frg001
Complex bunch of atoms
That doesn't really answer my question.
I was just wondering what was considered immodest about it?
Surely the hair itself is a covering?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What faith would you support banning???
- Thread starter Bishka
- Start date
That doesn't really answer my question.
I was just wondering what was considered immodest about it?
Surely the hair itself is a covering?
mcteethinator
Idiosyncratic Muslim
Well women are only allowed to show their face, hands and feet I believe. I was merely saying that I think that women who strut around in barely nothing are more oppressed.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
That is odd. My impression is that covering all but the face was merely cultural because the Qur'an says only that people should dress modestly. It says nothing about the hajib or burka. For example, in an extremely hot country it is a good idea to cover ones head. I see it as just a good idea. As it is not in the Qur'an I am curious why it has been adopted worldwide.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
The hair can be a focus of attraction and of pride.
mcteethinator
Idiosyncratic Muslim
Mhm I am aware of that. However I was merely saying that the indoctrination can go both ways. And what is seen as indoctrination from LumpHammer's perspective can be seen as the other way around from our perspective.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I wasn't aware that being a focus of attraction or being proud of ones natural attributes were bad things. Perhaps you could explain it to me. :flirt:
Is it more moral to look frumpish and to cringe at any compliments?
fullyveiled muslimah
Evil incarnate!
Since when did modesty imply that one must look unkempt, and cringe at compliments?
Smoke
Done here.
Very bad. But only for women.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
It is simply my experience talking. Heck, what would I know, eh? I have just noticed that modest dressers usually look neat, but somewhat boring. BTW: "Focus on attraction" would tend to illicit compliments. I have yet to commend anyone on a modest outfit simply because they tend to look frightfully dull. For example I have never been driven to say to someone, "Wow. What an incredibly boring outfit. It is so YOU!" Perhaps I'm just not "getting it" though. Granted Paris Hilton takes it to the extreme, but hey, my creedo is, "Honey, if you've got it, flaunt it." I also think the Greeks and Romans were far more civilized in this area than our so-called "advanced" society.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Pride is one of the seven deadly sins. So is lust.
That does not follow from what I wrote above.
There is truth to that.
Interesting that women get the blame for inciting lust in men.
mcteethinator
Idiosyncratic Muslim
because pride and lust is a sin in Islam.
I disagree with "cringing at compliments". I compliment the beauty my hijab-wearing fiancee all the time and she doesn't cringe.
My fiancee has beautiful, intricate patterns on her hijab and clothes. Not flaunting it does not imply boring.
Smoke
Done here.
You're always causing trouble. Sin came into the world through you, you know.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Well, I don't subscribe to the concept of sin anyways so it is fairly obvious why this is totally lost on me. So-called "sin" is just arbitrary value judgment predicated by societies that could not understand reality in anything but the basest terms. One can only wonder how long it will be before believers in "sin" get over such silly notions.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
See my answer to Lilithu.
Fair enough.
Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I just see no point in covering beauty up to fall in line with some odd sense of morality/modesty. Here I am not meaning only Muslims, so forgive me for zeroing in.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
One doesn't need to subscribe to the concept of sin in order to understand it.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Well that certainly is a revelation, lol. I meant it figuratively, dear lady. It is "utterly lost" on me why anyone would feel a need to believe in "sin" per se. I'm afraid I refuse to accept the thinking that makes it all plausible. It is sort of like running about life wearing massively thick "coke bottle" glasses, when in fact the person has perfect eyesight to begin with.
I believe that if you didn't vote "none" then you're ignorant ( I know that harsh but still)
Religions are important and stands for what someone may sincerely believe in. To disagree with a religion is one thing, but to flat out think that a religion should not exist because you disagree with it is another.
Religions are important and stands for what someone may sincerely believe in. To disagree with a religion is one thing, but to flat out think that a religion should not exist because you disagree with it is another.
Princess Of Peace
Member
wrong. its bad for both men and women.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
You may think that your eyesight is perfect. I know that mine is not. (Figuratively speaking.) The acceptance of the concept of sin is the recognition that we are not perfect. It is humility. (which brings us back to the pride thing.)
opuntia
Religion is Law
To ban another's faith is to assume control over another's destiny or fate.
To control faith is ludicrous since that is an act of the heart. Governments may control actions performed within their borders but they cannot control the motivations or beliefs of individuals, hence the crackdowns on dissidents.
We may control our own thoughts and feelings where religion is concerned. So it is a fool who suggests on cracking down on a faith or belief. We may withdraw our fellowship from them in our communities but we cannot exorcise their faith from them. Some would rather die than give up their faith, hence to ban may include murdering the adherents if we were serious about wiping out a particular faith or belief.
What are parameters of your question?
To control faith is ludicrous since that is an act of the heart. Governments may control actions performed within their borders but they cannot control the motivations or beliefs of individuals, hence the crackdowns on dissidents.
We may control our own thoughts and feelings where religion is concerned. So it is a fool who suggests on cracking down on a faith or belief. We may withdraw our fellowship from them in our communities but we cannot exorcise their faith from them. Some would rather die than give up their faith, hence to ban may include murdering the adherents if we were serious about wiping out a particular faith or belief.
What are parameters of your question?