What Islam and Christianity say about modesty

[mrswdk]

NoProblem seems to be one of those types who've decided the Bible says gay people are sinners and that the Qu'ran says women should be kept in a kennel.

Just to help him out:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mu ... 55191.html

The Qu'ran requires men and women to both be modest. It doesn't say anything about women covering their hair or faces.

[HitRed]

Read the article. Reminds me of, Thou shall not covet. People's throughts are the issue.

[D3A7H]

Wasn't there a post from Saxitoxin here earlier with actual translation of some qu'ran passages? What happened to that?

[NomadPatriot]

Wasn't there a post from Saxitoxin here earlier with actual translation of some qu'ran passages? What happened to that?

that was in the "Islam is Right About Women " thread. ducky locked that thread saying it was a Troll Thread within a couple hours of me reporting his friend Mookie for trying to derail the thread..
. because as he sated. " I did not explain what that meant… "

i report Duk's friend for trolling. .he locks the entire thread saying the thread is Trolling..

interesting outcome huh...

it's weird how someone needs to explain what " Islam is Right About Women".. means

islamophobia is becoming rampant here on CC..... saying Islam does something Right is censored & blocked from discussion

[tzor]

The Qu'ran requires men and women to both be modest. It doesn't say anything about women covering their hair or faces.

This is from a pro Islamic web page ... The Religion of Peace

Quran (33:59) - "O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known so as not to be annoyed." This is from the Noble Quran. The word 'annoyed' is yu'dhayna, which actually means 'harmed' or 'hurt' elsewhere in the same sura. How would a woman be 'harmed' for not covering herself? Let's just say that Yusuf Ali translates it as 'molested' - as in a woman could bring sexual abuse on herself if she is not properly covered.

But it is wrong to assume a Protestant attitude towards Islam; it is not Scripture (or the Quran) alone. One also needs the other important documents, the Hadith and Sira.

Sahih Bukhari (6:321) - Muhammad is asked whether it is right for a young woman to leave her house without a veil. He replies, "She should cover herself with the veil of her companion."

[D3A7H]

I'm pretty sure it was this thread. In any case, all religious texts are subject to interpretation and manipulation. Islam is no different.

[saxitoxin]

Wasn't there a post from Saxitoxin here earlier with actual translation of some qu'ran passages? What happened to that?

Yes, but I decided I didn't care enough and deleted it.

[mrswdk]

This is from a pro Islamic web page ... The Religion of Peace

Quran (33:59) - "O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known so as not to be annoyed." This is from the Noble Quran. The word 'annoyed' is yu'dhayna, which actually means 'harmed' or 'hurt' elsewhere in the same sura. How would a woman be 'harmed' for not covering herself? Let's just say that Yusuf Ali translates it as 'molested' - as in a woman could bring sexual abuse on herself if she is not properly covered.

Who is speaking here? In the Quran Mohammed admonishes someone for making a similar statement about how women should cover themselves.

Anyhoo the point remains that nowhere in Islam does it say that women are required to cover their hair, faces etc.

[nietzsche]

if you think about it, Islam backwards is Mal Si, which is spanish for "Yeah, Wrong/Evil". So Islam is wrong/evil.


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=229360#p5077033

[NomadPatriot]

the bias here on CC is simply amazing..

[NomadPatriot]

.

Anyhoo the point remains that nowhere in Islam does it say that women are required to cover their hair, faces etc.

so what your saying is .. Islam is right about women..

[Razorvich]

Thanks Nomad.. I just won my bet

[NomadPatriot]

Thanks Nomad.. I just won my bet

what bet would that be Razor.. ?
the bet where I continue to say positive things about Islam .. ?

confusing what you were betting on... I am saying a positive thing about Islam... that they are right about something. so you were betting I would say it again.. ?
whoever you placed the bet with thought the opposite. ? well good to know you bet that I would continue to say positive things about Islam . I am glad you didn't think I would say negative things about a minority.

because you & Duk & JMBoston & Neitz & Mrsdwk and a few others all seem to have some sort of problem with the statement ' Islam is Right about Women'..

all of you are flipping out over it. locking my threads about it. issueing me warnings not to reopen threads about it

very interesting responses to it.
very .. revealing

[riskllama]

quit whining, NP...

[mrswdk]

That whole 'locking my threads is Islamphobic' line might have worked if it was delivered by Symmetry, but unfortunately NoProblem just doesn't have the patience or the pizzazz to pull it off. 2/10.

The incompetence of terrorists has spared hundreds of lives in recent years. The recent attacks in Barcelona could have been much worse if the leader of the plot had not blown himself up – along with the network’s stockpile of bomb components – hours before they occurred.

Among the many failed incidents in the UK are attempts to bomb a cafe in Exeter (that failed when a bomber set off his own device in a toilet); to bomb a nightclub in London with incendiary devices (that smouldered but did not burn), and to bring down a transatlantic passenger jet (with a bomb in a shoe that proved impossible to ignite).

In the US, a massive blast was avoided in Times Square, New York, because the bomber programmed the wrong time, while in Yemen in 2000 an attempt to sink a US navy ship failed when a dinghy overloaded with explosives sank when it was launched.

The same goes for attacks by extremists motivated by other ideologies. Well under a half of the 150 far-right plots recorded by the Anti-Defamation League in the US between 1993 and 2016 succeeded. In Columbus, Ohio, in April 2016, a rightwing extremist blew off his own hands while allegedly making an explosive that authorities said was to be used as a diversion during a bank robbery.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ving-lives

[NomadPatriot]

That whole 'locking my threads is Islamphobic' line might have worked if it was delivered by Symmetry, but unfortunately NoProblem just doesn't have the patience or the pizzazz to pull it off. 2/10.

so.. you agree the entire situation over locking the thread is suspicious. and is bordering on whoever locked it down possibly being Islamophobic..

just curious what Raz's Bet was. did he bet i would write out the statement ' Islam is Right About Women ' here on this thread... ?

why is he betting on that..
the original thread was supposedly locked down because I ' did not explain what I meant by the statement after several people asked me too.. " .. not that I simply wrote the statement..
the 2nd thread was locked down supposedly because members are not allowed to reopen locked threads.

neither reason for locking the threads down had to do with the 5 word statement being wrote.

but Raz apparently made a bet I would write it out here..

very, very Interesting .. Indeed..

[riskllama]

*inb4 lock/ban*

[mrswdk]

That whole 'locking my threads is Islamphobic' line might have worked if it was delivered by Symmetry, but unfortunately NoProblem just doesn't have the patience or the pizzazz to pull it off. 2/10.

so.. you agree the entire situation over locking the thread is suspicious. and is bordering on whoever locked it down possibly being Islamophobic..

No, just that Symmetry's attempt would at least have been vaguely amusing for the first five minutes.

[mrswdk]

This is from a pro Islamic web page ... The Religion of Peace

Quran (33:59) - "O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known so as not to be annoyed." This is from the Noble Quran. The word 'annoyed' is yu'dhayna, which actually means 'harmed' or 'hurt' elsewhere in the same sura. How would a woman be 'harmed' for not covering herself? Let's just say that Yusuf Ali translates it as 'molested' - as in a woman could bring sexual abuse on herself if she is not properly covered.

Who is speaking here? In the Quran Mohammed admonishes someone for making a similar statement about how women should cover themselves.

Anyhoo the point remains that nowhere in Islam does it say that women are required to cover their hair, faces etc.

Also just to add to this that in the article it also says that Mohammed (and some imams since) have made the point that it is not up to men to police women's clothing. The Quran says that men should worry about their own modesty, not try to dictate women's modesty to them - and that if a man ogles a scantily dressed woman, he is at fault for doing so.

[NomadPatriot]

Also just to add to this that in the article it also says that Mohammed (and some imams since) have made the point that it is not up to men to police women's clothing. The Quran says that men should worry about their own modesty, not try to dictate women's modesty to them - and that if a man ogles a scantily dressed woman, he is at fault for doing so.

sounding more like Islam is Right About Women..

[tzor]

Also just to add to this that in the article it also says that Mohammed (and some imams since) have made the point that it is not up to men to police women's clothing. The Quran says that men should worry about their own modesty, not try to dictate women's modesty to them - and that if a man ogles a scantily dressed woman, he is at fault for doing so.

That is a good point. Not all imams are fundamentalists. They are not going to flat out say that the Quran is "contradictory" but most will have a method for placing one statement over another statement (typically most do it by chronological order so the last things the prophet said overwrite the earlier things). It is important to remember that the extreme enforcement is more of a product of Sharia law. Although most fundamentalists would insist that this comes directly from the prophet, most scholars now believe it developed at a much later period. In addition, there is no real "scripture alone" policy among most imams. The rulings of previous imams (fatwas) have tremendous influence, "Fatwas are theoretically non-binding, but seriously considered and have often been practiced by most Muslim believers." And "There is considerable controversy, change over time, and conflict between the secondary sources."

[mrswdk]

I guess the only logical conclusion is that all religions are totally ambiguous and the only teacher with any real consistency is Confucius.

[jonesthecurl]

He has me Comfused.

[NomadPatriot]

"Man who eats photo of father, soon spitting-image of father." - Confucius