| Bookmark this post: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Add a Comment
from Italy
said:W Queen Rania! By the way I don't understand why Royal Palace deny what she told... .
I would add that in my opinion Hijab shouldn't be considered a relious symbol too, but related with the period of Quran and Muhammad, by the way it's surely better consider that as a religious symbol of piety and modesty, than a politic symbol. The most important thing is that it isn't an obligation, so I support Queen Rania and what she told. A woman can be a good and modest Muslim also without wearing the veil, indeed, sometimes a Muslim woman without that it's a better Muslim than who wears it.
from Australia
said:Well, it is too appreciated that one considers his/her own position and what that person is authorised to say.
So, either Dear Alessandra or Queen Rania is entitled to give such announcement or Fatwa. When one does not know anything, or so little about something, it because too appreciated that this person does not give such big announcement. It is only because it is not a matter of giving your own opinion, it is a religious thing.
When it comes to opinions, then you can say whatever you want.
You can accept Hijab or not, but don’t show your opinion to look like a respected Fatwa by Islam.
Hope I won’t be misunderstood.
from Italy
said:Dear Depth, Queen Rania is wife of a decendent of Muhammad and King Abdallah is an "Amir al-Muminun", a "Prince of Belivers": his and her goal is also carrying about the respect of islam. So I don't think that she wanted tell something like a fatwa or unrespectful about islam. Indeed, she told that forcing to wear the hijab, is against Islamic religious, because "there is not coercition in islam". She shaw Islam is religion of freedom to West and to Muslims... . So Royal Palace shouldn't deny what she told, because she did a service to Jordan, to Muslims, expecially to the women.
from Jordan
said:Depth I hope I did not misunderstand your opinion but you are saying that "ordinary muslims" should not present their "opinions" on religious issues and keep that for the clerics. WEll one of the most important features of Islam is the absence of "cardinals" who will declare that they are devine in their ideas. The reason why Islam took such a downhill approach since 900 hears ago is the stoppage of "ijtijhad" and leaving the traditional clerics to stear the philosophy of Islam. For example if all muslims in the world followed the ideas of that lunitic mufti of Australia we will be in a disaster.
The Queen did not actually say that hijab is not mandatory in Islam but even if she did there are some scholars who have challenged the notion of hijab.
Alessandra: King Abdullah is not "Amir of Mumineen" and no Muslim leader is. He is the king of Jordan and doing a pretty good job.
from Italy
said:Dear Batir, I agree what you told to Depth!
Thanks for your information:) ...I tought he was. Of course I agree he's doing a pretty good job.
from United States
said:I agree with what you stated from the interview with Queen rania.
As for the "hijab" issue, I have never read or heard any modern or old "scholar" saying that the "hijab" doesn't include covering the hair(or head) of a woman. However, I have heard and read "islamic thinkers" supporting the idea that "covering the hair of a woman, is not part of the hijab".
I would be interested to read the fatwas for "scholars" as Batir mentioned whom don't think that "covering the hair/head of the woman is a part of the hijab".
This might also rise the notion of "who is to be considered a scholar".
I don't want to get into this issue, unless i find it's important to do so.
from Italy
said:Muneerrabi is right: Islamic "scholars" haven't a common point of view about hijab, what that is and what it should cover: Quran tells that women must covert their "awra", but it isn't clear what that it...It could be just the women's breasts. Or simply their jewels.
Hijab in origin means something like "curtain", "something that hides", but NOT a veil on the head of the women.
In theory should wear veil just the "Mothers of Belivers" because someone bothered them, but some women of that period decided to wear the veil too for emulating them and being respected. Instead the slave women and girls shouldn't: in effect they could be also raped.
from United States
said:Thanks for your comment alessandra, but it seems i misrepresented what I wanted to say.
After reading what alessandra said it seems my comment has been understood in the opposite way.
According to my knowledge, I say that muslim "scholars", modern and old, companions or tabe3een, the eight school of thoughts in islamic history, and other schools as well, have a consensus, a unanimous fatwa that "covering the hair/head of the woman after she reaches puberty IS DEFINITELY PART of the whole hijab".
In other words, the hijab(head scarf) has been considered mandatory by the muslim "scholars" without doubts in all ages from the time of prophet muhammad till this day.
I have not came across any "fiqh" (jurisprudence) or heard any "3alem/scholar" that states other than what I mentioned.
On the other hands, book authors and some islamic-related writers/thinkers have argued against this consensus and said that "head scarf" is not part of the "hijab".
But Batir said that, even some "scholars" argue that "head scarf" is not mandatory for muslim women so I asked for references since I never read or heard that a scholar said something like that.
from Jordan
said:Munir I am working on that issue of hijab and will write soon an Arabic post because I think it will be difficult to transfer the terminology to English.
from Italy
said:Yes, Munir, you understand, but I think we should help "scholars" who tell that hijab isn't a mandatory.
from Jordan
said:I admire our Queen. She is so wise.
Thanks Batir for posting this. When I hear her talking about this issue. I feel that I can never put it any better myself.
I guess that the misconception here is not between if the hijab is mandatory in Islam or not because most Muslim scholars state that it is mandatory although I heard some voices saying that it isnt, but I don't think that the Queen would let herself in that position.
What she was trying to say that Hijab should be forced on Muslim women. It is mandatory, but it is between the woman and her Allah. No one can tell you how to worship your Allah. It is your own choice and own will.
from Italy
said:Sorry if I write again about that, but observer, I desagree with you: I think that for the queen hijab ISN'T a mandatory, because she would WEAR it, if she tought like that and she thinks that NONE can force a woman to wear the veil. Yes, it's a something between her and God, but she can't be forced to wear (even if unluckly it happens!). She was so brave to tell that and what she told is useful to make Muslims to debate still more about it.
from Australia
said:I think it is also crucial to distinguish between things; opinion is not a Fatwa!! It is not depriving the ordinary Muslims to express their opinions on Islamic issues, not at all. However, there are things to do with the AQIDAH or doctrine. Ordinary people can mislead, intentionally or unintentionally, others if they represent their opinion as Fatwa. Therefore, it is up to me or you to accept this Fatwa as a way of life, but we are not entitled to give Fatwa whether it is to counter that Fatwa which we did not like, or even to please other people (outsiders) who have limited knowledge about a particular issue. It is a matter of taking thins out of context.
:) yes Alessandra, King Abdullah II is a king not Amir Al Momeneen… keeping in mind that being a good Muslim or Christian is not inevitably inherited.
from Jordan
said:Alessandra, I guess what the Queen wanted to do is clear the misconception of Islam. Because a lot of people in the west believe that Muslim women are forced to wear the veil which isn't the car.
I mean they are forced by having it as a mandatory aspect of their religion, but they are not forced by their fellow Muslims. What she was trying to say that Muslim women has the freedom to choose whether to wear it or not.
She didn't talk about her own belief whether the veil is mandatory in Islam or not. She may believe in that or not, and even if she does, that doesn't mean she would wear it. A lot of women know that it is mandatory and still choose not to wear it. It is a private matter. No one can be perfect and follow his religious teachings fully.
from Italy
said:Depth: I think that you should care about your own way to be Muslim, as I should care about my own way to be Christian. Queen Rania and King Abdallah already care about their own way to be Muslims. Of course what she told isn't a Fatwa!
The Observer: well, I'm Western and I don't think that all Muslim women are forced to wear the headscarves and also many Westerns think like that, but I don't think that you can deny that it can happen: veil can discriminate a "good Muslim woman" from a "not good Muslim" (look what also Depth told).
It happens also in West because the Muslims immigrants are frightened to lose their roots and some Muslims women wear the veil here, while they didn't in their countries. By the way I think they could decide to wear veil for modesty and so on, but they should know that it isn't a mandatory (you know better than me that veil is neither a pillar of islam).
from Italy
said:it would be interesting to see the opinion of some girls or women here.
from Jordan
said:Alessandra, most Muslim scholars agree that wearing Veil is mandatory in Islam. It shouldn't be forced, but it is a sin for a woman not to wear it.
But who can judge? We are all sinners.
Seeing a Muslim woman not wearing a veil doesn't mean that she is more of a sinner than one who does.
Most people are smarter than that. They know that wearing a veil doesn't mean that you are a better muslim or not.
But yes, some ignorant people do think this way, I guess it is the same in the west. I mean it is a matter of objective. Some do judge women with the amount of clothes they wear. It may not be the veil, but women wearing much revealing clothes may be considered less moral in the eyes of some people than those who wear conservative cloths, right?
from Italy
said:The observer: ok, but how can you tell that it's a sin if a woman doesn't wear the veil and then telling that "who can judge?": you already judge, if you tell that it's a sin!
Most people know you can't tell that a woman is less or more Muslim if she wears hijab or not, but the others?!
Yes, also some Westerns think that if a woman doesn't wear the veil isn't a "true" Muslims... . Westerns and Muslims many times have the same stereotypes and it's wrong, but none Western person would kill a woman for the veil, her way to dress and her behaviour, even if unluckly there are jelous partners killing women or men, if the commit "zina", as Muslims say. Instead, also here in Italy, there are some Muslim immigrants that kill their daughters because they look like "westernized" and blà, blà, blà!
Sure, women wearing more revealing clothes are thinked to be more moral, but it isn't always true and by the way I don't say how showing your hair can be considered "immoral"!
I like Queen Rania also because she shows to all, Muslims and Westerns, that a woman can be a proud Arab and a deeply Muslim woman, also if she doesn't think hijab is a mandatory and she generally doesn't wear it. By the way as she told in another interview, there are many Arab women that think and dress like her: she has just the luck to have much more pubblic visibility for her position.
from Jordan
said:Alessandra, I dont think that you are getting exactly what I am trying to say. Let me try to clear it.
when I said that who can judge, I meant that people can't judge each other because we are all sinners.
But most Muslim scholars agree that the veil is mandatory for women in Islam. It is a sin, but God is the one who punish for sins not people.
That is what the Queen tried to say I think. People in Islam has no right forcing each other to wear a Veil. Everyone has the right to choose based on his belief in God.
*Most people know you can't tell that a woman is less or more Muslim if she wears hijab or not, but the others?!*
You can't please everyone! In every aspect of life there are people who think differently.
*by the way I don't say how showing your hair can be considered "immoral"!*
It is a relativity matter. In Saudi Arabia a woman showing her face in public is considered immoral. In other countries it is the hair, in others it is the legs, in others it is the boobs! I guess it is more of a cultural issue than a religious one.
from Italy
said:It's all ok the observer, but again I don't think that Queen Rania would do something if she knew that she could be punished from God...it would be like she said to the people: "Do what I tell, but it's better you don't make what I do, because God could punish me".
It's ok that only God has the right to judge and punish us and that we all are sinners, but she would avoid to do something if she tought that it was a sin: I think that it would be a non sense, expecially in her role and in front of all the world.
I by the way think she should be still clearer in what she told.
Islam in my opinion, if raccomend the veil, it's because the historical period.
I respect your opinion.
from Italy
said:By the way, closing the topic of the hijab, I must honestly tell that I don't agree about Her Majesty sentence "this is a fight between the extremists from all religions against the moderates from all religions". For sure isn't a fight against Muslims and Christians as she told, also because the majority of the Islamic extremists's victims is Muslim and I think we too often forget that in West and it's good that the queen underlines that once time more, but none other religious extremism makes so many victims (killed victims) in the world at this time like the Islamic extremism... . I think it's a fact.
from Jordan
said:Ofcourse the Queen wouldn't say that she is a sinner! and she wouldn't talk about whether not wearing the veil is a sin or not infront of the western media. She was only trying to highligh that no one is allowed to force anyone else in worshipping God in Islam. This is all what she was trying to say.
As for the fight between Moderates VS Extremists. I believe it is true 100%. Sure it now seems that there are far more Muslim extremists in the world than other religions, but no one can deny that Christian and Jew extremists exist as well.
If it wasn't for the new-con, strict catholic extemists in the US, we would never have seen the invasion of Iraq.
Extremists are pushing us from both sides. We moderates should take the lead and manage our world to make it a better place for us all.
from Italy
said:About hijab: I agree with her...but why you don't forget for 1 minute the Western media?
About Moderates vs. Extremists: it's sure that there aren't extremists just in islam and I think we often forget it in West, but I think also most of the problems that we have now really depend from Islamic extremism and I think that moderates Muslims should openly tell this. They can precise that "They aren't true Muslims and they don't show the true islam", but the problem is that also this extremists and terrorists think to act "in the name of islam" (because there are many ways of interpretation of that).
By the way there aren't just the true great monotheistic religions, but also Buddhism, Induism, for example...and we don't hear so many troubles provocated from them.
About Iraq war...I agree 50% with you: I think the same Bush is a "fanatic"...I remember when he told for justifying the war "God is with us!"...Well, that single sentence wasn't a good work diplomacy and it honesly didn't help to make understand the difference between him and Bin-Laden... . Christian theo-con unluckly have had their influence for the rielection of Bush, but I don't think at the end the war in Iraq happened "in the name of God", instead Islamic extremits and terrorists they costantly tell that they act for that (or better: they think to do so).
By the way...I'm so happy that the Precidency of Bush will finish the next hear and surely the extremists in ALL religions are dengerous, expecially in this time.
from Australia
said:Alessandra,
thanks for the nice way of communicating. I like your openness and your acceptance to discuss your points.
I agree with lots of what you said, but i still have my firm belief about the basic issue in this discussion. although we can see it has moved away a bit.
i only stepped in here to disagree with you about ur last point. i wish that Bush will stay longer in his position to suffer more humilation and to go further down. we all can remember how he was just two years ago, as he was behaving as he owned the world... and now you can see as he behaives as a chicken.
from Italy
said:Depth, more humiliation for Bush in Iraq and in Afghanistan, mean still more victims there... . I deeply think that extremists and terrorists of Al-Qaeda wanna that: they at the end wanna that the conflicts go on fot all the ethernity, to tell that Muslims are victims of just West and Israel (and never and never of Islamic terrorism!)and blà, blà, blà.
I was and I'm against the war in Iraq because I was worried and frightened for the consequences, but the alternative was having Saddam again!
from Italy
said:Ps. for the observer: I remind after we spoke, that Hillary Clinton isn't a theo-con or a Christian extremist, but she as well voted for the war in Iraq ... .
from Jordan
said:Alessandra, I believe that moderate muslims are the one who have been hurt the most from this stupid war. Islamic Extremists have hurt Islam more than they hurt anyone else.
I am not a Muslim, but I live among many Muslims and do feel their frustration of what is going on. Remember last year bombs in Amman? We all went out to the streets speaking out our voices against extermists.
I have to admit, I was with the war on Iraq. I didnt think that anything can be worse than Saddam. Obviously I was wrong. Bush managed to make Iraq worse.
As for Hilary, I guess she has to spport her country. For Americans, the media made it as a patriot matter. They don't really know how much damage this war affected their country.
from Italy
said:Dear Observer, I agree with you, but I wonder if these moderates are truely moderates... . I can understand very well and I can feel what moderates feell about this conflict and I would add what happens in Palestine: they are human beings and their have all their right to feel frustrated, but I'm frightened their frustration brings also them to be anti-Israelis and anti-Americans!
I was so happy for your reaction after the attack in Amman, but you would react in the same way if it wasn't happen in Jordan? (I say that, but it's of course normal reacting more when something happens against your people and against your country).
By the way I heard that Queen Rania guided a great protext against extremism and terrorism in GENERAL, it was a very good thing.
I don't think Bush wanted that in Iraq happened something worse than Saddam and it shows once more his STU-PI-DI-TY! As I don't think that ALL American media make this as a patriot matter and I heard that many Americans are tired of Bush and against him for what happens in Iraq.
from Jordan
said:I guess that a lot of people support their country when there is a war regardless of where their stand is.
I mean look at lebanon for example. Everyone stood behind HezbAllah when Israel attacked the country when most of the other sects don't agree with Hezballah policy at all.
As for going to the streets to protest when terror attacks happen in other countries. If I do that, I would end up sleeping in streets :P! For us, we are facing 2 horrors. We feel sad for people who are being killed daily in Iraq and Palestine because of the occupation forces, and at the same time we feel sad for the innocent civilians being killed at the hands of terrorists.
I guess Jordanian stand demonstrated by our King and government is clear. We are with peace. We don't tolerate violence in any form or mean.
from Italy
said:That's the matter, the observer: it seems that most part of Arabs and Muslims, prefer to support Hizballah, Hamas & co. than Israel or USA, included many "moderates" that generally "disagree" with them...It's sad and dagerous that their "moderation" has these "limits"!
Related to Jordan, it's a luck for your country to have 2 leaders like King Abdallah and Queen Rania...I don't know what many Jordanian people would do if you had other leaders and King Abdallah must be different than these "conditioned moderates", without being frightened of extremists.
Add a Comment
<<Home
from Jordan
On a side note, I appreciate that you're not referring to the issue as if it was a "misquotation", because obviously the queen doesn't consider the Hijab mandatory, I think her words showed maturity about understanding Islam.