A question about Burkas/Burqas

[Peek a Boo]

Now I'm wondering if I'm the only Westerner who thought these were all called burqas.

 

ignorance is not limited to the west. ;)

 

but for anyone wanting to know a bit more:

 

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-burqa.htm

 

interesting: but some women feel a sense of freedom wearing the burqa that they would not have otherwise. They cite that they don’t have to be concerned with personal appearance when they need to run quick errands. They don’t have to worry about being scrutinized or getting unwanted attention from men. Their personal expressions, except for in the eyes are hidden which can also promote better bargaining at certain shops.

hadn't thought about that.... :)

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/html/1.stm

 

http://www.desertstore.com/pages/abaya-jilbab.html

[mommaduck]

Their personal expressions, except for in the eyes are hidden which can also promote better bargaining at certain shops.

hadn't thought about that.... :)

 

 

As someone who has an all too readable face, this would definitely be a plus. Not that I intend to start wearing one :)

[WishboneDawn]

Jut came to me...France is socialististic. Socialism always puts the "greater good" of society over individual freedom. Yep, that's probably it.

Well, probably a mix of both, acually.

 

 

Geo[/Quote]

 

I think that's way to simplistic, especially considering that you're talking about France.

 

First, if this were a "socialist" problem you'd expect to see that restriction in other "socialist" countries. Do you?

 

Second, you don't even need to look as far as socialism with France. It's a very diverse country. It may be small compared to the US and Canada but it encompasses quite a range of climates and geography, cultures and dialects. France's solution has been, most often, to forge some idea of national identity, often at the expense of regional identities. The idea is that always, you are French first. I actually always thought it was something like some some elements of American patriotism - The demand to become part of the melting pot. There's a strong streak of nationalism in France to combat the perceived problems of diversity. It's probably due more to that then to any idea of socialism.

[zaichiki]

First, if this were a "socialist" problem you'd expect to see that restriction in other "socialist" countries. Do you?

 

 

I don't know much about France, I admit. I also admit to not knowing how most socialist countries today react to children in the schools wearing religious symbols.

 

I DO know that in communist Russia (USSR), this would have been a problem. The children were taught, in the public schools, that there is no God. They were told stories of the HERO boy who tattled on his parents: they were praying at home. The parents were sent to prison and the boy was a hero of the state. I have a very strong feeling that Russian children didn't wear ANY religious symbols (headscarves, crosses, stars of David, or otherwise) at school. I can ask dh, who was raised there during that time. If I hear otherwise, I'll let you know.

[WishboneDawn]

I don't know much about France, I admit. I also admit to not knowing how most socialist countries today react to children in the schools wearing religious symbols.

 

I DO know that in communist Russia (USSR), this would have been a problem. The children were taught, in the public schools, that there is no God. They were told stories of the HERO boy who tattled on his parents: they were praying at home. The parents were sent to prison and the boy was a hero of the state. I have a very strong feeling that Russian children didn't wear ANY religious symbols (headscarves, crosses, stars of David, or otherwise) at school. I can ask dh, who was raised there during that time. If I hear otherwise, I'll let you know.

 

I don't know how Communist Russia relates to democratic France...?

[mommaduck]

I don't know how Communist Russia relates to democratic France...?

 

Believe she is referring to the comment about France and socialism. It's the socialist remark in regards to what is permitted in schools that ties the two (Russia and France) into a valid comparison.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't know how Communist Russia relates to democratic France...?

 

socialism and communism both make these kinds of restrictions much easier to implement.

 

calling France "democratic" is like calling America "capitalistic" --there may be forms of it present, but they are outweighed by gvt policies.

 

eta: fromwiki:

 

French politics are characterised by two politically opposed groupings: one left-wing, centred around the French Socialist Party, and the other right-wing, centred previously around the Rassemblement pour la République (RPR) and now its successor the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP). The executive branch is currently composed mostly of the UMP.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[SnowWhite]

Remember the school shooting? we saw that your assumption [which would usually be mine too] was quite inaccurate. How they feel is not held to the same standard as what they believe.

 

unfortunately, sheer practicality reveals that it is easier to lose 5 or 6 "replaceable" people than 1 that is already well-trained and doing most of the work. Or --akin to the discussion about aborting a zygote vs a 12 weeker-- there is value placed on human life based on age.

 

Refresh my memory? How did the Amish fathers' feelings for their daughters not match your expectations? (perhaps I misunderstood your reference)

[Geo]

Do you believe this way about Christian and Jewish women that dress modestly and cover their heads?

 

No, absolutely not! We embrace modesty in our own family. I have worn a headcovering in the past...but it has always been voluntary on my part. If the Burqa were a purely voluntary practice and the woman didn't fear reprisal (or even ostracism) for not wearing it, then I would thoroughly appreciate...indeed, defend it as an expression of one's personal faith. I guess it's when the practice is imposed that it irks me.

 

Geo

[mommaduck]

No, absolutely not! We embrace modesty in our own family. I have worn a headcovering in the past...but it has always been voluntary on my part. If the Burqa were a purely voluntary practice and the woman didn't fear reprisal (or even ostracism) for not wearing it, then I would thoroughly appreciate...indeed, defend it as an expression of one's personal faith. I guess it's when the practice is imposed that it irks me.

 

Geo

 

You are aware that this is the problem with the anabaptists? This is precisely what happens. In fact, there are even threats to those that convert from one anabaptist group to another on headcoverings. If they change coverings to the new group's covering, some are shunned (not the official bann) by their family. Some do not change covering, though they wish to, because of this threat, the anger that can be unleashed on them, and other such. Some will change covering, but will wear the old covering during family events or visits to prevent the backlash. And it's not even over how much the covering covers...for some of these people, they are going to a covering that covers more, but they aren't wearing the covering of their parent's "group". You cannot believe the words that are spewed and the emotional/mental turmoil/anguish that comes of these situations.

 

I have seen more women of other faiths say "I choose this" vs anabaptists that "have to or else" and are "required to".

 

Not being raised anabaptist, but still a headcoverer, I've received flack from both sides. From non-covering family that treats me as an outcast for covering and from covering family that treats me as an outcast because I'm not part of their "group" and do not wear "their covering". However, it's easier for me to set aside those family members as unhealthy than it is for those who were raised in that culture and have little family on the "outside".

Edited July 27, 2009 by mommaduck

[justamouse]

Well, that sounds weird, but not unheard of. However, those instances have nothing to do with women chossing to wear burkas for religious reasons (same thing with the hijaab where some put it on when entering specific countries, but the purpose of hijab is for a woman to make a personal, private statement in her obedience to what many believe is an order from God to *her*).

 

 

 

I think if a woman chooses to wear any garment as an act of her personal faith it is a beautiful thing. I would go so far as to say it's an act of feminisim.

 

I think there is a subtle difference in all faiths, and that is the difference between Personal Faith, and Religion. No matter what your beliefs (in every structured religion) there is the chasm between them. I see it in Christian churches just as much, but in more subtle ways. I think the outward dress of the Islamic faith can be a lightening rod becuase it is so visible, but I see no difference in, say, a Christian woman/girl being oppressed by the men in her family and required to wear long dresses, long hair (and sometimes none of those things), be subserviant and uneducated because all the daughters were ever going to be were wives and mothers. And, yes, I've seen it. Again, if a woman WANTS to do such, it can be an outward act of an inward faith, but the sticky part is when it is demanded-or worse, when it's a government mandate punishable by death.

[Geo]

I think that's way to simplistic, especially considering that you're talking about France.

 

First, if this were a "socialist" problem you'd expect to see that restriction in other "socialist" countries. Do you?

 

Second, you don't even need to look as far as socialism with France. It's a very diverse country. It may be small compared to the US and Canada but it encompasses quite a range of climates and geography, cultures and dialects. France's solution has been, most often, to forge some idea of national identity, often at the expense of regional identities. The idea is that always, you are French first. I actually always thought it was something like some some elements of American patriotism - The demand to become part of the melting pot. There's a strong streak of nationalism in France to combat the perceived problems of diversity. It's probably due more to that then to any idea of socialism.

 

 

Maybe, but not so sure. From what I know, the socialist countries are not

under a single organization which provides a uniform program of "protocol". The idea: "forging of some idea of national identitiy" actually further's my point in a small way: The greater good over personal freedom. It wasn't an attack on France, just an observation of the fruits of socialism. America has diversity too,... even borne offense from radical Islam yet has not banned headcoverings.

 

Geo

[Peek a Boo]

Refresh my memory? How did the Amish fathers' feelings for their daughters not match your expectations? (perhaps I misunderstood your reference)

 

based on the Amish lifestyle and actions of the parents that were on site, I don't think an Amish parent would have "rather died" than exercised force to save even a child, knowing that force is what would be necessary to prevent that child from dying.

 

and if their lifestyle does indeed [per the report in this thread] place a higher safety on the more capable than the less capable, then regardless their feelings for their children their belief in the protocol would prevail.

 

I don't know that much about all the specific Amish protocols, but they are reknown for walking their talk.

[mommaduck]

based on the Amish lifestyle and actions of the parents that were on site, I don't think an Amish parent would have "rather died" than exercised force to save even a child, knowing that force is what would be necessary to prevent that child from dying.

 

and if their lifestyle does indeed [per the report in this thread] place a higher safety on the more capable than the less capable, then regardless their feelings for their children their belief in the protocol would prevail.

 

I don't know that much about all the specific Amish protocols, but they are reknown for walking their talk.

 

In a Mennonite church we were told that it is better for a man to watch his wife raped than to do something that might kill/harm the attacker. Now if they can forcibly prevent it without injury, then that was acceptable, but if it ran the risk of injuring the attacker, then no. (yep, another thing that did not set well with me)

[KingM]

In a Mennonite church we were told that it is better for a man to watch his wife raped than to do something that might kill/harm the attacker.

 

Wow. I'm a peaceful guy, but if this happened to me...well, I wrote several things, but they came across as too violent/bloodthirsty. Let's just say that I would not step aside and watch. :mad:

[SnowWhite]

Seriously OT:

 

In defense of the Amish men who lived in the community where I grew up, they would have risked their lives to save their daughters. They would not have killed the perpetrator, but would have injured him if necessary.

 

The earlier posted comment regarding buggy driving positions really stuck in my craw, so I have spent way too much time googling about customs regarding carriage and buggy driving. Two reasons quoted for driving from the right side of the vehicle were to avoid tangling the whip in the top of the vehicle (makes sense!) and avoid driving into the ditch, which was much more likely than meeting a motor vehicle when carriages began to be driven on roads.

 

It's not just Amish who drive/drove from the right, it was a worldwide custom centuries before the automobile was invented. This is even why British roads are set up for drivers to sit on the right and pass on the left... you would want your sword hand to be at the ready and closest to the passing vehicle when meeting an enemy carriage.

 

According to this website, Amish drivers are beginning to sit on the left side:

 

http://amishbuggy.tripod.com/buggysafety.htm

[mommaduck]

Wow. I'm a peaceful guy, but if this happened to me...well, I wrote several things, but they came across as too violent/bloodthirsty. Let's just say that I would not step aside and watch. :mad:

 

 

Ditto with hubby. We were obviously not cut out for that kind of "church culture". And I, as a woman, was too outspoken.

[Geo]

I don't know how Communist Russia relates to democratic France...?

 

 

In the strictest sense, communism has yet to be realized. The original definition of communism was described as: socialists striving for the utopia of communism in which there is no government and all live according to the rule, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Remember the "communes" of the 60's & 70's?

 

Socialism is an economic and political system under which virtually everything (and thereby...everyone?) is owned and controlled by government agencies.

 

Russia was socialist... "United Soviet Socialist Republic". It always had government. True communism was never achieved.

 

I believe the comparison arose from the term "socialistic" that I used to describe France. I apologize, that is incorrect. For decades, the socialist party of France,

"Parti Socialiste Français" dominated local and national elections. I am outdated and out of touch with politics today (my grandfather would have a fit), my statement was careless and wrong.

Though I believe there is still a strong socialist sentiment in France.....IMO.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Geo
correction about France's gov't

[Geo]

As someone who has an all too readable face, this would definitely be a plus. Not that I intend to start wearing one :)

 

Big ditto there!

 

Geo

Edited July 28, 2009 by Geo

[Geo]

You are aware that this is the problem with the anabaptists? This is precisely what happens. In fact, there are even threats to those that convert from one anabaptist group to another on headcoverings. If they change coverings to the new group's covering, some are shunned (not the official bann) by their family. Some do not change covering, though they wish to, because of this threat, the anger that can be unleashed on them, and other such. Some will change covering, but will wear the old covering during family events or visits to prevent the backlash. And it's not even over how much the covering covers...for some of these people, they are going to a covering that covers more, but they aren't wearing the covering of their parent's "group". You cannot believe the words that are spewed and the emotional/mental turmoil/anguish that comes of these situations.

 

I have seen more women of other faiths say "I choose this" vs anabaptists that "have to or else" and are "required to".

 

Not being raised anabaptist, but still a headcoverer, I've received flack from both sides. From non-covering family that treats me as an outcast for covering and from covering family that treats me as an outcast because I'm not part of their "group" and do not wear "their covering". However, it's easier for me to set aside those family members as unhealthy than it is for those who were raised in that culture and have little family on the "outside".

 

No, I was not aware. I am not affiliated with the anabaptists.

 

Geo

[Geo]

What is that?

 

 

Mohammedism...would be the practice of the teachings of Mohammed.

 

 

Geo

Edited July 28, 2009 by Geo

[Geo]

Wait a bit, this is almost funny in its sadness. So, were you saying that all problems in the world are due to Islam and that the apparent proof to behold is initially the burqa??

 

You probably didn't meant that. I can only reiterate that culture and lack of education (in their own religion) sometimes stand in the way for people to execute their religion righteously or for many to stand up for their rights (as given by their religion).

 

It seems a few Muslims have tried to give our points of view about the issues here, but some pf the posters are just reiterating their points and not at all ackowledging the dialogue here. Perhaps this is not a coincidence, but again an example of prejudice and/or stereotyping?

 

 

Osmosis Mom,

What were you referring to when you wrote this (to KingM):

 

"So, were you saying that all problems in the world are due to Islam and that the apparent proof to behold is initially the burqa?"

 

I must be daft, but I can't seem to pinpoint where that was implied, could you help me?

 

BTW, you are intelligent and lucid, please don't get offended and withdraw your input. I have appreciated your perspective in these dialogues.If your

sudden silence was due to other duties...then please forgive my assumption.:001_smile:

 

 

Geo

[helena]

Mohammedism...would be the practice of the teachings of Mohammed.

 

 

Geo

 

Could you please explain to me your reasoning for using the archaic and inaccurate term 'Mohammedism' (with it's racist and colonial legacy) rather than choosing to use the accurate name of the religion which is 'Islam'?

 

I'm often left wondering if this type of wording is a cheap shot.

 

I also wonder if you teach your children this type of stuff. As a homeschooling family, are you concerned about teaching your kids terms that are not used in the academic world?

[Osmosis Mom]

I think if a woman chooses to wear any garment as an act of her personal faith it is a beautiful thing. I would go so far as to say it's an act of feminisim.

 

LOL! That's pretty much how I feel every time I put on my hijab. I feel liberated and free and happy.

 

This has been a fun thread. I was pleased to read that the Amish men most likely are not putting their women out to get cut in half first in the buggy, but that their seating patterns were more a matter of logistics (geez!). I have a lot of respect for the Amish. I don't have to agree with their choices or everything under the sun, but yes, I do have respect for them.

[BigMamaBird]

This has been a very interesting thread to read.

 

I've got a question for Osmosis Mom. You said:

 

 

Boys/man can wear whatever they want from an Islamic point of view as long as shorts go from their navels to their knees and they are not wearing gold.

 

.

 

Is wearing gold not allowed in Islam? Is it just for men or is it for women too?

[Osmosis Mom]

Gold is forbidden for men to wear, as is silk.

[mommaduck]

Gold is forbidden for men to wear, as is silk.

Did not know this, thank you for the insight. I love learning something new :) May I ask why?

 

(oh and I agree about covering our heads and freedom ;) )

[Geo]

Could you please explain to me your reasoning for using the archaic and inaccurate term 'Mohammedism' (with it's racist and colonial legacy) rather than choosing to use the accurate name of the religion which is 'Islam'?

 

I'm often left wondering if this type of wording is a cheap shot.

 

I also wonder if you teach your children this type of stuff. As a homeschooling family, are you concerned about teaching your kids terms that are not used in the academic world?

 

Whoa! Wait a second... :chillpill: I am unaware of this. A little benefit of the doubt would be nice.

Why is it racist? How is it disrespectful? ...maybe you could enlighten me. I ask that you not rush to judge my intentions though.

I just looked up the term on Webster's Dictionary:

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:GmRLjS7vmbkJ:www.websters-online-dictionary.org/Mo/Mohammedism.html+mohammedism&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

How is this offensive?

 

Geo

Edited July 28, 2009 by Geo

[BigMamaBird]

Thanks! You learn something new everyday.:D

[mommaduck]

Whoa! Wait a second... :chillpill: I am unaware of this. A little benefit of the doubt would be nice.

Why is it racist? How is it disrespectful? I have read the term interchangeably on the internet...the references weren't hostile...maybe you could enlighten me. I ask that you not rush to judge my intentions though.

I just looked up the term on Webster's Dictionary:

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:GmRLjS7vmbkJ:www.websters-online-dictionary.org/Mo/Mohammedism.html+mohammedism&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

How is this offensive?

 

Geo

 

I've heard it used interchangeably as well :confused:

[Amber in AUS]

Burqas or abayas or djellabas? Seriously, I've not noticed the burqa worn outside of the Afghani/Pakistani area (except in unusual circumstances). It's a really distinctive garment.

 

We have people wearing them here in in my city at the shops. They are all immigrants, not tourists, full black covering, only their eyes showing and some of them even has fishnet type stuff over their eyes!!

[Peri]

One of the best things about living in Malaysia is the variety of cultures and religions living fairly peacefully together. Malaysia is technically a Muslim country and even that comes in a variety of forms.

 

I have great respect for many of the traditions of other cultures. For instance, even though I would never personally wear a burqa, I agree with the idea that modesty in women is underrated. It is my opinion that too many young girls and women dress too immodestly for this conservative's taste. So again, while my version of modesty may take a different shape, I respect the modesty behind the wearing of the burqa.

 

BUT

 

What I don't get is the HUGE difference between modesty as it relates to Muslim men vs. women. For instance, at the mall yesterday I saw many Muslim couples where the woman was dressed in full black burqa with only her eyes showing and the man was wearing a tight-fitting t-shirt, shorts, flip-flops and a baseball cap on backwards. And this was the norm. I guess I don't understand why the women are so formal and reverent in their attire and the men look very "westernized". It just struck me as unfair.

 

Question #2: If the point of the burqa is to keep the woman from drawing unwanted attention to her face and/or body then why do the women wear burqas that are heavily adorned with shiny beading and sequins? The burqas I have seen here are quite ornate and definitely draw your eye to them. Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose?

 

If anyone has deeper knowledge of burqas I would love your perspective.

 

It's not supposed to be that way. The men are not supposed to wear tight fitting clothing at all. The full covering of the face and hands is also not mandatory either. And although it is permissable to wear colorful clothing that has embelishments it is not acceptable for them to be excessivly shinny and draw such attention either.

 

Now the men don't have as much to cover up because they don't have as many private parts as a woman does.

 

In Islam, the purpose of modesty is more than not showing off her physical beauty, it is to draw more attention to her mind.

[Peri]

In my area, the Mennonites and Amish do have clothing styles that are similar in intent for both men and women, but don't mistake that for a sense of equality. Have you ever noticed how in the buggies, the women and children always ride on the side nearest traffic and the men in the safest, farthest from danger, seat? My Mennonite neighbor explained to me that was because the man was considered to be the most important member of the family. She said, "A man can easily get a new wife or new children. It is very difficult to replace the man of the family."

 

I hope that is not the feeling of all Mennonite and Amish families, but since we had that conversation, I have been more observant and have never seen women or children placed in the "safer" seat.

 

LOL! In Islam, a woman plays one of the most important roles in the family. It is said that the family is the nucleus of society and a woman is at the center of that nucleus. It is one of the reasons why in times of danger women walk behind the men. if danger approches she can get away.

[Peri]

Uhm, noooo. Look at my example. 100 million untouchables in India. In fact, some untouchables join Islam or Christianity in order to escape the caste system. Islam is definitely not the problem.

 

And as I said, I've traveled through relatively secular regions of North Africa and met all types. Of course many people use Islam as an excuse to justify rape, violence, and oppression of women, but they would probably do the same thing if they were Christian or some other religion. The problem, in my opinion, is about 90% tribal, uneducated populations, and not the religion.

 

I soooo agree with you.

[Peri]

There's a huge difference between covering the head and requiring someone to cover every inch of flesh.

 

But in any event, I still don't like the rule so long as it requires different standards of men and women. Is a woman's hair somehow erotic enough to tempt men to sin and not the reverse?

 

And why does it matter anyway? Why is it a woman's responsibility to keep a man's thoughts pure?

 

 

Are men and women physicaly the same? Then why do we expect the same rules of modesty for both of them?

 

Furthermore, as much as the men in middle eastern societies like to think that I cover up for their sake. I think their ego is too big and they give themselves too much credit. In the Quran, God requires beliving women to be modest in dress and action so that they may be known as believing women. It has also told believing men to lower their gaze out of respect.

[helena]

Whoa! Wait a second... :chillpill: I am unaware of this. A little benefit of the doubt would be nice.

Why is it racist? How is it disrespectful? I have read the term interchangeably on the internet...the references weren't hostile...maybe you could enlighten me. I ask that you not rush to judge my intentions though.

I just looked up the term on Webster's Dictionary:

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:GmRLjS7vmbkJ:www.websters-online-dictionary.org/Mo/Mohammedism.html+mohammedism&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

How is this offensive?

 

Geo

 

First, your right, I shouldn't rush to judgement. Let me clarify where I'm coming from. Here are some definitions I found when googling the word:

 

 

from wiki

 

Mohammedan (also spelt Muhammadan, Mahommedan, Mahomedan or Mahometan) is a term used as both a noun and an adjective meaning belonging or relating to either the religion of Islam or to that of the Islamic prophet Muhammad; a term largely rejected by the Muslim world as a misnomer[1][2][3] The term is now largely superseded by Muslim, Moslem or Islamic, but was commonly used only in Western literature until at least the mid-1960s. (See for instance the second edition of A Dictionary of Modern English Usage by HW Fowler, revised by Ernest Gowers (Oxford, 1965)). Muslim is more commonly used today than Moslem, and the term Mohammedan is generally considered archaic or in some cases even offensive.[4] According to the SOED (1973), Mohammedan was in use by 1681, along with the older term Mahometan that dates back to at least 1529.[citation needed]

 

 

from the free dictionary.com

Mohammedanism - the monotheistic religious system of Muslims founded in Arabia in the 7th century and based on the teachings of Muhammad as laid down in the Koran; "Islam is a complete way of life, not a Sunday religion"; "the term Muhammadanism is offensive to Muslims who believe that Allah, not Muhammad, founded their religion"

 

Your definition if I'm not correct is from a 1913 dictionary. I don't think this is an era of respect for non western cultures.

 

The term is racist because the word was used from the time of the crusades thru the era of colonialism, as part of a broader agenda to demean and belittle Muslims, as culturally backwards, racially inferior people who worshiped a man, and not the same God as the Christians, when it was always clearly expressed by the Muslims, that they did not worship Muhammad, but rather, God alone.

[Dirtroad]

You think women in Mennonite communities have choices?! Honey, I've been there, lived it, and still live around it as well as having family in it. The straw that broke this camel's back was my "reading too much" and being told that I should "take anti-depressants to help you conform". I could tell you enough stories to make your ears fall off. Women are expendable and I swear I barely escaped that particular community with my life. Women are to be controlled, not well educated, and heaven forbid they hold an opinion that goes against church gossip. (and yes, I'm speaking about the mainline ultra conservative mennonites...not the liberals)

 

I would not want that role or lifestyle. I am not envying it or making it perfect. My only issue is that you did leave (even if hard)... many burqua wearing women don't have have it for consideration (ex. under Taliban style rule). Shunning is also better than stoning.

 

I still respect teh fact that the men are just as "different in dress" as the women as compared to many relegions which greatly burden the women over clothing, etc.

 

I didn't mean to start a Mennonite culture/relegion debate. Sorry!

Edited July 28, 2009 by Dirtroad

[Dirtroad]

based on the Amish lifestyle and actions of the parents that were on site, I don't think an Amish parent would have "rather died" than exercised force to save even a child, knowing that force is what would be necessary to prevent that child from dying.

 

and if their lifestyle does indeed [per the report in this thread] place a higher safety on the more capable than the less capable, then regardless their feelings for their children their belief in the protocol would prevail.

 

I don't know that much about all the specific Amish protocols, but they are reknown for walking their talk.

 

Aren't they all pacifist? They don't resist or fight back for anything. I always thought they practiced an exaggerated interpretation of "turn the other cheek".

 

I do not know any Amish & only 2 Mennonite families. I only "thought" they were not willing to fight. (much like Quakers - remember, Peter the Great rejected their relegion when he met with them b/c he couldn't understand a group who would not protect their own homes & family)

Edited July 28, 2009 by Dirtroad

[Geo]

First, your right, I shouldn't rush to judgement. Let me clarify where I'm coming from. Here are some definitions I found when googling the word:

 

 

from wiki

 

Mohammedan (also spelt Muhammadan, Mahommedan, Mahomedan or Mahometan) is a term used as both a noun and an adjective meaning belonging or relating to either the religion of Islam or to that of the Islamic prophet Muhammad; a term largely rejected by the Muslim world as a misnomer[1][2][3] The term is now largely superseded by Muslim, Moslem or Islamic, but was commonly used only in Western literature until at least the mid-1960s. (See for instance the second edition of A Dictionary of Modern English Usage by HW Fowler, revised by Ernest Gowers (Oxford, 1965)). Muslim is more commonly used today than Moslem, and the term Mohammedan is generally considered archaic or in some cases even offensive.[4] According to the SOED (1973), Mohammedan was in use by 1681, along with the older term Mahometan that dates back to at least 1529.[citation needed]

 

 

from the free dictionary.com

Mohammedanism - the monotheistic religious system of Muslims founded in Arabia in the 7th century and based on the teachings of Muhammad as laid down in the Koran; "Islam is a complete way of life, not a Sunday religion"; "the term Muhammadanism is offensive to Muslims who believe that Allah, not Muhammad, founded their religion"

 

Your definition if I'm not correct is from a 1913 dictionary. I don't think this is an era of respect for non western cultures.

 

The term is racist because the word was used from the time of the crusades thru the era of colonialism, as part of a broader agenda to demean and belittle Muslims, as culturally backwards, racially inferior people who worshiped a man, and not the same God as the Christians, when it was always clearly expressed by the Muslims, that they did not worship Muhammad, but rather, God alone.

 

Ah, I see. Well, I admit that my ps education did nothing to prevent that misunderstanding. :001_huh: I don't agree that the word is racist, colonial -yes, but not necessarily racist. Indeed, it may have been used by many racists, but no fact that the word intentionally maligns a people (or religion) is lacking. While waiting for your reply I did some googling too.

I found a message board that discussed "Change of names of religions".

Obviously, this is not an academic discussion. However, it does reflect the hearts of people grappling to understand the changes in society and the world...especially as quickly as they have been changing lately. I'll leave the link and close with saying, No offense intended, but I apologize for any given.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008_March_8#Change_of_names_of_religions_-_Mohammedan_to_Muslim

 

Geo

PS:

I usually use a Websters 1828 Dictionary...It have found it to be morally superior than modern day dictionaries, especially where words like holy, marriage, purity, truth, etc are concerned.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Geo

[WishboneDawn]

Whoa! Wait a second... :chillpill: I am unaware of this. A little benefit of the doubt would be nice.

Why is it racist? How is it disrespectful? ...maybe you could enlighten me. I ask that you not rush to judge my intentions though.

I just looked up the term on Webster's Dictionary:

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:GmRLjS7vmbkJ:www.websters-online-dictionary.org/Mo/Mohammedism.html+mohammedism&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

How is this offensive?

 

Geo

 

I was looking it up and it looks like Helena is right. I wasn't aware of it either but after reading up it makes sense. The term, and the related Muhammadanism, are older terms. They mostly seem to have fallen out of use in the 60's and are seen as offensive in much of the Muslim world. That's because the implication of the term is that they are followers of Muhammed - just as you said. But that's false. They are followers of the teaching laid down in the Koran which they believe comes from Allah.

 

So to use the term is to imply Muslims follow Muhammed, NOT God. I suppose it would be the same as calling Christians Paulites and implying it's not Jesus/God we're following but rather just a misguided Paul.

 

It seems, considering the history and implications we should retire it from WTM usage.

[WishboneDawn]

We have people wearing them here in in my city at the shops. They are all immigrants, not tourists, full black covering, only their eyes showing and some of them even has fishnet type stuff over their eyes!!

 

Those might be Abayas? I think the point was that not all coverings, regardless of whether they seem to fullfill the same function, have the same name. I'm gathering from this thread that there's a huge range of cultural diversity in Islam and it's reflected in the clothing.

[Amber in AUS]

I have seen both burquas and abayas at the local shops. I do see the difference and i do take your point. We are traveling to Malaysia in 6 weeks so really look forward to exposing the kids to the different culture and traditional clothing.

[Osmosis Mom]

Ah, I see. Well, I admit that my ps education did nothing to prevent that misunderstanding. :001_huh: I don't agree that the word is racist, colonial -yes, but not necessarily racist. Indeed, it may have been used by many racists, but no fact that the word intentionally maligns a people (or religion) is lacking. While waiting for your reply I did some googling too.

I found a message board that discussed "Change of names of religions".

Obviously, this is not an academic discussion. However, it does reflect the hearts of people grappling to understand the changes in society and the world...especially as quickly as they have been changing lately. I'll leave the link and close with saying, No offense intended, but I apologize for any given.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008_March_8#Change_of_names_of_religions_-_Mohammedan_to_Muslim

 

Geo

PS:

I usually use a Websters 1828 Dictionary...It have found it to be morally superior than modern day dictionaries, especially where words like holy, marriage, purity, truth, etc are concerned.

 

It is a matter of real ignorance if used intentionally. Muslims believe in a religion called Islam which means Peace as well as Submission to the One and Only God. Muhammad was a tool in bringing to us the last Message which is the Quran and also the example of his life and doings which we call hadith (ahadith in plural). We do not worship or pray to Muhammad who is a mortal man just like us. We believe Jesus and adam and every other prophet was just that -a prophet. Jesus was bron without a father, Adam without any parent as God, the Creator can do what He wants, as He pleases. It is for us to be tested. This is what Islam is. There is no religion called Muhammadanism. I have heard it used by a very narrow-minded teacher in grade school (a fewyears back!). Oh well.

[Osmosis Mom]

Gold and silk forbidden for men as they are seen as signs of vanity and luxury. Women are allowed because it is in our nature to like beautiful things and still perform the role of mother and wife. I don't know how to put it differently.

 

People all over the world in all religions go astray (from their religion). I think it is essential in studying a religion and a culture and subculture to be able to distinguish between what is the religion and what are the wrong-doings of its followers. Geez, if everyone on earth was following the perfect example of their religion then why would we need this life and its tests? Couldn't we then just skip this step and request direct access to Heaven??......

[KingM]

Rush Limbaugh uses that term occasionally.

 

I wouldn't necessarily use Rush Limbaugh as a guide for sensitive language and cultural restraint.

[Osmosis Mom]

I wouldn't necessarily use Rush Limbaugh as a guide for sensitive language and cultural restraint.

 

;)

[Peek a Boo]

LOL! In Islam, a woman plays one of the most important roles in the family. It is said that the family is the nucleus of society and a woman is at the center of that nucleus. It is one of the reasons why in times of danger women walk behind the men. if danger approches she can get away.

 

yeah....men= cannon fodder. :tongue_smilie:

 

but actually, I think that in the "replaceablilty" discussion, women walk behind men because men are [generally] more capable of protecting than women. back to "who can do more with best efficiency."

[Peek a Boo]

In defense of the Amish men who lived in the community where I grew up, they would have risked their lives to save their daughters. They would not have killed the perpetrator, but would have injured him if necessary.

 

The earlier posted comment regarding buggy driving positions really stuck in my craw, so I have spent way too much time googling about customs regarding carriage and buggy driving. .....

 

i do agree that there are likely many people --even Amish-- who would exercise some form of force to save another. However, realizing that a majority tend to side w/ "do not do anything that could cause injury to another" I make my statements based on what they [generally, as i understand it] officially teach. And part of those teachings sometimes go beyond previous customs to adopt an additional belief.

 

I have no doubt that ANY Amish person would risk their own life to save another's. If their wife/family did indeed fall out of the buggy, they would be rescued and helped immediately by the entire community.

[Heather in Neverland]

Wow, I am so glad I asked this question. There is so much to learn and the women (and men!) here are always so full of knowledge. I definitely know a lot more about burqas now and have a better understanding. Thank you!

[Dirtroad]

I wouldn't necessarily use Rush Limbaugh as a guide for sensitive language and cultural restraint.

 

If Rush uses this word it is to STRESS a point. IT is to point out a difference or a hypocrisy. He may even use it to mock someone acting in hypocrisy or a group still living as if Mohammad was alive (denying world of today or seeking to return to the extremely older ways). Most often, if he uses a word, it is just to STRESS the point as I said... that is the primary use. I personally haven't heard him use it... but I don't get to listen to him every broadcasting hour.

 

He may not be everyones cup of tea b/c he is conservative, outspoken, an opinionated. However, he is not racist and is very intelligent.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Dirtroad