Hijab: private, apparent & 7 conditions
-
Leyna isn't using the brainwashing card solely because these women are holding a different position. She's merely stating that anyone who believes that God requires (<--absolutely critical phrase) you to cover your entire body is brainwashed. And can any of us here really disagree? We all believe in the qur'an here. Clearly nowhere in the qur'an does it say that God requires such a thing. So, for someone to believe that is the case, well...some level of brainwashing has to be at play here, does it not?
Thanks for phrasing it so clearly.
The gap between her 'voluntary' decision and the incomplete information she is using to make said decision, is the space in which brainwashing finds itself.
Yes, exactly.
I fully respect a person who, upon reading the Qur'an, comes to the conclusion that she should wear a headscarf. Even though my personal interpretation is different, I can see how it is possible to read that out of the text.
But let me remind you that I am mainly talking about niqab here. That's what's being propagated in the text I posted, and on the whole site that was being referenced. Let there be no doubt about it ? headscarf, according to the people who run this site, is only a first step, something for women who are not ready yet, or for those who don't have the strength to wear it. But at the end of the day, niqab is the only outfit they deem proper for a Muslim woman. Among them, you are not allowed to say that you don't believe niqab is necessary or that you don't agree with the reasoning behind it.
The problem with niqab is that it takes a lot of logical twists, unreliable hadith and ignoring the wider picture in order to come to the conclusion that it is compulsory. The ones who do so only accept the views of particular hardcore Salafi scholars, even conservative Sunni scholars are not to be believed in their point of view.
So it is not a decision making process based on research, taking into proper account various interpretations and opinions and then arriving at your own. It is a process which is, from the beginning, limited and biased because it is based on the belief that you HAVE to follow scholars, and particular ones at that. It is a decision based on the belief that there is no such thing as free choice, that we are not allowed to reflect on the Qur'an and arrive at our own understanding, that obeying the scholars means to obey God. It is a decision making process that is based on not being allowed to analyze ALL points of view and ask critical questions. So how on earth can we call this free choice? There is brainwash involved and the Salafis, like any cult, are experts at brainwash techniques.
tempt
That's why I keep returning to the point that this is not simply about headscarf and choice ? what I am talking about is that the niqab is inextricably tied to the Salafi ideology, which is a dangerous, hateful, misogynist and fascist cult.As a side note, sexual harassment seems prevalent against those wearing hijab in countries where hijab is common. So it doesn't seem to hold the magical effects scholars attribute to them.
Exactly. Yet it is a point constantly being propagated.
-
Ruling on covering the face, with detailed evidence
Praise be to Allaah.
You should note that women?s observing hijab in front of non-mahram men and covering their faces is something that is obligatory as is indicated by the Book of your Lord and the Sunnah of your Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and by rational examination and analogy.
1 ? Evidence from the Qur?aan
(i)
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, headcover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband?s fathers, or their sons, or their husband?s sons, or their brothers or their brother?s sons, or their sister?s sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of feminine sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allaah to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful?
The evidence from this verse that hijab is obligatory for women is as follows
(a) Allaah commands the believing women to guard their chastity, and the command to guard their chastity also a command to follow all the means of doing that. No rational person would doubt that one of the means of doing so is covering the face, because uncovering it causes people to look at it and enjoy its beauty, and thence to initiate contact. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said ?The eyes commit zina and their zina is by looking?? then he said, ?? and the private part confirms that or denies it.? Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6612; Muslim, 2657.
If covering the face is one of the means of guarding one?s chastity, then it is enjoined, because the means come under the same ruling as the ends.
(b) Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning) ??and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) ??. The jayb (pl. juyoob) is the neck opening of a garment and the khimaar (veil) is that with which a woman covers her head. If a woman is commanded to draw her veil over the neck opening of her garment then she is commanded to cover her face, either because that is implied or by analogy. If it is obligatory to cover the throat and chest, then it is more appropriate to cover the face because it is the site of beauty and attraction.
(c) Allaah has forbidden showing all adornment except that which is apparent, which is that which one cannot help showing, such as the outside of one's garment. Hence Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning) ??except only that which is apparent ?? and He did not say, except that which they show of it. Some of the salaf, such as Ibn Mas?ood, al-Hasan, Ibn Sireen and others interpreted the phrase ?except only that which is apparent? as meaning the outer garment and clothes, and what shows from beneath the outer garment (i.e., the hem of one?s dress etc.). Then He again forbids showing one?s adornment except to those for whom He makes an exception. This indicates that the second adornment mentioned is something other than the first adornment. The first adornment is the external adornment which appears to everyone and cannot be hidden. The second adornment is the inward adornment (including the face). If it were permissible for this adornment to be seen by everyone, there would be no point to the general wording in the first instance and this exception made in the second.
(d) Allaah grants a concession allowing a woman to show her inward adornments to ?old male servants who lack vigour?, i.e. servants who are men who have no desire, and to small children who have not reached the age of desire and have not seen the ?awrahs of women. This indicates two things
1 ? That showing inward adornments to non-mahrams is not permissible except to these two types of people.
2 ? That the reason for this ruling is the fear that men may be tempted by the woman and fall in love with her. Undoubtedly the face is the site of beauty and attraction, so concealing it is obligatory lest men who do feel desire be attracted and tempted by her.
(e) The words (interpretation of the meaning) ?And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment? mean that a woman should not stamp her feet so as to make known hidden adornments such as anklets and the like. If a woman is forbidden to stamp her feet lest men be tempted by what they hear of the sound of her anklets etc., then what about uncovering the face?
Which is the greater source of temptation ? a man hearing the anklets of a woman whom he does not know who she is or whether she is beautiful, or whether she is young or old, or ugly or pretty? Or his looking at a beautiful youthful face that attracts him and invites him to look at it?
Every man who has any desire for women will know which of the two temptations is greater and which deserves to be hidden and concealed.
(ii)
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?And as for women past childbearing who do not expect wedlock, it is no sin on them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show their adornment. But to refrain (i.e. not to discard their outer clothing) is better for them. And Allaah is AllHearer, AllKnower?
The evidence from this verse is that Allaah states that there is no sin on old women who have no hope of marriage because men have no desire for them, due to their old age (if they discard their outer clothing), subject to the condition that their intention in doing so is not to make a wanton display of themselves. The fact that this ruling applies only to old women indicates that the ruling is different for young women who still hope to get married. If the ruling on discarding the outer clothing applied to all, there would be no point in singling out old women here.
The phrase ?in such a way as not to show their adornment? offers further proof that hijab is obligatory for young women who hope to marry, because usually when they uncover their faces the intention is to make a wanton display (tabarruj) and to show off their beauty and make men look at them and admire them etc. Those who do otherwise are rare, and the ruling does not apply to rare cases.
(iii)
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever OftForgiving, Most Merciful?
Ibn ?Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said ?Allaah commanded the believing women, if they go out of their houses for some need, to cover their faces from the top of their heads with their jilbaabs, and to leave one eye showing.?
The tafseer of the Sahaabah is evidence, indeed some of the scholars said that it comes under the same ruling as marfoo? reports that go back to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
The comment ?and leave one eye showing? is a concession because of the need to see the way; if there is no need for that then the eye should not be uncovered.
The jilbaab is the upper garment that comes above the khimaar; it is like the abaya.
(iv) Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?It is no sin on them (the Prophet?s wives, if they appear unveiled) before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brother?s sons, or the sons of their sisters, or their own (believing) women, or their (female) slaves. And (O ladies), fear (keep your duty to) Allaah. Verily, Allaah is Ever AllWitness over everything?
Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said When Allaah commanded the women to observe hijab in front of non-mahram men, he explained that they did not have to observe hijab in front of these relatives, as He explained that they are exempted in Soorat al-Noor where He said (interpretation of the meaning) ?and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands??
2 ? Evidence from the Sunnah that it is obligatory to cover the face
(i)
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said ?When any one of you proposes marriage to a woman, there is no sin on him if he looks at her, rather he should look at her for the purpose of proposing marriage even if she is unaware.? Narrated by Ahmad. The author of Majma? al-Zawaa?id said its men are the men of saheeh.
The evidence here is the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said there is no sin on the man who is proposing marriage, subject to the condition that his looking be for the purpose of proposing marriage. This indicates that the one who is not proposing marriage is sinning if he looks at a non-mahram woman in ordinary circumstances, as is the one who is proposing marriage if he looks for any purpose other than proposing marriage, such as for the purpose of enjoyment etc.
If it is said that the hadeeth does not clearly state what is being looked at, and it may mean looking at the chest etc, the response is that the man who is proposing marriage looks at the face because it is the focus for the one who is seeking beauty, without a doubt.
(ii)
When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded that women should be brought out to the Eid prayer place, they said, ?O Messenger of Allaah, some of us do not have jilbaabs.? The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, ?Let her sister give her one of her jilbaabs to wear.? Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.
This hadeeth indicates that the usual practice among the women of the Sahaabah was that a woman would not go out without a jilbaab, and that if she did not have a jilbaab she would not go out. The command to wear a jilbaab indicates that it is essential to cover. And Allaah knows best.
(iii)
It was narrated in al-Saheehayn that ?Aa?ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to pray Fajr and the believing women would attend the prayer with him, wrapped in their veils, then they would go back to their homes and no one would recognize them because of the darkness. She said If the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw from the women what we have seen, he would have prevented them from coming to the mosques as the Children of Israel prevented their women.
A similar report was also narrated by ?Abd-Allaah ibn Mas?ood (may Allaah be pleased with him).
The evidence from this hadeeth covers two issues
1 ? Hijaab and covering were the practice of the women of the Sahaabah who were the best of generations and the most honourable before Allaah.
2 ? ?Aa?ishah the Mother of the Believers and ?Abd-Allaah ibn Mas?ood (may Allaah be pleased with them both), who were both known as scholars with deep insight, said that if the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had seen from women what they had seen, he would have prevented them from coming to the mosques. This was during the best generations, so what about nowadays?!
(iv)
It was narrated that Ibn ?Umar said The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said ?Whoever lets his garment drag out of pride, Allaah will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection.? Umm Salamah said, ?What should women do with their hems?? He said, ?Let it hang down a handspan.? She said, ?What if that shows her feet?? He said, ?Let it hang down a cubit, but no more than that.? Narrated by al-Tirmidhi; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
This hadeeth indicates that it is obligatory for women to cover their feet, and that this was something that was well known among the women of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them). The feet are undoubtedly a lesser source of temptation than the face and hands, so a warning concerning something that is less serious is a warning about something that is more serious and to which the ruling applies more. The wisdom of sharee?ah means that it would not enjoin covering something that is a lesser source of temptation and allow uncovering something that is a greater source of temptation. This is an impossible contradiction that cannot be attributed to the wisdom and laws of Allaah.
(v)
It was narrated that ?Aa?ishah said The riders used to pass by us when we were with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in ihraam. When they came near us we would lower our jilbaabs from our heads over our faces, and when they had passed by we would uncover our faces. Narrated by Abu Dawood, 1562.
The words ?When they came near us we would lower our jilbaabs from our heads over our faces? indicate that it is obligatory to cover the face, because what is prescribed in ihraam is to uncover it. If there was no strong reason to prevent uncovering it, it would be obligatory to leave it uncovered even when the riders were passing by. In other words, women are obliged to uncover their faces during ihraam according to the majority of scholars, and nothing can override something that is obligatory except something else that is also obligatory. If it were not obligatory to observe hijab and cover the face in the presence of non-mahram men, there would be no reason not to uncover it in ihraam. It was proven in al-Saheehayn and elsewhere that a woman in ihraam is forbidden to wear the niqaab (face veil) and gloves.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said This is one of the things which indicate that the niqaab and gloves were known among women who were not in ihraam, which implies that they covered their faces and hands.
These are nine points of evidence from the Qur?aan and Sunnah.
The tenth is
Rational examination and analogy which form the basis of this perfect sharee?ah, which aims to help people achieve what is in their best interests and encourages the means that lead to that, and to denounce evil and block the means that lead to it.
If we think about unveiling and women showing their faces to non-mahram men, we will see that it involves many bad consequences. Even if we assume that there are some benefits in it, they are very few in comparison with its negative consequences. Those negative consequences include
1 ? Fitnah (temptation). By unveiling her face, a woman may be tempted to do things to make her face look more beautiful. This is one of the greatest causes of evil and corruption.
2 ? Taking away haya? (modesty, shyness) from women, which is part of faith and of a woman?s nature (fitrah). Women are examples of modesty, as it was said, ?more shy than a virgin in her seclusion.? Taking away a woman?s modesty detracts from her faith and the natural inclination with which she was created.
3 ? Men may be tempted by her, especially if she is beautiful and she flirts, laughs and jokes, as happens in the case of many of those who are unveiled. The Shaytaan flows through the son of Adam like blood.
4 ? Mixing of men and women. If a woman thinks that she is equal with men in uncovering her face and going around unveiled, she will not be modest and will not feel too shy to mix with men. This leads to a great deal of fitnah (temptation) and widespread corruption. Al-Tirmidhi narrated (5272) from Hamzah ibn Abi Usayd from his father that he heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say, when he was coming out of the mosque and he saw men mingling with women in the street; the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to the women, ?Draw back, and do not walk in the middle of the road; keep to the sides of the road.? Then the women used to keep so close to the walls that their garments would catch on the walls because they kept so close to them.
Classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami?, 929
Adapted from the words of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ?Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) in Risaalat al-Hijaab.
And Allaah knows best.
http//www.islamqa.com/en/ref/11774/
-
There is an important matter that is giving me sleepless nights, which is what is the meaning of the differences of the imam concerning a certain issue? If I say to someone that Shaykh So and so says that something is haraam, he says to me that is according to his madhhab or the madhhab of his country, and we follow a different madhhab that says it is halaal.
This led me to the issue of hijab. For example, my country follows the Maaliki madhhab, the imams of which say that ?that which is apparent? refers to the face and hands. In addition to that, the face-veil is virtually banned in my country, i.e., you could never wear it in your daily life, such as wearing it at work or in school. There are laws that ban it and the gloves.
Although personally I am fully convinced about the face-veil, I cannot wear it. What is your ruling on that? Because every time I listen to tapes about hijab from Shaykhs from another madhhab, I feel that my hijab is not Islamically acceptable, and I understand from their words that I am currently unveiled and making a wanton display of myself (tabarruj) and I am a cause of fitnah among this ummah. What should we do, as we are confused?.
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly
At the time of the Revelation, the Muslims learned the rulings of Islam from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) through the verses of the Holy Qur?aan and the ahaadeeth of his Sunnah. Hence there were no differences of opinion among them except with regard to some minor issues. If that happened, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would explain to them what was correct.
When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died and the Sahaabah spread out to various regions to teach the people Islam, there appeared some differences with regard to some matters of fiqh which arose at different times and in different places. These differences were due to a number of reasons, which we will sum up here from the words of the scholars
1- The evidence had not reached the one who held a different opinion, and he made a mistake in forming his opinion.
2- The hadeeth had reached the scholar, but he did not regard the transmitter as trustworthy, and he thought that it went against something that was stronger, so he followed that which he thought was stronger than it.
3- The hadeeth had reached him but he forgot it.
4- The hadeeth had reached him but he understood it in a way other than the intended meaning.
5- The hadeeth reached him but it was abrogated, and he did not know the abrogating text.
6- He thought that it contradicted something that was stronger than it, whether that was a text or scholarly consensus (ijmaa?)
7- The scholar used a weak hadeeth as the basis for his ruling, or he derived the ruling by means of weak arguments.
For a detailed discussion of these reasons and others, see Raf? al-Malaam ?an al-A?immati?l-A?laam by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, and al-Khilaaf bayna al-?Ulama? Asbaabuhu wa Mawqifuna minhu by Shaykh al-?Uthaymeen.
We think that what we have mentioned about the reasons for differences among the scholars i.e., with regard to matters of fiqh, will be clear to you, in sha Allaah.
Secondly
What should the Muslim?s attitude be towards differences that arise between the scholars? In other words, which scholarly opinion should the Muslim follow in matters where they differed? The answer depends
1 ? If the Muslim is one who has studied shar?i knowledge and learned its basic principles and minor issues, and he can distinguish right from wrong with regard to scholarly views, then he has to follow that which he thinks is correct and ignore that which he thinks is wrong.
2 ? If he is one of the rank and file, or has not studied shar?i knowledge, and thus cannot distinguish between right and wrong with regard to scholarly views, then he must follow the fatwa of a scholar whose knowledge he trusts and who he believes to be trustworthy and religiously committed, whether he is from his own country or another country, and differences between scholars will not matter after that. He does not have to change what he is doing because he hears another scholar issuing a fatwa that differs from the one he is following, unless he realizes that what he learned later on is the correct view, on the basis of his confidence in the religious commitment and knowledge of the second Shaykh.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-?Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said
The one who has knowledge of evidence is required to follow the evidence, even if it goes against some of the imams, if it does not go against the consensus of the ummah.
The one who does not have any knowledge should ask the scholars, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning) ?So ask of those who know the Scripture, if you know not? . He should ask one who he thinks has more knowledge and is more religiously committed, but that does not mean that doing so obligatory, because the one who is better may make a mistake with regard to a particular issue, and the one who is regarded as less knowledgeable may be right with regard to it. But priority should be given to following the one who is more knowledgeable and more religiously committed.
See also the answers to questions no. 8294 and 10645.
Thirdly
If you ask about our view on the issue of covering the face, the most correct scholarly view in our opinion is that it is obligatory to cover the face in front of non-mahram men. There is a great deal of evidence and scholarly views concerning that, as among the Maalikis. Many of them said that it is not permissible for a woman to uncover her face in front of non-mahram men, not because it is ?awrah but because uncovering it runs the risk of fitnah. But some of them think that it is ?awrah. Hence women, in their view, are forbidden to go out in front of non-mahram men with their faces uncovered.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen?
al-Qaadi Abu Bakr ibn al-?Arabi al-Maaliki (may Allaah have mercy on him) said
The entire woman is ?awrah, her body and her voice, so it is not permissible to uncover that except in cases of necessity, such as when testimony is given against her, or medical treatment, or asking her about her health issues. End quote.
Ahkaam al-Qur?aan by Ibn al-?Arabi (3/1578, 1579).
Al-Qurtubi (may Allaah have mercy on him), who is also Maaliki, said
This verse indicates that Allaah has given permission to ask of them from behind a screen if there is some need, or when they ask a question about something. That includes all women. Because it is a basic shar?i principle that the entire woman is ?awrah, her body and her voice ? as stated above ?it is not permissible to uncover that except in cases of necessity such as when testimony is given against her, or medical treatment, or asking her about her health issues. End quote.
In al-Jaami? li Ahkaam al-Qur?aan (14/227) it says
For more information on the views of Maaliki fuqaha? concerning the obligation for women to cover their faces, see al-Ma?yaar al-Mu?arrab by al-Wanshireesi (10/165 and 11/226 and 229), Mawaahib al-Jaleel by al-Hattaab (3/141), al-Dhakheerah by al-Quraafi (3/307) and Haashiyat al-Dasooqi ?ala al-Sharh al-Kabeer (2/55).
We have discussed this issue and its evidence in more than one answer on this site. Please see the answers to questions no. 11774, 12525, 13998, 21134 and 21536.
Fourthly
With regard to what you mention about the laws in your country forbidding women to cover their faces, that is something that makes us feel very sad, to hear that covering and chastity are being opposed and wanton display and unveiling are being encouraged everywhere, especially when that happens in a country that is supposed to be Muslim.
If the laws forbid women to cover, and you fear persecution because of covering your faces, then there is no sin on you if you do not do it in that case, so long as that is based on necessity. So a woman should not go out of her house with her face uncovered except in cases of necessity. If she can break the law and put up with a little bit of hassle, let her do so for there is no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience towards the Creator.
See also the answer to question no. 2198 and 45672.
And Allaah knows best.
http//www.islamqa.com/en/ref/68152/
-
As I browse some of the answers I found this phrase the most correct ruling, this was about the ruling of covering woman face, while I found that most scolars say the oppisite regarding this issue, I found it in the "al-fiqh alaa almathahib al arbaa'a by abdelrahman aljazeeri".
Then how come the shiekh did not mention this and just state one opinion, I can understand if the sheikh sees the strongest opinion for that is his, but the others too see theirs as well. Then why did not he tell us that this is based on his opinion and not the majority of scholars.
Praise be to Allaah.
This phrase, ?the most correct opinion?, means that the opinion chosen is the strongest opinion in terms of evidence.
It does not mean that it is the view of the majority of fuqaha?; it may be so, or it may be the view of some of them.
hmm
The view which we chose ? which is that it is obligatory for women to cover their faces ? is what is indicated by the Qur?aan and Sunnah, and was the practice of the believing women for many centuries.It is also the view expressed in fatwas by contemporary scholars such as ?Abd al-?Azeez ibn Baaz, Ibn ?Uthaymeen, the scholars of the Standing Committee (al-Lajnah al-Daa?imah) and others.
The Standing Committee, under the leadership of Shaykh ?Abd al-?Azeez ibn Baaz, was asked the following question Is the woman?s face ?awrah?
They replied
?Yes, the woman?s face is ?awrah according to the more correct of the two scholarly opinions.?
Majallat al-Buhooth al-Islamiyyah, 24/75.
It should be noted that when there is a difference of opinion, Muslims are obliged to refer to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as Allaah commanded when He said (interpretation of the meaning)
?(And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allaah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allaah and in the Last Day?
By referring to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), it becomes clear that the Muslim woman is obliged to cover her face in front of non-mahram men. There follows some of the evidence for that
1 ? Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever OftForgiving, Most Merciful?
Al-Bukhaari narrated that ?Aa?ishah said ?May Allaah have mercy on the Muhaajir women! When Allaah revealed the words ?and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)? they tore their aprons and covered their faces with them.? See also question no. 6991.
2 ? Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent?
In this verse, Allaah forbids showing all adornment except that which is apparent, which is that which a woman cannot avoid showing, such as the outer garment. Hence Allaah said ?except only that which is apparent?, and He did not say, except that which they show. Then He again forbade showing any adornment, except to those for whom an exception is made ?. This indicates that the adornment mentioned in the second phrase is not like the adornment mentioned in the first; the first adornment is that which appears in all cases and cannot be hidden, and the second adornment is that which is hidden, and is done deliberately . If it were permissible for everyone to see the hidden adornment, then there would be not point of speaking in general terms about the first and making an exception in the case of the second adornment.
3 ? Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)
?O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever OftForgiving, Most Merciful?
Ibn ?Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said ?Allaah commanded the believing women, when they go out of their houses for some need, to cover their faces from the top of the head with the jilbaab, and to leave only one eye showing.?
There is a great deal of evidence. Please see also questions no. 13646, 21536, 23496
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
http//www.islamqa.com/en/ref/12525
-
I used to know a friend who was a hijabi. And would waste no time in pointing out how great it is to be one and how it is one of the biggest things a woman can do to show her devotion to God, how anyone not being one was definitely on the wrong path and so on. If I was to respond to her honestly, a friend to a friend, woman to another woman, calling a spade a spade saying you know, you may have been told this from every angle since growing up so it may not be surprising that you've grown up believing this but I think you are evidently wrong because "insert quranic stance on hijab". Would this be mocking, patronising and hypocritical? Because I brought up what I think is a potential factor for her reasons for believing what she does?
If she responds "Nay, ye foul woman, I have read into this just recently and lo I have realised this is the way to go" and I respond alright, what persuaded you to realise? Would I be wrong/mocking/patronising/hypocritical to have brought up for discussion another potential factor that may have indoctrinated her into thinking a certain way? Because clearly, she isn't thinking critically?
Likewise if someone says, "The Islamic God really requires women to cover every inch of their bodies including their eyes" clearly something has indoctrinated the person into believing this. Whether it's a flawed methodology involving extra quranic sources, whether it's the neighbour, whether it's just whatever. External sources are the obvious factors of such indoctrination. We'll rarely if ever have an eskimo spontaneously spouting the above sentence, well he might but change Islamic God to cold weather and women to people and so on. These external sources of indoctrination rely on any and all weapons in their arsenal to spread their beliefs. Guilt, pressure, superior numbers whatever. Just because someone follows a flawed methodology doesn't mean he wasn't indoctrinated into it. Whether by choice or whether by force. Someone or something did it, taught someone to believe something without critical examination.
-
Peace everyone
I haven't seen a human being on earth that is not brainwashed. If anyone knows a human being on earth that is not brainwashed send me a Pm, and I will send you a Superman costume so you can wear it when you go to school ;D Haha. Just kidding.
Isn't everyone brainwashed, more or less? I don't know about you, but I constantly delete old programming, and free myself from false ideas and beliefs. I think the search for truth will last our whole life. And brainwashing isn't limited to just religion. People can be brainwashed when it comes to politics, psychology, sociology, medicine, science, technology, statistics, economy and lots of other topics. Truth be told.
-
Aside from the fact that you can't determine when someone is brainwashed?
What's stupid is that it serves no purpose to refer to someone as brainwashed they can throw the same claim back at you. What purpose does it serve? It's not an objective assertion, and it most certainly can't be supported empirically. It's a use of language to insult people.
What's also stupid is that the basis of her entire argument was that these hijabis in particular patronise non-hijabis (<-- absolutely critical point). So to then call these women 'brainwashed' is what, exactly? Respectful? Productive? Reasonable? No, it's patronising.
I do and can disagree. If their entire methodology revolves around extra-qur'anic sources, then their reasoning allows for things like hijab and niqab. They can reach this conclusion objectively, because their entire methodology is different. Of course, it's flawed, but that's irrelevant. Brainwashing suggests they've been coerced at a psychological level without their knowing. You can't prove this, so why claim it? It is patronising to call someone brainwashed. It also opens and closes the debate in one go, given that you can't actually respond to someone who says you're brainwashed.
Which is a battle each and every one of us fights every day of our lives. Misinformation leading to misunderstanding does not equate to brainwashing.
But you can't tell when someone is brainwashed into doing something. It's not as if you're making an empirical claim here. You do injustice to the entire debate by simply reducing the complexities of blind following, hierarchical religious structures and developmental psychology by using the 'brainwashing' card.
Not much needs to be added to what savage_carrot said. Calculated misinformation IS brainwashing. It happens all the time, and not just from within religious structures.
If by 'objective' assertions, you mean we have to somehow be able to cleave someone's head open, and feel around in their brain for evidence of 'brainwash' wrinkles, then obviously 90% of message board discussions would never take place. This is part of debating. Not everything in debate is a formal geometrical proof. Judgments and estimations are made, reasons for motivations are surmised, etc. If the recipient of the 'brainwashed' claim chooses to feel offended, insulted, patronized, etc. well then, that's on them. We live in the real world. It ain't pretty. Thick skins are needed and whatnot. Similarly, if the recipient of the claim deems the 'brainwashed' term a total non-starter, as if to imply that they are somehow intellectually above the effects of brainwashing, then again, that's on them. If this person wants to act as if they are quite possibly the first person in human history to be impervious to the effects of brainwashing, then by all means, I would let them. And then slowly walk away.
I used to have a beard (long sunni beard)and considered it obligatory. Now are you claiming I was brainwashed? I will object even now to anyone suggesting I was brainwashed into keeping a beard. My (flawed) methodology led me to believe it was necessary, and I chose that path because it seemed to be the best. I was wrong, but why does that then make me brainwashed? Now if you say 'Oh no Mushu, obviously you weren't brainwashed, I'm talking about the others', I would ask how you're objectively differentiating between such people?
Unless people here are making an objective claim that these women are brainwashed, then you're guilty of using insulting language. I would take offence to anyone who suggested I was brainwashed, and so would all of you who are levelling this accusation at others.
If you wore a beard because you were told that God requires it of you, then yes. You were brainwashed. I'm sorry if that offends you, or if it's patronizing, or if you find it insulting. None of those visceral reactions changes the reality that you were, at least with regard to that issue, brainwashed. And again, no 'objective' assertion (whatever that means). Just a judgment based on ample amounts of experience and evidence. It's possible you were born and one day somehow magically came to this conclusion completely on your own. I'll take my chances and assume you are part of the 99.999999% who believed it required because someone (either directly or indirectly) told you it was.
Here's the thing as David_K said, we are all brainwashed to some degree. It is not some grand indictment on our character. It is the way of the world. The institutions of religion, of mass media, of government, are in large part successful because they are formalized brainwashing mechanisms. The institutions are only as good as their constituents' assent to their dictates.
If you haven't already, I highly suggest you read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. Brilliant read on the Propaganda Model of government/mass media; its points largely hold true for religion as well. We cannot fully escape brainwashing; it is unavoidable. That holds true for all of us. Not one person's thoughts are 100% original. Everyone, one way or another, operates on certain beliefs that were handed to them. Sometimes these beliefs/assumptions were forcibly fed to them, maybe fed to them in a sweet delicious package. Or perhaps they weren't fed by force at all; maybe the belief was simply sitting there appearing tantalizing (in large part because of the calculated goal of some institution which stood to benefit) waiting for some unsuspecting passerby to take a bite.
We cannot be completely rid of brainwashing. At best, we can hope to minimize its effects, counter it with tools like critical thinking and distribution of data that more accurately fit the facts. We can, like Leyna did, point it out where we find it, in an attempt to root it out. If a few people, gasp, feel offended or patronized along the way, then so be it. It's the world we live in.
-
Jack and Caveman Doctor
If some one does not agree with thoughts of Leyna he is awful poster, another one should take care while calling her hypocrite or so, but when she insults some one its just fine, when she hurts the feelings of million women wearing Hijab as brain washed that is modern enlightenment.
What a load of non-sense. No one has said that just because you don't agree with a certain poster itself makes you an awful poster. You're an awful poster because you are totally devoid of all logic, and instead of posting something using REASON, you opted to troll this thread with ill-thought nonsense. If you have a logical argument, great let's hear it. First time for everything and all.
I am the least bit interested in the WHO, I am a lot more interested in the WHAT/content. Also, I never said that Mushu doesn't have the right to call someone a hypocrite. It seemed to me his arguments were emotionally based, so I was making sure this was his actual stance.This is just an awful hypocritical stand.
You have no leg to stand on. No one in this thread has said anything about 'modern enlightenment'. But I understand since you are incapable of coming up with an argument any substance that you have to resort to making stuff up.
-
That these women are brainwashed? 'Might very well be' is not good enough. If you want to call me brainwashed, you better have some empirical evidence, or at least something I can objectively break down. If not, I'm gonna tell you to get lost. See why calling someone brainwashed is utterly pointless? It doesn't help the discussion and is patronising (the very thing Leyna was complaining about).
Perhaps I was being a bit humble when I said 'might very well be'... 'Empirical evidence' (whatever the heck is that) clearly is in favor of the brainwashing view.
It is not pointless, if it is the truth to the subject. Yes, It is an opinion and yes it's a subjective opinion, but surmised at through objective thinking. I have family who sport the hijab, and yes they are brainwashed as well.
But you aren't really trying to tell me that the reason many of the women who sport the hijab (not all, mind you) has nothing to do with upbringing? Or the superflous view that somehow sporting the hijab automatically makes you modest? I have known of women who wore hijabs by day; total sluts by night. It is utterly superficial. Just because someone has a tattoo doesn't make them into a gangbanger.
It proves nothing about your 'modesty'.Empirical evidence? You serious? What empirical evidence do you have for calling Leyna a hypocrite? Again, you have that right. But let's not be selective about this so-called 'insults'. Which gets me to my next point. 'Insult' is a subjective criteria. One man's insult is another man's truth. We certainly shouldn't hide from the truth or to ease it off to save people's feelings.
-
Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual "systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulate.
If she responds "Nay, ye foul woman, I have read into this just recently and lo I have realised this is the way to go" and I respond alright, what persuaded you to realise? Would I be wrong/mocking/patronising/hypocritical to have brought up for discussion another potential factor that may have indoctrinated her into thinking a certain way? Because clearly, she isn't thinking critically?
Lacking in critical thinking does not equal brainwashed. But here's the thing SC, do you believe there's such thing as critical thinking? Because some of the responses here are something of a cop-out/shifting the goal posts.
These external sources of indoctrination rely on any and all weapons in their arsenal to spread their beliefs. Guilt, pressure, superior numbers whatever. Just because someone follows a flawed methodology doesn't mean he wasn't indoctrinated into it. Whether by choice or whether by force. Someone or something did it, taught someone to believe something without critical examination.
And this is what I meant by shifting the goal posts. You seem to be implying here that even if someone came to a false conclusion by choice and critical thinking, they may still be a victim of indoctrination. Can you have it both ways? Either they displayed some critical thinking but ended up on the wrong path or they were indoctrinated. By refusing to make a distinction between the two (and the spectrum between them), you're essentially suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you could be brainwashed.
If simply falling for false concepts with no coercion involved equals brainwashing/indoctrination, then it follows that we're all possibly brainwashed. And if that's the case, what's the point of using the term in any argument? It serves no purpose.
Calculated misinformation IS brainwashing.
No it's not. There's a difference between influencing someone and brainwashing them.
Not everything in debate is a formal geometrical proof. Judgments and estimations are made, reasons for motivations are surmised, etc.
Fine. But simply referring to niqabis as 'brainwashed' is nonsense. Group psychoanalysis based on a forum post is bollocks.
This is a form of reductionism. How people come to certain conclusion is more than simply who brainwashed them when. If it was, there can be no debate about anything, since we're all brainwashed and lack the faculty of critical thinking. It's only because we know there is such thing as objective truths and critical thinking, that the term itself has any value.
If you wore a beard because you were told that God requires it of you, then yes. You were brainwashed. I'm sorry if that offends you, or if it's patronizing, or if you find it insulting. None of those visceral reactions changes the reality that you were, at least with regard to that issue, brainwashed. And again, no 'objective' assertion (whatever that means). Just a judgment based on ample amounts of experience and evidence. It's possible you were born and one day somehow magically came to this conclusion completely on your own. I'll take my chances and assume you are part of the 99.999999% who believed it required because someone (either directly or indirectly) told you it was.
We're essentially talking different languages here. Since no one lives in a vacuum, it is impossible to magically come to any conclusion whatsoever, so this is a moot point. Coming to a conclusion because you have been convinced without being coerced knowingly or uknowingly is different to being brainwashed.
So the fact that I chose to pick up a few books, read them, analysed them critically to the best of my ability at that time, and felt convinced by them amounted to me being brainwashed? This is equivocation.
Here's the thing as David_K said, we are all brainwashed to some degree.
Which again proves that throwing the claim around is pointless to begin with, and is done solely to insult the intelligence of the one it is aimed at.
People must make up their minds. If you believe in objective truth and critical thinking, then stay true to these concepts when discussing the issue of brainwashing. Saying 'oh we're all brainwashed to a degree' is a cop-out. If you accept there is indeed something called critical thinking, then you must also accept that we all have different capacities at different times to think critically. This leads to people reaching incorrect conclusions despite sincere efforts. By lumping these people in with those who have been brainwashed does no justice to the debate. And influenced should not be equated with brainwashed. Many of us are influenced by things which cloud or ability to think critically, but this does not mean we are brainwashed.
I believe several people who have posted so far are guilty of equivocation. Truth, falsehood, critical thinking, brainwashed, influenced, coerced, intent, all have distinct meanings. Confusing them makes debate impossible.
This is a tangent. We all know in what context and tone 'brainwashed' was used originally. It had nothing to do with a wider observation of the human psyche or the supposed inherent nature of our brainwashability, it was used to patronise a particular group of people. The hypocrisy was the fact that this instance of patronising was done by someone who was complaining of being patronised by others.
-
Empirical evidence? You serious? What empirical evidence do you have for calling Leyna a hypocrite? Again, you have that right. But let's not be selective about this so-called 'insults'. Which gets me to my next point. 'Insult' is a subjective criteria. One man's insult is another man's truth. We certainly shouldn't hide from the truth or to ease it off to save people's feelings.
I've made it clear already why she's a hypocrite. She was complaining about patronising rhetoric in pro-hijab literature towards non-hijabis, whilst at the same time patronising others. This wasn't just the brainwashing comment, she also mockingly posted a poem by a hijabi wrapped in emoticons. The tone and intent was clear. I don't like hypocrisy.
-
If simply falling for false concepts with no coercion involved equals brainwashing/indoctrination, then it follows that we're all possibly brainwashed. And if that's the case, what's the point of using the term in any argument? It serves no purpose.
Sure it does. Shades of gray. (A) All humans being brainwashed to a certain extent, and (B) humans pointing out/criticizing brainwashing where it persists, are not mutually exclusive concepts. Surely you see this?
Not all statements/beliefs are made equally. If I say I believe the world rests on the back of a Giant Tortoise -- a belief I have come to accept because a high priest rather convincingly described it to me so -- and you respond that that's hardly the case, citing satellite photography, etc, are our statements equal in value? Are both our statements just as equally stained by indoctrination? Be reasonable. Stop thinking in absolutes. We're talking about a spectrum here.
No it's not. There's a difference between influencing someone and brainwashing them.
What you keep calling equivocation I can call semantics. It's a fine line after all. It's pointless to get into an almost arbitrary discussion of the finer nuances of what the word 'brainwashing' means. Systematic influencing -- often undergirded by fear-based tactics -- is tantamount to brainwashing, to me.
Seems like you think brainwashing only occurs in the bowels of CIA headquarters or something. A Clockwork Orange this is not. Brainwashing, or systematic influencing if that term is more palatable to you, occurs all the time, on many different levels, ranging from minor to major, from subtle to explicit, etc.
We're essentially talking different languages here. Since no one lives in a vacuum, it is impossible to magically come to any conclusion whatsoever, so this is a moot point. Coming to a conclusion because you have been convinced without being coerced knowingly or uknowingly is different to being brainwashed.
And this is precisely the point. There are no vacuums. But again, not all beliefs are made equally.
You're brainwashed on some things. I'm brainwashed on some things. We all are. What varies is what we are brainwashed on, and to what extent. Where we differ is you take issue with it being pointed out. I don't. What's wrong with pointing it out? Yes, we are all brainwashed. Instead of sweeping it under the rug, why not bring it up to the surface and talk about it? Who cares who gets offended. Is that the only criterion used when engaging in discussions? Amount of toe-stepping? Come on.
Saying 'oh we're all brainwashed to a degree' is a cop-out. If you accept there is indeed something called critical thinking, then you must also accept that we all have different capacities at different times to think critically. This leads to people reaching incorrect conclusions despite sincere efforts.
It's not just about sincerity. You can be very earnest and sincere, and still be a victim of brainwashing. Certainly I am brainwashed about certain things; doesn't make me an evil person with cruel intentions. Just makes me human. It is what it is. But again, I'm willing to admit it. I'm willing to listen. I won't get upset and cry foul if someone were to point out something in me that indicated brainwashing. Self-examination is a continuous process.
In fact, it is this openness to doubting oneself that has, I suspect, lead most of us away from our sectarian pasts and onto message boards such as the one we find ourselves on right now. It was that revelation of "oy, maybe I was brainwashed all along."
-
Lacking in critical thinking does not equal brainwashed. But here's the thing SC, do you believe there's such thing as critical thinking? Because some of the responses here are something of a cop-out/shifting the goal posts.
Lacking in critical thinking would mean you would believe something without examining it hence being indoctrinated as in the context of this thread for example. Your definition does not contradict this.And this is what I meant by shifting the goal posts. You seem to be implying here that even if someone came to a false conclusion by choice and critical thinking, they may still be a victim of indoctrination. Can you have it both ways? Either they displayed some critical thinking but ended up on the wrong path or they were indoctrinated. By refusing to make a distinction between the two (and the spectrum between them), you're essentially suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you could be brainwashed.
If simply falling for false concepts with no coercion involved equals brainwashing/indoctrination, then it follows that we're all possibly brainwashed. And if that's the case, what's the point of using the term in any argument? It serves no purpose.
There is no shifting of goal posts, discussions naturally evolve into different areas, micro/macro and so on. Levels, facets and aspects apply. There is no button that we push in our brains called "critical thinking" and suddenly truth manifests forever more for that particular subject or everything else for that matter. There is no 1/0. E.g. You start on a path, you apply reason according to what you know and you end up at square 2. Later in life, with new information you apply reason and end up at square 5. We've all been here, in fact we are here right here right now.Anyone could be brainwashed/indoctrinated, in fact most of us are. That is why it is so important to call it if you think so, bring it up and out in the open so that we all can all apply critical thinking, take in new information, be better, more informed and reasonable human beings in a best case scenario. Exactly why the so called negative is such a learning experience is (if we aren't broken down in tears by it) Someone calls you something you perceive as horrible and you are jerked into asking why, how and maybe even wtf but that usually comes later when you've decided the dude is an idiot. Some things are relatively easier to reason and many many more things get harder with time and information.
This is what we are doing on the thread. Is Mushu coming out guns blazing for no apparent reason? Is Leyna really a hypocrite hmm? Is SC a crazy cat lady? Yes, we have said it because we thought so and now we can ponder upon this and make our minds up hopefully based on reason. That is the point of a discussion, bring things out and it can benefit everyone participating/reading. In a best case scenario as I said. Even train wrecks we can learn from.
-
Peace everyone
I haven't seen a human being on earth that is not brainwashed. If anyone knows a human being on earth that is not brainwashed send me a Pm, and I will send you a Superman costume so you can wear it when you go to school ;D Haha. Just kidding.
Isn't everyone brainwashed, more or less? I don't know about you, but I constantly delete old programming, and free myself from false ideas and beliefs. I think the search for truth will last our whole life. And brainwashing isn't limited to just religion. People can be brainwashed when it comes to politics, psychology, sociology, medicine, science, technology, statistics, economy and lots of other topics. Truth be told.
I've been a little stunned by what happened here. It really took off!!
David_K I tend to agree and would take it further to add - show me a person who is not a hypocrite. I seriously think we all are in some way or another simply due to the fact that I don't see anyone who is perfect. We all have an idea of what is right (though naturally our ideas may differ widely) but who is perfect in their execution of them in practice? I know I'm not. (Well, I'm almost perfect angel but not everyone can be like me )
-
peace Rana,
What I wonder about is when discussing private and apparent how do we know that we are right. If we work from 2431 then, since it doesn't spell things out, we still have to work out for ourselves what to keep private. It makes complete sense to me that I should cover my chest, hips etc and that my face, arms etc are ''apparent''. But isn't that only correct because I'm using the society I know as the yardstick and who is to say that is correct?
Aren't we all just doing that? And maybe that is ok. Maybe that is what we are meant to do. I just feel like I don't know right now. I'm lacking that ''sure'' feeling I guess.
The "sure" feeling is over-rated
Perhaps it will be helpful if you can show your "working-out" for 2431, i.e. go through the misconceptions site, then apply your own reasoning to 2431 and post your thought process here. This will help us identify any problem areas, if any, thus refining your answer more towards the "sure" side.
-
peace Rana,
The "sure" feeling is over-rated
Haha, yes you're probably right.
Perhaps it will be helpful if you can show your "working-out" for 2431, i.e. go through the misconceptions site, then apply your own reasoning to 2431 and post your thought process here. This will help us identify any problem areas, if any, thus refining your answer more towards the "sure" side.
Good idea. I'll give it a go tonight. I had better go now and be a good student. tempt
-
The Qurans rules on clothing, would be called conservative today.
I used to believe abit in the modesty of the veil. I never interpreted it to be from The Quran, however nuns have wore it aswell, and so maybe I was culturally indoctrined to think positively of it.
However, it's hiding. The Quran mentions conservative clothing, and then something like "so that your persons may show", or "so that you may be known as people". Or some similar translation.
I don't believe living behind a veil, is becoming known as a person. It's a bit like being untrue. You are simply hiding too much, maybe to the point, that you are missing out on a normal life. And that of learning to trust, that indeed, normal people do not rape you if you do not wear a veil. However, some deviant pseudomuslims, love and even worship women with a veil. It's a kind of learned deviance. What I'd say is, learn to trust your environment, without hijab. Gain respect as a person. Avoid deviant people. -
rana,
'hijab' as defined by men (not God) to mean a woman covering her head has become
...remembering that God exists
...strengthening sisterhood
...statement of a woman's iman
...respect/obedience to her husband
...a measure of whether your prayers are accepted or not
....as well as determination if other members in your family will go to heaven or not
... symbol of liberation.
....symbol of beauty
....symbol of strength
....symbol of pride
....an identity/declaration of a woman's religion....a symbol, a statement.
how did people get all of that from ayat 2431? i don't get it.
-
Oh wow. So many responses here O_O.
For years, this sort of propaganda has been directed at us, and for a long time women, including myself, have tried to ignore it and not speak up against the continuous attempts at making us feel guilty if we don't want to cover our heads, and at the increasing dominance of the subject in any discussion regarding Muslim women. Doing so, we have been told, means we are not being sisterly, we are being unsupportive of women who fight for their right to wear hijab and so on.
I can see where you?re coming from. But really, I haven?t really encountered many continuous attempts at making me guilty for not covering my heads. I have not been told that I am not being sisterly nor have I been told that I am unsupportive of the women?s rights. I befriend hijabis, I work with hijabis, and traditional muslim brothers. No one has treated me differently nor make any comments regarding my non-observance of the hijabs. It all depends how you treat the situation. If you have problems with women wearing the headscarf for whatever reason, then they will have problems with you not wearing the headscarf. I don?t want to make generalisation based on my own experience though, because it seems you have gone through it differently in such a way that you feel you have been guilt-tripped by traditional muslims around you.
It is fine if you want to stand up to your beliefs. But why post such a pro-hijab article and poem, and assert comments that have negative remarks here? As Mushu stated previously, it appears that you are merely patronising them here (when you are aware that a good amount of people here don?t believe in observing the headscarf). If you want to make your point and defend Qur?anic views on modesty, why don?t you friendly discuss it with those women by quoting Qur?anic verses?
Texts like the above are BS, full of silly stereotypes, patronizing rhetorics and anti-Western propaganda. And the ideology behind the niqab is sick. For a long time we've been bullied into not speaking up against this nonsense while those texts keep popping up everywhere.
For you, the ideology may be totally sick, but for some others, it is their way of expressing their faith. Besides, you do not know what they have gone through, that they decide to wear it on their own will. Don?t get me wrong, I oppose it when niqabs are forced upon the women when they don?t want to wear it. But in the text, it appears that she has made the decision herself based on what the sheikh told her. No one else put it on her. Anyway, it may surprise you that many women take comfort in wearing the niqabs. Many feel closer to God by doing so because they detach themselves from the outside world. Many feel more secure because it lessens the harassment that they experience. Many feel more loving because they get to ?reserve their beauty? for their husbands, and ultimately their way of expressing their love. I do not agree with them, but I can understand to some extent.
The women from the site those texts are taken from are anything but sisterly, btw. As soon as you dare having your own opinion, i.e. in regards to hijab, the saccharine sweetness makes place for a lot of bitter venom. You will get attacked, being accused of being arrogant, not pious enough, rejecting the truth and so on. There is no room for discussion, exchange of thoughts, having your own opinion is a big no-no. Either you follow the view of the scholars, in this case the Salafi scholars, or you're pretty much an unbeliever.
As I have stated previously, you must be living in a totally different world from me. I have always expressed my views on headscarf whenever my friends or relatives bring the topic up (yes I know plenty who post pro-hijab articles), and we do get into a little debate and discussion. But no one has ever said I was arrogant, or immodest, or rejecting the truth. In the end, we always close it with laa kum diinukum wa liyaa diin.
Leyna isn't using the brainwashing card solely because these women are holding a different position. She's merely stating that anyone who believes that God requires (<--absolutely critical phrase) you to cover your entire body is brainwashed. And can any of us here really disagree? We all believe in the qur'an here. Clearly nowhere in the qur'an does it say that God requires such a thing. So, for someone to believe that is the case, well...some level of brainwashing has to be at play here, does it not? Again, what is so "stupid" about what she said?
Misinformation and mistranslation are not necessarily brainwashing. By the way, we are all aware that no verse in the Qur?an tells the women to cover their heads, that is because we have access to unadulterated version of the Qur?an, and enough technology to dissect the Qur?an word by word. But for some people, unfortunately they only have what is in front them, and they cannot afford to learn Arabic. I say that because in a country where I grew up in, had a horribly mistranslated version of the Qur?an, in which, people who don?t understand Arabic will think that covering the whole body is necessary.
For example is the verse 3359 where we understand to mean that the women should lengthen their outer garment when abroad. The key word is outer garment (jilbaab). In Indonesian version, the word jilbaab is left as an Arabic word, so it reads something like, tell the believing women to lengthen their jilbaab over their body when abroad. The word jilbab actually exists in Indonesian dictionary, and it means headscarf. So upon reading such a verse, they will think that it is necessary to cover their body, with oversized headscarf. People already have pre-conceived views of what jilbab is, and it?s the same case with salaat, hajj etc. That does not necessarily mean that they are brainwashed. Misinformed, yes. I believe it is more due to the evolution of language, and people?s current methodology in translating and interpreting ancient texts (in this case, the Qur?an), rather than someone deliberately trying to brainwash the readers.
Not everyone understands Arabic root word system to understand what khimar, jilbaab etc really mean, and not everyone has the technology or resources to translate the Qur?an word by word. I personally was ready to put on the headscarf, because the Indonesian translation of the Qur?an that I had, clearly said that I had to wear a jilbab.
That goes with some Englist translated Qur?an too. Many translations actually translate khimar as a veil or a headscarf, so for some people, it is ?clear? for them to cover-up. Brainwashed? Maybe, maybe not. I?d say misinformed.
I take issue with this. Brainwashing is very much a crime. It is not just relegated to one individual. It feeds upon itself, it festers, and spreads. On one level, a woman is just choosing to believe however she believes, but on another, she is acting as a conduit through which these falsehoods are spreading themselves.
While brainwashing is a crime, being brainwashed is not. She is more of a victim of brainwashing or rather, mental-slavery where she is being controlled by her ideology. Her intention is not to incite harm, hatred or female inferiority, what drove her in the first place is her desire to get closer to God. Yes, she may be preaching to others about the greatness of wearing the headscarf/body covering, but essentially it is up to every individual to take her words or not. It?s their own free will, the woman is not forcing other women to wear the covering. She merely illustrated her own personal experience in covering up, which have been liberating and enlightening.
What's also stupid is that the basis of her entire argument was that these hijabis in particular patronise non-hijabis (<-- absolutely critical point). So to then call these women 'brainwashed' is what, exactly? Respectful? Productive? Reasonable? No, it's patronising.
While I want to refrain from using the word ?stupid?, I?ll say it is ironic and serves no purpose, to patronise others for patronising us. It?ll end up in an endless cycle, and nothing done.
Which is a battle each and every one of us fights every day of our lives. Misinformation leading to misunderstanding does not equate to brainwashing.
Ditto. Many of us are still in the process of unlearning the falsehood that is being taught to us, we don?t have the absolute knowledge. We are misinformed in certain areas, and our duty to strive for knowledge.
We cannot be 100% certain that we know all truth. We take something as the truth because we think that it is logical and gives us peace by applying it. In these women?s case, they think the covering is logical and they obtain comfort by doing so. So, it is their truth. We may not agree, but hey, each to their own. If you think these women are brainwashed or oppressed or mentally enslaved etc, by all means, do something constructive. Dissect their live experiences, understand their minds and thoughts, and try educate them in the best, friendliest manner, using Qur?anic evidence. Having a go at them here, serves no purpose really.
Forgive me if I think like this, Leyna. But I did get the impression that you were making fun of the hijabi sister by posting those emoticons along with the poem. It is her life experience, her battle in life and something that is obviously dear to her heart, and to invalidate that just because you don?t believe the same way is disheartening. Sure, she may put forward the whole ?omg-the-world-is-full-of-lust?, but that is what she is perceiving and experiencing right now.
In regards to CD?s post about ?God requires such and such?, well, her methodology of understanding the Qur?an concludes that women are required to cover up. For us, it is ?clearly not true?, but in her case, it is ?clearly true?, because we have different methodology. And each of us is content with our approach, with no one being forced into doing so.
I used to have a beard (long sunni beard)and considered it obligatory. Now are you claiming I was brainwashed? I will object even now to anyone suggesting I was brainwashed into keeping a beard. My (flawed) methodology led me to believe it was necessary, and I chose that path because it seemed to be the best. I was wrong, but why does that then make me brainwashed? Now if you say 'Oh no Mushu, obviously you weren't brainwashed, I'm talking about the others', I would ask how you're objectively differentiating between such people?
We?ve all been ?brainwashed? into doing something. Our approach in life, the way we perceive something, the way we behave are shaped by our environment and experience. Your past ?Islamic-learning environment? led you to believe that sporting a beard was the best path, and you chose to implement it on your own free will, and you were content with it. I?ll have no problem with that, as long as you are happy with it and you don?t shove a gun down my brother?s or my friends? throat threatening them to grow a beard or else!
My objection to Leyna's post is the double-standards she's displaying. You can't complain about the patronising rhetoric of pro-hijab literature if at the same time you patronise them by calling them brainwashed.
More or less like that. Some traditionalists may call non-hijabis are sexual, lust-inducing lowly creatures, while some of us may refer the hijabis as submissive, brainwashed, uncritically thinking group of people. Basically the same act, but different wording, based on different way of thinking.
So it is not a decision making process based on research, taking into proper account various interpretations and opinions and then arriving at your own. It is a process which is, from the beginning, limited and biased because it is based on the belief that you HAVE to follow scholars, and particular ones at that. It is a decision based on the belief that there is no such thing as free choice, that we are not allowed to reflect on the Qur'an and arrive at our own understanding, that obeying the scholars means to obey God. It is a decision making process that is based on not being allowed to analyze ALL points of view and ask critical questions. So how on earth can we call this free choice? There is brainwash involved and the Salafis, like any cult, are experts at brainwash techniques.
Not everyone has the luxury of being able to research. Not everyone has the means and resources to do so. Not everyone understands the history of hadith compilations to know its unreliability. Many countries only have one version of the Qur?an, and one interpretation. They are victims, and not the perpetrators. Besides, it is free-will, because they choose to implement one-sided view of Islam. They?re free to reject and not apply in their lives. If you have one food, and just one food, in front of you, and you decide to eat it without thinking there is another available food out there, that is free-will. You can decide not to eat it. Same case with the women. They have a choice of wearing the covering, and not wearing it. No one?s forcing them. They may be ridden by guilt for not covering, but they choose to do it. Same with us not wearing the headscarf. I choose not to wear a headscarf in day-to-day activity (in where I currently live), because I don?t want to give the impression that Islam mandates the headscarf for women. I know I?ll feel guilty by doing so. I?ll only wear it when circumstances ask me for it.
That's why I keep returning to the point that this is not simply about headscarf and choice ? what I am talking about is that the niqab is inextricably tied to the Salafi ideology, which is a dangerous, hateful, misogynist and fascist cult.
I can understand where you?re coming from, but it seems like you are patronising the women who chose to cover, rather than putting forward your views on the ideology behind the niqab. I may interpret your posts incorrectly though.
I used to know a friend who was a hijabi. And would waste no time in pointing out how great it is to be one and how it is one of the biggest things a woman can do to show her devotion to God, how anyone not being one was definitely on the wrong path and so on. If I was to respond to her honestly, a friend to a friend, woman to another woman, calling a spade a spade saying you know, you may have been told this from every angle since growing up so it may not be surprising that you've grown up believing this but I think you are evidently wrong because "insert quranic stance on hijab". Would this be mocking, patronising and hypocritical? Because I brought up what I think is a potential factor for her reasons for believing what she does?
No, that wouldn?t be mocking. In that scenario, you would prompt a friendly discussion (I assume you won?t use your savagingly sarcastic style) when your friend raised an argument. That is what needed to be done, inform the person ?of crime? face-to-face (or post-to-post, depending on the context). Open a discussion to understand a person and the reason why they think and behave the way they do, as well as make them understand you. Saves a lot of hard-feelings behind the screen, and help improve tolerance and unity.
If she responds "Nay, ye foul woman, I have read into this just recently and lo I have realised this is the way to go" and I respond alright, what persuaded you to realise? Would I be wrong/mocking/patronising/hypocritical to have brought up for discussion another potential factor that may have indoctrinated her into thinking a certain way? Because clearly, she isn't thinking critically?
Sure, as long as you bring the discussion to that person, and aim to understand how and why she thinks like that.
I think my initial and primary issue with Leyna?s post was the fact that she posted an article and a poem, and suggested that one article was amusing (because the author experienced such a flowery sensation when wearing the hijab) and inserted emoticons that have mocking tone to it. There was no discussion there, as far as I am concerned. I feel iffy when people project their own experience and make judgment on others based on their own experience (which in a way, is biased).
Anyway, I apologised if I grasped Leyna?s initial posts unfairly.
Isn't everyone brainwashed, more or less? I don't know about you, but I constantly delete old programming, and free myself from false ideas and beliefs. I think the search for truth will last our whole life. And brainwashing isn't limited to just religion. People can be brainwashed when it comes to politics, psychology, sociology, medicine, science, technology, statistics, economy and lots of other topics. Truth be told.
Agreed.
If you wore a beard because you were told that God requires it of you, then yes. You were brainwashed. I'm sorry if that offends you, or if it's patronizing, or if you find it insulting. None of those visceral reactions changes the reality that you were, at least with regard to that issue, brainwashed. And again, no 'objective' assertion (whatever that means). Just a judgment based on ample amounts of experience and evidence. It's possible you were born and one day somehow magically came to this conclusion completely on your own. I'll take my chances and assume you are part of the 99.999999% who believed it required because someone (either directly or indirectly) told you it was.
Suppose I am a woman living in a developing country. I have no access to internet, nor any resources that can show me various methodologies in examining religion. I only hear of one version of Islam (Sunnism). I want to be closer to God. I go to a mosque, with a burning passion to be the best muslim I can ever be. I have never worn the headscarf before, but whatever. I come to a mosque, and the sheikh tells me a good muslim woman has to cover up. I say, um really? The sheikh says, yes it?s what God mandates, it?s in the Qur?an. Then I take the Qur?an home, and indulge myself in it. Hey, there are verses that say women have to wear the veil and cover my beauty! Then I see the verse about a man asking a woman from behind a screen, and I read interpretation that suggests wearing the niqab. To me personally, it MAKES SENSE! Okay, I have decided from now one that I cover myself, and I feel peaceful by doing so.
Would you say I am brainwashed? Would you say that I commit a crime for not thoroughly researching when I have no means to do it in the first place? Or when I do not have a shred of knowledge on the Arabic language or methodology on understanding the Qur?an, and when the only resources available to me lead me to practice what I practice? Would you say I commit a crime for practicing what I accept to be the truth, and I feel peaceful for it?
You may think it is far-fetched. However, it is unfortunate that such scenario is prevalent in many societies. At least where I come from anyway.
I do have issue with people trying to brainwash others (meaning making others think and behave in a certain way to accomplish their desires), don?t get me wrong. But people who are brainwashed, are mere victims of their circumstances and environment.
We cannot be completely rid of brainwashing. At best, we can hope to minimize its effects, counter it with tools like critical thinking and distribution of data that more accurately fit the facts. We can, like Leyna did, point it out where we find it, in an attempt to root it out. If a few people, gasp, feel offended or patronized along the way, then so be it. It's the world we live in.
That?s cool, I can see her earlier articles discuss some key aspects of why women believe covering their bodies, and how growing-fear is one of them. I don?t find any problem with discussing such a thing, and I completely welcome open and critical discussions. But making light of others? personal experiences (which hold a great significance to them) that are different from ours, I don?t agree. It serves no real purpose, but to have a go at these people (who happen to be the victims of brainwashing/misinformation etc).
Anyone could be brainwashed/indoctrinated, in fact most of us are. That is why it is so important to call it if you think so, bring it up and out in the open so that we all can all apply critical thinking, take in new information, be better, more informed and reasonable human beings in a best case scenario. Exactly why the so called negative is such a learning experience is (if we aren't broken down in tears by it) Someone calls you something you perceive as horrible and you are jerked into asking why, how and maybe even wtf but that usually comes later when you've decided the dude is an idiot. Some things are relatively easier to reason and many many more things get harder with time and information.
Yes, bring it out in the open! To the affected person, and advise that they apply critical thinking. Narrating one?s experience and calling it amusing in front of audience who is most likely to have the same belief as you do anyway, is not productive. Most of us already know we don?t taste the lollypop and fairyfloss sweetness when wearing the headscarf, so what is in the store for pasting it here, and posting remarks that appear to be mocking? It may have more impact if the authors were informed of our views (if we really think that what they are doing is dangerous and harmless), but most of us don?t want to get into that anyway.
Okay, my fingers are getting tired now @.@. I should stop.
-
This wasn't just the brainwashing comment, she also mockingly posted a poem by a hijabi wrapped in emoticons. The tone and intent was clear. I don't like hypocrisy.
Just because someone puts emotions into something, it means we are not allowed to mock or criticize it?
There are many poems like this around. Their sole purpose is to make the authors feel better and morally superior. The gist is always the same I'm a poor, discriminated Muslim woman living among unbelievers who don't understand me and look at me with suspicion. They are all too stupid to understand what the veil means to me, but at the end of the day I am the morally superior one, if only they knew.
So according to you, the women who write those poems have the right to express their emotions, but I don't? Sorry, but I disagree.
