Cyclone Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 The O/P wasn't about clothing, it was about wether Islam liberated women. The examples he gave were all about clothing. Liberation isn't just about the clothes you wear. No it isn't. But since we are free in the UK to do what we like within the laws of the land, adopting a religion cannot make you any more free than that. The clothing examples illustrate this perfectly. Following the rules of the religion itself can be liberating, it has freed me because I thought freedom was doing what you wanted without restriction. In fact, in my case, and in the case of a close Muslim friend doing 'what we wanted' was in fact restrictive. That's contradictory, they are still doing what they want, which is to voluntarily follow a set of rules, they could have done that anyway without a religion being involved. Choosing to restrict your own behaviour by adopting a set of rules is not an example of a religion freeing you, it's an example of you choosing to behave in a specific way because you were already free to make that choice. I'm speaking only from personal experience and not saying that in all cases it's the same, but that's why I put in my original responce to the O/P that it was too vague a question. Both Buddhism and Islam ask you to follow the rules, but both Buddhism and Islam in their ideal form (that is the form without cultural baggage or humans using them for their own end) insist that the rules have to be followed freely. If you are forced to follow them, in any way, shape or form then they are not liberating, but constricting. If you follow them freely they are no longer 'rules' as such. They are however, very, very liberating. By definition something that restricts your behaviour is not liberation. The UK allows you the freedom to restrict your own behaviour as you see fit though, religion is not necessary for you to choose those restrictions. Like I said, I'm not speaking for everyone, and every persons circumstances are different, but what I don't like is this patronizing attitude (I'm not suggesting from you, I'm just off on a bit of a rant) that anyone who is following religious rules is restricted The definition of a rule is that it restricts. and even if they say they are liberated by following them they are lying because they can't possibly be liberated. Maybe misguided, or lacking in the understanding of what liberated means would be less offensive. That attitude to me, and many other religious people, is far more restrictive than any religious rules. You find other peoples opinions restrictive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 The examples he gave were all about clothing.[/Quote] Green Web; and not allowed to interac with other men[/Quote] No they weren't, many of them were, but not all. Irrelevant of that I was replying to the actual question, which was 'Does adopting Islam liberate women', which, for the second time, I said needed more specification. No it isn't. But since we are free in the UK to do what we like within the laws of the land, adopting a religion cannot make you any more free than that. The clothing examples illustrate this perfectly.[/Quote] liberation Pronunciation: /lɪbəˈreɪʃ(ə)n/ noun [mass noun] the act of setting someone free from imprisonment, slavery, or oppression; release: the liberation of all political prisoners freedom from limits on thought or behaviour: the struggle for women’s liberation (from Oxford dictionaries online) A religion can make you more free than that. Interestingly in Buddhism the bold I've highlighted is exactly what liberation does. To someone practicing a religion that liberation far outstrips the limits put on us by the 'law of the land'. It is exactly by freely adopting those behavioural patterns that free us from the bondage of any behavioural patterns. That's contradictory, they are still doing what they want, which is to voluntarily follow a set of rules, they could have done that anyway without a religion being involved.[/Quote] Yes they could. Choosing to restrict your own behaviour by adopting a set of rules is not an example of a religion freeing you, it's an example of you choosing to behave in a specific way because you were already free to make that choice.[/Quote] By definition something that restricts your behaviour is not liberation. The UK allows you the freedom to restrict your own behaviour as you see fit though, religion is not necessary for you to choose those restrictions.[/Quote] Let me put it to you another way. If I want to learn to play the guitar the mere freedom of being able to have the choice to play the guitar isn't in itself the ability to play the guitar. Only by adopting a set of rules can I acheive the freedom of being able to play the guitar, without following those rules no matter how much society says I can play the guitar if I want to I will not be able to play it. Once I've followed those rules and can play the guitar then the rules themselves become irrelevant. I will still be following them, but I wont view them as 'rules', they wont be restrictive, on the contrary they will have given me the freedom to make the music I want to. The definition of a rule is that it restricts. Maybe misguided, or lacking in the understanding of what liberated means would be less offensive This is from Oxford dictionaries online again relating to rules. one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity: a law or principle that operates within a particular sphere of knowledge, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable: A rule is not in itself restrictive in a negative way (which goes back to me saying that religious rules absolutely have to be freely followed). Going back to the guitar analogy the rules of learning to play the guitar don't just tell you what not to do, they tell you why to, and how to do it. If they were just prohibative the only instruction you would get from guitar playing would be almost useless in giving you the ability to play it. You find other peoples opinions restrictive? When other people start telling you how you feel when you don't feel that way but they think you should feel that way it is restrictive, yes. In the same way that when a parent is trying to push a child into something they don't want to do (let's say playing the guitar) because they feel that the child should be playing the guitar. In fact lets say in the same way that when a religiuous person pushes there child into being religious when they don't want to. It's the same arrogance of superiority that we (religious) have to put up with from people patronisingly telling us we're not really liberated by our religion. People are the same, good/bad, arrogant/humble regardless of being religious or secular. When one tries to tell the other they are oppressed when they genuinly don't feel that way themselves it is restrictive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Back to the OP. Walking around shrouded head to toe, or covering one's face will never achieve any true liberation for women. If we want to strive for a world where we can walk around dressed as we please without fear of being harassed, attacked or blamed for some kind of sexual assault, hiding oursleves from the male gaze will never achieve this; all it does is reinforce those very misogynistic notions that we are somehow responsible for male sexuality and are nothing better than some kind of adornment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Surely they must be forced to wear the hijab,no woman with even amodicum of fashion sense would opt to wear one by choice,all the women ive seen wearing them tend to resemble the pictures you see of old peasant women somewhere in the backwoods of Greece or other Med countries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Dome Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I just read a lovely quotation ( ) which i thought i'd share with you. "It is reported that ‘Umar b. Al-Khattāb came out one Eid. Passing by a group of women, he could smell the scent of perfume from one of them. He asked, “Who is the one wearing this scent? By Allāh, if I knew who she was, I would do such-and-such (punish her). A women is only to wear perfume for her husband, and if she goes out, she wears her older (scruffier) clothes or the older clothes of her servant.” And so it was rumored amongst the women that the woman [who was wearing perfume in public] got up from that gathering having soiled herself (out of fear)." Ibn Abī Shaybah, Al-Musannaf article 6387. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 No they weren't, many of them were, but not all. Irrelevant of that I was replying to the actual question, which was 'Does adopting Islam liberate women', which, for the second time, I said needed more specification. liberation Pronunciation: /lɪbəˈreɪʃ(ə)n/ noun [mass noun] the act of setting someone free from imprisonment, slavery, or oppression; release: the liberation of all political prisoners freedom from limits on thought or behaviour: the struggle for women’s liberation (from Oxford dictionaries online) A religion can make you more free than that. Interestingly in Buddhism the bold I've highlighted is exactly what liberation does. To someone practicing a religion that liberation far outstrips the limits put on us by the 'law of the land'. It is exactly by freely adopting those behavioural patterns that free us from the bondage of any behavioural patterns. You were always free to not follow those behavioural patterns, religion didn't free you, you just think it did. Let me put it to you another way. If I want to learn to play the guitar the mere freedom of being able to have the choice to play the guitar isn't in itself the ability to play the guitar. No, but nothing can give you the ability to play the guitar except the exercising the freedom to learn to play the guitar. Only by adopting a set of rules can I acheive the freedom of being able to play the guitar No, only by learning to play the guitar can you learn to play the guitar. You don't need a set of rules that tell you that you have to learn to play the guitar. And if you do adopt such rules you have just lost the freedom to not learn to play the guitar which previously you had (and were exercising). without following those rules no matter how much society says I can play the guitar if I want to I will not be able to play it. You're confusing the freedom to do something with the self discipline to do it. Freedom to learn does not guarantee that you will, that's down to you. Once I've followed those rules and can play the guitar then the rules themselves become irrelevant. I will still be following them, but I wont view them as 'rules', they wont be restrictive, on the contrary they will have given me the freedom to make the music I want to. You won't be following a rule to learn to play the guitar once you can play it, the rule will be irrelevant. However you will have given up the freedom to not learn to play the guitar when you adopted a system that said you must learn it. This is from Oxford dictionaries online again relating to rules. one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity: a law or principle that operates within a particular sphere of knowledge, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable: A rule is not in itself restrictive in a negative way A rule is restrictive, it can be negative or positive in that it may deny a certain activity or it may require a certain activity. Either way you no longer have the choice and so you have been restricted. (which goes back to me saying that religious rules absolutely have to be freely followed). Going back to the guitar analogy the rules of learning to play the guitar don't just tell you what not to do, they tell you why to, and how to do it. If they were just prohibative the only instruction you would get from guitar playing would be almost useless in giving you the ability to play it. You've changed from a rule that says "learn to play the guitar" to equate a physical skill (guitar playing) with rules. The difference about the 'rules' of playing the guitar is that they are not really rules. They may be taught as such, but ultimately you choose whether each individual rule about playing is 'correct' and if you prefer to play and break some of the rules then you are free to do so, you will still be playing the guitar. When other people start telling you how you feel when you don't feel that way but they think you should feel that way it is restrictive, yes. I disagree, other peoples opinions are just that, they do not constrain your behaviour unless you care about their opinions and if you care about their opinions you should wonder why they disagree with you. In the same way that when a parent is trying to push a child into something they don't want to do (let's say playing the guitar) because they feel that the child should be playing the guitar. In fact lets say in the same way that when a religiuous person pushes there child into being religious when they don't want to. It's the same arrogance of superiority that we (religious) have to put up with from people patronisingly telling us we're not really liberated by our religion. This is typical of all religious thought, if someone questions a statement you've made you declare them to be arrogant and refuse to consider what they are saying. It isn't arrogant to say that a set of rules (religious or secular) is not liberating because by definition they constrain your behaviour. It's just logical. You wish to view your religion in a positive light and so you deny that it restricts you. People are the same, good/bad, arrogant/humble regardless of being religious or secular. When one tries to tell the other they are oppressed when they genuinly don't feel that way themselves it is restrictive. This doesn't make sense, you are not restricted by someone elses opinion of whether your religion liberates your or oppresses you. I think the very fact that you feel threatened by this opinion is telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Back to the OP. Walking around shrouded head to toe, or covering one's face will never achieve any true liberation for women. If we want to strive for a world where we can walk around dressed as we please without fear of being harassed, attacked or blamed for some kind of sexual assault, hiding oursleves from the male gaze will never achieve this; all it does is reinforce those very misogynistic notions that we are somehow responsible for male sexuality and are nothing better than some kind of adornment. Wouldn't 'as we please' include in a small tent if you wish? You can't achieve liberation for women for telling them that they shouldn't wear a tent if they wish, anymore than it can be achieved by telling them that they should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Wouldn't 'as we please' include in a small tent if you wish? You can't achieve liberation for women for telling them that they shouldn't wear a tent if they wish, anymore than it can be achieved by telling them that they should. I am not suggesting that anyone dictates to women what they wear, least of all some misogynistic religion. Is this thread about banning the veil? However, the ideology behind the burqa is offensive to both men and women and I personally find nothing liberating about being hidden from view and wearing a garment that restricts one's ability to take part in certain activities (physical and social) any more than wearing a pair of ludicrously high heels that one cannot walk or run for the bus in or having one's feet bound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 No the thread isn't about banning anything, but you seem to be against the wearing of this type of clothing; Walking around shrouded head to toe, or covering one's face will never achieve any true liberation for women. What you've said is true, but equally if liberated, women will be free to dress like this if they wish. That was the point I was trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 You were always free to not follow those behavioural patterns, religion didn't free you, you just think it did.[/Quote] If I hadn't have followed the behavioural patterns set down by the religion I wouldn't have followed them, therefore it freed me. Had I followed those same patterns without religion the same effect would have been had, I'm not arguing that point, but I simply wouldn't have followed those same patterns without religion, so I wouldn't have been freed from my previous behavioural patterns. I don't think religion freed me, I know it did. No, but nothing can give you the ability to play the guitar except the exercising the freedom to learn to play the guitar.[/Quote] The freedom to do something doesn't give you the ability to do it. Everyone in the country has the freedom to learn to play the guitar, that freedom doesn't by default give them the ability. No, only by learning to play the guitar can you learn to play the guitar. You don't need a set of rules that tell you that you have to learn to play the guitar.[/Quote] I never said you did, I said that to be able to play the guitar you have to follow the rules of learning to play the guitar. Not that you need a set of rules that tell you that you have to learn to play it. They are two completely different things. And if you do adopt such rules you have just lost the freedom to not learn to play the guitar which previously you had (and were exercising).[/Quote] No you haven't. You can stop learning to play at any time, you haven't lost any freedom to not play the guitar, you have just gained the freedom of being able to play it. Even when you have learnt to play it and no longer need the rules you are still free to never play it again. I could follow religious rules until I'm two minutes away from death and still choose to abandon that following of them right at the last minute. You're confusing the freedom to do something with the self discipline to do it. Freedom to learn does not guarantee that you will, that's down to you.[/Quote] No I'm not. The self discipline, it been down to me, is following the rules. But when I have followed the rules and learnt to play it then I am free to do it. As I said above the freedom to choose to learn to play to start with is not the same freedom of being able to play, with the best will in the world I cannot play the guitar unless I have learnt to play it. The discipline, the rules, are not themselves the freedom of being able to play, they just enable that freedom. But that freedom is different to the freedom of choosing to play to begin with. You won't be following a rule to learn to play the guitar once you can play it, the rule will be irrelevant.[/Quote] That's what I said here It is exactly by freely adopting those behavioural patterns that free us from the bondage of any behavioural patterns[/Quote] and here Once I've followed those rules and can play the guitar then the rules themselves become irrelevant[/Quote]. However you will have given up the freedom to not learn to play the guitar when you adopted a system that said you must learn it[/Quote] It's not a freedom not to learn to play the guitar, that's just a silly thing to say. We all have the freedom to choose to learn to play, but we don't have the freedom not to learn to play, not playing is the default. It's not a freedom that we lose when we choose to learn to play. If we want to not play once we have learnt we simply don't play, our ability to be able to doesn't stop us ceasing if we so wish. Similarly, in religion, I'll use drinking as it's a rule of both Islam and Buddhism, my not drinking doesn't infringe on the ability to drink if I wish to. At any point I can choose to drink alcohol, I simply choose not to. But my freedom to drink if I choose to hasn't been compromised by my choosing not to drink. A rule is restrictive, it can be negative or positive in that it may deny a certain activity or it may require a certain activity. Either way you no longer have the choice and so you have been restricted[/Quote] You do have the choice. Maybe you should try reading my posts. You've changed from a rule that says "learn to play the guitar" to equate a physical skill (guitar playing) with rules.[/Quote] No I haven't. I haven't mentioned a rule that says 'learn to play the guitar', that is a choice, but if I choose to do so there are rules I need to follow to succeed. The difference about the 'rules' of playing the guitar is that they are not really rules Yes they are. They may be taught as such[/Quote] They are, that's because they are rules. but ultimately you choose whether each individual rule about playing is 'correct' and if you prefer to play and break some of the rules then you are free to do so, you will still be playing the guitar.[/Quote] The rules are correct. You may break them but the rules themselves are still correct. As with religious rules, you may break the rules but that doesn't make them any less rules. Unless you have followed the rules sufficiently to be able to play the guitar breaking them will not give you the ability to 'still play the guitar'. Unless you have got to the point where you can play you wont be playing it. I disagree, other peoples opinions are just that, they do not constrain your behaviour unless you care about their opinions and if you care about their opinions you should wonder why they disagree with you. This is typical of all religious thought, if someone questions a statement you've made you declare them to be arrogant and refuse to consider what they are saying[/Quote] I'm not calling them arrogant because they disagree with what I'm saying. There are many people who disagree with what I say on this forum who i don't think are arrogant. I think they're arrogant because they are telling me how I should feel according to their philosophy when I don't feel like that. Let's put it another way. If I were to tell you (which I never would, and neither would any Muslim that I've ever met) that you shouldn't be drinking because in my religious rules it says you shouldn't, you would rightly consider that to be arrogant. But if I said I don't drink but it makes no difference to me wether you choose to do so or not you probably wouldn't think i was arrogant. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. It isn't arrogant to say that a set of rules (religious or secular) is not liberating because by definition they constrain your behaviour. It's just logical.[/Quote] They don't constrain anything when it's a choice to follow them. Constrain:compel or force (someone) to follow a particular course of action: They don't constrain our behaviour anymore than the law of the land constrains yours. In this country the rule of law says you cannot murder, that doesn't force us not to murder, we still have the choice to if we wish though. Thus (again) with religious rules, we are not gagged and bound and forced to follow them, we can choose not to follow them at any time. You wish to view your religion in a positive light and so you deny that it restricts you[/Quote] It doesn't restrict me, anymore than the law not to murder restricts you from murdering. The rule not to murder is in my religious laws, you as a secularist and me as a religious are still free to murder, we are not forced not to, but we choose not to. This doesn't make sense, you are not restricted by someone elses opinion of whether your religion liberates your or oppresses you. I think the very fact that you feel threatened by this opinion is telling. I never said I was threatened by it, I said it was restricting. If I told you that because of my choice not to drink your choice to drink was stupid and the only reason you chose to was because you are being subversively controlled by your government would you not think I was trying to restrict you by forcing my opinion on you? (that's not my opinion btw, it's an example) of the shoe being on the other foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.