As many young women in college get ready to leave the house, there is a flurry to put together a combination of the right shoes, sweater, earrings or lip gloss. But for one part of the UK population, dressing for class is all about one thing — modesty.
Heba Suleiman is a psychology junior and next year’s Muslim Student Association president. As a Muslim woman, Suleiman wears hijab, something most people tend to misunderstand, she says.
“The head scarf or the Arabic term ‘hijab’ is actually a very vague term,” Suleiman said. “ … in general the hijab would be the modesty or the covering, so the reason we wear it is to be fully covered.”
Psychology junior Heba Suleiman is next year's president of UK's Muslim Student Association. Suleiman, who wears her hijab every day, says she cannot imagine leaving the house without it on and has been wearing hijab since she was 11 years old. portrait by allie garza | Staff
This week is Islamic Awareness Week, an attempt to inform people about the principles of Islam and break the misconceptions attached to the religion.
The word Islam literally means “peace,” Suleiman said, or losing one’s self for the sake of God, or Allah. Muslim is the word used for people who follow Islam, just like Christians follow Christianity.
While many people may not know the specifics of the religion, they do recognize Muslim women who wear hijab. The tradition of covering one’s self can be seen on campus everyday through Muslim students that stay true to the values Islam preaches.
Suleiman was born and raised in Kentucky, but her parents are from Palestine. She started wearing hijab when she was about 11 years old, so she would be used to it when she made the transition to middle and high school. She said most Muslim girls start wearing hijab during puberty when their bodies begin to develop.
It may be a common misconception that women are forced to cover themselves, but Suleiman said she never felt pressured to wear hijab — her parents gave her the choice. But living in Elizabethtown, Ky., Suleiman encountered more than just the usual playground taunts of children.
“The reactions I got after I started wearing it were actually pretty intense,” she said. “ … children would make fun of me and call me names like ‘towel head’ or things like that, so it was hard not knowing how to respond or give them a response that would actually stump their reactions, but I got used to it. My parents taught me that this is why you wear it, this is what you should tell them. A lot of people didn’t really know so they were a little bit ignorant about it.”
That ignorance has faded greatly since she came to UK, Suleiman said. Through the mission of the Muslim Student Association, she tries to spread the word of Islam in an open-minded manner.
“We’re not going out there and trying to preach and telling you [that] you need to convert,” she said. “We just want to spread the word (of Islam). If anyone has a question we always encourage them to come ask us or come to our meetings just to hear what we do … ”
Because of the number of Muslim students on campus, Suleiman sees many other girls who wear hijab. She said having a larger, more diverse community made it easier for her to deal with the questions that come with being a Muslim on campus.
“… it makes it a lot easier for me to come to a big university and not have to deal with the ignorance or the stares or the glares just because I think a lot of people know (why we wear hijab),” she said. “And if they don’t … they come and they ask me ‘why do you wear that?’ and ‘what religion are you?’ so I just explain to them what it is.”
Islamic Awareness Week is part of the Cultural Diversity Festival, and Suleiman feels that one of the misconceptions about her culture is the way women are treated in Islam.
“You hear in other third-world countries that men treat women wrong, or they have to cover from head to toe,” she said. “But in our religion it doesn’t say you have to cover from head to toe. It says cover everything but your face. And it doesn’t refrain us from doing stuff like working. It doesn’t say anything about being locked at home … There’s Muslim doctors, lawyers, teachers. There’s every type of career that you have. Women can do anything, whether you wear hijab or not.”
Suleiman feels Muslim women are not limited in life by the hijab, including in the fashion world. Just because she wears hijab doesn’t mean she cannot enjoy her own style.
“There’s so many different ways to wear it,” she said. “From a wedding to just everyday life — for a wedding they have sequins, they have glitter, and you can pin it up to look like a flower … If you’re feeling gloomy you can wear a black one. If you’re feeling bright you can wear a white one. So whatever your style fits, you can wear.”
And no matter what her mood or current style, Suleiman said one thing will remain constant — that she will wear hijab.
“I’d actually feel really naked (without it), like I’m missing something,” she said. “It’s kind of like if I lose my cell phone.”
One reason Suleiman wears hijab is because she sees the way other women present themselves. She says modesty is such a key part of her religion, so she chooses to keep herself covered and avoid situations brought on by revealing too much of themselves.
“I see girls that dress with few clothing on I guess, and the way they get treated and you hear responses from men like ‘why would she wear that if she didn’t want me to look at her?’, so I keep myself away from that because I know if I dress modestly and I know if I’m doing something right, it’s less likely for something like that to happen to me.”
Pingback: Why they wear it: UK students raise awareness of Islam | allah.eu
Psychology junior?
So shouldn’t she have come to realize how manipulative and destructive such fetishes (in the classical sense) are?
Maybe she should be studying how the belief in religion is purely emotional and irrational?
There’s no god and the islamic idea of modesty is based off of controlling and devaluing women.
Good article, Katie,
Now inquire of Suleiman about Shria Law (Legal Code).
Her opinions on it, and their effect upon her life.
Perhaps you would profit by learning the nature and content
Sharia Law.http://westernfrontamerica.com/2009/03/04/short-overview-sharia-law/
Rusty
Mashallah Heba!! I am very proud of you for stepping up and letting people know the significance of the hijab and why we wear it and why we are proud and comfortable to wear it. Keep it up and inshallah we can teach people the TRUE and REAL meanings and teachings of islam. :)
Anti-Allah,
The fact that you named your self Anti-Allah and the fact that you stated there is no GOd, clearly shows how you know nothing.
Awesome article, Heba.
Free choice, eh?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/007-veils.htm
Islam means peace. George Orwell predicted as much.
http://www.zimbio.com/Holocaust+Research+Project/articles/350/Adolf+Hitler+Nazis+hated+Arabs+inferior+race
And,
“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says, kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! …Whatever good there is, exists thanks to the sword, and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient, except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! …Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”—Ayatollah Khomeini (1902-1989) Iran’s Supreme Leader from 1979 to 1989—the highest ranking political and religious authority of the nation.
H.S.,
I disagree with your conclusion that Anti-Allah’s name and assertion that there is no god clearly show that he/she knows nothing. It merely shows that he/she doesn’t believe in god. Illogical and irrational statements such as yours do nothing to strengthen your already tenuous position that an invisible, all-powerful being requires our unwavering devotion.
Are those of you who are criticizing Islam adherents of a different religion?
Lyman,
Why does my religion matter?
What if I happen to be a reincarnated Buddha who was killed when the Muslim hordes invaded my ancient village in Afghanistan?
What if I am now a gypsy because I cannot return to my home because Muslims would kill me (again) if I did return?
This reincarnation business is tricky stuff.
All kidding aside, today Afghanistan is 100% Muslim. There are no Buddhists alive in Afghanistan despite it once being a country filled with Buddhists. Buddhists who originally lived there for centuries before Mohammed’s birth. Today in Afghanistan the Islamists have destroyed our great culture; our Banyan Statues, etc… These people treat women like dogs and treat dogs like merde. In Islam dogs are unholy creatures.
Now I have become an Islamophobe. That is my religion, and I am proud of it. Winston Churchill practiced Islamophobia, as did William Gladstone, Teddy Roosevelt, John Quincy Adams and Thomas Jefferson, Bertrand Russell, John Wesley and many others. This is what my co-religionist, Winston Churchill, said about Islam:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia [rabies] in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. …The fact that in Mohammedan law [sharia] every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities—but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” —Winston Churchill (1874-1965) British Prime Minister
This is some American history for those majoring in it:
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury”, the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [2] [3]
Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of State John Jay, who submitted the Ambassador’s comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks. Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built.
Good article, i agree although muslims wear the hijab there not missing out on wat the non-believers are doing infact people who wear the hijab are protected but at the same time modest and freee…you can still do what non-believers would do but muslims have boundaries where u can do the stuff but theres a certain limit you can do iht to and that is just to protect themselves and be a true woman ….for example muslims can still wear makeup like the non-belivers but when muslims wear it they should only wear it subtle and not overdone and thats only to not make themselves look stupid or slutty but to make them look modest and beautiful. Also muslims can still wear miniskirts,shortops but only infront of there husbands and they could wear iht under a long cloak……if anyone wants to comment on my comment:L you can email xxiqraaxx@hotmail.com
This is pure Moslem propaganda. Suleiman says: “The word Islam literally means “peace,” Suleiman said, or losing one’s self for the sake of God, or Allah.” The word “Islam” does NOT mean “peace”. You can go to any Moslem religious website of book, or any dictionary, and see that “Islam” means “surrender” or “submission” to the will of Allah. This may have to do with “peace” only in the sense of the inner peace that results from surrendering your individual will and desires to the will of a higher power. It is the peace that George Orwell described so well on the last page of his novel “1984″: “He loved Big Brother”. This definition of “peace” has nothing to do with peace and war, that is, with peaceful relations between societies. No Islamic religious scholar will say that Islam means peace between societies. On the contrary, Islam requires war against all non-Moslem societies until Islam reigns triumphant throughout the world.
As for Suleiman, one wonders whether she has ever bothered to read the Koran which is the very basis of Islam. If she had read it, she would know that Allah in the Koran requires Muslims to believe these things (among others):
– The unbelievers among the people of the book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. (98.6).
– Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve. (8.55)
–The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101)
– Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48:29).
– It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer, accidents excepted. (4:92)
– Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. (5:51)
– Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme. (8:40)
– Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme. (2:193)
– The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. (4:76)
– We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. (3:151)
— I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers. (8:12)
And we haven’t even begun to talk about Muhammad.
Let’s stop this pro-Moslem propaganda and whitewash. Suleiman is an advertisement for Islam, but she is not representative of Islam.
Did someone mention “Mohammed”? Evidently he was quite the swordsman.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/025-Muhammads-sex-life.htm
What a whole load of rubbish this hijab is! Islam is not about the hijab, it’s about treating others how you want to be treated yourself, and that includes ‘everybody’ not just other fellow muslims … don’t forget Heba, When prophit Mohamed had to escape, he sheltered with the Christians, who spared nothing in caring for him and his followers. Of course covering your head is not a real muslim teaching as such, as it’s origin is in Jewish teachings and then Christianity. Indeed lots of women from those religions do choose to cover themselves the same way to this day.
That said, modesty, is also not dependant on the way you cover yourbody, for as a Muslim myself, who does not wear a hijab but dresses in a non provocative way like the majority of women of any religion around the globe, I have seen many of those covered from head to toe are anything but modest! .. and have you seen the new trend of wearing hijabs over the tightest pairs of jeans and tops?!
Again, don’t forget that this hijab wearing is a new thing, as nearly no one but peasants wore prior to theearly 70 when that ‘crase’ for hijab and it’s ghastly brother, the neqab started! Ask your own mother! She’ll tell you that they wore clothes that were very similar to that of western women but that covered to below the knees. Some showed the arms and some didn’t .. and they attracted no attention because how you conduct yourself while being reasonably dressed is what really matters – and that’s ‘real’ modest!
As a psychology student, you need to get your priorities right about what is modest and what is not Heba – cover yourself all you like, but don’t judge it as right or wrong except for your own self because, like me, other perfectly normally dressed and modest people do differ with you in opinion, despite the fact that they are Muslim too!
And ‘Abdulameer’, why don’t you go read your old testament that states that everbody else, but the jews, are dispensible?!
What rubbish you have mentioned above is taken out of context because Islam says that you can do this ‘if’ attacked and as self defence, but ‘never’ to start hostilities yourself!
You’re being hostile! For no reason too – but I won’t be intimidated, because people hiding behind fictitious names inciting hatred like you, are not worth the effort!
And yes, Islam means to ‘surrender to the will of god’ and in that you find peace, and in turn give it to others too, a concept that may be impossible for you to grasp. but I’ll try …
Peace to you ‘Abdelameer’! :-)
Arafat,
You mentioned Bertrand Russell. He is perhaps most famous for his essay “Why I am not a Christian”. You should read it if you haven’t. I asked about your religious views because many of the most vocal critics of Islam are Christians and Jews. All three religions believe in a god. As support for their belief all three look to “sacred” books written by men while allegedly under divine inspiration. All religion is merely a subtle variation on the same theme. Your attacks on Islam could easily be adapted to condemn Christianity.
Believe whatever you want, but please don’t pretend that your irrational belief system is somehow superior to any other.
Lyman,
I was referring to the following quote:
“Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam…. Marx has taught that Communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of mind not unlike that of the early successors of Mahommet…. Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism, rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world.” —Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) Liberal icon
Lyman wrote: “All religion is merely a subtle variation on the same theme. Your attacks on Islam could easily be adapted to condemn Christianity.”
This is simply not true. It is relativistic mumbo-jumbo.
Do the following facts about Islam sound anything like Christianity or Judaism?
The Myth:
Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same. Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, fighting only in self-defense – and when it was necessary. True Muslims would never act aggressively.
The Truth:
Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire.
After Muhammad’s death, his most faithful followers and even his own family turned on each other almost immediately. There were four Caliphs (leaders) in the first twenty-five years, each of which was a trusted companion of his. Three of these four were murdered. The third Caliph was murdered by the son of the first. The fourth Caliph was murdered by the fifth, who left a 100-year dynasty that was ended in a gruesome, widespread bloodbath by descendents of Muhammad’s uncle.
Muhammad’s own daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali, who both survived the pagan hardship during the Meccan years safe and sound, did not survive Islam after the death of Muhammad. Fatima died of stress from persecution within three months, and Ali was later assassinated by Muslim rivals. Their son (Muhammad’s grandson) was killed in battle with the faction that became today’s Sunnis. His people became Shias. The relatives and personal friends of Muhammad were mixed into both warring groups, which then fractured further into hostile sub-divisions as Islam expanded.
Muslim apologists who like to say that is impossible for today’s terrorists to be Muslim when they kill fellow Muslims would have a very tough time explaining the war between Fatima and Aisha to a knowledgeable audience. Muhammad’s favorite daughter and his favorite wife were both explicitly held up by him as model Muslim women before they engaged in violent battle following his death. Which one was the prophet of God so horribly wrong about?
Muhammad left his men with instructions to take the battle against Christians, Persians, Jews and polytheists (which came to include millions of unfortunate Hindus). For the next four centuries, Muslim armies steamrolled over unsuspecting neighbors, plundering them of loot and slaves, and forcing the survivors to either convert or pay tribute at the point of a sword.
Companions of Muhammad lived to see Islam declare war on every major religion in the world in just the first few decades following his death – pressing the Jihad against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists.
By the time of the Crusades (when the Europeans began fighting back), Muslims had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world by sword, from Syria to Spain, and across North Africa.
Millions of Christians were enslaved by Muslims, and tens of millions of Africans. The Arab slave-trading routes would stay open for 1300 years, until pressure from Christian-based countries forced Islamic nations to declare the practice illegal (in theory). To this day, the Muslim world has never apologized for the victims of Jihad and slavery.
There is not another religion in the world that consistently produces terrorism in the name of religion as does Islam. The most dangerous Muslims are nearly always those who interpret the Qur’an most transparently. They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in Muhammad’s mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not submit.
The holy texts of Islam are saturated with verses of violence and hatred toward those outside the faith. In sharp contrast to the Bible, which generally moves from relatively violent episodes to far more peaceful mandates, the Qur’an travels the exact opposite path (violence is first forbidden, then permitted, then mandatory). The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message. While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Qur’anic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended and subject to personal interpretation.
By any objective measure, the “Religion of Peace” has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known.
great article, wish there was a way to delete the ignorant comments.
A symbol can mean many things. In America, the flag is a symbol to represent the freedom accorded to its citizens and the sacrifices of those before them to give them those freedoms. In other countries, however, the American flag flies over military bases which stand as a harsh memory of previous conflict.
In this same sense, the hijab can mean many thing to many people. If you were to ask a woman in a fundementalist Muslim country in honesty, they may declare that the hijab is a way to demean and devalue them. However, to engage in such academic dishonesty as to declare a headscarf as a universal symbol of oppression would be to ignore the facts.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in America, both through conversion and through immigration. Based on research done at the University of Kentucky, an average of 16 people convert per mosque per year in America, with the number of mosques nearly doubling in the past 10 years. A great number, if not the majority, of those converts are women. To those woman who become Muslim, it is in the hijab that they find a sense of security that allows them to escape a culture they view as sexually overpowering. They feel a greater sense of self, where they are no longer treated as an object to be enjoyed by the eyes that follow them in the streets.
I laud Heba for taking the opportunity to share her story. It is a shame that so many people are demeaning her for what she sees as a legitimate part of her religion.
I want to tread this ground lightly, as I believe that mannerisms are required both online and in person, even if you are not shown the same kind manners. However, I must point this out: for those who are criticising Heba for being a psychology major and attempting to teach her a lesson in her own field of study, it is perhaps most telling that you have both chosen highly propagandist websites, pulled Qur’anic verse out of its entire context, and then continued to show such insecurity as to hide your opinion behind a false name. I personally know Heba, and she reflects a sense of confidence and personal tranquility that is severely juxtaposed to the frustration I find amongst posts here.
Please, anybody who decides to read through these posts; I encourage you to look at both sides of this debate, rather than refer to propagandist websites. Try http://www.sunnipath.com . Read the varying views on Wikipedia; more often than not, the debate is far more scholarly than what is seen here. Whatever you do, make some consideration before you formulate your views.
Regards,
Matthew Longacre
“I see girls that dress with few clothing on I guess, and the way they get treated and you hear responses from men like ‘why would she wear that if she didn’t want me to look at her?’”
I am really glad to see the Kernel cover our muslim student community, and am glad to see Islam represented in a positive light. I am not glad to see the president of the MSA suggesting that people deserve disrespect based on what they do or do not choose to wear. You’d think her experiences with ridicule for wearing the hijab would keep her from being so quick to judge and condemn people for what they wear. Maybe not.
I meant future president of MSA- excuse me!
Time out everyone.
The real issue is a matter which has escaped you all since birth.
Especially you postmoderns who make it up as you go.
Say what?
Hold on now…..TRUTH.
To Arafat:
Let’s just set the record straight: Muslims are ordered not to transgress or attack anyone who hasn’t attacked them. There are very clear verses in the Quran that say tell the unbelievers, I will not believe in what you believe and you will not believe in what i believe, you have your religion and I have mine. I’m not sure how more explicitly you want it spelt out before accepting it. HOWEVER, muslims have also been ordered to Not turn the other cheek either: so you don’t attack but you also dont run away from defending yourself when you are attacked and the responsibility of this defence does fall on all the men.
As for the slaves, you can not possibly be talking about the christians who locked people in the lower decks of their ships in a state most similar to battery chicken (throwing half of them in the sea half-way through when they die) whilst they prayed to the lord on the upper deck, or could you? I’m not attacking christianity here as I’m sure it doesnt advocate that kind of treatment, but nontheless, some ppl who ‘thought’ of themselves as good christians did it. I also heard the KKK were quite keen on religion — they’re a dark point in christian history, bad interpretations of the bible? perhaps I guess
Plus You talk about Aisha as if she is heralded by muslims as angelic saint.. shes not. she’s a human being who makes mistakes and goes back on them. Even the prophet Muhammed himself was instructed clearly in the quran to tell his followers that he is Only human, just like them. and humans arent faultless. but their faults do not change the principles of the religion in any way. Political conflicts take place, they always have and they always will do for as long as humanity exists. As for Fatima, i’m not quite sure where you got the idea that 1) she died from stress, and 2) she was in any conflict. if she died 3months after as you say then surely that’s just about enough time to mourn the death of her father and thats it. Plus the first Caliph was aisha’s father, so I would suggest that you check your sources.
As for the CLEAR instructions muslims were left to kill everyone, I would be most grateful if you would direct me to the genuine source where you got this information from, as I’ve yet to see it.
And your final comment about the Quran being a contradictory text about violence is a clear indication that you havent even bothered to read the Quran before forming an opinion, and reading random verses doesnt mean you’ve read it either, so I would highly recommend you do that first.
If you are interested in what muslims (and not propagandists’ sites) believe about the prophet Muhammed and how he lived, then I would HIGHLY recommend a book called ‘The Sealed Nectar’ – it is widely used, highly regarded between muslims as a comprehensive account of the prophet’s life and actually quite insightful — (it covers every single battle in his lifetime too and its reasons)
Thanks for the article..though I disagreed with some bits, it was interesting to read :)
All religions are intolerant and untrue. All religions should be abandoned. End of discussion. SEE WAT I DID THAR?
Yay!
Heba rocks. Keep doing your thing! ;) Proud of you sis!
May Allah reward you.
Abdulameer and Arafat copied and pasted most of their posts’ content (word for word) either directly from wikipedia or any one of a number of other sites (including forums.conservativepunk.com) you can find links to if you simply copy their posts and paste them in google. Some they cited, most they didn’t. How sad they would actually want to pass off such drivel as their own thought.
Rest assured, they’re not thinking for themselves. Neither, albeit to a significantly lesser degree of ignorance, is anyone who strictly adheres to the tenants of any man-made religion. (notice I said “religion” not “faith” or “universally understood moral code”) And this statement is, admittedly, completely relative.
Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them.
65/27! Wow! name them Arafat! I am Muslim and I had no idea! But don’t make mistakes, please … ;-)
To Hannah,
Arafat is not a Christian Hannah, from how he writes, I think he’s a seikh or Indian or thereabouts. Please google Seikh, a religion that was formed 500 years ago by a leader of an indian group who suffered opression at the hands of the Muslims during the long rein of Islam in India, hence the understandable hatred. Regretable but it is real history, and Arafat dewells on that. However, whatever he does, Islamic heritage in Idia is what keeps Indian tourism alive today, because of it’s opulence and grandeur and the sheer amount and spread too, as well as the time line .. so, it’s not only the Taj Mahal .. maybe you should google to get an idea of the sheer scale in comparison to ‘other’ heritage. The Seikhs are also forbidden from dealing in anyway with Muslim women branding them as ‘dirty and impure’ .. again, that’s understandable, since their religion would not want to mix blood with Islam … :-)
But to Arafat I say, this was history .. you need to move on, or you will suffer, as I can see you are already. I wish you peace.
… And has it ever occured to you Arafrafat that B Russell is not god?! Or may be prejudiced himself?! … God! ‘It’s’ sooo simple!
“Muslims only kill in self-defense.”
The Muslim Game:
Muslims often claim that their religion only orders them to kill in self-defense (ie. when their own lives are in danger).
The Truth:
In fact, self-defense is just one of several conditions under which Muslims are permitted to take the lives of others. The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproved from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life as recorded in Islam’s sacred texts (with which Muslim terrorists are only too familiar).
Muhammad’s career of killing began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved here at all (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).
The very first battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.
The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed right through the heart of America on September 11th. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.
Muslims try to justify Muhammad’s violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger at all in their new home of Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.
Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value even than the very lives of others. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims.
Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded, and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of these were done during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense. To this day, Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy.
Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world – taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the East as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and well into the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.
Wow Arafat, those are some healthy doses of copypasta you’re serving up! http://nahc4.com/b/src/124959462842.jpg
Got anything original to say, or are you just going to flood the comments with shit you didn’t come up with?
Seth,
Here is something original: A women’s fashion show in the Muslim world.
Just to keep things consistent I had nothing to do with the creation of this production.
Click on the Bill Maher video for some LOL moments. It’s something I’m sure we will all get a great chuckle out of, even Heba.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4214
Original?
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0912/that-word-inigo-montoya-word-think-means-princess-bride-mand-demotivational-poster-1260739585.jpg
Caravan bandits, ey, Arafat?! The dessendants of which caused you and your like all that havoc and such agony?! Not very resiliant, are you?!
Mind you, I do have some friends from amongst your people – and they are such nice and peaceful people too …
Strive for that Arafat ..
Peace be upon you – I sincerely mean that :-)
And Seth, cut and paste do simplify things … excuse him! :-)
Heba,
Does the following article make you feel all warm and fuzzy about women’s rights in Saudi Arabia?
“Saudi cleric says that those who oppose gender segregation should be killed
Feel the love. Just don’t get too close. “Saudi cleric backs gender segregation with fatwa,” from Reuters, February 23:
RIYADH (Reuters) – A prominent Saudi cleric has issued an edict calling for opponents of the kingdom’s strict segregation of men and women to be put to death if they refuse to abandon their ideas.
Shaikh Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak said in a fatwa the mixing of genders at the workplace or in education “as advocated by modernisers” is prohibited because it allows “sight of what is forbidden, and forbidden talk between men and women”.
“All of this leads to whatever ensues,” he said in the text of the fatwa published on his website (albarrak.islamlight.net).
“Whoever allows this mixing … allows forbidden things, and whoever allows them is an infidel and this means defection from Islam … Either he retracts or he must be killed … because he disavows and does not observe the Sharia,” Barrak said….
Heba,
The following story also contradicts what you wrote and leaves me wondering whether you are seeing Islam clearly or through very, very, very rose-colored glasses.
“I Should Have Read My Islamic Marriage Contract”
Islamic law deprives women of many rights, and that’s bad enough — and then in practice, marriage contracts sometimes deprive them of even more. “I Should Have Read My Islamic Marriage Contract: Why didn’t I? Why don’t a lot of Muslim women?,” by Ayesha Nasir for Slate, February 25:
[...] Marriages in Pakistan are physically and emotionally exhausting. The rituals are designed to remind the woman that there is no turning back. Drained by the festivities and eager for a smooth end to the 14-day-long wedding, I gave in.
And so, during the ceremony, I sat a mile away from my fiance, could barely hear the words being recited, and felt as removed from the proceedings as a guest. I heard the microphone being passed to my husband. I heard him say “yes” three times, as is the tradition in Islam. I heard a round of congratulations. When my mother engulfed me in a tight hug, I protested that I had no idea what was happening.
Other women I know walked into marriage wearing similar blinders. One friend, who works as a pediatrician at one of Pakistan’s largest private hospitals, described her nikah ceremony as “confusing and far too quick.” She said that her father had simply thrust a sheaf of papers toward her and instructed her to sign on the dotted line. “Much later I realized I had no idea what I had signed,” she said. Another friend–who is a lawyer!–said she never got to see the complete contract. “I was given this single sheet of paper and told to sign, while the rest of the contract was being vetted by my husband,” she said. “Now, looking back, I don’t know why I signed it at all.”
Women’s rights activist Rubina Sehgal has an answer. She thinks no more than 2 percent of Pakistani women are familiar with their marriage contracts, which even educated and progressive women don’t view as a binding legal document, even though that’s what it is. “It has to do with their upbringing,” she said. “Women are brought up to believe that marriage implies submission and obedience and so, when it comes to the marriage contract, they just sign it. They forget at that time that they have the right to read it, vet it, and even suggest changes. At the time of tying the knot, a lot of importance is given to trust–trust your soon-to-be-husband, trust your parents.”
The problem is that marriage contracts often take away rights women otherwise have under Islamic law. This includes the right to file for divorce: Almost all the men in my family and in my husband’s family cancel this provision before handing the contract over to the woman’s family. It’s considered impolite, and a breach of the trust that Sehgal talks about, for a woman or the relative representing her to insist otherwise.
Women also forfeit the right to other protections. For example, in Islam, a woman is promised a certain amount of money (in keeping with her husband’s income) usually given to her if she chooses to divorce. The money is meant to provide her with some degree of financial security, especially if she leaves her husband. Despite the excellent logic behind this right, most men frown upon it. They put into the contract measly amounts, such as $1 or $10, simply to fill in the blank. And women don’t ask questions. An elderly aunt of mine takes great pride in saying that she agreed to 1 cent when it was time to marry off her daughter. “I had faith in Allah, so 1 cent was all I asked them to put down,” she said.
But Allah is the one who gives women this right, I protested. My aunt dismissed me….
wow,poor Arafat…
u know nothing about Islam.
Astagfirullahalazim…
seriously, i feel sorry for u.
wow, poor nike…
u know nothing about Islam.
Start learning with this piece of important history:
The Crusades
The Muslim Game:
Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and “kill millions.”
The Truth:
Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.
Here are some quick facts…
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.
In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques.
Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).
The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.
The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. (The Arab occupation is in its 1,378th year).
Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the “occupiers” quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.
The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusaders and went so far as to sign treaties with their rivals. Even the Muslim armies that eventually pushed out the Christian rulers spent far more energy fighting each other, both before and after the various re-takings of Jerusalem.
Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.
Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.
The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.
What is called ‘sin and excess’ by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.
First of all, Arafat is still a tool. I don’t agree with him.
I found this article on the web today and I think it’s interesting in light of some of Ms. Suleiman’s comments about how women on campus dress. http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/blame_the_victim_religious_leaflet_claims_ungodly_dressed_women_provoke_rap/42253/
First of all, Lyman is still a tool. I don’t agree with him.
I found this article on the web today and I think it’s interesting in light of some of Ms. Suleiman’s comments about how women on campus dress.
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/02/24/101355.html
Heba,
I think we all need to do work on this topic to “really” understand what is going on here. Your supposition as to why Muslim women wear what they do rings hollow to me. If I were a Muslim woman and I saw a picture like I have linked below I would strip down to my undies in defiance of a religion that condones behavior like that shown in the picture. For me wearing a hajib would be nothing more than tacit approval of a religion that treats women like “the walking dead”.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/some-1500-years-ago-it-was-decided-for-an-individuals-personal-reasons-that-women-should-have-purdah.html
Actually Arafat, I agree with you this time, it is abhoring for women to be made to think this gastly wear is religious! That said, there is nothing Islamic about the clothes these women are wearing, since Islam allows for the face and hands to be uncovered, to the point that women won’t be allowed to do Haj if they cover them!
What you see in the picture you provided mare some men behaving badly! Convincing women to be subsevient in that way to suit their own ends! .. Then YOU might argue that those are Muslim men, aren’t they? … Much like Hitler can be discribed as a Christian , if you ask me!
.. and you do need to find other interests in your life Arafat, such discontentment with life brings real bad diseases that best be avoided .. love does wonders to the soul, you know :-)
Peace be upon you
Besides, you’re begining to sound like an escapee from a secure facility! No good! No good at all ….
Peace, not pieces @@ … eh? :-)
Semsen,
It’s awfully nice of you to worry about my institutional situation. Most decent of you.
That said, just a little history for your dimwitted mind. Hitler did not do what he did for religious purposes. He was not a religious man at all.
Devout Muslims do force this dress on women. There is no choice other than torutre or death for the women other than to dress according to the religious men’s demands.
Religion, do you hear? Religion.
Islm and Nazism Do share a common bond thought. It is supremacism. Like Nazism, Islam is a doctrine that forces people to act, behave, dress, speak, pray in certain ways. Take Saudi Arabia for example. It is an Islamic country ruled by Sharia law. In it all women are forced to wear burkas or face punishment. All citizens are forced to be Muslims or they are kicked out. All Christians are forced not to carry bibles or to wear crosses, or selse. All Jews are forced not to step a foot in Saudi Arabia, or else. It is like Nazism. My way or the highway.
Here is another relevant article for you and our good friend Lyman illustrating once again how intrusive Islam in everything women are allowed to do. It has nothing to do with “modesty” and everything to do with repression and brute masculine force. Islam like Nazism is all about supremacism at the cost of any and all freedoms.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/bangladesh-women-detained-for-not-wearing-veil.html
Semsem,
Here is one more current article on how well women are treated under Sharia Law. Allah Akbar!
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/afghanistan-women-beaten-by-husbands-then-flogged-for-running-away.html
Like woman/wife beating is not rife in the west too?! These are CRIMES that are committed by men who think that because they have more muscle, they cand and do treat women as subsurvient to themselves – weak and mentally impotent men if you ask me! And they exist every where .. and they need to be tackled everywhere too – and since you mention Bangaladish, why not comment on the ‘killing for honour’ in India too?! or maybe you don’t know they exist .. and are committed by the non Muslims And the Muslims alike, eh?! .. and how about women who are married to men they have never seen, only for the men to run away after recieving the dowery?!
These are social crimes that do need to be confronted and those who commit it be held accountable, whatever the culture or the religion.
Go and get the education before you copy and paste Arafat! In a nut shell, you need to grow up!