|
RIP Aqsa Parvez (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| LazFX |
^^^interesting......
reading it now......
thanks |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im sorry, but in the countries that enforce laws governing a woman's dress, the laws are derived from religion, or justified using religion.
i don't know why you always seem so willing to point the finger in any other direction than where is belongs. nobody is saying things are common across the entire muslim community, but there are countries that enforce these rules. and obviously, there are some families that (en)force these laws on their children.
it is based on loose talk in the koran about how a woman should dress. this is where your supposed "cultural thing" came from. not the other way round. |
I suppose religion should be blamed for its followers action, esp. when the actions of the followers contradicts what the religion says too, eh? |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
I suppose religion should be blamed for its followers action, esp. when the actions of the followers contradicts what the religion says too, eh? |
I don't think that anyone's blaming the doctrine, but moreso the practitioners. Sadly, though, the practitioners define the religion. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
This is incorrect. The tradition of the hijab outdates the Qur'an by several hundred years. Women in the Persian and Arab world were wearing headscarfs during the 1st century BC at very least. Since the custom outdates the religion by a good 7 centuries I think it's safe to say this is a cultural custom rather then a religious commandment. Further to my point, the Qur'an contains only one referrence to the hijab, which essentially states that women should also use their headscarfs to cover their breasts. This would seem to suggest that the custom of covering the head was established and should be extended to the breasts but it does not say that either part MUST be covered. What we have in the states that now mandate such dress is a cultural custom that has been adopted as religious custom (much like Christmas trees, which were a cultural custom amongst the celts and was adopted as a religious custom amongst christians). This has more to do with culture then religion... this is especially evident considering that in many parts of the Muslim world one hardly ever sees a hijab and honour killings are all but non-existant. |
i stand corrected! however, my main thesis remains, in that the countries that enforce strict dress rules do so due to religion, and not due to custom. you dont need to enforce custom, it just happens. exactly which parts of the muslim world would you rarely see a hijab (or chador etc)? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i stand corrected! however, my main thesis remains, in that the countries that enforce strict dress rules do so due to religion, and not due to custom. you dont need to enforce custom, it just happens. exactly which parts of the muslim world would you rarely see a hijab (or chador etc)? |
The hijab et al is not very common in Malaysia (although I understand that the practice is starting to gain ground there) nor is it very common amongst muslims in western countries.
I disagree with you regarding the enforcement of custom. Customs become traditions, people will fight damn hard to hold on to traditions. The countries that you see enforcing the wearing of the hijab or other forms of traditional dress are all countries where people had started to give up on this tradition prior to the laws being instituted. In many Arab states that do not mandate a manner of dress people are increasingly moving away from traditional dress. This does not sit well with the social conservatives in those states so they institute laws to perserve their traditions.
This sort of thing happens throughout the world. Recently, in Quebec a number of sugar shacks (traditional rustic resturants) started to offer a pork free version of a traditional Quebecois pea soup in an effort to attract muslim and jewish customers. A rather large movement started up in reaction to this, seeking legislation prohibiting these businesses from altering the traditional meal. Also in Quebec, there has long since been a movement to force immigrants to learn French as a first language (this was in response to the fact that most immigrants choose to learn English - the other official language). The US civil war was in part due to a desire to hold on to traditional customs and economics in the South that were no longer tolerable or compatable with the North. If you take the time to look around I'm certain you'll find ample evidence that states often institute legislation or take other measures to protect their customs/traditions. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
I don't think that anyone's blaming the doctrine, but moreso the practitioners. Sadly, though, the practitioners define the religion. |
Err, no, the docrine defines the religion. You're not exactly a "practioner" if you contradict it's teachings. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The hijab et al is not very common in Malaysia (although I understand that the practice is starting to gain ground there) nor is it very common amongst muslims in western countries.
I disagree with you regarding the enforcement of custom. Customs become traditions, people will fight damn hard to hold on to traditions. The countries that you see enforcing the wearing of the hijab or other forms of traditional dress are all countries where people had started to give up on this tradition prior to the laws being instituted. In many Arab states that do not mandate a manner of dress people are increasingly moving away from traditional dress. This does not sit well with the social conservatives in those states so they institute laws to perserve their traditions.
This sort of thing happens throughout the world. Recently, in Quebec a number of sugar shacks (traditional rustic resturants) started to offer a pork free version of a traditional Quebecois pea soup in an effort to attract muslim and jewish customers. A rather large movement started up in reaction to this, seeking legislation prohibiting these businesses from altering the traditional meal. Also in Quebec, there has long since been a movement to force immigrants to learn French as a first language (this was in response to the fact that most immigrants choose to learn English - the other official language). The US civil war was in part due to a desire to hold on to traditional customs and economics in the South that were no longer tolerable or compatable with the North. If you take the time to look around I'm certain you'll find ample evidence that states often institute legislation or take other measures to protect their customs/traditions. |
im packing for holidays at the minute, but rest assured i will give this the time it deserves in a few days. needless to say i disagree vehemently, but there's no surprises there! :D ;) |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im packing for holidays at the minute, but rest assured i will give this the time it deserves in a few days. needless to say i disagree vehemently, but there's no surprises there! :D ;) |
You know, other then the 911 crazy-assed conspiracy theories being complete bunk, I can't think of anything we've agreed on. Strange, considering how much I appreciate and look forward to reading your posts. |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im packing for holidays at the minute, but rest assured i will give this the time it deserves in a few days. needless to say i disagree vehemently, but there's no surprises there! :D ;) |
u suck. Have a pleasant holiday! :gsmile: |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Strange, considering how much I appreciate and look forward to reading your posts. |
ghey :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
You know, other then the 911 crazy-assed conspiracy theories being complete bunk, I can't think of anything we've agreed on. Strange, considering how much I appreciate and look forward to reading your posts. |
aha! but im pretty sure that if you exclude religion we havent disagreed yet either ;) |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Err, no, the docrine defines the religion. You're not exactly a "practioner" if you contradict it's teachings. |
this is true.. |
|
|
|
|
