Open Thread Sunday 4/13/2008

24 Comments

1. 

   Amad

   April 13, 2008 at 11:23 AM

   I find this interesting and somewhat relevant:

   Why Beautiful Women Marry Less Attractive Men

   Reply
2. 

   Siraaj Muhammad

   April 13, 2008 at 11:57 AM

   Civilized Discussion on Theological differences of opinion rocks!

   Siraaj

   Reply
3. 

   zk

   April 13, 2008 at 11:59 AM

   In a conversation with a european (very well traveled, well read, open minded) male colleague of mine about conservative attitudes of muslims and seclusion of women where women themselves make that choice as opposed to it being forced, he asked an interesting question.

   just to give you an idea of where I stand so that there aren’t assumptions made about me: i am female, i observe hijab, I also live by myself in a major american city, and I interact with men a lot because of school/work and do so comfortably because I set very clear bounds, and also completely respect the decisions of women who decide to seclude themselves completely as long as its a choice they make, not have it imposed on them.

   He asked me if there was any feeling within men, who live in societies or communities where its not uncommon for women to be segregated, that this was an unfair judgement toward the men of the same society – since the implication is that any interaction with women would lead them to be sexually tempted, which is reducing men to nothing more than an animal, and therefore the women need to be protected from them.

   I know that segregation can be justified through islamic teachings, I’m just interested in what men have to say about this, purely on a psychological, sociological level, as opposed to religious teachings. I’ve always heard it being cast as a social injustice to women from outsiders, its the first time I heard a perspective like that.

   any thoughts?

   Reply
4. 

   aarij

   April 13, 2008 at 12:14 PM

   What’s disturbing is that crap like Jihad Watch is 155 on the same list! Subhan Allah.

   Reply
5. 

   aarij

   April 13, 2008 at 12:26 PM

   Some interesting cricket going on right now…

   – The Pakistan cricket team is officially crap. The team is as bland as a bottle of fizzed out Pepsi. I blame Shoaib Malik for this.

   – The Indian cricket team OTOH, wow…they just spanked South Africa. In my jahily days, I would’ve been so mad today. But alhamdulillah for Islam that I can read this news and not really care about it!

   Reply
6. 

   ibnabeeomar

   April 13, 2008 at 1:32 PM

   can the rockets get the top seed in the west????

   Reply
7. 

   AbuAbdAllah

   April 13, 2008 at 1:39 PM

   bismillah. i like muslim matters, and i am glad it gets good press. :) aarij makes a good point (i’m referring to the pre-cricket comment).

   one way that all of us can help take the wind out of the sails of hate-speech sites like the one he mentions — stop sending people there. stop encouraging anyone to go look at the latest post or comment on those sites. stop mentioning the names of the those blogs. stop giving links. and especially, stop searching for them by name in search engines, and if one comes up inadvertently in your searches, just avoid the site altogether.

   Shaykh Yusuf Estes made a similar point on a peace tv broadcast recently. he was speaking to a mega-audience in chennai, mashaAllah. (an audience with a much larger number of non-Muslims than I have ever seen attend a Muslim-sponsored event in the US) Shaykh Estes said that not so long ago a Google search of the word “Islam” would bring up search results in which pro-Islam sites including his were always in the top 10. But now the same search reveals so many hate sites, and a lot of the problem is the hits those sites get from Muslims.

   Reply
8. 

   AbuAbdAllah

   April 13, 2008 at 2:16 PM

   bismillah. i like reading Muslim Matters, a lot, mashaAllah. here’s something i would like to read about here inshaAllah:

   when and how should a Muslim be his brother’s keeper?

   when i took Shaykh Yasir Qadhi’s Light Upon Light I learned for the first time about one of Allah’s Beautiful Names, As-Siteer, the One Who Covers. Allah covers our sins, giving us time to repent to Him, giving us time to acquire knowledge, giving us time to correct our behavior. It’s a Name of Allah that reflects both His Limitless and Constant Mercy and His Infinite Wisdom. learning this Name, and hadiths related to it, increased me many-fold in my love for my Creator.

   one consequence i understood is that (at least in general) a Muslim should not uncover the sins of his brother. so does that mean a Muslim only gives naseeha or advice when he witnesses a sin or mistake? or when he sees a clear sign of trouble, like a pattern of behavior that is symptomatic of a larger problem?

   there are also many special relationships that could be explored in this topic:

   Allah subhanahu wata ala has described husbands and wives as libas for each other, and part of being each other’s garments is covering the faults. if you cover a fault, you must know about it, too, right? not all faults are as dramatic as the pornography issue raised in other articles here. and that particular issue is one in which one spouse’s behavior infringes (or at least seems to infringe) on the rights of the other. but what if the sin or mistake is “just” between one spouse and Allah?

   then there are parents and children. if anyone has a duty to be invasive, wouldn’t it be the parent with respect to a pre-adult child? for example, a parent has duties to make sure the child prays five times a day ON TIME by the age of 7. by the age of 10 a noncompliant child is to be corporally punished. so doesn’t a parent have to ask about his child’s prayer habits? or is this is a good example of the special case — the inquiries are positioned at such an early time in development that most children would not yet have reached pubescence, hence the pens are lifted and neither child (by not praying) nor parent (by inquiring) has committed a sin?

   if that case was special, what about parents with pubescent and adult children at home? do they have to be non-invasive? do they not ask questions that would expose sins unless they have evidence to justify it? and what would rise to that level?

   a third special relationship is employer-employee. there was a heart-touching example in Torchbearers with Shaykh Waleed Basyouni from the life of the fifth rightly guided caliph in which he hid the sin of his servant — and the servant had just poisoned him! — giving him the most beautiful naseehaa.

   a fourth is citizen-government official (assume the scope is limited to the work of the official and not to his private life) — here a particular example comes to mind, when a sahaba (Salmaan al Farisi?) questioned Omar radi Allaho anhumaa in public about why Omar had received three pieces of cloth when others had received two.

   a fifth is the relationship between any fiduciary and the beneficiary of that relationship, or between the fiduciary and the public at large since whole institutions may depend on the reliability of such men and women.

   a sixth special relationship would be teacher-student: and here in particular i care about the duties a teacher has to the student. and a special instance here may be the relationship of the new Muslim with whomever in the community has undertaken to mentor him in Islam.

   i pray i have made a good case for this article or series of them. :) inshaAllah, i will patiently… at least until the next open thread. :P

   Reply
9. 

   AsadS.

   April 13, 2008 at 5:17 PM

   InshaAllah the ranking will increase to even higher over the next days… months… years…

   Reply
10. 

    Muslimah

    April 13, 2008 at 6:00 PM

    I asked this in the first Open Thread, and I’m still perplexed as to the correct stance, any insight?

    “Not too long ago, I engaged in conversation with a non-Muslim lawyer. Somehow or other, we came to discuss an issue under Canadian law. If a person has conspired with others to commit an illegal act and while carrying out that act, someone from the group causes the death of an innocent person, are all those who executed the initial crime responsible for the death of that innocent…or just the person who caused their death directly?

    E.g. 3 people commit an armed robbery, but don’t agree to kill anyone (they’re still carrying loaded weapons) but one from the group ends up doing so. Should all 3 be charged with culpable homicide on top of other applicable charges or just the person who comitted the murder? (Note: According to the non-Muslim lawyer, under Canadian law, all 3 would be charged for the murder.)

    I was hesitant to offer my own opinion. I wanted to know the shar’i stance first. Does anyone know what it is (please provide proofs)?”

    Reply
11. 

    Charles

    April 13, 2008 at 6:08 PM

    @zk

    Muslim men probably accept that women need to be protected from them, but I doubt that they think through the implications of their being animals. With respect to the European’s question, although women are not segregated in many societies, they are still harassed in many instances. So, you might turn the question around and ask him, Why are sexual harassment laws (in the U.S.) needed? Why do U.S. feminists claim that one in four women are raped? Although that number is likely exaggerated, its existence shows that many men in the West find it difficult to rise above being an animal. That difficulty is the reason for the need for modesty. Modesty is not the same as segregation, of course, but my point is that many, probably most, westerners really haven’t thought through how much they are governed by animal instincts.

    Reply
12. 

    anon

    April 13, 2008 at 8:20 PM

    “Men in the West find it difficult to rise above being an animal. That difficulty is the reason for the need for modesty”

    But modesty has really had no affect on curbing the level of rapes or sexual harrassment directed against women or the “animalistic nature of man”. The level of blatant, open, and seemingly acceptable sexual harrassment I read about and hear about in the middle east and south east asia is rather astounding to be quite honest. Obviously women there dress considerably more conservatively than women in the US. Combined with the choice of modest dress, religious/social mores you would think that the level of sexual crimes against women would be less, not equal or maybe even more than in the US. But this is most likely not the case despite what the stats from those countries indicate. Does this not just mean that men are animals no matter what and they should be segregated for the safety of all humankind?

    Reply
13. 

    Manas Shaikh

    April 14, 2008 at 2:10 AM

    “Does this not just mean that men are animals no matter what and they should be segregated for the safety of all humankind?”

    Yeah. Especially bush. :)

    Reply
14. 

    zk

    April 14, 2008 at 2:11 AM

    “Men in the West find it difficult to rise above being an animal. That difficulty is the reason for the need for modesty”

    Try being female in a South Asian market place, covered head to toe, and you might still be stared at uncomfortably. Or have a gesture made toward you. or someone walk by you with their hands ‘brushing’ against you,all while you’re ‘modest’. Sick men like this may be the exceptions rather than the rule in that part of the World, but I think those are rather universal exceptions.

    Also, modesty means little in societies where even prostitutes take to the streets in abayas (for eg: the ‘moderate’ bastion of the arab world, ie Dubai, has this sick phenomenon) leaving those with dirty minds no hesitation to make a rude gesture to any woman who may not have a man around her in a public place. Demonizing western men is a little blind to the flaws of ‘eastern’ societies, as experienced by many women on a daily basis.

    (these aren’t all my experiences, they are anecdotal accounts from many, many women of different ages, and I cannot use them to justify any generalizations about all men in the East.)

    In 8 years in the West, (UK and US), I haven’t been harassed,ever; maybe because of the serious threat of litigation, not to mention to do it to a hijabi, could turn it into a discrimination issue. But I wouldn’t say no one ever gets harassed, because there are sick men everywhere. Is it fair to characterize the nature of man as being so, where really its a few bad apples giving them a bad name?

    Also, the statistics that talk about high incidences of rape in the US will also tell you that the majority of incidents of rape and sexual harassment in the US are date-rapes or family members,ie people that the victim knows, where modesty would not necessarily be a factor that would be deterrent (in dates, yes, but what in the world is a modest date?). This is something that many colleges tell female college students to caution them about date rapes and the dangers of excessive drinking, and unfortunately they are prevalent enough. but it is less likely that a sexual attack in this country is some random stranger jumping out of the bushes grabbing you from the back.

    As for rape statistics in ‘non western’ countries, the fear of stigma and persecution and allegations of adultery are often so real for the victim, that for the sake of family honor and the sense of shame, the crimes never get reported, even if the atrocities happen, which is unfortunate because the victim gets punished and the perpetrators roam free. It’s the grossest injustice, not through law, but through societal stigma.

    Lastly, sexual harassment laws aren’t solely for the protection of females. its just that females are less likely to sexually harass a man, possibly because of fear of physical injury caused by someone physically stronger, or having better judgement, or men are less likely to be mortally offended by gestures or words?

    Sweeping generalizations, about the West, about men, and about society in general, about anything at all really, are always problematic. A nuanced discussion which recognizes where these generalizations may fall apart may lead to better discourse in general.

    Reply
15. 

    ibnabeeomar

    April 14, 2008 at 2:32 AM

    you know… if we’re going to go through all this trouble of fighting an unjustified war, based on false intelligence, committing ourselves a lot longer than we need to, exert our hegemony under pretenses of democracy, and steal Iraq’s oil ……….. you would think our gas prices wouldn’t be so high!!!

    Reply
16. 

    Charles

    April 14, 2008 at 8:25 AM

    @zk and anon

    You have good points. Starting again, these laws (religious, non-religious) and social attitudes indicate that animal instincts are strong and that certain precautions need to be taken in regards to them. To suggest, as the European did, that more strict precautions, such as segregation, meant that men were “reduced to nothing more than an animal” seems to overlook human beings’ animal drives and the role of social laws and attitudes in regulating those drives. That perspective also positions him and those he belongs to as somehow being above such animal drives, unlike those elsewhere. It’s a typical “them vs. us” position.

    Also, the fact that modesty and segregation are not 100% effective simply indicates the strength of animal instincts. It would be interesting to compare societies that have different levels of sexual harassment and see if we could determine the factors promoting and regulating these animal drives that are a part of our biology.

    Reply
17. 

    Manas Shaikh

    April 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM

    MuslimMatters team

    Can you please do an article/series on Sabr?

    Talking about the virtues of Sabr (while persisting on good work), and how to train and motivate oneself in Sabr (while persisting on good work)?

    I would also like to read a similar article on ‘Adab.

    JazakAllah Khair in advance.

    Reply
18. 

    zk

    April 14, 2008 at 10:21 AM

    @ Charles,
    Maybe we have the causation the wrong way around, though? The more you create this aura of forbidden-ness around the women, the more likely someone is likely to harbor unhealthy thoughts about them? I’m not challenging any islamic notions- I abide by them personally, but in trying to sift out

    and about typical “us vs them”, again, a blatant generalization. I know this person well enough, as well as the larger context of that conversation, to know that there was no condescension in that comment, nor an attempt to elevate himself, let alone his race/group from others. It was genuine curiosity stemmed from a different discussion, he brought up what I thought was an interesting perspective, not be hostile. Not every non-muslim is out there to attack us, there is some genuine, well intentioned curiosity out there as well that we would do well to satiate, as opposed to assume as being a criticism.

    It is unfortunate I say this, but I have met more white men through school and work who are respectful of me and capable of having a decent,respectful, intellectual conversation and feel comfortable about how they aren’t judging me because I choose to interact with a man, even if my form of interaction is different and unlike there’s. I don’t get weird looks if I don’t shake hands or do the cheek to cheek greeting, my space is respected, mostly because I command that respect. In fact, because of this, they are more conscious and aware of respectful of my beliefs.

    whereas I have often felt this with muslim men, who seem to think that if a woman in hijab so much as talks to them, she’s asking them to marry her, or is really not true to her own code of morality. In the eyes of the white men, my adherence to my set of rules raises me, to the muslim men, my openness (because I do not want to be hypocritical in my interactions, and if I interact with men, I do so in the same way with all of them) leaves me open to judgement about my character. I work in a male dominated environment with no muslims around me, but I never feel uncomfortable because people respect me.

    This would imply that there is a superiority, and anecdotally, from my personal experience, I could justify it, but i refuse to do so, because I know it is not true. I used a generalization myself here too, intentionally, to prove that really, things aren’t as black and white as they are often painted to be.

    I find the notion of the animalistic nature of man disturbing myself, because I believe in the equality of the sexes, and by accepting that one is more animalistic, or the other needs to be protected from the other is a concept I have trouble with because it creates a hierarchy within the sexes itself. (either as the man being superior like a predator in a jungle because of his aggressiveness, or a woman being superior, like a jewel locked up in a safe because of her greater value.) However I don’t condemn segregation or veiling at all, and do not think it is oppressive in anyway if it is not forced upon.

    Here’s the main conclusion I come to from this discussion: we need more muslims who study disciplines like sociology and anthropology,and publish works that are supportive of the traditional conservative perspective (as opposed to feminists who oppose the veil, or people who demand reform) with reasons that go beyond adherence to religious mandate, but can paint them in the terms of human interactions in a way that is accessible and understandable to all, within and outside Islam. Much of the work supporting Islamic lifestyles has a pre-requisite of having faith in the Qur’an and Hadith, but they represent the greater understanding and wisdom about how people should interact with each other, which is what needs to be communicated to the outside audience. Ie, Islamic lifestyle makes sense not just because it is what we are told what to do and it pleases God, but because of what we are and it fits our nature best.
    Thus we can understand our own societies from our own perspectives without fear of outside condescension, and be able to present things to others not just in terms of religious texts and commandments, but through the greater wisdom reflected in the societal circumstances created by truly abiding to our rules.

    please don’t take my comments as being aggressive, they are far from it.

    Reply
19. 

    Charles

    April 14, 2008 at 2:26 PM

    @zk
    Maybe we have the causation the wrong way around, though? The more you create this aura of forbidden-ness around the women, the more likely someone is likely to harbor unhealthy thoughts about them?

    I wouldn’t say causation is the wrong way around. No one can escape from his/her biological makeup. However, I would agree that social attitudes can help to regulate or promote biological hormones.

    typical “us vs them”, again, a blatant generalization. I know this person well enough, as well as the larger context of that conversation, to know that there was no condescension in that comment, nor an attempt to elevate himself, let alone his race/group from others. It was genuine curiosity stemmed from a different discussion, he brought up what I thought was an interesting perspective, not be hostile.

    I wasn’t implying that he was hostile or condescending, although it may apply with others. Rather, I was attempting to point out that many, even in curiosity, seem to overlook the same characteristics in their own group. Let me give a non-related example. When I went to Turkey, I noticed that Turks had very long eyelashes, longer than Americans (“us vs. them”), or so I thought. However, when I returned after 4 years, I noticed that the eyelashes were really the same in length between the two groups. It took a leaving away from my home territory, living in the other land, and then returning to be able to compare fully the two groups and then to see that they weren’t really different, although based on my experience, initially I thought they were different. What is true physically is even more true sociologically and psychologically.

    It is unfortunate I say this, but I have met more white men through school and work who are respectful of me and capable of having a decent,respectful, intellectual conversation and feel comfortable about how they aren’t judging me because I choose to interact with a man

    This, to me, shows how societal attitudes can help to ameliorate our animal instincts.

    I find the notion of the animalistic nature of man disturbing myself, because I believe in the equality of the sexes, and by accepting that one is more animalistic, or the other needs to be protected from the other is a concept I have trouble with because it creates a hierarchy within the sexes itself.

    I would say that both men and women are equally animalistic, but in different ways. As long as we are biological creatures, we can not escape our biological nature, only control it. I believe that one aspect of religion is to help us become truly human instead of mostly animal.

    Here’s the main conclusion I come to from this discussion: we need more muslims who study disciplines like sociology and anthropology,and publish works that are supportive of the traditional conservative perspective (as opposed to feminists who oppose the veil, or people who demand reform) with reasons that go beyond adherence to religious mandate, but can paint them in the terms of human interactions in a way that is accessible and understandable to all, within and outside Islam.

    Definitely.

    Much of the work supporting Islamic lifestyles has a pre-requisite of having faith in the Qur’an and Hadith, but they represent the greater understanding and wisdom about how people should interact with each other, which is what needs to be communicated to the outside audience. Ie, Islamic lifestyle makes sense not just because it is what we are told what to do and it pleases God, but because of what we are and it fits our nature best.

    Makes sense to me.

    
Thus we can understand our own societies from our own perspectives without fear of outside condescension, and be able to present things to others not just in terms of religious texts and commandments, but through the greater wisdom reflected in the societal circumstances created by truly abiding to our rules.

    We seem to have similar understandings.

    Reply
20. 

    Asim

    April 14, 2008 at 2:49 PM

    zk,

    I am a Muslim male. When I exercise modesty in my attitude and do not mix freely with even close female relatives during family visits (such as my own elder brother’s wife or my wife’s sisters, etc.), it does not mean that I am making them into sexual objects (authobillah) or stating (through my actions) that I am just an animal, unable to control myself were I to mix with women. Rather, I understand that no matter how un-sexualized my thoughts may be about the non-mahrams in question, there is wisdom in Divine laws that prohibit free mixing.

    Of course, those with deep knowledge of human psychology and human sexuality will be better able to shed light on the wisdoms built into these laws, but just the fact that these (admittedly strict) laws are there to prevent the basest aspects of human nature from causing mischief does not mean that every individual Muslim who practices these laws necessarily has these basest aspects expressed in his or her character. It needs to be remembered that laws cannot be tailored to suit individuals, but are designed for the best interests of society as a whole. If some individuals thereafter have to exercise the precautionary measures resulting from these laws, while being bereft of the weaknesses that these measures protect against, this does not mean that the lawmaker demeans them in any way.

    But it should be borne in mind that our Islamic world-view, even of human psychology, incorporates considerations that no secular scientist can consider. For instance, Islam tells us that the devil can run through a person’s body like blood. Meaning that due to the whispers of the devil, even an otherwise pious person can slip and end up committing a sin. No wonder, therefore, that Islamic precautionary measures take this factor into account. These meausres are fighting not just our basest potential but our basest natures + the devil’s influence. Of course, to expect a secular study of human nature and anthropology, etc., to take account of these supernatural realities is not reasonable.

    Wallahu A’lam bis-sawaab.

    Reply
21. 

    Zaynab

    April 14, 2008 at 6:26 PM

    Stem Cell Research in Shari’ah perspective:
    http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545118

    Very few things warm my heart like seeing a balanced Islamic approach to science! We seriously need to be more proud of the logic and process of issuing fatawah on modern issues like this. Masha’Allah.

    As someone who loves the beauty of Islam and then studies and loves the beauty of science, it really saddens me that the only people representing theists in the mainstream Media are Evengelical Christians or the Catholic church.

    Rant over :) And truly Allah knows best.

    May Allah protect our leaders and scholars and keep them on the middle path. Ameen.

    Reply
22. 

    inexplicabletimelessness

    April 15, 2008 at 1:25 AM

    “It needs to be remembered that laws cannot be tailored to suit individuals, but are designed for the best interests of society as a whole. If some individuals thereafter have to exercise the precautionary measures resulting from these laws, while being bereft of the weaknesses that these measures protect against, this does not mean that the lawmaker demeans them in any way.”

    subhanallah, so so so true. jazakallahkhair

    Reply
23. 

    umm nadia

    April 15, 2008 at 3:29 PM

    I noticed zk said that she believes in male and female equality. I believe this maybe why she can’t understand how many men harass women. Men and women are not equal at all. The s*xual urge in men is extremely strong. I really don’t think most women truly understand it, it can cause men to behave in a way that they would normally not. Read Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely , there is a chapter than alludes to how the s*xual urge in men can make them consider abhorrent behavior to be with a woman. And those men who already lack impulse control, they will just act without thinking fulfill the urge.

    She mentioned not being harassed in UK, I do think in certain cultures men have more self-control. European (mostly Northern) men also have easier access to women through dating and the drinking culture so maybe no need to harass strange women you can get what you want for free. But in the overwhelming majority of the world women are not safe, especially young girls and women. Look up articles on the attitude towards rape in S. America, Russia, certain Asian cultures. Look at the history of rape whenever military conquests occured any where in the world. Women are not safe from strange men. Alhumdullilah for Islam, as someone already mentioned, the Sharia is for the weak among humanity, not the strong. And honestly, if you start reading Anthropology, Sociology, human Psychology etc you realize human beings are a lot more weak than strong.

    Reply
24. 

    zk

    April 15, 2008 at 8:31 PM

    @ charles
    Glad to know we agree

    @ be Asim
    Thank you, that is exactly the sort of insight I was looking for- what goes through men’s heads. Agreeing or disagreeing isn’t the issue, its more about wanting to know what men think, which I can’t answer because I’m not a man.

    @ umm nadia
    I disagree. I think biologically women are probably as sexual as men, it is social grooming that prohibits free expression of it, particularly in muslim societies to protect the sanctity of marriage (and rightfully so; men should be modest about it too, but they get away with it more easily), but this is something that is acknowledged by the rights a woman to pleasure has from her husband, but not something most women would be comfortable admitting. Its a different chemical response though- the male sex drive is driven by testosterone, which makes them more aggressive and impulsive, but because the dynamics are different, i’m not sure if you could count that unequal.

    Rape in military situations is a different dynamic altogether- it is an extreme expression of superiority, power and domination, and not about sexual gratification, you only need to look as far as the sexual humiliation of even men in Abu Ghraib to see that in action. military situations can’t be compared to normal situations- the mindset of those at conflict can’t be compared to a normal, civil society, because nothing is ‘normal’ during that sort of chaos. The excessive aggression of war causes the extreme levels of testosterone that lead to men being aggressive and rape and turning into animals.

    Reply