posted
Is there any way to get a translated copy of this? I'd be very interested in reading it.
Posts: 1283 | From: Cairo | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
my hijab is my choice, I know it is not madatory. Actually when you think about it, everything in is Islam is a choice. You choose to practice, you choose to submit to the faith, you choose to submit to the will of Allah. Islam is submittion to the will of Allah.
At least for me it is. I feel more comfortable when i cover. I feel beautiful in side and out. I feel protected, and respected.
As far as sex segregation, i think this is the most important part of being submissive. being able to offer supplication. suppressing the innate desires, i think, makes us more humble.
There is a time and place for everthing. I dont think there is anything "barbaric" in Islam at all.
Posts: 478 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
well, the hijab issue is very explosive in the muslim world. if you are a layperson and question whether wearing hijab is an islamic requirement to start with, you will be immediately branded as a westernized person, or worse, an atheist or a secular (yes, being a secular is as bad as being blasphemous in the eyes of islamist) by religious muslims and mainstream scholars. but now we have a muslim scholar with solid credentials who is saying out flat that hijab, according to the Koran and Sunnah, is not mandated by islam.
Jamal al-banna is far from saying islam is barbaric. he is again saying sex segregation is not mandated by islam, and scholars who claim so are taking it to the extreme.
Posts: 299 | From: Dubai | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm currently reading a book right now called Standing Alone, and I've been reading how back when Mohammed was alive, there was never segregation or anything of the sort, and that it is only through history and man inserting his values on women that we have been segregated and such. Of course, I don't know how true this is, as to when Mohammed was around, but I find it very interesting. I also found it interesting that when this woman who wrote the book went to Mecca, there was no segregation between the sexes for anything.
Posts: 1283 | From: Cairo | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the purpose of sex segregation is to prevent people from being in situations that might lead to sin.
Now please take the following knowing my experience is 100% Western-influenced.
My experience with this segregation is that some men (don't know about women) who have been grown up with these types of segregated practices have a lot of trouble dealing with the sexes mixing here in Western society, and often behave inappropriately.
Whereas men and women who are brought up in a mixed society learn how to behave appropriately with the other sex in a manner that does not lead to sin. Of course it's not 100% perfect and there are men and women who behave like jerks or engage in what I consider to be inappropriate behavior.
But putting me alone in a room with a single man is not in any way going to make me even think about cheating. I don't care if it's Clive Owen or Brad Pitt. I have mixed so much with men in social and business settings that I can see them as just another human being and not some sort of sex object. Sometimes I feel like the segregation of men and women actually leads to the idea that a woman is a sex object. It has prevented men and women from interacting merely as friends.
I also think separating the sexes makes people miss out on really nice friendships. I am not one who has ever had a good male friend, like a best friend, but I do enjoy having some casual male friendships.
And having said all that, I cannot remember the last time I was alone with a man who was not my husband or relative. Almost all of my socializing is done in (mixed) groups.
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snoozin: My experience with this segregation is that some men (don't know about women) who have been grown up with these types of segregated practices have a lot of trouble dealing with the sexes mixing here in Western society, and often behave inappropriately.
Whereas men and women who are brought up in a mixed society learn how to behave appropriately with the other sex in a manner that does not lead to sin. Of course it's not 100% perfect and there are men and women who behave like jerks or engage in what I consider to be inappropriate behavior.
But putting me alone in a room with a single man is not in any way going to make me even think about cheating. I don't care if it's Clive Owen or Brad Pitt. I have mixed so much with men in social and business settings that I can see them as just another human being and not some sort of sex object. Sometimes I feel like the segregation of men and women actually leads to the idea that a woman is a sex object. It has prevented men and women from interacting merely as friends.
I completely agree.
Posts: 2334 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
sex is the most natural of human activities, and there is nothing "sinful" about it. only backward religions, like the three monotheistic middle eastern religions, have regulated it in a manner to make it "sinful" to protect, some will argue, economical interests.
Posts: 299 | From: Dubai | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
sex is the most natural of human activities, and there is nothing "sinful" about it. only backward religions, like the three monotheistic middle eastern religions, have regulated it in a manner to make it "sinful" to protect, some will argue, economical interests.
You can't just broadly state that sex is not sinful. Or does that mean you are OK with having sex with children or animals too?
To have sex in a manner that will hurt a spouse, a loved one, a child, or society is definitely a sin in my book.
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
first off, "sin" is a religious characterization and is not part of any secular laws as far as i know!
if texan boys enjoy having sex with pigs, let them have it. but from a legal point of view, you can argue that since it is non-consentual, it should be illegal.
when it comes to children, you have to realize there are differences in how this issue is viewed in different countries/societies. for example, the consentual age in mexico is 13, and it’s 14 in canada. I am assuming that your definition of children is age 16 and below. does that make them "sinful" countries!!
Posts: 299 | From: Dubai | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, we were talking about religion, so what do secular laws have to do with it?
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Um, we were talking about religion, so what do secular laws have to do with it?"
in my opinion, religion should have no part in how laws are formulated (by the way that's the definition of secularism). what i am saying here is that, when you characterize certain behavior as "sinful", you are inserting your religious bias in the debate of an issue that deals with a very basic and natural human activity that should be seen out of that religious context.
Posts: 299 | From: Dubai | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I also think a civic legal code is an imperfect thing, and ultimately my own ethical beliefs will govern my actions moreso than what American law tells me to do.
For me, I want the laws of the country I live in to closely match my ethical beliefs. I think most people want that. Some of my beliefs are based on religion, others based on what I feel are universal truths. I personally think all religions are trying to get to those universal truths - some are better at it than others - most get corrupted by human failings.
But American law is based on Christian principles that were the basis of English Common Law, which we adopted. I don't know if it's possible to strip all religious influence from any nation's legal system. Even though we take great pains to take religion out of government, the *humans* that make up that government often have been shaped by religious beliefs and that naturally impacts on how laws are enacted, interpreted, enforced, and complied with.
And yes, my ethical beliefs (if you want to take religion out of it) are probably a bit more stringent than most American law. Perhaps more stringent than some common interpretations of religion. It is legal in Maryland to rape your wife as long as you don't use a weapon or threaten to do so. I personally don't agree with that.
And forcing your wife to have sex against her will is not a sin in any of the monothestic religions. (Not totally sure about that, but that's my impression). The right to have sex with our spouse is a basic right in religion. So if a man takes a strict, limited view of this *right,* he can justify raping his wife, which to me, is undeniably wrong and is counter to anything I think religion should stand for.
So when it comes to sex, yes it is a very basic and natural human activity. But it's not something that can be done without limitation, or it *will* harm people and therefore society in some way. So there have to be some basic limitations to human sexual behavior. Who decides what those limitations are? Even if the secular law is one way where I live, my ethical beliefs are ultimately what govern my own behavior. It's illegal to commit adultery in Virginia, but perfectly legal in Maryland. Does that mean I think it's OK to cheat as long as I'm meeting some guy in Bethesda? Not for me.
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
that's the problem now in the states as opposed to europe. european countries are distancing themselves from religion more and more, while the united states is going in the opposite direction. in due time, the states will follow Europe's example. but for now, the christian right is winning.
there is NOTHING in this universe without limitations, and sex will not be the exception. the argument here is not whether there should be limitations on sex or not, but rather, on what basis the limitations should be placed.
christianity has no doubt influenced american law, but i would argue that the principles of the US constitution are based on liberal european democratic thought, which is secular in nature. in fact, some historians argue that the great European thinkers of the 16-18 century, where US laws are mostly derived from, were viewed as anti-christian in their days.
Posts: 299 | From: Dubai | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A pluralistic society definitely forces us to more quickly pursue what we deem to be universal truths. And for that I'm grateful. I don't want religion in government. The separation of church and state has made the U.S. one of the best places to practice any religion you want, in my opinion. Or to be completely free of religion, if that's what you want.
I think there is fundamentalist religious movement across much of the globe, including Christians in the U.S., and I don't personally like it at all. But I don't like how Europe is requiring people to wipe out their religious identity in order to *assimilate* either. I like the U.S. of the 90s. Not as freaky as the 70s, but people weren't imposing their beliefs on me, either.
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
the funny thing is, without the "freaky 70s", you wouldn't have had the 90s you like.
i don't see europe as "requiring people to wipe out their religious identity in order to *assimilate*". europeans in general feel threatened by fundamental islam, and given the geographical proximity and the large number of muslims in their communities, they want to be assured that their cherished freedoms are not going to be in jeopready!! Having said that, i am not excusing any xenophobia, racism, or bigotry which are definitely a reality in europe, just as they are here in the states.
Posts: 299 | From: Dubai | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LovedOne: Is there any way to get a translated copy of this? I'd be very interested in reading it.
The article is very interesting and deals with many issues regarding women and men. From Hijab to women's rights. He talked about the necessity for interaction between men and women and also believes that wearing pants, by women, is far more discreet and practical than wearing a dress!
It would've been more interesting to read more of a debate on these subjects between him and people with opposing views as I believe he was oversimplifying some issues.
On Hijab, the only point that dealt directly with the issue was his interpretation of the verse dealing with "Khumuruhin". He made the same argument,which many make , that the purpose of the verse is to instruct women to cover their cleavage and since at that time women commonly wore "Head Cover" they were instructed to use it to cover their cleavage but that should not prevent them from removing their head cover and cover their cleavage using something else. In other words covering the head was not implied in the verse.
Posts: 637 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think segregation is not the opposite of mixing in islam. i.e. man and woman can mix yet they should mix for some purpose, i.e. not just mixing because she feels alone at home and need to talk to someone, this is the kind of mixing that is prohibited and there should be seggregation, it is ok to mix in work talk about life and all such aspects, ok to mix within a group and go some places together "social mixing", ok to mix through families, but not to mix a man and a woman alone. this is my idea about seggregation I dunno if I am wrong but this how I see it
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for Hijab I still think that the scarf is a major rule for the hijab dressing code, I can't consider any dressing hijab except if she is wearing the scarf .. and I won't go through it again I thought I have made myself clear before
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
"It would've been more interesting to read more of a debate on these subjects between him and people with opposing views as I believe he was oversimplifying some issues."
don't you think that in the very complex and global world we live in today, that would be the right way to go, i.e. make things simpler and more easy on people in general.
Posts: 299 | From: Dubai | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bibo1978: I think segregation is not the opposite of mixing in islam. i.e. man and woman can mix yet they should mix for some purpose, i.e. not just mixing because she feels alone at home and need to talk to someone, this is the kind of mixing that is prohibited and there should be seggregation, it is ok to mix in work talk about life and all such aspects, ok to mix within a group and go some places together "social mixing", ok to mix through families, but not to mix a man and a woman alone. this is my idea about seggregation I dunno if I am wrong but this how I see it
I generally agree with you, Bibo....but I know a few Muslim men (here in the U.S.) who would not go out as a couple with another couple for dinner somewhere...because their wife would be mixing with an unrelated man. To me, this is too strict, and I would feel very isolated and alone, and become very unhappy.
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can agree that they wouldn't go out to some licker place or so, but if it would be a picnic or a dinner at some friend's place I think it is OK, it is social activity and I think it is OK and islam never forbid it
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bibo1978: I think segregation is not the opposite of mixing in islam. i.e. man and woman can mix yet they should mix for some purpose, i.e. not just mixing because she feels alone at home and need to talk to someone
For me having male as well as female friends is an integral part of my life. I wouldn't want to reduce myself to only talking to women and I can't see any sin in that ...
Posts: 2334 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
let me tell you aout my opinion in sex seggregation. I see that men with sex seggragation are more affectionate and loving to their spouses because you see that you wife is the only female you deal wiz and you see it in a special way. that's y you find arabianmen more loving and warm. Islam asks as to make sex seggration as we can because the view of family in islam is so so important.
Those people whodont make sex seggration will suffer from coldness with their spouses.
that's my opinion.
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by islamonfocus.com: Those people whodont make sex seggration will suffer from coldness with their spouses.
that's my opinion.
With all respect, I think that's nonsense.
If I need to keep my partner from interacting with other women in order to feel loved or *safe*, then there's either something wrong with my self-esteem or with my relationship.
And you can't seriously be suggesting that the majority of people in countries without sex segregation are suffering from *coldness in relationships*. Do you realize what an insulting and grossly generalizing statement this is?!?
Posts: 2334 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by islamonfocus.com: because you see that you wife is the only female you deal wiz and you see it in a special way.
I understand what you are saying. But in the West, husbands mix with women at work, socially, and at church (if they are Christian), and they *still* see their relationship with their wife as being unique and special.
Their wife is the woman who is the mother of his children. The woman whom he shares his secrets with. The woman who is emotionally supportive of him. The woman who takes care of him when he is sick. No other woman is doing these things for him or with him. And that makes it special and unique. Regardless of how many other women he sees at work or hangs out with as friends.
Granted, segregating the sexes makes it much more difficult to fall in love with someone else, and you could say this helps keep the family together. However, do you really want a marriage that continues because there is no other option? Or do you want a marriage that continues because both partners love and care for one another and choose to stay married?
When I was about 12, I read something that affected me deeply. It said a person should find someone who *wants* to be married to him, not a person who *must* be married to him.
I choose the *want.*
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can you keep men and women from being together in a work situation? Not possible here to enforce that in the US, though it might work out that there are mostly females or males working at any given workplace. I have some mixed feelings about segregating the sexes. If I'm secure in the relationship with me and my man, I don't feel like I need to worry about him being around other women. Any worry in that regard would come from worrying about women who would try to engage him in some relationship. Also, I've grown up always being closer to males. I've only had a few close female friends in my whole life. And while I can't imagine giving up having male friends (and only talking to or socializing with females), I guess it would need to be discussed if my man wasn't comfortable with me being around other men. I really think it's a matter of people being honest with themselves and others, and watching what kind of situations they put themselves in.
Posts: 1283 | From: Cairo | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bibo1978: I think segregation is not the opposite of mixing in islam. i.e. man and woman can mix yet they should mix for some purpose, i.e. not just mixing because she feels alone at home and need to talk to someone
For me having male as well as female friends is an integral part of my life. I wouldn't want to reduce myself to only talking to women and I can't see any sin in that ...
I never said you should never knew any male friends .. read my post well ..
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way I understood your words you don't see the need for friendship and exchange as a valid reason.
In fact, I found your words quite condescending:
quote:Originally posted by bibo1978: not just mixing because she feels alone at home and need to talk to someone
I personally hardly ever feel lonely or bored when I'm alone; still, as I said, I enjoy having company – having a friend over to talk to or to cook dinner together. The idea of meeting my friends only at "picknicks or group outings" does not sound like a very appealing option to me. Posts: 2334 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone is different in this regard -- I only hope that people have or find partners who have similar outlooks on this. Otherwise, it could lead to constant fighting. Yuck.
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Never did I say that, I said that social activity is important, friendship is a social activity, you totally miss my point and when anybody miss that with you "misses your point" you just shout on there face to read the post right and so I would say to you READ MY POST ...
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sub-zero: Romeo must be turning in his grave
Now *that* boy is the biggest poster child against mixing ALONE. He hangs out with Juliet all alone in the tomb, nobody to tell him her *death* is all a joke, and he too hastily kills himself. Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
If I need to keep my partner from interacting with other women in order to feel loved or *safe*, then there's either something wrong with my self-esteem or with my relationship
I dont say to make this. What i mean is that sex seggration will increase the feelings beween partners. most of men feels that. men can lovemore than one time and that will oppress the wife.
quote:And you can't seriously be suggesting that the majority of people in countries without sex segregation are suffering from *coldness in relationships*. Do you realize what an insulting and grossly generalizing statement this is?!?
most but not all. i dont insult any people. dont misunderstand my post.
quote: When I was about 12, I read something that affected me deeply. It said a person should find someone who *wants* to be married to him, not a person who *must* be married to him.
I choose the *want.*
you should choose ur wife freely and protect yourself from loving or chaeting on her be not mixing with strange females except for the necessary purposes.this will make you satisfied with your wife and you won't compare her with one of your mates because you wont have any female mates
dealing with starnge females should be in a limited scale for necessary purposes only.
quote: How can you keep men and women from being together in a work situation? Not possible here to enforce that in the US, though it might work out that there are mostly females or males working at any given workplace. I have some mixed feelings about segregating the sexes
i was telling my opnion only concerning sex seggration and that i like it and i find it the way to build a secured family. my religion islam limit the relation of both sexes and The Quran prohibit females of having male friends.
sex mixing affect the brain sexuality of men and women, because you wont be satisfies with your partner. you will always compare between your mate and your partner. so that Islam protect you from that and asked you not to mix except for necesarry purposes and that is conditioned mixiingPosts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And you can't seriously be suggesting that the majority of people in countries without sex segregation are suffering from *coldness in relationships*. Do you realize what an insulting and grossly generalizing statement this is?!?
most but not all. i dont insult any people. dont misunderstand my post.
So *most* but not all is supposed to be less insulting and generalizing?
I would be very interested to know what you base this statement on. Have you lived in Europe, if yes where and for how long? Do you have European and / or American friends, male and female, who talk to you about their relationship? How did you come up with this theory?
quote: you should choose ur wife freely and protect yourself from loving or chaeting on her be not mixing with strange females except for the necessary purposes.this will make you satisfied with your wife and you won't compare her with one of your mates because you wont have any female mates
If I have a partner I stay with him because he's the person I've chosen to be with, very simple. If I stayed with him for lack of other choices that would be very sad I think and the same vice versa.
I would feel very secure knowing full well that my partner meets other women in all sorts of situations but stays with me because he choses so.
On the other hand, if I had the constant feeling that my partner would leave me or lose interest in me as soon as he lays eyes on another female, I would feel very insecure. I can't really picture feeling that way and I just don't have such a low view of men in general – or women, for that matter.
A relationship should be based on love and trust not lack of choice and restriction. Human beings have a free will and a conscience and they can use both to maintain their relationship. No laws and restrictions can force people to be happy with each other. In think people who are over-protective and jealous have a serious problem with their self-esteem and they are full of fear.
If two people are happy in a relationship where none of them has any other friends of the opposite sex and that's how they prefer it, then there's nothing wrong with this. But wanting to impose your values on others and suggesting that people who oppose gender segregation are not capable of deep feelings or of having successful relationships is insulting and shows a lot of ignorance.
Nobody will ever be able to convince me that God gave us a free will and an inner compass for what's right and wrong and then wants us to impose laws that imply we're little more than instinct-guided animals.
Posts: 2334 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
An Experiment of Islamic Renovation – The "Call for Islamic Revival"
By Gamal El Banna
The first reference to the idea of an Islamic revival appeared in the chapter on "A new understanding of religion" in the book "New Democracy" produced by Gamal El Banna in 1946. He criticized the wave of enthusiasm that followed the rise of the Moslem Brotherhood at the time. He warned them "not to believe in faith, but to believe in the human being". His idea was further developed in his call for revival: "Islam targeted the human being, but the Muslim scholars targeted Islam".
However, the developments that followed upon that book, especially the military coup led by Abdel Nasser did not provide the adequate climate for that call to thrive. Furthermore, Gamal El Banna himself was throughout the fifties and sixties preoccupied with trade unionism before he returned again to the issue of Islam. And yet in 1952 he produced his book "The responsibility of decadence between the peoples and the rulers, as explained in the Holy Koran."
He also founded the Egyptian association for the care of prisoners and their families (1953-1955), which created a revolution in the reform of prison conditions and resulted in a confrontation with the authorities. However he returned to Islamic topics in the eighties and when he produced a number of Islamic books addressing various Islamic issues such as (Islam and rationalism) and (No and no again.. No to the imitating scholars and no to pretentious advocates of enlightenment), in addition to several studies of contemporary Islamic propositions (Islamic movements: pros and cons) and (A message to Islamic advocates) etc. He concluded those studies with his main work entitled (Towards a new Islamic jurisprudence) in three volumes in which he criticized fundamentalist Fikh and called for a new one, the foundations of which he presented in the third volume.
The call for Islamic revival is a very unique and distinct call from all the rest because of the following reasons:
First: The call for Islamic revival believes in openness and interaction with all cultures, knowledge and civilizations, not from a position of weakness or imitation or fabrication or selectivity, but on an original Koranic base. Gamal El Banna demonstrated that the Koran considers wisdom to be one of the origins of Islam side by side with El Kitab (The Book). He elaborated that this attitude opens up a wide horizon for acquiring knowledge and inspiration from all available sources. It also allows us to draw on all cultures and civilizations, including a different attitude towards women, art, economics and politics. This, he claims, is precisely what Muslims did during the time of their renaissance before the door of Ijtihad was closed.
In addition to that creative, open approach towards the original principles of the religion, Gamal El Banna's all encompassing culture and knowledge supported this approach further. Since the publication of his first book (Three obstacles on the way to Glory: Ignorance, poverty and illness) in 1945 he never stopped reading. His readings included both old and contemporary European political thought, socialism and the history of popular and reformist movements etc. It is here that Gamal El Banna differs much from traditional Islamic advocates, whose culture is limited to old Islamic references or the "heritage" in the interpretation of Hadith and Fikh.
The publications of Gamal El Banna included a 300-page book on the (Birth and decline of the Weimar Republic) and another on (Workers' opposition during the time of Lenin) which was originally written by Ms. Kolontai. Gamal El Banna translated the book, adding to it an elaborate introduction that is almost as long as the original book. Among his other publications are a book on the history of workers' movements in Egypt (700 pages), a textbook in three volumes on trade union rights and liberties in addition to a book that documents his experience in prison reform and providing care for prisoners.
Second: The call for Islamic revival is a radical one. It is not a call for a partial reform or an attempt at patching up traditional Islamic knowledge. On the contrary, it puts aside all ancient and old knowledge, which is usually considered the reference for all Islamic advocacy and refers directly to the Koran without adherence to any of the acknowledged or traditional interpretations. It laid different foundations for Fikh other than those set by El Shafei, and formulated objectives for Islamic jurisprudence other than those proposed by El Shatbi and proposed an original theory of Sunni revelation that avoided the crisis of Sunna, which has dominated Islamic thought and Fikh for a long time. Only a call for an Islamic revival could have forwarded this , since all other Islamic scholars were one way or the other associated with fundamentalist thought or other contemporary traditional schools or disciplines, foremost "religious institutions" such as El Azhar in Egypt and Hozat in Iran etc. Furthermore many of those schools were associated with the ruling regimes.
Third: This radical renovation, which constitutes a revolution in Islamic thought, can hardly be charged with any of the many charges that are usually attributed to "innovators". Such charges range from being spies or fascinated by the West, superficiality of analysis or lack of mastery of the subject. Gamal El Banna comes from a family that is well established and renowned in Isamic advocacy. All through his life he maintained a clean record and based his ideas on evidence that drew on the Koran, on common sense and logic and life realities. Furthermore he is a self sufficient and independent man with no ambition for high rank positions or posts since God almighty granted him the financial resources that saved him the need for work, that provided him with financial security and enabled him to cover the expenses of his writings and advocacy.
It is therefore that his writings can be only challenged by ignoring and withholding them.
The fact of the matter is that the Call for Islamic Revival is the only call that offers a comprehensive cultural Islamic plan. It addresses every aspect of society, each in a separate book that demonstrates an original vision on women, trade unions, economy poletics etc. All those visions are derived from a single original source and hence are free of fabrication and contradictions.
In addition to his Islamic books (about 40 in number) Gamal El Banna produced the following publications during the period 2001-2002.
1. Strategy for Islamic Da'awa (advocacy) in the 21st century as foreseen in the Call for Islamic Revival. 2. Our first demand is FREEDOM. 3. Revolutionizing the Koran. 4. Plurality in a Moslem society. 5. The veil.
Also forthcoming is a book entitled "Islam: a religion and a nation.. not a religion and a state". It settles the issue of governance in Islam, which has created much debate and controversy for long periods of time.
quote:Originally posted by islamonfocus.com: let me tell you aout my opinion in sex seggregation. I see that men with sex seggragation are more affectionate and loving to their spouses because you see that you wife is the only female you deal wiz and you see it in a special way. that's y you find arabianmen more loving and warm. Islam asks as to make sex seggration as we can because the view of family in islam is so so important.
Those people whodont make sex seggration will suffer from coldness with their spouses.
that's my opinion.
i agree with your opinion. I support this.
Posts: 478 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LovedOne: I'm currently reading a book right now called Standing Alone, and I've been reading how back when Mohammed was alive, there was never segregation or anything of the sort, and that it is only through history and man inserting his values on women that we have been segregated and such. Of course, I don't know how true this is, as to when Mohammed was around, but I find it very interesting. I also found it interesting that when this woman who wrote the book went to Mecca, there was no segregation between the sexes for anything.
Thats very true, back then there was no segregation, all were pray in the same place, only diffrent, women were praying in the back lines and man in the from lines, but no separation at all. and that not only during prophet Muhammad but also during sahaba after him, and we have a famous story when Omar"one of the sahaba's" was giving a speach and he said something wrong, and one of the women corrected him, and he said as long Islam have people like this women, Islam will always stay in the right way.
Women were participating in batteles, were nurses, were doing business. its even allowed for women to uncover thier arms infront of men if she is working " backing " the only thing thats not allowed to be in presence with man in private place ALONE. as prophet said if man and a woman where in a place alone, the devil became their third.
So, actual separation between men and women in mosques is invetion "bid'aa" which is forbidden in Islam.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
elkadi, I have studied this as well and find it very interesting. There have been strange interpretations of Islam in many parts of the world. Tribal practises have been mixed with Islamic practises, and it seems that sometimes the most repressive aspects have to do with how women live their lives. Following the after-affects of the big earthquake in Pakistan women were refused medical care because female doctors were not available to help the women there. In some moslem areas women are not allowed to pursue education. The list of rights denied females, from when they are children, goes on and on. But its really tragic because these concepts are not actually Islamic. And the West gets a very bad view of Islam from these stories, especially because the media LOVES to cover any story that makes Islam look bad.
Posts: 1161 | From: wo xiang xiao bian ji si le | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Queen Bee! how many Muslim Countries all over the world? I think over 50 countries, If there is any report about Islam, what are the countries they show in the news? KSA, Pakistan. I think thats all. what happened to the rest of the countries? So in regards to Women rights, both of the countries are not good example. and to know whats Islam say about women. we have the main sources of the Islamic teachings. when I wanna know about the women rights in Chrestianity. I'll go to the Bibile, I'll not go to Nigiria to see how they treat the women, and will not go Germany either to see how they treat women. makes sense?
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by elkadi80: Queen Bee! how many Muslim Countries all over the world? I think over 50 countries, If there is any report about Islam, what are the countries they show in the news? KSA, Pakistan. I think thats all.
Not sure where you live but in Europe KSA is very, very rarely on the news ... actually the last time I remember was during Ramadan when they showed pictures of the kabaa.
The Muslim countries that I remember being mentioned in the news more or less regularly are Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Egypt and Afghanistan ...
quote:Originally posted by elkadi80: when I wanna know about the women rights in Chrestianity. I'll go to the Bibile, I'll not go to Nigiria to see how they treat the women
Err ... about 50% of the Nigerian population are Muslims.
Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I have mixed so much with men in social and business settings that I can see them as just another human being and not some sort of sex object. Sometimes I feel like the segregation of men and women actually leads to the idea that a woman is a sex object. It has prevented men and women from interacting merely as friends. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic