Jump to content
Al Hadi

Info on some of khamanei's(ha) fatwas

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1.Is it true wearing a tie is haram according to sayed al qaid al khamanei(God bless him) if so how do his followers in western countries get jobs and stuff I'm wondering cause a lot of them to my knowledge require ties?

It says on his website

http://leader.ir/en/book/38

under social and cultural issues

To Wear a Tie
In general, it is not permissible to wear a tie or the clothes which are considered as the clothing of non-Muslims so that wearing them amounts to promoting the low western culture.
 

2.Also I read he doesn't allow someone to look at a women's face who wears make up how does one deal with this too as many muslim women themselves across the world unfortunately wear make up what does someone do when a girl asks them questions and they have make up on must they look away while responding? Also the hands that are beautified which could mean like nail polish/nail paint or jewelry does a person look away from their hands as well? 

it says on his website

To Look at a Non-maḥram Woman
It is impermissible to look at a non-maḥram woman except for her face and hands up to wrists provided that they are unadorned and looking is without lustful and ill intentions.

http://leader.ir/en/book/38

It is under rules of nonmahram

 

He also says one cant wear clothes that promote western culture don't all clothes in the west do this? What does one dress if they follow khamanei in the west? Unless I am completely Misinterpreting the fatwas if I am please let me know.

I want to know why though it says this on his website and how his muqallids in the west act on these fatwas.

 


 

Edited by Al Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats interesting..... I've heard of not being allowed to wear "silk" ties, but no tie completely? Also, it seems like almost 99% of females wear make-up here (in the U.S)..... It would be pretty difficult to avoid this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Wearing a tie is only done in the west and rarely done anywhere else in the world. If you wear a tie you are promoting western culture, which he forbids. It makes sense to not promote western culture because the west are the enemies of Islam.

 

2. Read what he says carefully. He says you can't look at there face only if your looking at them in a lustful and ill intention. It's not haram to look at a women with make up on unless you violate what he said.

 

3. Most clothes don't promote western culture. The clothes that are forbidden are the ones that make you stand out in front of people where it easily shows you are promoting the western culture (a tie for example). Wearing clothes that are western brand doesn't necessarily make you stand out because most people in the world wear the same thing or something very similar.

Edited by Hassan Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Al Hadi said:

In general, it is not permissible to wear a tie or the clothes which are considered as the clothing of non-Muslims so that wearing them amounts to promoting the low western culture.

Iranians don't wear jeans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

Iranians don't have traditional clothing, apart from clerics, all Iranian men dress like westerners, so it is a strange ruling.

 

I really think ulema from sayed sistani to sayed khamanei ought to publish their explanations to these rulings, or elaborate further on these rulings.

Like for example their music fatwah's are incredibly vague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, uponthesunnah said:

I really think ulema from sayed sistani to sayed khamanei ought to publish their explanations to these rulings, or elaborate further on these rulings.

Like for example their music fatwah's are incredibly vague.

At least sayed Khamene'i is fairly consistent in his opposition to foreign influences into Islam. I can't see how someone like sayed Sistani could defend being against neck ties do to them being an imitation of the kufar, when he supports imitation of the kufar when it comes to Muharram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bazzi_ said:

Thats interesting..... I've heard of not being allowed to wear "silk" ties, but no tie completely? Also, it seems like almost 99% of females wear make-up here (in the U.S)..... It would be pretty difficult to avoid this.

This started with Khomeini. Lookup some old gov't photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bazzi_ said:

Thats interesting..... I've heard of not being allowed to wear "silk" ties, but no tie completely? Also, it seems like almost 99% of females wear make-up here (in the U.S)..... It would be pretty difficult to avoid this.

I wouldn't say 99% 

but definitely ALOT unfortunately even In Muslim communities it's really sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hassan Y said:

1. Wearing a tie is only done in the west and rarely done anywhere else in the world. If you wear a tie you are promoting western culture, which he forbids. It makes sense to not promote western culture because the west are the enemies of Islam.

 

2. Read what he says carefully. He says you can't look at there face only if your looking at them in a lustful and ill intention. It's not haram to look at a women with make up on unless you violate what he said.

 

3. Most clothes don't promote western culture. The clothes that are forbidden are the ones that make you stand out in front of people where it easily shows you are promoting the western culture (a tie for example). Wearing clothes that are western brand doesn't necessarily make you stand out because most people in the world wear the same thing or something very similar.

1.I guess that makes sense but what about if your living in America need a job finally found one but they require you to wear a tie? It's already hard enough to find a job as a Muslim if what your saying about his fatwa here is true than that would make it even harder. It might be the case that this fatwa only applies to those in Iran as this is the case with makarim shirazi as I have found out.

2. He says specifically 

To Look at a Non-maḥram Woman
It is impermissible to look at a non-maḥram woman except for her face and hands up to wrists provided that they are unadorned and looking is without lustful and ill intentions.

he says I can look at their face and hands if they are not adorned as in beautified (which is honestly impossible for some women these days.) beautified as in they put on make up nice jewelry etc... it sounds pretty clear unless they made a mistake. If I'm misreading it please explain by bolding or underlining that may help. Also I can't look at her face and hands if they are unadorned with lustful intentions when they are adorned as in with nice "maybe it's maybaline" or lipstick or nice foundation(all which are very nice for a husband but shouldn't be worn in front of nonmahram) those kind of faces can't be looked at with lustful intentions let alone  nonlustful intentions. (It makes a bit of sense I guess I personally find women who wear make up start to get my lust going so I look away anyways regardless of the fatwa except when they ask me something then I make some eye contact and answer) but I'm wondering is looking allowed in a necessary case like that according to khamanei. If that is what the fatwa actually says unless someone has access to an arabic or Persian source that clarifies this?

3. Clothes in west are western clothes and I can imagine they promote western culture. I would need an example to think otherwise or a good explanation.

Edited by Al Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

Iranians don't wear jeans?

They have practically given up their traditional dresses for the "low Western ones," but there seems to be something about ties that Iranians don't like. Perhaps their resemblance with the cross? But that reason is not given and I doubt if the story of its origin in the cross is true. And when every woman wears some sort of makeup, where do you suppose to look at? 

Surreal questions and equally surreal answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

Iranians don't wear jeans?

When it is customarily not considered a Muslim or a non-Muslim type of clothing, then it is permissible to wear. It all depends on urf, that's how I understood it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Al Hadi said:

1.I guess that makes sense but what about if your living in America need a job finally found one but they require you to wear a tie? It's already hard enough to find a job as a Muslim if what your saying about his fatwa here is true than that would make it even harder. It might be the case that this fatwa only applies to those in Iran as this is the case with makarim shirazi as I have found out.

2. He says specifically 

To Look at a Non-maḥram Woman
It is impermissible to look at a non-maḥram woman except for her face and hands up to wrists provided that they are unadorned and looking is without lustful and ill intentions.

he says I can look at their face and hands if they are not adorned as in beautified (which is honestly impossible for some women these days.) beautified as in they put on make up nice jewelry etc... it sounds pretty clear unless they made a mistake. If I'm misreading it please explain by bolding or underlining that may help. Also I can't look at her face and hands if they are unadorned with lustful intentions when they are adorned as in with nice "maybe it's maybaline" or lipstick or nice foundation(all which are very nice for a husband but shouldn't be worn in front of nonmahram) those kind of faces can't be looked at with lustful intentions let alone  nonlustful intentions. (It makes a bit of sense I guess I personally find women who wear make up start to get my lust going so I look away anyways regardless of the fatwa except when they ask me something then I make some eye contact and answer) but I'm wondering is looking allowed in a necessary case like that according to khamanei. If that is what the fatwa actually says unless someone has access to an arabic or Persian source that clarifies this?

3. Clothes in west are western clothes and I can imagine they promote western culture. I would need an example to think otherwise or a good explanation.

1. In that case, you have to ask the marja yourself here http://leader.ir/en/istifta

2. I don't think the marja explained that sentence properly which can bring a lot of confusion. There must be an explanation for him saying "unadorned" so in that case you should again ask him.

3. Not all clothes in the west promote its culture. If I wear jeans and go to the middle east for example, would the people there even notice my jeans or think I'm promoting the western culture? They won't because they all wear the same thing or something similar. Clothes that stand out are the ones that should be avoided such as a tie or this or this or that . These are just examples that if someone sees another wearing these, they can easily realize these are of western culture. Where as if you just wear normal clothes like the rest of the world does, than it is not a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hassan Y said:

1. In that case, you have to ask the marja yourself here http://leader.ir/en/istifta

2. I don't think the marja explained that sentence properly which can bring a lot of confusion. There must be an explanation for him saying "unadorned" so in that case you should again ask him.

3. Not all clothes in the west promote its culture. If I wear jeans and go to the middle east for example, would the people there even notice my jeans or think I'm promoting the western culture? They won't because they all wear the same thing or something similar. Clothes that stand out are the ones that should be avoided such as a tie or this or this or that . These are just examples that if someone sees another wearing these, they can easily realize these are of western culture. Where as if you just wear normal clothes like the rest of the world does, than it is not a problem.

Don't you follow him? I thought someone like you or Kaymar would understand the fatwas better then me reading them. 

Edited by Al Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Al Hadi said:

Don't you follow him? I thought someone like you or Kaymar would understand the fatwas better then me reading them. 

I explained #3 to you. For #1, that is a personal question where asking him directly will get you the best answer, but if you want my personal opinion, even if finding a job would be harder it would still be haram to wear it unless you are very very desperate finding a job and wearing a tie is the only way to finding one. For #2, it is not haram to look at women with make up on unless it's in a lustful way. I think he must have made an English mistake on his ruling when he said  "provided that they are unadorned ". If this wasn't a mistake, than I will be highly surprised. The best thing to do is to ask him directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

I explained #3 to you. For #1, that is a personal question where asking him directly will get you the best answer, but if you want my personal opinion, even if finding a job would be harder it would still be haram to wear it unless you are very very desperate finding a job and wearing a tie is the only way to finding one. For #2, it is not haram to look at women with make up on unless it's in a lustful way. I think he must have made an English mistake on his ruling when he said  "provided that they are unadorned ". If this wasn't a mistake, than I will be highly surprised. The best thing to do is to ask him directly.

Would you like to see the answers I receive when I get them?

I might post them in here though.

Edited by Al Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Hassan Y said:

Sure why not.

 
Bismihi Ta`ala
Salamun `alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu
As per the given situation, looking at her is impermissible.
With prayers for your success
A Shia girl wears make up and decides to ask me a Man a question must I look away from her face while I am answering her or may I look at it without lust?
From Leader.ir
I guess it makes some sense cause its kind of hard not to feel lust when you see a women's face that has been beautified and that's me speaking from personal experience. But it still is kind of hard to practice I might send it there way a few more times with more details
Edited by Al Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Al Hadi said:
 
Bismihi Ta`ala
Salamun `alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu
As per the given situation, looking at her is impermissible.
With prayers for your success
A Shia girl wears make up and decides to ask me a Man a question must I look away from her face while I am answering her or may I look at it without lust?
From Leader.ir
I guess it makes some sense cause its kind of hard not to feel lust when you see a women's face that has been beautified and that's me speaking from personal experience. But it still is kind of hard to practice I might send it there way a few more times with more details

What!! If he said "its impermissible  to look at them in a lustful way" I'd understand but to not look at women even without lust is kind of absurd to me... I will need to research about this more I'll let you know what I find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hassan Y said:

What!! If he said "its impermissible  to look at them in a lustful way" I'd understand but to not look at women even without lust is kind of absurd to me... I will need to research about this more I'll let you know what I find out.

I heard some people on this website have the email of shaykh Hamza Sodagar I think he would be a great person to ask I asked for it on this forum

Unfortunately no one has replied maybe ask repenter or someone else who may have it. If you do get it I would appreciate it if you pm'd me with it as well.

Also The tie thing might be good to research too.

In the end for people like you the answer is absurd but for me It kind of makes some sense I start to get bad feelings when I see a girl who has make up on her face that has good looks. When that happens I look away anyways even before I saw this fatwa and keep in mind I didn't really intend lust it kind of just comes on its own because of the beautified face almost like when smelling good food it automatically makes you hungry especially when you haven't really eaten. Similarly here seeing a beautified face I think automatically creates lust but maybe I have a problem or It might be my souls recognition of what's harmful to it. Who knows we will have to double check to find out

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Al Hadi said:

I heard some people on this website have the email of shaykh Hamza Sodagar I think he would be a great person to ask I asked for it on this forum

Unfortunately no one has replied maybe ask repenter or someone else who may have it. If you do get it I would appreciate it if you pm'd me with it as well.

Also The tie thing might be good to research too.

In the end for people like you the answer is absurd but for me It kind of makes some sense I start to get bad feelings when I see a girl who has make up on her face that has good looks. When that happens I look away anyways even before I saw this fatwa and keep in mind I didn't really intend lust it kind of just comes on its own because of the beautified face almost like when smelling good food it automatically makes you hungry especially when you haven't really eaten. Similarly here seeing a beautified face I think automatically creates lust but maybe I have a problem or It might be my souls recognition of what's harmful to it. Who knows we will have to double check to find out

 

But he said even without lust you still can't look at her. I don't get any lustful feelings when I see a girl with make up on, I have to look at them because I work with some of them at my job. Just to clarify, the person responding to your questions isn't the actual marja Sayed Ali Khamenei, it's the shiekhs that represent him that do it. The shiekhs translate the fatwa from farsi to english, so I think they mistranslated it on accident and it changed the english version of the fatwa a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • No matter how much Shia try to blend in, Muharram/Azadari will always expose them.( Its one of its purpose)
    • Yes they are considered Muslims but not Mo'mins. Surah Al-Insan, Verse 8:
      وَيُطْعِمُونَ الطَّعَامَ عَلَىٰ حُبِّهِ مِسْكِينًا وَيَتِيمًا وَأَسِيرًا And they give food out of love for Him to the poor and the orphan and the captive:
      (English - Shakir) Surah Al-Insan, Verse 9:
      إِنَّمَا نُطْعِمُكُمْ لِوَجْهِ اللَّهِ لَا نُرِيدُ مِنكُمْ جَزَاءً وَلَا شُكُورًا We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks:
      (English - Shakir) A true mo'min always act to seek the nearness (qurbat) of Allah because he loves Allah (s.w.t).  In the same chapter, you will find a verse mentioning people who love this worldly life: Surah Al-Insan, Verse 27:
      إِنَّ هَٰؤُلَاءِ يُحِبُّونَ الْعَاجِلَةَ وَيَذَرُونَ وَرَاءَهُمْ يَوْمًا ثَقِيلًا Surely these love the transitory and neglect a grievous day before them.
      (English - Shakir) @hasanhh, @Chaotic Muslem
    • frankly, i think it's the (takfiri) wahhabis that's causing havoc in muslim lands. let's not quarrel among ourselves. [8:46].....do not quarrel for then you will be weak in hearts and your power will depart,..... let's not misled others [16:25] Let them bear, on the Day of Judgment, their own burdens in full, and also (something) of the burdens of those without knowledge, whom they misled. Alas, how grievous the burdens they will bear! don't have to unite. but let's strive as in a race with one another, towards good deeds [5:48]....therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;  
    • A Christian Nation? Ryan LaMothe Photo by Forsaken Fotos | CC BY 2.0 Over the years I have often heard Christians of various political stripes assert that the United States is a Christian nation. More recently, Christian evangelicals, who supported Trump and his campaign slogan of “Make America Great Again,” seemed nostalgic for a white Christian America. One might be tempted to call the belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation a myth, the seeds of which were sown in 1630 when John Winthrop challenged his community to establish a city on the hill, reflecting the covenant of God and Christian charity. Many myths contain a grain or two of truth. Nevertheless, the belief in a Christian nation is more illusion than truth. This might be a provocative claim to many people that requires justification. Let me begin by acknowledging that most of the people who immigrated to America, taking native peoples’ lands, were primarily of various Christian denominations. Some saw this country as the new Promised Land, overlooking the fact that by occupying the land they removed any possibility of promise to the non-Christian people who lived here for millennia. So, I am willing to concede that white European settlers were mainly Christian. This was also true after the War of Independence and in this sense one might say this was a Christian nation in that most of the settlers called themselves Christian. I will come back to this, but for now let me say that this new “Christian nation” was clearly neither a Christian theocracy not a parliamentary system advocating a particular religion. Indeed, the Constitution enshrined the free exercise of religion, while establishing a wall between church and state. If we were to call this budding nation a Christian nation, it was oddly one that proclaimed the freedom of individuals to practice other religions—at least ideally—or no religion at all. Proclaiming the inalienable right of religious freedom would leave open the possibility that another religion might be dominant, which would mean we would no longer be a “Christian nation.” While some people cite numbers or percentage of Christians as a reason for calling the U.S. a Christian nation, others have argued that the U.S. is a Christian nation because it was founded by Christians and, therefore, some of their beliefs and principles were woven into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  In reality, the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights influenced those who penned the Constitution. Also, House Congressional Resolution 331 (1988) acknowledged the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations in writing the U.S. Constitution.  To be sure there are references to God in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution, which is not to deny that Christian principles, to some degree, shaped the writing of the Constitution, though it is not entirely clear which principles. More apparent is the secular political influences that shaped founding texts. Indeed, it is more accurate to say the U.S. was founded on English and Enlightenment political values. This will not deter those who will insist that since most colonial and later U.S. citizens nation were Christian, then the U.S. was, by and large, a Christian nation. Fast forward to the present and polls indicate that approximately 84% of people in the U.S. identify as Christians. So, our stalwart believer may proclaim that we are still a Christian nation by percentages alone.  Of course, we might look more closely at those numbers to discover that many of those who self-identify as Christians do not actually belong to a Christian community of faith. In some polling less than 38% of Christians actually go to church. What percentage do we rely on for being a Christian nation—51% or above of those who believe in Christ? Or do we count those who are actually practicing their Christian faith? If it is the latter, then we do not qualify as a Christian nation. Percentages and numbers, though, are hardly adequate measures for determining whether we are a Christian nation or not. It would seem fairer to consider not so much belief, but whether the majority of citizens and their elected representatives embody and live out core principles associated with Christianity. This would be akin to considering whether the claim that we are a democratic nation is valid based on whether citizens and institutions uphold and live out the principles and practices of democracy. Do citizens act in democratic ways? Are there state and non-state institutions that uphold democratic values and principles? Let’s shift to whether we are a “Christian” nation. Do citizens and elected officials adhere to the core principles of Christianity as reflected in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ? Do state and non-state institutions promote Christian principles and practices? The simple answer is no, but it is important to at least identify a few key principles of Christianity. It is apparent in any cursory reading of history that there are various renderings of what it means to live a Christian life. Yet, it is safe to say that the ministry of Jesus Christ incarnates the love and compassion of God, which includes mercy and forgiveness. As Karen Armstrong (1993) notes, the three Abrahamic faiths elevate compassion as a central principle for living a religious life. If we consider love, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness as central principles of being a Christian, then it is evident that these principles are less about mere belief than they are about actions or practices. I think most individual Christians and communities of faith, if they are honest, would say that they fall short of living out these principles. Indeed, Kierkegaard, surveying the landscape of Christian Europe, asked whether a Christian could be found in all of Christendom. No doubt he was aware of how far he and others fail to live out and up to Jesus Christ. More importantly, his query was not just about individuals, but calling Christendom itself into question. Individuals who call themselves Christian should be assessed in terms of the principles of Christianity, not so much to deny their identity, but to indicate to what degree they live out this faith. Those of us who call ourselves Christian know we do not measure up, yet we retain a Christian identity. When individuals use the term Christian to describe their nation, which includes identity, then it is fair game to use the principles as criteria. What does it mean to be called a Christian nation given the violent appropriation of land from Native Americans, which may rightly be called ethnic cleansing? Our ruthless treatment of Native peoples, which continues today, seems a far cry from any Christian principle. Consider how many American Christians legitimated slavery, Jim Crow, and racism. By what Christian principle do these fall under? The exploitation of Cuban, Philippine, and Central American peoples during the decades when the U.S. was a colonial power seems more in line with the principles of the Roman Empire than Christian values. The fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Has the U.S. ever asked for forgiveness for these acts?  This kind of sociopathic brutality is a far cry from Christian compassion, though it is important to acknowledge that Christian communities perpetrated if not supported brutal actions (e.g., lynching). Let’s turn to the killing of around 2 million Vietnamese, which was more in line with the principles of realpolitik than Christian justice. Speaking of justice, read Acts and ask how Christian is it to have huge income and wealth disparities, millions of people without healthcare or inadequate healthcare, food deserts, and 7 million people in the penal system. Does this so-called Christian nation embody or even uphold any of the core values of Christianity? If this is not enough to dissuade people from calling the U.S. a Christian nation, I also raise the fact that I am not sure any nation could be Christian, except in only one sense and that is the view that we are a Christian nation because most citizens self-identify as Christian. That said, it is crucial to recognize that while religious communities can hold forth about their Christian values and principles vis-à-vis organizing the life of the community, nations abide by other principles, principles more in line with Machiavelli and Clausewitz, rather than Christ. To be sure, Constantine launched the West onto the idea of a Christian state, but this idea seemed to be far from anything Jesus had in mind. Moreover, Christ’s motivation, if I can talk about his motivation, seemed to be more about compassion, feeding the poor, healing the sick, etc., than it was about founding a nation. In short, Jesus’ kingdom is not to be found on earth, even though the kingdom of God is among us in acts of love, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. These are virtues that are inimical the advancement of a nation state, let alone, an empire. So, let’s be honest and acknowledge that the U.S. and its government do not and, perhaps, cannot uphold Christian principles in organizing social or international relations. For this reason, we cannot claim the U.S. is a Christian nation. But I am not sanguine about people accepting this, especially those Christian individuals who are more likely to think of themselves as staunch patriots. By adhering to this belief, more accurately an illusion, they avoid facing the fact that the fundamental principles that actually operate in state-craft, namely, ruthless, rational calculation in the advancement of U.S. economic and political interests, are contrary to Christian principles used to organize the first Christian communities, namely sacrificial love, compassion, forgiveness, and distribution of resources according to needs. I also think there are a few other reasons why many Christian Americans are steadfast in their belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation. First, Christianity has long been the dominant religious tradition in this country and has become, for many, intertwined with a national identity. Even if people recognize that one can be American and from other faith traditions, patriotic Christians’ identity is wedded to national identity. To begin to believe we are not a Christian nation can evoke anxiety and rage because it is a threat to that identity. A second reason for retaining this illusion is that it deflects one from the inherent cruelty of the state’s actions (e.g., drone warfare and the killing of civilians, policing the poor). Even when we find ways to justify violence (e.g., they attacked us first—just war), we can continue to hold out that we are Christian nation. “Christian” denotes something good, unsullied by our excesses. It is analogous to someone saying, after being cruel to someone, “All have sinned. I know this as a Christian and that God still loves me.” Pasting the title Christian over the notion of the state or nation is like trying to cover over the indelible stain of our national sins. Third and relatedly, to come face to face with ourselves, as Carl Jung noted, is a terrible shock for we will see how far we really are from our cherished ideals of ourselves. Our shared histories, which undergird our shared identities, are, more often than not, facades that screen the reality of wrong on the throne and right on the scaffold (Niebuhr, 1941, p. 40).  Better to hold onto the soporific illusions of the title “Christian” than to face our collective past and present sins. As James Baldwin noted Americans “have the most remarkable ability to alchemize all bitter truths into an innocuous but piquant confection and to transform their moral contradictions, into a proud decoration” (1955, p.31)—the proud decoration that we are a Christian nation. Baldwin also wrote, “(F)or there is a great deal of will power involved in the white man’s naïveté” (p.166)—a naiveté fostered by the illusion of a Christian America. So, there are three basic rationales for citizens proclaiming the U.S. is a Christian nation. The first is the view that sheer numbers of people who believe in Christ indicates we are a Christian nation, but this fails because of the low percentages of people who actually practice some version of Christian faith. More importantly it also fails because the Constitution not only does not proclaim this, but actually leaves open the possibility of some other religion having greater numbers of believers, let alone practitioners. A second argument is that the founding documents of the nation are heavily influenced by Christian beliefs and principles. This might seem to be true, but the reality is that there were other influences, including those of Native peoples. Third, individuals may claim that we are a Christian nation because Christian principles and values guide how we understand ourselves and organize society. The truth, however, is that the United States has operated out of other principles more suited to Machiavellian principles of statecraft. One might ask why is it so important to rid ourselves of the illusion that we are a Christian nation. What good will come of it? Isn’t holding this belief an inducement to live out a more moral existence as a nation? As for the second question, one need only go down the depressively long list of cruel, destructive, exploitive, and oppressive actions perpetrated in the name of a Christian nation to see that it has not been an inducement to live a more moral life, though people like Martin Luther King Jr. and others used this to [Edited Out] the consciences of white Americans. If we work to get rid of or limit this illusion, people of other religious and secular faiths may feel more at home in the U.S. Perhaps another benefit would be a growing awareness of the misdeeds done under the name of Christian nation. In facing the sins of our past, there might be a sliver of hope for change. As James Baldwin (2010) notes, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced” (p.34). Notes. Armstrong, K. (1993). A History of God. New York: Ballantine Books. Baldwin, J. (1955). Notes of a Native Son. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Baldwin, J. (2010). The Cross of Redemption: Uncollected writings. New York: Pantheon. Kierkegaard, S. (1846). Concluding unscientific postscript to the philosophical fragments: A mimic-pathetic-dialectic composition: An existential contribution, by Johannes Climacus. Responsible for publication: S. Kierkegaard. Trans. D. Swenson and W. Lowrie (1941). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Niebuhr, H. R. (1941). Meaning and revelation. New York: Collier Books.
    • If you are thinking that he'll be hurt by your decision then you are right may be he will,but that'll heal.. Moving with him further will make chances to return and heal difficult!! And if you are thinking about people pointing on you or your parents don't worry they will talk till they have that tongue(even if you do nothing they'll say oh!what a poor girl she does nothing :p) select your priorities and then act, it will ease your decisions inshaaAllah... May you find best in Allah's will 
×