PDA

View Full Version : This Is NOT Islam [Hijab]


a patriot
19-10-03, 08:39 AM
THIS IS NOT Islam [Hijab]

By AMIR TAHERI


August 15, 2003 -- FRANCE'S Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has just appointed a commit- tee to draft a law to ban the Islamist hijab (headgear) in state-owned establishments, including schools and hospitals. The decision has drawn fire from the French "church" of Islam, an organization created by Raffarin's government last spring. Germany is facing its hijab problem, with a number of Islamist organizations suing federal and state authorities for "religious discrimination" because of bans imposed on the controversial headgear.

In the United States, several Muslim women are suing airport-security firms for having violated their First Amendment rights by asking them to take off their hijab during routine searches of passengers.

All these and other cases are based on the claim that the controversial headgear is an essential part of the Muslim faith and that attempts at banning it constitute an attack on Islam.

That claim is totally false. The headgear in question has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to the Prophet.

This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shi'ite community.

In an interview in 1975 in Beirut, Sadr told this writer that the hijab he had invented was inspired by the headgear of Lebanese Catholic nuns, itself inspired by that of Christian women in classical Western paintings. (A casual visit to the Metropolitan Museum in New York, or the Louvres in Paris, would reveal the original of the neo-Islamist hijab in numerous paintings depicting Virgin Mary and other female figures from the Old and New Testament.)

Sadr's idea was that, by wearing the headgear, Shi'ite women would be clearly marked out, and thus spared sexual harassment, and rape, by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian gunmen who at the time controlled southern Lebanon.

Sadr's neo-hijab made its first appearance in Iran in 1977 as a symbol of Islamist-Marxist opposition to the Shah's regime. When the mullahs seized power in Tehran in 1979, the number of women wearing the hijab exploded into tens of thousands.

In 1981, Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, announced that "scientific research had shown that women's hair emitted rays that drove men insane." To protect the public, the new Islamist regime passed a law in 1982 making the hijab mandatory for females aged above six, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code was made punishable by 100 lashes of the cane and six months imprisonment.

By the mid 1980s, a form of hijab never seen in Islam before the 1970s had become standard gear for millions of women all over the world, including Europe and America.

Some younger Muslim women, especially Western converts, were duped into believing that the neo-hijab was an essential part of the faith. (Katherine Bullock, a Canadian, so loved the idea of covering her hair that she converted to Islam while studying the hijab.)

The garb is designed to promote gender apartheid. It covers the woman's ears so that she does not hear things properly. Styled like a hood, it prevents the woman from having full vision of her surroundings. It also underlines the concept of woman as object, all wrapped up and marked out.

Muslim women, like women in all societies, had covered their head with a variety of gears over the centuries. These had such names as lachak, chador, rusari, rubandeh, chaqchur, maqne'a and picheh, among others.

All had tribal, ethnic and generally folkloric origins and were never associated with religion. (In Senegal, Muslim women wear a colorful headgear against the sun, while working in the fields, but go topless.)

Muslim women could easily check the fraudulent nature of the neo-Islamist hijab by leafing through their family albums. They will not find the picture of a single female ancestor of theirs who wore the cursed headgear now marketed as an absolute "must" of Islam.

This fake Islamic hijab is nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism. It is the symbol of a totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam. It is as symbolic of Islam as the Mao uniform was of Chinese civilization.


It is used as a means of exerting pressure on Muslim women who do not wear it because they do not share the sick ideology behind it. It is a sign of support for extremists who wish to impose their creed, first on Muslims, and then on the world through psychological pressure, violence, terror, and, ultimately, war.

The tragedy is that many of those who wear it are not aware of its implications. They do so because they have been brainwashed into believing that a woman cannot be a "good Muslim" without covering her head with the Sadr-designed hijab.

Even today, less than 1 percent of Muslim women wear the hijab that has bewitched some Western liberals as a symbol of multicultural diversity. The hijab debate in Europe and the United States comes at a time when the controversial headgear is seriously questioned in Iran, the only country to impose it by law.

Last year, the Islamist regime authorized a number of girl colleges in Tehran to allow students to discard the hijab while inside school buildings. The experiment was launched after a government study identified the hijab as the cause of "widespread depression and falling academic standards" and even suicide among teenage girls.

The Ministry of Education in Tehran has just announced that the experiment will be extended to other girls schools next month when the new academic year begins. Schools where the hijab was discarded have shown "real improvements" in academic standards reflected in a 30 percent rise in the number of students obtaining the highest grades.

Meanwhile, several woman members of the Iranian Islamic Majlis (parliament) are preparing a draft to raise the legal age for wearing the hijab from six to 12, thus sparing millions of children the trauma of having their heads covered.

Another sign that the Islamic Republic may be softening its position on hijab is a recent decision to allow the employees of state-owned companies outside Iran to discard the hijab. (The new rule has enabled hundreds of women, working for Iran-owned companies in Paris, London, and other European capitals, for example, to go to work without the cursed hijab.)

The delicious irony of militant Islamists asking "Zionist-Crusader" courts in France, Germany and the United States to decide what is "Islamic" and what is not will not be missed. The judges and the juries who will be asked to decide the cases should know that they are dealing not with Islam, which is a religious faith, but with Islamism, which is a political doctrine.

The hijab-wearing militants have a right to promote their political ideology. But they have no right to speak in the name of Islam.

Original link expired... now here:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestCo...i20030819.shtml (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/printTaheri20030819.shtml)

Ali_Khan
19-10-03, 09:21 AM
It just shows how much low esteem westerners have that they feel intimidated by a woman who has a scarf on her head.

Brother_Daniel
19-10-03, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by abu2
THIS IS NOT Islam [Hijab]

By AMIR TAHERI


August 15, 2003 -- FRANCE'S Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has just appointed a commit- tee to draft a law to ban the Islamist hijab (headgear) in state-owned establishments, including schools and hospitals. The decision has drawn fire from the French "church" of Islam, an organization created by Raffarin's government last spring. Germany is facing its hijab problem, with a number of Islamist organizations suing federal and state authorities for "religious discrimination" because of bans imposed on the controversial headgear.

In the United States, several Muslim women are suing airport-security firms for having violated their First Amendment rights by asking them to take off their hijab during routine searches of passengers.

All these and other cases are based on the claim that the controversial headgear is an essential part of the Muslim faith and that attempts at banning it constitute an attack on Islam.

That claim is totally false. The headgear in question has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to the Prophet.

This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shi'ite community.

In an interview in 1975 in Beirut, Sadr told this writer that the hijab he had invented was inspired by the headgear of Lebanese Catholic nuns, itself inspired by that of Christian women in classical Western paintings. (A casual visit to the Metropolitan Museum in New York, or the Louvres in Paris, would reveal the original of the neo-Islamist hijab in numerous paintings depicting Virgin Mary and other female figures from the Old and New Testament.)

Sadr's idea was that, by wearing the headgear, Shi'ite women would be clearly marked out, and thus spared sexual harassment, and rape, by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian gunmen who at the time controlled southern Lebanon.

Sadr's neo-hijab made its first appearance in Iran in 1977 as a symbol of Islamist-Marxist opposition to the Shah's regime. When the mullahs seized power in Tehran in 1979, the number of women wearing the hijab exploded into tens of thousands.

In 1981, Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, announced that "scientific research had shown that women's hair emitted rays that drove men insane." To protect the public, the new Islamist regime passed a law in 1982 making the hijab mandatory for females aged above six, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code was made punishable by 100 lashes of the cane and six months imprisonment.

By the mid 1980s, a form of hijab never seen in Islam before the 1970s had become standard gear for millions of women all over the world, including Europe and America.

Some younger Muslim women, especially Western converts, were duped into believing that the neo-hijab was an essential part of the faith. (Katherine Bullock, a Canadian, so loved the idea of covering her hair that she converted to Islam while studying the hijab.)

The garb is designed to promote gender apartheid. It covers the woman's ears so that she does not hear things properly. Styled like a hood, it prevents the woman from having full vision of her surroundings. It also underlines the concept of woman as object, all wrapped up and marked out.

Muslim women, like women in all societies, had covered their head with a variety of gears over the centuries. These had such names as lachak, chador, rusari, rubandeh, chaqchur, maqne'a and picheh, among others.

All had tribal, ethnic and generally folkloric origins and were never associated with religion. (In Senegal, Muslim women wear a colorful headgear against the sun, while working in the fields, but go topless.)

Muslim women could easily check the fraudulent nature of the neo-Islamist hijab by leafing through their family albums. They will not find the picture of a single female ancestor of theirs who wore the cursed headgear now marketed as an absolute "must" of Islam.

This fake Islamic hijab is nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism. It is the symbol of a totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam. It is as symbolic of Islam as the Mao uniform was of Chinese civilization.


It is used as a means of exerting pressure on Muslim women who do not wear it because they do not share the sick ideology behind it. It is a sign of support for extremists who wish to impose their creed, first on Muslims, and then on the world through psychological pressure, violence, terror, and, ultimately, war.

The tragedy is that many of those who wear it are not aware of its implications. They do so because they have been brainwashed into believing that a woman cannot be a "good Muslim" without covering her head with the Sadr-designed hijab.

Even today, less than 1 percent of Muslim women wear the hijab that has bewitched some Western liberals as a symbol of multicultural diversity. The hijab debate in Europe and the United States comes at a time when the controversial headgear is seriously questioned in Iran, the only country to impose it by law.

Last year, the Islamist regime authorized a number of girl colleges in Tehran to allow students to discard the hijab while inside school buildings. The experiment was launched after a government study identified the hijab as the cause of "widespread depression and falling academic standards" and even suicide among teenage girls.

The Ministry of Education in Tehran has just announced that the experiment will be extended to other girls schools next month when the new academic year begins. Schools where the hijab was discarded have shown "real improvements" in academic standards reflected in a 30 percent rise in the number of students obtaining the highest grades.

Meanwhile, several woman members of the Iranian Islamic Majlis (parliament) are preparing a draft to raise the legal age for wearing the hijab from six to 12, thus sparing millions of children the trauma of having their heads covered.

Another sign that the Islamic Republic may be softening its position on hijab is a recent decision to allow the employees of state-owned companies outside Iran to discard the hijab. (The new rule has enabled hundreds of women, working for Iran-owned companies in Paris, London, and other European capitals, for example, to go to work without the cursed hijab.)

The delicious irony of militant Islamists asking "Zionist-Crusader" courts in France, Germany and the United States to decide what is "Islamic" and what is not will not be missed. The judges and the juries who will be asked to decide the cases should know that they are dealing not with Islam, which is a religious faith, but with Islamism, which is a political doctrine.

The hijab-wearing militants have a right to promote their political ideology. But they have no right to speak in the name of Islam.

Original link expired... now here:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestCo...i20030819.shtml (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/printTaheri20030819.shtml)

Another articule by another PC Muslim. Hijab is part of Islam. "hijab-wearing militants", so now a Muslim woman who wishes to correctly practice her deen by wearing a hijab is a militant? I guess we know where this guys loyalties lie, and it is not with Islam.

abaleada
21-10-03, 12:21 PM
This is a verbatim post that I sent to another BBS when someone posted the same article and then tried to defent her void opinions. So when I write "you" it refers to some modernistic chick, not anyone here.

It is you and not the scholars who do not know Arabic.
"wa lyadribna bikhumurihinna ^ala juyoobihinna"

The verb there, "adrib-na", refers to a drawing out, unfolding, or stretching action that leaves a part of the object acted upon in its original location while taking another part to the new location. The word "khimar" never changed its meaning, as we see from its usage in the ahadith where it refers to a headcovering. Remember the Hadith of he Hands and Face wherein one of the wives of Prophet Muhammad describes his words to her sister: "It is not good for you to go out unless you are covered except your face and hands", as well as Hadith of the Crows Atop Women's Heads, the description of one of Prophet Muhamamd's wives of the women in the Muslim Ummah making head scarves out of curtains and wearing them such that it looked as if crows were sitting atop their heads. Also, mind the hadith wherein we are told that a woman's salah is not valid without a khimar. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A WOMAN OFFERING NAMAZ WITH A CLOTH ON HER CHEST AND SHOULDERS AND HER HEAD BARE NAKED?? If "khimar" really refers to a chest/shoulder scarf, then even you wouldn't be wearing a scarf on your head in namaz, since you don't think that it would be required - you think that khimar means chest-scarf.

Oh, and by the way: a chest scarf is called DUPATTA - not khimar.

It is more than obvious that you had no idea what you were talking about already when you said that the word khimar doesn't refer to a headscarf. However, I feel that more information would be useful to seal your ignorant rantings.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The head and hair must be covered, without any disagreement. There is ijma` (consensus) of the scholars on this, and hence any claim to the contrary is a bid`ah. That there is support for the bid`ah from a handful of contemporary individuals is of no consequence, because the ijma` was enacted prior to that, and also because of the clear evidences the dissenters have contradicted. Allah says, (translated),
"And let [the believing women] not reveal their beauty, except that of it which is apparent, and let them clasp their scarves over their bosoms."
The application of this verse to covering the head is twofold:
i) Women are prohibited from revealing their beauty, and the hair is certainly a site of beauty. The exception from covering (viz. for that beauty which is apparent) does not apply to the head or hair, because of the lack of any evidence to indicate it. The phrase 'that which is apparent' is mujmal (not of well-defined import), and requires specification (bayan), which is provided in the hadith in the form of clarification that it refers to the hands and the face. No such specification exists to exclude covering of the head.
ii) Women are commanded to clasp their scarves over their bosoms, i.e. to cover their chests and necks with the scarves, in addition to the head - as opposed to merely covering the head while leaving the neck and chest exposed as was the practice of women of Jahiliyyah. [Narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim]
As for the claim that one could cover one's neck and chest, but leave the head exposed, this is inadmissible on at least two counts:
i) The word used in the verse is khumur, plural of khimar, which is a head covering. [Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ruh al-Ma`ani] If a piece of cloth is used for covering some other part of the body, it is not a head covering. Should it be contended that it is still, in essence, a head covering being put to another use, we shall respond that this is even further-removed from acceptability. Were it to be true, it suggests redundancy and vainness in the words of Allah, the Exalted [Who ordered women to cover their chests in the previously revealed ayah, 33:59], which is inadmissible without disagreement. If it be claimed that any type of covering can be called a khimar, we reply that :
a) the verse talks not about 'khumur' in general, but about 'their khumur', i.e. the women's khumur, and these are the scecific scarves which they were wearing on their heads, and thus it is established that the khimar here is a scarf, and not merely some covering.
b) one cannot look at the Qur'an in isolation; the sunnah must necessarily be consulted to explain, clarify and specify the Qur'an, and the sunnah clarifies that the head is part of the nakedness. [Headith of the Hands and Face, Hadith of the Crows on Women's Heads, etc.]
ii) It is against ijma`


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to form some new religion such as Christianity or Judaism, or Ismailism or Ahmadiism where people are free to distort the words of Allah, feel free to form a new religion and declare the requirement of khimar batil. However, your every attempt to show the khimar as a dupatta an not a khimar is futile when we face you with the facts: the wording and language of the Qur'an requires that women cove their heads in front of an unrelated male.
-Abbie

Tahiyah
22-10-03, 09:57 PM
i live nearby many amish people... the amish women wear white bonnets that cover their hair. I wonder if these amish women could be considered militants? lol.

Ali_Khan
22-10-03, 11:19 PM
i like aimish and finnish people. i also wonder if nuns would be considered a threat? :D

abaleada
23-10-03, 01:32 AM
I have a pic of some Nuns from a Gethsemene convent whose habits looks hjust like khimar with jilbab. It's erally interesting.