Many months ago, Patrick Kelley of the Pagan Temple blog and I debated about the Swiss ban on minarets. I made a sarcastic comment about his ideas sounding great in their original German, and since then, I've been wondering if I was too harsh. Well, I just saw him make the following comment on Popehat.com (May 17, 2010 @1:16 pm):
I have to admit I’m not a big fan of the current pc buzzwords, like tolerance, diversity, equality, open-mindedness etc., and I’m fine with those so-called “American qualities” going the way of the Dodo bird.
Okay, I can understand bashing ambiguous words like "diversity" and impossible goals like "equality," but being against tolerance and open-mindedness? Really?
And don't forget this gem, written on his website on May 17, 2010:
Speaking personally, and honestly, I don't trust any Muslim any further than I could throw one, and I certainly don't trust them nearly as far as I would dearly love to throw a good damn many of them.
Oh, the idiocy.
Update: the U.S. has ordered a hit on U.S. citizen and preacher Anwar Al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki has influenced some of the recent terrorists who have attempted to attack the United States. Al-Awlaki uses anti-Muslim statements to motivate would-be jihadists worldwide:
You will find statements made by religious leaders for example, in the U.S., Franklin Graham who is the son of Billy Graham - one of the most well known evangelists in the US - making statements like ‘Islam is the religion of evil’. You have Pat Robertson saying that the Muslims are Ya’juj and Ma’juj. Statements like this are on the rise; they are not decreasing, they are rising.
Words have power, especially antagonistic words. Think about it: when a coach wants to pump up his team for an important game, one of the best motivational tools is the opposing coach's or team's trash-talk. Like it or not, when Americans publicly make negative statements about Islam and Muslims, those words are used to motivate would-be terrorists.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Sage Words
David Edwards: "Once you realize that helping others is also helping yourself, the size of the overall problems becomes irrelevant. You're not a one-man or one-woman army out to save the whole world. You help simply because it does good and it feels good."
Debate on Rima Fakih
Rima Fakih, and American citizen from Michigan, recently won the Miss USA pageant. This wouldn't be a big deal, except she is Lebanese and from a Muslim family. Some Americans are protesting a Muslim winning a beauty pageant, alleging that her victory was politically-motivated. There has also been backlash from Muslims. I don't understand any of it. A beautiful woman won a beauty pageant. Who cares? Well, these people do, and there was a debate about whether Islam allows Muslims to enter beauty pageants. Technically, the Koran specifically requires women only to cover their bosoms and private parts in public, which all the beauty pageant contestants did. Unfortunately, many Muslims are confused about the minimum requirements of their own religion, which has created many problems worldwide. More below:
Z: these contests don't have anything to do with our faith. There's nothing Islamic about what she's representing. I'm just saying, why don't we provide Muslim women professors with an opportunity to be crowned so we avoid the same misrepresentation of Muslim women in the media? Why do men applaud women who reveal their bodies and then pray 5x a day?
M: I don't view Islam as an "either/or" religion when it comes to beauty and educational pedigrees. Also, there is nothing in Islam that forbids the showing of physical beauty. To exhibit physical beauty, one must demonstrate one's physical form. Therefore, demonstrating one's form cannot be unIslamic b/c Islam is not against physical beauty.
You are questioning the degree of the demonstration, which is fine, but you've automatically lost credibility once you make a statement like, "There's nothing Islamic about what she's representing." Is she immodest? Perhaps. But since modesty is an ambiguous term and in the eye of the beholder, we must be more careful before we issue broad statements about what is Islamic or unIslamic. After all, Islam is not like the Catholic Church, where all Muslims must heed a particular interpretation coming from one source (i.e., the Vatican). As such, Muslims ought to recognize that no individual Muslim has authority over what is Islamic or unIslamic, and such debates must be settled by quoting the Koran, which is oftentimes ambiguous and open to interpretation.
Z: if the lines of modesty are ambiguous to you, it speaks volumes about your confusion of Islamic principles. I'm not comparing Islam to other faiths. I'm merely stating that its followers of the faith who are misrepresenting the religion and the media picks up on that. No one said physical beauty is a sin.
M: the Koran asks women to guard their "private parts" and their bosoms and then immediately references husbands and fathers. A hijab covers a woman's private parts and bosom--but so does a one-piece bikini.
The Koran also asks women to act modestly when outside the presence of their husbands or fathers; however, one husband or father may view a bikini as immodest, while another may have no issue with it. Therefore, the Koran seems to be asking women to take actions to minimize jealousy in their husbands and maximize harmony in their families, which requires a case-by-case analysis of the "lines of modesty." I hope this makes sense. Also, note that Muslim-majority countries like Dubai, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia have vastly different rules on modesty, which should tell you right away that there isn't any singular interpretation of the Koran's definition of modesty.
Z: as you know Muslims were known for their good character, honesty, and intellect which magnified the beauty of their physical state. This is not an issue of interpretations, the reason I brought this is up is because we need to be thoughtful in our approach about what we're supporting. I'm sure that there are many women who don't practice their faith but wear the hijab because of the rules of their government/families. In a country such as ours where there are no rules about what's immodest, shouldn't we harness the best of our faith and freedom and question the values set forth?
Ask how many of these pageant winners have stalkers and live in fear of their lives. Ask how many of these pageant participants have eating disorders. Ask how many of these pageant winners spend their wealth and time in combating the problems of the world long before they entered a pageant. I see this as further ridicule...it's definitely not praise. It's saying, "look how we can brainwash your women into thinking we accept them for their religion and beauty" or "this should make up for all the bombs we're dropping on the innocent people (in all the Muslim countries you didn't mention)."
M: Connecting categories like beauty and modesty to stalkers and bombs in one leap indicates a fantastic imagination. I don't know anyone who looks at Ms. Fakih and thinks that her award makes up for the death of innocent civilians, so to suggest such a connection is troubling. It's like referencing 9/11 every time a Muslim is stopped at the airport in 2010--it's a tenuous connection at best and ultimately fails to support a conclusion or argument.
F: your statement "there is nothing in Islam that forbids the physical showing of beauty" is true. A woman may ONLY expose herself to other women or to another maharam. This is in the Qu'ran, and not up for debate. Modesty may be an "ambiguous" term, but strutting around in a two piece in front of eight million people is not ambiguous at all. There really is no gray area here.
Also, for anyone to equate wearing a hijab to wearing a two-piece is absolutely illogical. Are you saying that God is ok with either apparel? Clearly the two are not similar. It is either this or that, but not both, because both are contradictions to one another, and we all know contradictions are illogical. Wearing a bikini and wearing a hijab are not the same, so they will not be looked upon the same in God's eyes.
In the Qu'ran, 24:31 says, "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty..." Come on now, we are being asked to lower our gaze!! This is such a modest and subtle gesture. From this you are concluding that it is ok to wear a two piece bikini? You are unsure whether wearing a bikini contradicts this aforementioned verse? what possible argument can someone have? Surely this is illogical right? Why would God put that in the finite book, and then be ok, with naked women on a stage. I-l-l-o-g-i-c-a-l.
33:59 goes on to say, “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters AND the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them." Yes, draw cloaks around the body, to prevent from giving the woman a discernible shape. You know how girls like to wear things real tight these days?
Whatever Miss Fakih does is between her and her God. It doesn't bother me one bit she calls herself Muslim. It's all good, because the rules, and regulations are all there. We have Taliban and extremist blowing people to bits. A girl strutting her goods on stage is the least of our concerns.
But rules, will be rules. And right will always be different from wrong.
M: First, did you really just admit that "modesty" may be an ambiguous term and then in the next breath allege no "gray area"? (I hope you see the problem there.)
Second, there is no "contradiction" between a bikini and a hijab. Both are articles of clothing, and articles of clothing can't contradict anything. It's like saying that a t-shirt and a sweater contradict each other, which makes no sense.
Also, you use the word, "naked." Ms. Fakih was never naked. She covered her "bosom" and her private parts--the only two areas of the body specifically cited in the verses at issue--so she complies with the Koranic sections that are most specific on modesty.
Since there is no singular authority on Koranic interpretation, all you can say is that your own interpretation of Islam forbids wearing a bikini in public--that's it. You cannot demand only one interpretation for an ambiguous term--this isn't like eating pork or drinking alcohol, which are clearly prohibited in the Koran.
Your other Koranic quotations are also open to interpretation. As I am sure you agree, almost every single Koranic section that discusses modesty and dress does so within the context of family members and husbands, so a reasonable interpretation cannot ignore the variable opinions of a woman's family. Why specifically include husbands and family members in the modesty verses if their opinions--which may vary greatly--are insignificant?
You also take the "cloak" verse out of context. First, a cloak refers to an outer garment that was popular in that time--it doesn't necessarily mean an actual cloak, just an outer garment. Second, take a closer look at the verses. It is discussing a time when women travel abroad or into lands where they will not be recognized as Muslims and may encounter problems with disrespectful men. Within context, the "cloak" verses appear to suggest simple, inexpensive ways for women to feel respected when they travel, i.e., to "be recognized and not harassed" and "not given trouble." There is nothing in the verses that requires women to wear particular outer garments when they travel. The verses merely encourage a woman to identify herself as a Muslim when she travels to foreign lands so she can avoid being bothered by disrespectful men. Such identification may be done in several ways, such as wearing a symbol of Islam (similar to wearing a cross if one is Christian). Of course I do not claim my interpretation is the only interpretation, but I do try to read verses in context.
F: So since there is no singular authority on the interpretation of the Qu'ran, you in your heart believe that it is acceptable from women in Islam to wear bikini's in public? You, with all your given faculty believe, that this is the message that God was striving to send to us? Just because the concept of female clothing is vague and open to a variety of interpretations, does not include the possibility that wearing such a thing in public is correct.
I was not sure what you were trying to say regarding the husband and father. All I was trying to say that a woman's clothing maybe more lax in front of maharam.
As for the cloak/garment verse 33:59, it says that women should cover them selves with this cloak (or garment) to avoid being harassed by men. All other things equal, who do you think has a higher probability of being harassed, a covered woman or one in a bikini? I think the latter. Basically this verse is trying to avoid having the woman attract unnecessary attention. Correct? Women should be clothed in ways that do not attract men's attention. Regardless if they are traveling, not traveling, are in the market, or anywhere in the public.
I'm going to revert back to 24:31. You say that a woman who covers her vitals, as a two piece does, is meeting the minimum requirements. Correct? Then how come this verse talks about a very subtle gesture, that is the lowering of the gaze. Can you compare the lowering of the gaze to wearing a bikini? Are these not on the opposite sides of the spectrum? Are these not contradictory. The Qu'ran advocates the woman should humbly lower her gaze, while you are saying that a woman in a bikini is not trespassing any rule. Can you please reconcile this blatant disparity?
24:31 also has an interesting thing that it mentions. It says for the woman to " not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment." Looks like to me that holy God is talking about another sense in addition to sight.....hearing. This is the extent to which women in Islam are instructed to behave. That they shouldn't even walk with a heavy foot. So again, when the bikini wearing in public is factored, how do you reconcile this disparity?
You know what the sweet thing about Islam is? It cuts the problem off at the root. Drinking causes problems, so guess what, no drinking AT ALL. Drugs causes problems, guess what, no smoking weed AT ALL. Stealing causes problems, guess what, no stealing AT ALL. Even a dollar. If everyone was allowed to drink "a little bit", or smoke weed "once in a while" then the entire system would crumble. There would always be one guy who drank too much and plowed his car into a group of kids, or a guy who fried his brain over drugs.
Islam, quite candidly is a religion of limits.
M: this will be my last response to you, b/c I've already studied this issue in detail and have explained most of my position. As I said before, in my heart, I believe Islam is not rigid--the different Islamic cultures across the world prove it--and we cannot ignore the varied opinions of family members when interpreting the modesty verses. Such verses almost always refer to women's "husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons." These references are consistent and numerous, indicating that the intent of the modesty rules is to promote marital and familial harmony. Each father and husband has different preferences, so a bikini may make one husband jealous while another man may not mind. The only rule we know for sure is that women ought to cover their "bosoms" and "private parts"--anything beyond that is subject to interpretation.
You don't really offer anything new in your latest response. "Lowering the gaze" means women shouldn't look at forbidden things, just like men shouldn't be looking at forbidden things. The "gaze" verse talks about self-restraint, but each individual has unique boundaries. One woman may not be able to handle looking at a man's ankles, while another may be able to look at Fabio and maintain self-restraint. Again, we are back to a case-by-case analysis.
The "stamping feet" verse warns against showing off "ornaments," i.e., expensive jewelry, not body parts. Indeed, near the same place that "ornaments" is used, the Koran specifically cites "bosom" and "private parts," so it appears we are referring to something other than physical areas. In conclusion, if you think Islam has limits, wonderful--you can set up a mosque and preach however you like, but the minute you argue that Islam has only one way or one interpretation, you have crossed into Catholicism or some other religion.
Z: In reference to verse 24:31 about a woman to " not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment." It is not only referring to jewelry worn around ankles that make sounds to attract a man's attention, but as a woman, it's also referring to the movement of the chest as one walks. God created us all in the best of forms and provided us beauty as well as intellect. Our ancestors were known for their character because of how they used their intellect and that in itself magnified their physical attributes.
Clearly Ms. Fakih possess physical beauty, and no one is arguing that...but I just wish to learn more about her intellect. She has great potential to be a positive role model and I pray she gains the strength to overcome the whirlwind of the life she's chosen.
Would you congratulate your sister, mother, aunt, cousin, wife or daughter if any of them were following Ms. Fakih's lead?
M: if a woman in my family decided to participate in a beauty contest, the appropriate discussion would take place privately. I don't see anything in the Koran that requires a non-family member to judge another Muslim's modesty.
Generally speaking, in Islam, both the wife and the husband are tied together--or yoked together--and both must avoid harmful and immodest behavior. The definition of immodest behavior is based on input from both the husband and the wife. The wife can ask her husband to dress conservatively if such dress conforms to her definition of modesty, and vice-versa. This is why it is important to know the expectations of the person you are marrying. The intent of the modesty rules is to avoid jealousy on both sides, which helps promote a peaceful marriage.
Z: these contests don't have anything to do with our faith. There's nothing Islamic about what she's representing. I'm just saying, why don't we provide Muslim women professors with an opportunity to be crowned so we avoid the same misrepresentation of Muslim women in the media? Why do men applaud women who reveal their bodies and then pray 5x a day?
M: I don't view Islam as an "either/or" religion when it comes to beauty and educational pedigrees. Also, there is nothing in Islam that forbids the showing of physical beauty. To exhibit physical beauty, one must demonstrate one's physical form. Therefore, demonstrating one's form cannot be unIslamic b/c Islam is not against physical beauty.
You are questioning the degree of the demonstration, which is fine, but you've automatically lost credibility once you make a statement like, "There's nothing Islamic about what she's representing." Is she immodest? Perhaps. But since modesty is an ambiguous term and in the eye of the beholder, we must be more careful before we issue broad statements about what is Islamic or unIslamic. After all, Islam is not like the Catholic Church, where all Muslims must heed a particular interpretation coming from one source (i.e., the Vatican). As such, Muslims ought to recognize that no individual Muslim has authority over what is Islamic or unIslamic, and such debates must be settled by quoting the Koran, which is oftentimes ambiguous and open to interpretation.
Z: if the lines of modesty are ambiguous to you, it speaks volumes about your confusion of Islamic principles. I'm not comparing Islam to other faiths. I'm merely stating that its followers of the faith who are misrepresenting the religion and the media picks up on that. No one said physical beauty is a sin.
M: the Koran asks women to guard their "private parts" and their bosoms and then immediately references husbands and fathers. A hijab covers a woman's private parts and bosom--but so does a one-piece bikini.
The Koran also asks women to act modestly when outside the presence of their husbands or fathers; however, one husband or father may view a bikini as immodest, while another may have no issue with it. Therefore, the Koran seems to be asking women to take actions to minimize jealousy in their husbands and maximize harmony in their families, which requires a case-by-case analysis of the "lines of modesty." I hope this makes sense. Also, note that Muslim-majority countries like Dubai, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia have vastly different rules on modesty, which should tell you right away that there isn't any singular interpretation of the Koran's definition of modesty.
Z: as you know Muslims were known for their good character, honesty, and intellect which magnified the beauty of their physical state. This is not an issue of interpretations, the reason I brought this is up is because we need to be thoughtful in our approach about what we're supporting. I'm sure that there are many women who don't practice their faith but wear the hijab because of the rules of their government/families. In a country such as ours where there are no rules about what's immodest, shouldn't we harness the best of our faith and freedom and question the values set forth?
Ask how many of these pageant winners have stalkers and live in fear of their lives. Ask how many of these pageant participants have eating disorders. Ask how many of these pageant winners spend their wealth and time in combating the problems of the world long before they entered a pageant. I see this as further ridicule...it's definitely not praise. It's saying, "look how we can brainwash your women into thinking we accept them for their religion and beauty" or "this should make up for all the bombs we're dropping on the innocent people (in all the Muslim countries you didn't mention)."
M: Connecting categories like beauty and modesty to stalkers and bombs in one leap indicates a fantastic imagination. I don't know anyone who looks at Ms. Fakih and thinks that her award makes up for the death of innocent civilians, so to suggest such a connection is troubling. It's like referencing 9/11 every time a Muslim is stopped at the airport in 2010--it's a tenuous connection at best and ultimately fails to support a conclusion or argument.
F: your statement "there is nothing in Islam that forbids the physical showing of beauty" is true. A woman may ONLY expose herself to other women or to another maharam. This is in the Qu'ran, and not up for debate. Modesty may be an "ambiguous" term, but strutting around in a two piece in front of eight million people is not ambiguous at all. There really is no gray area here.
Also, for anyone to equate wearing a hijab to wearing a two-piece is absolutely illogical. Are you saying that God is ok with either apparel? Clearly the two are not similar. It is either this or that, but not both, because both are contradictions to one another, and we all know contradictions are illogical. Wearing a bikini and wearing a hijab are not the same, so they will not be looked upon the same in God's eyes.
In the Qu'ran, 24:31 says, "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty..." Come on now, we are being asked to lower our gaze!! This is such a modest and subtle gesture. From this you are concluding that it is ok to wear a two piece bikini? You are unsure whether wearing a bikini contradicts this aforementioned verse? what possible argument can someone have? Surely this is illogical right? Why would God put that in the finite book, and then be ok, with naked women on a stage. I-l-l-o-g-i-c-a-l.
33:59 goes on to say, “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters AND the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them." Yes, draw cloaks around the body, to prevent from giving the woman a discernible shape. You know how girls like to wear things real tight these days?
Whatever Miss Fakih does is between her and her God. It doesn't bother me one bit she calls herself Muslim. It's all good, because the rules, and regulations are all there. We have Taliban and extremist blowing people to bits. A girl strutting her goods on stage is the least of our concerns.
But rules, will be rules. And right will always be different from wrong.
M: First, did you really just admit that "modesty" may be an ambiguous term and then in the next breath allege no "gray area"? (I hope you see the problem there.)
Second, there is no "contradiction" between a bikini and a hijab. Both are articles of clothing, and articles of clothing can't contradict anything. It's like saying that a t-shirt and a sweater contradict each other, which makes no sense.
Also, you use the word, "naked." Ms. Fakih was never naked. She covered her "bosom" and her private parts--the only two areas of the body specifically cited in the verses at issue--so she complies with the Koranic sections that are most specific on modesty.
Since there is no singular authority on Koranic interpretation, all you can say is that your own interpretation of Islam forbids wearing a bikini in public--that's it. You cannot demand only one interpretation for an ambiguous term--this isn't like eating pork or drinking alcohol, which are clearly prohibited in the Koran.
Your other Koranic quotations are also open to interpretation. As I am sure you agree, almost every single Koranic section that discusses modesty and dress does so within the context of family members and husbands, so a reasonable interpretation cannot ignore the variable opinions of a woman's family. Why specifically include husbands and family members in the modesty verses if their opinions--which may vary greatly--are insignificant?
You also take the "cloak" verse out of context. First, a cloak refers to an outer garment that was popular in that time--it doesn't necessarily mean an actual cloak, just an outer garment. Second, take a closer look at the verses. It is discussing a time when women travel abroad or into lands where they will not be recognized as Muslims and may encounter problems with disrespectful men. Within context, the "cloak" verses appear to suggest simple, inexpensive ways for women to feel respected when they travel, i.e., to "be recognized and not harassed" and "not given trouble." There is nothing in the verses that requires women to wear particular outer garments when they travel. The verses merely encourage a woman to identify herself as a Muslim when she travels to foreign lands so she can avoid being bothered by disrespectful men. Such identification may be done in several ways, such as wearing a symbol of Islam (similar to wearing a cross if one is Christian). Of course I do not claim my interpretation is the only interpretation, but I do try to read verses in context.
F: So since there is no singular authority on the interpretation of the Qu'ran, you in your heart believe that it is acceptable from women in Islam to wear bikini's in public? You, with all your given faculty believe, that this is the message that God was striving to send to us? Just because the concept of female clothing is vague and open to a variety of interpretations, does not include the possibility that wearing such a thing in public is correct.
I was not sure what you were trying to say regarding the husband and father. All I was trying to say that a woman's clothing maybe more lax in front of maharam.
As for the cloak/garment verse 33:59, it says that women should cover them selves with this cloak (or garment) to avoid being harassed by men. All other things equal, who do you think has a higher probability of being harassed, a covered woman or one in a bikini? I think the latter. Basically this verse is trying to avoid having the woman attract unnecessary attention. Correct? Women should be clothed in ways that do not attract men's attention. Regardless if they are traveling, not traveling, are in the market, or anywhere in the public.
I'm going to revert back to 24:31. You say that a woman who covers her vitals, as a two piece does, is meeting the minimum requirements. Correct? Then how come this verse talks about a very subtle gesture, that is the lowering of the gaze. Can you compare the lowering of the gaze to wearing a bikini? Are these not on the opposite sides of the spectrum? Are these not contradictory. The Qu'ran advocates the woman should humbly lower her gaze, while you are saying that a woman in a bikini is not trespassing any rule. Can you please reconcile this blatant disparity?
24:31 also has an interesting thing that it mentions. It says for the woman to " not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment." Looks like to me that holy God is talking about another sense in addition to sight.....hearing. This is the extent to which women in Islam are instructed to behave. That they shouldn't even walk with a heavy foot. So again, when the bikini wearing in public is factored, how do you reconcile this disparity?
You know what the sweet thing about Islam is? It cuts the problem off at the root. Drinking causes problems, so guess what, no drinking AT ALL. Drugs causes problems, guess what, no smoking weed AT ALL. Stealing causes problems, guess what, no stealing AT ALL. Even a dollar. If everyone was allowed to drink "a little bit", or smoke weed "once in a while" then the entire system would crumble. There would always be one guy who drank too much and plowed his car into a group of kids, or a guy who fried his brain over drugs.
Islam, quite candidly is a religion of limits.
M: this will be my last response to you, b/c I've already studied this issue in detail and have explained most of my position. As I said before, in my heart, I believe Islam is not rigid--the different Islamic cultures across the world prove it--and we cannot ignore the varied opinions of family members when interpreting the modesty verses. Such verses almost always refer to women's "husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons." These references are consistent and numerous, indicating that the intent of the modesty rules is to promote marital and familial harmony. Each father and husband has different preferences, so a bikini may make one husband jealous while another man may not mind. The only rule we know for sure is that women ought to cover their "bosoms" and "private parts"--anything beyond that is subject to interpretation.
You don't really offer anything new in your latest response. "Lowering the gaze" means women shouldn't look at forbidden things, just like men shouldn't be looking at forbidden things. The "gaze" verse talks about self-restraint, but each individual has unique boundaries. One woman may not be able to handle looking at a man's ankles, while another may be able to look at Fabio and maintain self-restraint. Again, we are back to a case-by-case analysis.
The "stamping feet" verse warns against showing off "ornaments," i.e., expensive jewelry, not body parts. Indeed, near the same place that "ornaments" is used, the Koran specifically cites "bosom" and "private parts," so it appears we are referring to something other than physical areas. In conclusion, if you think Islam has limits, wonderful--you can set up a mosque and preach however you like, but the minute you argue that Islam has only one way or one interpretation, you have crossed into Catholicism or some other religion.
Z: In reference to verse 24:31 about a woman to " not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment." It is not only referring to jewelry worn around ankles that make sounds to attract a man's attention, but as a woman, it's also referring to the movement of the chest as one walks. God created us all in the best of forms and provided us beauty as well as intellect. Our ancestors were known for their character because of how they used their intellect and that in itself magnified their physical attributes.
Clearly Ms. Fakih possess physical beauty, and no one is arguing that...but I just wish to learn more about her intellect. She has great potential to be a positive role model and I pray she gains the strength to overcome the whirlwind of the life she's chosen.
Would you congratulate your sister, mother, aunt, cousin, wife or daughter if any of them were following Ms. Fakih's lead?
M: if a woman in my family decided to participate in a beauty contest, the appropriate discussion would take place privately. I don't see anything in the Koran that requires a non-family member to judge another Muslim's modesty.
Generally speaking, in Islam, both the wife and the husband are tied together--or yoked together--and both must avoid harmful and immodest behavior. The definition of immodest behavior is based on input from both the husband and the wife. The wife can ask her husband to dress conservatively if such dress conforms to her definition of modesty, and vice-versa. This is why it is important to know the expectations of the person you are marrying. The intent of the modesty rules is to avoid jealousy on both sides, which helps promote a peaceful marriage.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Wisdom from Charlie Munger
Many people know about Warren Buffett, but not enough people know about his right-hand man, Charlie Munger. See here for Munger's 1994 lesson on "Elementary, Worldly Wisdom As It Relates To Investment Management and Business":
"If people tell you what you really don't want to hear, that's unpleasant--there's an almost automatic reaction of antipathy. You have to train yourself out of it. It isn't foredestined that you have to be this way. But you will tend to be this way if you don't think about it."
"I think the reason we get into such idiocy in investment management is best illustrated by a story that I tell about the guy who sold fishing tackle. I asked him, 'My God, they're purple and green. Do fish really take these lures?' And he said, 'Mister, I don't sell to fish.'"
Also, see here for more "Mungerisms" and my brief meeting with Mr. Munger.
"If people tell you what you really don't want to hear, that's unpleasant--there's an almost automatic reaction of antipathy. You have to train yourself out of it. It isn't foredestined that you have to be this way. But you will tend to be this way if you don't think about it."
"I think the reason we get into such idiocy in investment management is best illustrated by a story that I tell about the guy who sold fishing tackle. I asked him, 'My God, they're purple and green. Do fish really take these lures?' And he said, 'Mister, I don't sell to fish.'"
Also, see here for more "Mungerisms" and my brief meeting with Mr. Munger.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Joe Queenan on the Money
Joe Queenan has perfectly encapsulated the mood of our times. See WSJ, 5/15/10, "A Lament for the Class of 2010":
Never mind that in order to pay back the $200,000 it's going to cost you to go to law school, you'll need to land one of those plum legal jobs at Goldman Sachs or AIG or one of those other firms that are no longer hiring because they owe so much to the lawyers they already did hire to defend them from lawsuits brought by the government's lawyers, public prosecutors who only took those jobs because Goldman Sachs and AIG weren't hiring. Good luck getting your parents to pay for that one...
Today, even the idiots have college degrees. And the idiots have seniority.
This is what happens when educational standards decline, and high schools and colleges become diploma mills. Until we add law, symbolic logic, and economics to our required curriculum, starting from elementary school, our current state of affairs will not change. I have met too many adults with degrees and high school diplomas who lack a basic understanding of subjects essential to a functioning democratic republic, such as state vs. federal governments, taxes, supply-and-demand, and the potential dangers of executive power.
Next are two questions that will show most of you that your high school education was inadequate:
1. Which parts of government most impact your life on a daily basis? Federal, state, presidential, judicial, etc.? Obama, Reid, the school board, etc.?
2. What functions do cities provide their residents, and what is usually the most significant expense in a city's budget?
Never mind that in order to pay back the $200,000 it's going to cost you to go to law school, you'll need to land one of those plum legal jobs at Goldman Sachs or AIG or one of those other firms that are no longer hiring because they owe so much to the lawyers they already did hire to defend them from lawsuits brought by the government's lawyers, public prosecutors who only took those jobs because Goldman Sachs and AIG weren't hiring. Good luck getting your parents to pay for that one...
Today, even the idiots have college degrees. And the idiots have seniority.
This is what happens when educational standards decline, and high schools and colleges become diploma mills. Until we add law, symbolic logic, and economics to our required curriculum, starting from elementary school, our current state of affairs will not change. I have met too many adults with degrees and high school diplomas who lack a basic understanding of subjects essential to a functioning democratic republic, such as state vs. federal governments, taxes, supply-and-demand, and the potential dangers of executive power.
Next are two questions that will show most of you that your high school education was inadequate:
1. Which parts of government most impact your life on a daily basis? Federal, state, presidential, judicial, etc.? Obama, Reid, the school board, etc.?
2. What functions do cities provide their residents, and what is usually the most significant expense in a city's budget?
Monday, May 17, 2010
Babies, Morality, and God
In "The Moral Life of Babies" (May 9, 2010, NYT, Paul Bloom, see here), the author discusses babies and their sense of innate justice. Below is a description of one of the studies used to determine baby behavior:
[W]e tested 8-month-olds by first showing them a character who acted as a helper (for instance, helping a puppet trying to open a box) and then presenting a scene in which this helper was the target of a good action by one puppet and a bad action by another puppet. Then we got the babies to choose between these two puppets. That is, they had to choose between a puppet who rewarded a good guy versus a puppet who punished a good guy. Likewise, we showed them a character who acted as a hinderer (for example, keeping a puppet from opening a box) and then had them choose between a puppet who rewarded the bad guy versus one who punished the bad guy.
Another way to review Lewis's ideas is by examining the problem of a conscience. Most of us, from a very early age, have a conscience that produces guilt and pleasure. Where does a two-year-old child's conscience come from? Lewis contends that the best explanation for a young child having guilt is God, because it is unlikely that biology can produce such feelings in someone so young. Today, we talk about genes for diabetes, cancer, and even homosexuality, but few reputable scientists have tried to argue for a "guilt gene." Of course, there may be genes that make humans more social and more attuned to social networks, but such genes would presumably need more catalysts than a mere two years of experience, much of it spent in a restricted space.
Aquinas, Pascal, and other philosophers have submitted their pro-God arguments, but C.S. Lewis's musings on the problem of guilt/pain don't get enough credit in philosophy classes or general theology discussions. That's a shame, because Lewis has presented an argument that anyone, merely by studying a child, can understand. Reducing theology to child's play might seem overly simplistic, but I see nothing wrong with effective arguments.
[W]e tested 8-month-olds by first showing them a character who acted as a helper (for instance, helping a puppet trying to open a box) and then presenting a scene in which this helper was the target of a good action by one puppet and a bad action by another puppet. Then we got the babies to choose between these two puppets. That is, they had to choose between a puppet who rewarded a good guy versus a puppet who punished a good guy. Likewise, we showed them a character who acted as a hinderer (for example, keeping a puppet from opening a box) and then had them choose between a puppet who rewarded the bad guy versus one who punished the bad guy.
The results were striking. When the target of the action was itself a good guy, babies preferred the puppet who was nice to it. This alone wasn’t very surprising, given that the other studies found an overall preference among babies for those who act nicely. What was more interesting was what happened when they watched the bad guy being rewarded or punished. Here they chose the punisher. Despite their overall preference for good actors over bad, then, babies are drawn to bad actors when those actors are punishing bad behavior.
The babies rewarded the "good" puppet by giving it a treat. This experiment reminded me of C.S. Lewis's book, The Problem of Pain. Lewis, a former atheist turned Christian, argues that pain and guilt must come from God (or some innately programmed code placed by a programmer) because even at an early age, we have feelings that come too early to be explained away by socialization.Another way to review Lewis's ideas is by examining the problem of a conscience. Most of us, from a very early age, have a conscience that produces guilt and pleasure. Where does a two-year-old child's conscience come from? Lewis contends that the best explanation for a young child having guilt is God, because it is unlikely that biology can produce such feelings in someone so young. Today, we talk about genes for diabetes, cancer, and even homosexuality, but few reputable scientists have tried to argue for a "guilt gene." Of course, there may be genes that make humans more social and more attuned to social networks, but such genes would presumably need more catalysts than a mere two years of experience, much of it spent in a restricted space.
Aquinas, Pascal, and other philosophers have submitted their pro-God arguments, but C.S. Lewis's musings on the problem of guilt/pain don't get enough credit in philosophy classes or general theology discussions. That's a shame, because Lewis has presented an argument that anyone, merely by studying a child, can understand. Reducing theology to child's play might seem overly simplistic, but I see nothing wrong with effective arguments.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Where I Get Schooled
How are stocks up so much? There's been no serious financial reform; no withdrawal from various wars; no fiscal fix for public employee pensions or private sector pension shortfalls; and still 10%+ unemployment in major cities. The S&P 500 was only 831 when President Obama took office...stocks are up 41% since his inauguration. Are President Obama and the Dems really that good?
In response, one friend mentioned America's 0% interest rates, which help banks but hurt savers. The best answer, however, came from a former high school classmate:
From the corporate side, it seems fairly plain to me. There's been no financial reform to tighten screws on corporations. The government is still spending a lot of money on wars. The debt, while burdensome, hasn't caused any major calamities (so far). High unemployment means lower payroll costs. Add a very low fed rate on top of this and it looks like a very favorable business climate. Even if revenues are sluggish due to low consumer spending, margins are probably up.
Thanks to Andrew N. for schooling me.
Note: when I posted my comment above on Facebook, the S&P 500 was 1171 and the Dow was 10,896.
In response, one friend mentioned America's 0% interest rates, which help banks but hurt savers. The best answer, however, came from a former high school classmate:
From the corporate side, it seems fairly plain to me. There's been no financial reform to tighten screws on corporations. The government is still spending a lot of money on wars. The debt, while burdensome, hasn't caused any major calamities (so far). High unemployment means lower payroll costs. Add a very low fed rate on top of this and it looks like a very favorable business climate. Even if revenues are sluggish due to low consumer spending, margins are probably up.
Thanks to Andrew N. for schooling me.
Note: when I posted my comment above on Facebook, the S&P 500 was 1171 and the Dow was 10,896.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Koran anticipates these marital and familial problems and tries to fix them ahead of time. In real life, women tend to become the focus of clothing/modesty discussions b/c most women are attracted to men who dress up, not down, but the opposite is true for women. At the end of the day, if you marry someone reasonable, modesty and clothing preferences won't be an issue.