Would you wear a Hijab in solidarity?

[Mouthwash]

No, but it's not my understanding that either of them make the demand that Islam have a Reformation, as opposed to simply undergoing reform. The latter are commonplace in world history, and may be progressive, reactionary, or both, or neither, depending on how you wish to frame it. The former is distinct in that it is imagined as a single, world-historical event, a definite and irreversible step from Orient to Occident.

Oh, I thought you were talking about people who associate Christianity with human rights. (You dismissed that as an American trait, but a lot of the writers I know who make that claim are British.)

 

[Traitorfish]

Oh, I thought you were talking about people who associate Christianity with human rights. (You dismissed that as an American trait, but a lot of the writers I know who make that claim are British.)

That's Whiggishness, I think, more than Protestantism. The reasoning is that Protestantism is a characteristic of the liberal West, rather than liberalism being a characteristic of Protestantism, so religious cultures that appear similar to Protestantism, specifically to a sort of soggy, Mid-Church Anglicanism, are assumed to be more liberal or more receptive to liberalism. They're interested less in the doctrines than in cultural and institutional frameworks; your typical English Whig typically has no greater affections for Presbyterians or Evangelicals than they do for Catholics and Muslims. Americans are different in that they tend to regard the Reformation less as a side-effect of the Mach of Progress than as a necessary event in it, and Luther and Calvin as much cornerstones of modern thought as Locke or Hobbes.

 

[Mouthwash]

That's Whiggishness, I think, more than Protestantism. The reasoning is that Protestantism is a characteristic of the liberal West, rather than liberalism being a characteristic of Protestantism, so religious cultures that appear similar to Protestantism, specifically to a sort of soggy, Mid-Church Anglicanism, are assumed to be more liberal or more receptive to liberalism. They're interested less in the doctrines than in cultural and institutional frameworks; your typical English Whig typically has no greater affections for Presbyterians or Evangelicals than they do for Catholics and Muslims. Americans are different in that they tend to regard the Reformation less as a side-effect of the Mach of Progress than as a necessary event in it, and Luther and Calvin as much cornerstones of modern thought as Locke or Hobbes.

No, both of them explicitly claim that human rights are derived from concepts in Christianity (I don't know how they think Protestantism figures in, though).

 

[Traitorfish]

No, both of them explicitly claim that human rights are derived from concepts in Christianity (I don't know how they think Protestantism figures in, though).

Well, I might be wrong. But I'm speaking in generalities, there's always going to be a few exceptions. Enough to say that Americans as a group have a unique mythological relationship to the Reformation, just as their mythology is unique in almost every other regard.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I love how all Islam-related threads end up as an in-depth discussion of Christianity.

 

[Commodore]

Wear the hijab in solidarity with what? With an archaic 7th century belief system that dictates women are to be herded around like farm animals? Nah, I think I'll pass on that.

 

[Traitorfish]

Wear the hijab in solidarity with what? With an archaic 7th century belief system that dictates women are to be herded around like farm animals? Nah, I think I'll pass on that.

When was the last time you actually met a Muslim woman?

 

[Mouthwash]

When was the last time you actually met a Muslim woman?

If you meet a Muslim woman in a Western country, she is not only selected for compatibility with a Western society but also selected to find interaction with non-Muslims acceptable.

 

[Commodore]

When was the last time you actually met a Muslim woman?

2012. In Afghanistan. How about you? In fact, I'd venture to guess I've spent a lot more time immersed in Islamic culture than you.

EDIT: Also, not seeing what your point is here. Are you denying that Islamic societies (including the majority Islamic neighborhoods in Western nations) have a pretty big problem with treating women horribly?

EDIT2: Because if you are, I'll be happy to link an entire list of news stories about Muslim men in the West (so supposedly the "moderate" ones) either abusing or sometimes straight up murdering their wives and daughters for not wearing the hijab. But no, you go ahead and keep defending these people while still claiming to support feminism. No cognitive dissonance there at all...

I'll never understand that. How someone could claim to support feminism while simultaneously defending one of the most misogynistic cultures on the planet?

 

[NovaKart]

Ok normally I don't like Muslim Christian comparisons but isn't mentioning you were in Afghanistan in 2012 kind of like responding to "have you ever met a Christian woman?" With "yes, Massachusetts in 1692."

 

[Commodore]

Ok normally I don't like Muslim Christian comparisons but isn't mentioning you were in Afghanistan in 2012 kind of like responding to "have you ever met a Christian woman?" With "yes, Massachusetts in 1692."

No, it's not the same at all for a number of reasons. Chief of which being Christians now are much different from Christians in 1692. You'd be hard pressed to back up the claim that there has been a comparable shift in Islamic culture* between 2012 and now. Another reason, which relates specifically to me, is that I'm an atheist. So any criticism of Christianity in an attempt to defend Islam isn't really going to work on me. If you try to say Christianity has just as many skeletons in the closet as any other religion, you aren't going to get much of an argument from me.

That's all beside the point though. TF asked that question in an attempt to discredit my opinion by implying that I have no understanding of Islamic culture. Apparently he doesn't pay too much attention to my posts because if he did, he wouldn't have put his foot in his mouth like he just did. I also think it's funny that he tried that move considering it is highly doubtful that he has had any significant interactions with Muslim populations. And no TF, that one Muslim you met in college doesn't count.

I would also contend that interacting with Muslims in their native lands sheds more light on their cultural norms than interacting with Muslims living in the West because Muslims living in the West are in "hostile territory", so to speak, and are more likely to either truly assimilate and abandon their cultural norms or attempt to keep some of their cultural beliefs and norms hidden in order to "blend in" better to avoid becoming a community outsider. In their native lands though, they feel no need to put on a face for Westerners.

I read an article written by Asra Nomani (co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement). In her article she thought the idea of Western women wearing the hijab for "solidarity" was absolutely outrageous and only perpetuates and strengthens the system of oppression of women in the Middle East.

Here's the link to the article:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...he-hijab-in-solidarity-perpetuates-oppression

Some choice excerpts:

As mainstream Muslim women, we see the girl’s headscarf not as a signal of “choice,” but as a symbol of a dangerous purity culture, obsessed with honor and virginity, that has divided Muslim communities in our own civil war, or fitna, since the Saudi and Iranian regimes promulgated puritanical interpretations of Sunni and Shia Islam, after the 1970s Saudi oil boom and the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

Today, well-intentioned women are wearing headscarves in interfaith “solidarity.” But, to us, they stand on the wrong side of a lethal war of ideas that sexually objectifies women as vessels for honor and temptation, absolving men of personal responsibility.

In Ontario, a few years ago, a man strangled his 16-year-old sister when she defied their father, including by refusing to cover her hair.

Last month, after writing an essay arguing the headscarf isn’t Islamically mandated, we received verbal abuse from American Muslim leaders and academics, calling us “despicable,” “clinically delusional,” “Satan” and “dajjal,” the Muslim equivalent of anti-Christ.

Nah, Islamic culture doesn't oppress women. This lady here must be delusional or some agent of the alt-right, hired to sow paranoia and fuel islamophobia in the West, right? Hijabs are the ultimate expression of feminism and freedom for women! #IStand4Hijab





*Keep in mind I use the term "Islamic culture" because I don't believe the religion itself is the problem, but rather the culture that has grown up around the religion that is the problem.

 

[Camikaze]

You seem to be somewhat inconsistent about your supposed moral relativism, Commodore.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Whether or not you think the hijab really is a matter of personal choice for many/most (at least Westernised) Muslim women, I don't think you can really argue that it is a symbol/tool of oppression for a significant minority of them in at least some parts of the world. Shouldn't that alone be enough to question the good of this "solidarity" thing?

 

[Commodore]

You seem to be somewhat inconsistent about your supposed moral relativism, Commodore.

Not at all. Just because I believe each perspective is valid to those who hold them, doesn't mean I can't disagree with or actively resist those perspectives which I personally find to be wrong.

In fact, I'd say moral relativism encourages conflict between differing perspectives since part of moral relativism is what society views as "objective morality" is really nothing more than the dominant moral perspective. That means adherents of different moral codes have to fight for that dominance or risk being labelled as immoral and wrong by whatever moral code does win that dominance.

 

[NovaKart]

No, it's not the same at all for a number of reasons. Chief of which being Christians now are much different from Christians in 1692. You'd be hard pressed to back up the claim that there has been a comparable shift in Islamic culture* between 2012 and now. Another reason, which relates specifically to me, is that I'm an atheist. So any criticism of Christianity in an attempt to defend Islam isn't really going to work on me. If you try to say Christianity has just as many skeletons in the closet as any other religion, you aren't going to get much of an argument from me.

That's all beside the point though. TF asked that question in an attempt to discredit my opinion by implying that I have no understanding of Islamic culture. Apparently he doesn't pay too much attention to my posts because if he did, he wouldn't have put his foot in his mouth like he just did. I also think it's funny that he tried that move considering it is highly doubtful that he has had any significant interactions with Muslim populations. And no TF, that one Muslim you met in college doesn't count.

I would also contend that interacting with Muslims in their native lands sheds more light on their cultural norms than interacting with Muslims living in the West because Muslims living in the West are in "hostile territory", so to speak, and are more likely to either truly assimilate and abandon their cultural norms or attempt to keep some of their cultural beliefs and norms hidden in order to "blend in" better to avoid becoming a community outsider. In their native lands though, they feel no need to put on a face for Westerners.

I read an article written by Asra Nomani (co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement). In her article she thought the idea of Western women wearing the hijab for "solidarity" was absolutely outrageous and only perpetuates and strengthens the system of oppression of women in the Middle East.

Here's the link to the article:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...he-hijab-in-solidarity-perpetuates-oppression

Some choice excerpts:









Nah, Islamic culture doesn't oppress women. This lady here must be delusional or some agent of the alt-right, hired to sow paranoia and fuel islamophobia in the West, right? Hijabs are the ultimate expression of feminism and freedom for women! #IStand4Hijab





*Keep in mind I use the term "Islamic culture" because I don't believe the religion itself is the problem, but rather the culture that has grown up around the religion that is the problem.

That's why I don't like comparisons between Muslims and Christians normally because people bring up past eras as examples of similar extremism or examples of Christians who have really fringe beliefs. But your statement about Muslim women being treated like animals is so extreme and then to back it up with Afghanistan as an example, which is probably the most severe Muslim culture.

I've been living in Muslim countries for nearly ten years and there does tend to be more restrictions on women than exist in western countries but they're not herded around like farm animals. It's really more Victorian than anything. There are women in the Islamic parties who are members of the Iraqi Parliament.

 

[Commodore]

I've been living in Muslim countries for nearly ten years and there does tend to be more restrictions on women than exist in western countries but they're not herded around like farm animals.

To be honest, that was mostly hyperbole to illustrate a point. The point being that most Westerners are hopelessly ignorant of the fact that women are treated as second-class citizens in much if the Islamic world, including Islamic communities that exist in the West. That's why Muslim feminists in those societies look at this "hijab solidarity" trend with puzzlement and shock.

 

[Traitorfish]

2012. In Afghanistan. How about you? In fact, I'd venture to guess I've spent a lot more time immersed in Islamic culture than you.

That doesn't seem very representative. Most Muslim women do not live in war-ravaged recovering theocracies that are a few bad months away from becoming a failed state. Most of them live in countries like Egypt, Indonesia or Iran, which are, all for all their problems, well, not Afghanistan.

EDIT: Also, not seeing what your point is here. Are you denying that Islamic societies (including the majority Islamic neighborhoods in Western nations) have a pretty big problem with treating women horribly?

No, but, I don't think that's a uniquely Islamic problem, or that Muslim women are defined simply by their oppression. Like most things, it's more complicated than that.

That's all beside the point though. TF asked that question in an attempt to discredit my opinion by implying that I have no understanding of Islamic culture. Apparently he doesn't pay too much attention to my posts because if he did, he wouldn't have put his foot in his mouth like he just did.

I mean, the last time you met a Muslim woman was five years, ago in Central Asia: doesn't that prove my point that you don't have a lot of day-to-day experience with Western Muslims?

I also think it's funny that he tried that move considering it is highly doubtful that he has had any significant interactions with Muslim populations. And no TF, that one Muslim you met in college doesn't count.

The neighbourhood I live in is about 30% Asian, mostly Muslim. If you want to find a demographic I met one of in college, try Jews, or, like, Lutherans.

 

[Akka]

Ok normally I don't like Muslim Christian comparisons but isn't mentioning you were in Afghanistan in 2012 kind of like responding to "have you ever met a Christian woman?" With "yes, Massachusetts in 1692."

*scratch his head*
Isn't it the whole point ?
(that you need to go back hundred of years to find an equivalent)

 

[NovaKart]

No it's that both examples are extreme. Most Muslim cultures aren't nearly as conservative as the Pashtuns in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan.

 

[Camikaze]

Not at all. Just because I believe each perspective is valid to those who hold them, doesn't mean I can't disagree with or actively resist those perspectives which I personally find to be wrong.

In fact, I'd say moral relativism encourages conflict between differing perspectives since part of moral relativism is what society views as "objective morality" is really nothing more than the dominant moral perspective. That means adherents of different moral codes have to fight for that dominance or risk being labelled as immoral and wrong by whatever moral code does win that dominance.

I suppose I shouldn't dredge up a whole conversation from another thread, but this is quite a different argument to what you have previously said.