women, when men get mixed signals and believe that women want their advances by the way they reveal their bodies.
The western idiology of, 'if you have it, you should flash it!' is quite opposite to the Islamic principle,where the purpose is not to bring attention to ones self, but to be modest. Women in so many societies are just treated as s ex symbols and nothing more than just a body who "display themselves to get attent ion" (Mustafa). A good example is in advertising, where a woman's body is used to sell products. Women are constantly degraded, and subjected to reveal more and more of themselves. .
The Covering sanctifies her and forces society to hold her in high esteem. Far from humiliating the woman, Hijab actually grants the woman an aura of respect, and bestows upon her a separate and unique identity (Takim, 2). According to the Qu'ran, the same high standards of moral conduct are for men as it is for women. Modesty is essential in a man's life, as well, whether it be in action, morals or speech. Islam also commands proper behavior and dress of men, in that they are not allowed to make a wanton show of their bodies to attract attention onto themselves, and they too must dress modestly. They have a speci al commandment to lower their eyes, and not to brazenly stare at women.
In Sura Nur of the Holy Qu'ran it says, " Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them, and God is well acquainted with what they do". Many of the misconceptions of the Muslim woman in the west, particularly her veil stems from Arab and Muslim countries that have deviated from the true doctrines of Islam, and have " mixed up Islamic principles with pre-Islamic pagan traditions" (Bahnassawi, 67)
In this present period of decline from Islam, many Muslim women are alienated , isolated from social life, and are oppressed by Muslim men and rulers who use the name of religion for their injustices. (Bahnassawi, 65) In this instance, the Hijab is used as a means of keeping many Muslim women away from society, with the misconception that it signifies isolation and weakness. But as many Muslim women come back into the fold of the untainted and true Islam, they are able to recognize the injustice of men who have for so long stripped them of their rights to be an integral part of society and "deserving the same dignity, honor, progress and prosperity as the men" (Nadvi,26). Women regaining their true identity and role in society, are now wearing Hijab and embracing its concept of liberation for women, and are taking their rightful places that Islam had endowed upon them fourteen hundred years ago.
Please copy and distribute to whoever can benefit from the above paper. Thank you, peace and blessings of Allah to all my brothers and sisters in Islam,
Sehmina Jaffer Chopra
Samichopra@aol.com
I just ordered two more books by him, Monsters of the Id and Living Machines: Bauhaus Architecture as Sexual Ideology.
A better thinker (and just as good a writer) imo is Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. His masterpiece is Leftism Revisited which I cannot recommend highly enough.
Thank God. I hope you can still say that 25 years from now.
Never forget the Militant Atheists' motto: "first the Friday people, then the Sunday people.
No one can force a post to be deleted except the person who breaks forum rules by posting it. We conservatives are big on personal responsibility. Only whiney liberals cry that they are in jail only because they got caught rather than because of having acted wrongly. The rest of your question's assumption is false and ludicrous.
Yes, you are right. But since it isn't germane to the discussion of the thread's topic, your statement deserves no response. Such deflections should just be ignored.
Don't tell me you consider yourself a conservative. You don't want to engage in an intellectual debate and resort to ad hominem attack and the protection of authority.
Who is the one who is deflecting?
But their are absolutely no valid critiques of Muslim culture? (And the only critiques of it are from atheism?)
President Bush has stated that we are not at war with Islam, but rather with terrorists who happen to be using Islam as a cover for their terrorism. If you think you know better than President Bush on how to conduct the affairs of state, then throw your hat into the ring, and go for it.
Exactly, where on this thread did anyone say that we were at war with Islam? Assuming you are being serious rather than merely derisive or flippant, you will need to address your concerns to something that I, or someone else, actually said, instead of making things up no one said. (And learn how to spell)
President Bush has stated that we are not at war with Islam, but rather with terrorists who happen to be using Islam as a cover for their terrorism. If you think you know better than President Bush on how to conduct the affairs of state, then throw your hat into the ring, and go for it.
Exactly, where on this thread did anyone say that we were at war with Islam? Assuming you are being serious rather than merely derisive or flippant, you will need to address your concerns to something that I, or someone else, actually said, instead of making things up no one said. (And learn how to spell)
Congratulations, also, for standing up for conservative values and women who practice modest dress. I am sure that Mass you attended, where the women veiled, was wonderful and the truth is that worship is not the same when women abandon the head covering. Covering the hair is also strongly practiced among Orthodox Jews. It is not some oddity dreamed up by Islam.
Much, if not most, of this macho attitude of traditional Spanish and Portugese culture is based on Moslem (Arab and Berber) attitudes ingrained into the culture of the Iberian peninsula during the centuries they were ruled by the Moors.
Of course, if you mention this around traditional Spanish men it is advisable that you be ready to duck.
Actually, the notion of female seclusion, including veiling, was largely copied by both Orthodox Christians and Muslims from the Sassanian culture of Persia, based on Zoroastrianism. Although some Greek city-states, such as Athens, had something similar, the notion was quite foreign to Roman culture.
Vestal virgins in ancient Rome:
However, I think that there is a Mediterranean culture which is independant of either Christianity or Islam, or this or that ethnic group, and it underpins a lot of these family structures and gender relations.
This had been an interesting thread, not least because of your comments. But your premise is seriously flawed.
Contrary to your implied belief that the cultural marxists/materialists-of-whatever-name/globalists are out to destroy or even defame mohammedanism, in fact the rise of a new caliphate is very much a part of their plans for the disposition of the "little people" of the world.
Your rather saccharine citation of "our cousins in Abraham" conveniently ignores the universal history of Christian/mohammedan relations when christians do not have blood and soil to back them up.
Modern Lefties--and that includes the US government no matter which party is in power--are quite impressed with the islamic spiritual posture. It can't be repeated enough--the Christian idea of God is the most revolutionary concept of individual existence ever formulated. Neither Judaism nor Mohammedanism is confronted with the fundamental change in humanidentity that occurs when God becomes man, suffers and dies.
We often read remarks by jewish supremicists on this forum claiming all sorts of achievements on behalf of humanity by Jews in the West. But these achevements were only possible precisely because they were members of Western civilization--the West of Christianity. When the outer society constructs a general cultural acceptance of the idea that god actually became one of us---astounding (yes, and bloody) things happen because men start getting uppity.
You seem to be blithely unaware of the traditional and enthusiastic championing of mohammedanism by all manner of elite western lefties in universities and government. Why is this so? This is the question of our age and no one dares tackle it. Why not?
(One minor, pop culture example would be Christpher Hitchens, who never met a jihadist he didn't like as long as they were going after christians wogs in Indonesia, Sudan, the Phillipines, Yugoslavia, Russia etc. He changed his tune--slightly--obviously due to extreme empirical incitement.
Trans-national capitalism, of course, loves islam because business loves law and order for the Little People--and the patient acceptance by these Little People of the kismet of the Higher Orders as they arrange things in accordance with the inscrutible will of All the Most High. Can you think of any labor movements led by mohammedan fundies? And yet, the roots of the labor moverment in this country and in the West--was Christian fundamentalism!! Marxists, of course, deformed the movement for their own purposes.
The Davos People are quite open about the problem of the excess 60% of the human population on the planet. What to do with them? They must be controlled somehow. Some religions are better at controlling the Little People. One Religion is notorious for agitating the Little People. Which do you think will receive the warm embrace of the globalists?
You seem curiously oblivious to the undeniable fact that the US government has been jihadist mohammedanism's BEST BUDDY for nearly a quarter of a century. We trained, armed, funded and protected them. We loved them when they killed Russians. We murdered Serbs on their behalf. We ignore dead, Christian wogs all over the planet. We ignore slavery. (Oh yes, slavery is going to make a big cultural comeback. Remember---what to do with the excess 60% of the human population? The abolition of slavery was a civil war within the House of Christianity. No other religion would be so silly as to try to eradicate such an obviously sensible, economically rational arrangement. Working women, in particular, will be in the vanguard of those arguing for humane slaveryas a means of securing readily available child care for their offspring and feeding hungry wogs from the unsuccessful parts of the globe.)
In short---the discussions about mohammedanism always center upon its allged treatment of women, when the REAL issue is its treatment of men. Follow the men.
Don't underestimate the meaning of that prayer posture; of the necessity of facing East. And recall the story of Alexander's assassination--The Macedonian Friends were finally driven to the extreme measure of killing this "great conqueror" because, as he became more swollen in his conquests---more global--he adopted Persian cultural habits; in particular the practice of prostration before the Emperor. Each level of bureaucrat was publicly identified by a certain level of physical self- abasement---some completely flat on the ground, face down; some hunched over on their knees, face down; and some bent over deeply from the waist, face down.
These postures were a betrayal of his culture and so odious was the practice to the Macedonians they killed him. Compare and contrast that with the increasing orientalization of American culture---especially our political culture; and the passive acceptance--in some cases enthusiastic support-- of the shocking change by most of the plump, lethargic population.
I would urge you to keep the image of the confrontation between Randy Weaver and the US government always in your mind when contemplating the reaction of our government to the threat posed to Americans by the moslem men whom the US trained funded and used. Always remember that the Blind Shiek (of the first WTC bombing) was welcomed into this country afterhe had been indicted for his part in the attempted assassination of Mubarek---after he had been placed on the Ultimate Bad Guys list by the State Department. To keep the image of poor cracker David Koresh in your mind as you contemplate our long-running, warm relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Forget the axis of evil and remember the spheres of influence--wheels within wheels.
I think I understand your frustration on this thread. But I can't go along with the increasingly popular "distaff analysis" of mohammedanism. It's a snare and a delusion. The globalists are going to wave women and babies in our faces everywhere they want to pry open new "free markets".
Remember the importance the mythological rape campsplayed in enlisting the rabid support of Western "elite" women like Susan Sontag in the demonization and deconstruction of the Serbs?
If we are so concerned about the treatment of women by fundamentalist islam why have we enjoyed such warm relations with the Saudis--so warm that we actually went to war against a relatively progressive moslem nation, Iraq?
Do you seriously believe that a "content" moslem woman would ever be allowed to speak on her own behalf---in her own words--any more that say, a faithful, orthodox Roman Catholic nun would ever be allowed to explain the nature of her faith? The "free speech" practiced on our airways is very, very carefully controlled. It may feature humans of diverse hue but there is absolutely no diversity in the thinking of these rainbow people.
The Afghan Women's Project is a hard marxist organization that has, since moving its operation to the "free" West, adopted much of the identity politics of our glorious gender feminists---jihadists in the battle against Western Civilization and Christianity that put Osama and the boyz to shame.
Do you think all our female ancestors were unhappy or oppressed because they believed in dressing modestly? The slutty look has not been around very long, you know.
In any case do you really believe it is the duty of the US government to wage war to make allegedly unhappy moslem women happy? Do you think any Afghan women are bitterly mourning the death of their taliban husband, son or brother? Is their unhappiness germiane to our discussion? Or is that the wrong sort of unhappiness?
Finally, do you really believe the women of the world long to emulate the poisonous mau-mauing of men that is a routine feature of our "enlightened" civilization? I can tell you they empahtically DO NOT. The war between the sexes is a peculiarly Anglo/Saxon deformation born of great material wealth and overwhelming cultural rootlessness.
Compare and contrast that with the the barring of any participation by South Africa in international sporting events because of aparthied.
Moslems are not required to face East. They are required to face towards Mecca. Thus, they may be facing in any direction, depending on their location.
And recall the story of Alexander's assassination--The Macedonian Friends were finally driven to the extreme measure of killing this "great conqueror" because, as he became more swollen in his conquests---more global--he adopted Persian cultural habits; in particular the practice of prostration before the Emperor. Each level of bureaucrat was publicly identified by a certain level of physical self- abasement---some completely flat on the ground, face down; some hunched over on their knees, face down; and some bent over deeply from the waist, face down.
Alexander did become a megalomaniac and ticked off his generals, but there is little evidence that he was murdered. Certainly if it had been known at the time, his common soldiers would have massacred anyone suspected of participation. It is also interesting that none of the diadochi claimed that their rivals had murdered the great king, which would have been fantastic propaganda.
He apparently died from a fever aggravated by heavy drinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.