Saudi Women's Rights Activist Speaks Out

[Basim Ali]

She even advocates the right for non-muslims to enter mekkah

That's not really a right non-Muslims have.

I didn't watch the video, but if she does say that in the video she needs to read the Qur'aan first and then go about rectifying the kingdom's mistakes. Besides, if she can't even do her own Hijab right, she doesn't really represent Saudi women or their views.

Any Sara, Mishaal or Laila can go give an interview outside KSA and claim to be a Saudi women's rights activist. It doesn't give their words any credibility.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Basim Ali

[kim.tinkerbell]

Lol how did this escalet to the presenter. If she wasnt smart she wouldnt be a threat to saudi . And the two videos dont do her any favours because you can clearly see that she had to think of the words before saying them , english isint her lauguage but some of her questions are sharp in arabic, not in this video but it others....

You lots need to look at what shes trying to say and not how she looks like. She might wear it later on in life just like one of the al jazera presenter did....

Its clear that men their dont take the womans word seriously even if she was fighting back with the shariah law.....

[Haydar Husayn]

Lol how did this escalet to the presenter. If she wasnt smart she wouldnt be a threat to saudi .

Who said she is a threat (apart from herself that is)?

And the two videos dont do her any favours because you can clearly see that she had to think of the words before saying them , english isint her lauguage but some of her questions are sharp in arabic, not in this video but it others....

Her English seemed fine to me. The problem was what she was saying, not how she was saying it.

You lots need to look at what shes trying to say and not how she looks like. She might wear it later on in life just like one of the al jazera presenter did....

Yes, and what she is saying is nonsense. Just because she may have one or two decent points buried in there somewhere, it doesn't mean that everything else she says and does should be overlooked.

Its clear that men their dont take the womans word seriously even if she was fighting back with the shariah law.....

Well, maybe they should try first. I don't see how taking off hijab and becoming a secularist solves anything.

[kim.tinkerbell]

So why did saudi stop her from writing articuls? If they found her words " nonsense"?

[Lanatin]

Because the saudis forbid women from driving, that's what.

[kim.tinkerbell]

Its haram to talk about others even if they werint wearing the right things....

Seriously to many woman haters on this site.......

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ]

That's not really a right non-Muslims have.

I didn't watch the video, but if she does say that in the video she needs to read the Qur'aan first and then go about rectifying the kingdom's mistakes. Besides, if she can't even do her own Hijab right, she doesn't really represent Saudi women or their views.

Any Sara, Mishaal or Laila can go give an interview outside KSA and claim to be a Saudi women's rights activist. It doesn't give their words any credibility.

Says who? There are plenty of hypocrites that enter the Haram annually, hypocrites are worse than non-muslims. Anyhow, anyone can pretend to be Muslim and go for Hajj, so I don't see why peaceful non-muslims are barred from it, hardly makes sense. The Quran doesn't tell peaceful non-muslims, who are seeking the truth, to keep out. That isn't right, and God isn't so petty like we are. Malcolm X discovered the true reality of Islam when he went for the pilgrimage, he called it a 'life changing epiphany', and realized that the Islam he was following previously was just an odd cult. If you had authority, would you have banned him from hajj if you knew he wasn't really following Islam? If you did, he wouldn't have learnt the truth about what true equality actually constitutes, neither would he have been inspired to channel his revolution in the right direction. Clearly, the land of God is for all types of people, no matter what deviated beliefs they may have in their hearts. The land that holds the shrine of Imam Hussein (a) is greater in status than the land of the Ka'aba, yet all types of people are welcome there, no matter what their beliefs. If non-muslims are banned from these holy places, how would they ever receive enlightenment?

It's so typical that you judge this woman with such narrow-mindedness, not even bothering to watch the video. You have to understand that whether she chooses to wear a headscarf or not, in no way does it negate the validity of her arguments. Your whole objectivity is a fallacy. She is a Saudi citizen who has experienced this torture and wants to improve the situation of oppressed women in her country, and take her country out of the dark ages. Focus on what is in her head, not on top of it.

[Lanatin]

Looks like this thread is getting nowhere.

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ]

Looks like this thread is getting nowhere.

Then you're more than welcome to exit this discussion. It's clearly not going to be productive if you have people claiming that she has 'no credibility', merely because a bit of hair is on display. It's this retarded mentality that some people have, which isn't helping.

[Haydar Husayn]

It's so typical that you judge this woman with such narrow-mindedness, not even bothering to watch the video. You have to understand that whether she chooses to wear a headscarf or not, in no way does it negate the validity of her arguments. Your whole objectivity is a fallacy. She is a Saudi citizen who has experienced this torture and wants to improve the situation of oppressed women in her country, and take her country out of the dark ages. Focus on what is in her head, not on top of it.

What arguments? Can you summarise them for me? Because I didn't hear much in terms of coherent arguments that would be worth responding to. All I heard were a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and questions regarding things she didn't understand.

[Lanatin]

Then you're more than welcome to exit this discussion. It's clearly not going to be productive if you have people claiming that she has 'no credibility', merely because a bit of hair is on display. It's this retarded mentality that some people have, which isn't helping.

You must be joking, haydar husayn and others have given plenty of reasons why this lady retains little credibility; if you bothered to read their posts closely it didn't all boil down to the absence of a scarf. You need to stop attacking strawmen and address the valid points made in this thread, otherwise sooner or later you'll probably have a reputation akin to an keyboard warrior.

Oh yeah and off-topic but what the hell are all these images i'm being linked to when clicking every freaking tab on this forum?!

I can't even edit my posts.

[kim.tinkerbell]

Lol the video doesnt have that much points to debate on lol

By the way even some male presenters wear make up and there straight hahahahaha

[ImAli]

Lol the video doesnt have that much points to debate on lol

Yep, too much was edited out.

a US-funded satellite channel

And also the trusted news source for our dear brother Justice4all :shaytan:

Edited January 24, 2012 by ImAli

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ]

What arguments? Can you summarise them for me? Because I didn't hear much in terms of coherent arguments that would be worth responding to. All I heard were a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and questions regarding things she didn't understand.

Well, the rhetorical questions were used to emphasize on how things 'should' be. You pointed out 'unsubstantiated claims', you should expound on why you think this way, show me what evidence you have to prove otherwise.

She didn't totally touch on her key points about women in KSA (the video is heavily edited), but only slightly near the end where she compared the situation of women over there to being imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, only, the women of Saudi are perpetually imprisoned, but the inmates of Guantanamo are eventally freed. If I were to read between the lines, this would summarize her main points and ambitions:

- women should no longer have to be subdued by an authoritarian regime and be dictated on how to function the various aspects of their social and private lives.

- their voices should be heard and legitimate requests, in regards to rights, should not be muffled by dictatorship or illogical, unfair and biased 'Islamic' law.

- men shouldn't place so many sanctions upon women which limits their liberties and potentials, all in the name of 'religion'.

- sharia legislations surrounding women must be rectified.

You must be joking, haydar husayn and others have given plenty of reasons why this lady retains little credibility; if you bothered to read their posts closely it didn't all boil down to the absence of a scarf. You need to stop attacking strawmen and address the valid points made in this thread, otherwise sooner or later you'll probably have a reputation akin to an keyboard warrior.

Oh yeah and off-topic but what the hell are all these images i'm being linked to when clicking every freaking tab on this forum?!

I can't even edit my posts.

What valid points? Please tell me, because I see none. They've been incessantly banging on about her loose headscarf to try and avoid listening to her views and shun them.

On the contrary, you're failing to address my questions, in the previous posts.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Çåá ÇáÈíÊ

[Lanatin]

Her English seemed fine to me. The problem was what she was saying, not how she was saying it.

All I heard were a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and questions regarding things she didn't understand.

See if you can disprove this, and this thread shifted to the question of hijab thanks to the claims of Ruqaya's Amal. Just ignore it for now.

On the contrary, you're failing to address my questions, in the previous posts.

I have no idea how you didn't stumble on this:

You know it's not just him - she works for a US-funded satellite channel and presents a naively simplistic perspective on the causes behind all the alleged 'terrorism' besides exaggerating the plight of women in her own homeland (contrary to her babble, women have employment rights in Saudi Arabia) .

[Haydar Husayn]

Well, the rhetorical questions were used to emphasize on how things 'should' be. You pointed out 'unsubstantiated claims', you should expound on why you think this way, show me what evidence you have to prove otherwise.

She didn't totally touch on her key points about women in KSA (the video is heavily edited), but only slightly near the end where she compared the situation of women over there to being imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, only, the women of Saudi are perpetually imprisoned, but the inmates of Guantanamo are eventally freed. If I were to read between the lines, this would summarize her main points and ambitions:

- women should no longer have to be subdued by an authoritarian regime and be dictated on how to function the various aspects of their social and private lives.

- their voices should be heard and legitimate requests, in regards to rights, should not be muffled by dictatorship or illogical, unfair and biased 'Islamic' law.

- men shouldn't place so many sanctions upon women which limits their liberties and potentials, all in the name of 'religion'.

- sharia legislations surrounding women must be rectified.

What valid points? Please tell me, because I see none. They've been incessantly banging on about her loose headscarf to try and avoid listening to her views and shun them.

On the contrary, you're failing to address my questions, in the previous posts.

Is this a joke? You were talking about how rational and logical she was, and the best you can come up is stuff you read into what was probably the low point of the whole thing, when she made a ridiculous and insulting comparison between Saudi society and Guantanamo.

Either you start being more objective, and stop being a mindless cheerleader for even the most stupid and ignorant in the camp you have chosen to be a part of, or you will quickly find that nobody will be willing to waste time discussing anything with you.

With regards to the actual points you made, all I would say is that if a woman in Saudi Arabia has a problem with it, then she should prove that those laws really are unislamic. I would really love to see a video posted where you actually see a woman addressing these issues in a scholarly fashion, making references to the Qur'an, ahadith, and traditional scholarship. That is the type of person who could be taken seriously.

[lalala123]

I second this. The only time you will see the non-religious women of the subcontinent cover their heads is either when they attend majaalis, or when they go to pray.

And even then it's so loose that it keeps falling off.

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ]

Is this a joke? You were talking about how rational and logical she was, and the best you can come up is stuff you read into what was probably the low point of the whole thing, when she made a ridiculous and insulting comparison between Saudi society and Guantanamo.

In a society where magicians are beheaded in a parking lot, It's not too far from the truth.

Either you start being more objective, and stop being a mindless cheerleader for even the most stupid and ignorant in the camp you have chosen to be a part of, or you will quickly find that nobody will be willing to waste time discussing anything with you.

No need to get all emotional and attack me personally. Be a bit more diplomatic, for your own sake. What exactly should I be objective about? You expect me to conform to your standards of objecting logic?

It's fine, you can leave this thread if you don't want to discuss maturely. Just don't bother arguing.

With regards to the actual points you made, all I would say is that if a woman in Saudi Arabia has a problem with it, then she should prove that those laws really are unislamic. I would really love to see a video posted where you actually see a woman addressing these issues in a scholarly fashion, making references to the Qur'an, ahadith, and traditional scholarship. That is the type of person who could be taken seriously.

And yet, I'm asking you to take on that scholarly role and disprove her, but you decline. I seriously don't care how you think she approached it, remember the video is heavily cut into short parts and the show isn't really a platform where she can use these tools to prove her points, it's just her speaking from experience as to what changes need to be made, it's purely rational, though I understand that we differ in our definition of logic and reasoning.

[Haydar Husayn]

In a society where magicians are beheaded in a parking lot, It's not too far from the truth.

Don't be absurd. Do you even have any idea what it is like in Guantanamo? She might as well have compared her situation to being in a concentration camp during the second world war.

No need to get all emotional and attack me personally. Be a bit more diplomatic, for your own sake. What exactly should I be objective about? You expect me to conform to your standards of objecting logic?

You need to be more objective in evaluating arguments that go both for and against you position. At the moment, you have no objectivity at all. If you had, you would have recognised this video for the trash that it was, and never have praised it in the way you did. You would also no continuously dismiss without thought some of the very strong arguments that have been put against you, like on the issues of iddah and hijab. The way you just run away from evidence that goes against you doesn't make you look very good.

Your total inconsistency is also a major problem. When it comes to muta, you suddenly start talking about not opposing the sunna, and become a strong defender of the sharia (well, apart from on iddah of course), but on any issue you don't like then you throw all that you the window.

And yet, I'm asking you to take on that scholarly role and disprove her, but you decline. I seriously don't care how you think she approached it, remember the video is heavily cut into short parts and the show isn't really a platform where she can use these tools to prove her points, it's just her speaking from experience as to what changes need to be made, it's purely rational, though I understand that we differ in our definition of logic and reasoning.

Could you please stop attaching the words 'rational' and 'logical' to everything you like? I doubt anyone other than you thinks there was anyting particularly 'rational' in that video. And yes, we probably do have a different definition of logic. Mine is the normal one, where you lay out your axioms or premises, and build up your argument from there. It's very hard to even work out what your premises are due to your inconsistency on different issues.

- women should no longer have to be subdued by an authoritarian regime and be dictated on how to function the various aspects of their social and private lives.

- their voices should be heard and legitimate requests, in regards to rights, should not be muffled by dictatorship or illogical, unfair and biased 'Islamic' law.

- men shouldn't place so many sanctions upon women which limits their liberties and potentials, all in the name of 'religion'.

- sharia legislations surrounding women must be rectified.

You need to provide some examples. If we are talking about issues such as women driving, then sure, there is obviously room for change there. But if it is on issues such as inheritence laws or hijab, then there is no room for change. And this is the problem. If the 'reformers' stuck to challenging laws that weren't clearly established in the Quran and ahadith, then maybe they could get somewhere, but nothing is off limits for them, and this is why they have no credibility among serious Muslims. You might think that doesn't matter, but if you want to make changes in a country where most people are quite conservative, then it does, as does the form in which you present your arguments. Remember that just because you have a few people that speak out and make various complaints, it doesn't actually mean most people in the country feel the same way.

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ]

Don't be absurd. Do you even have any idea what it is like in Guantanamo? She might as well have compared her situation to being in a concentration camp during the second world war.

Actually, you have a point here, you can't really compare it to a place like Guantanamo, that is slightly irrational. Perhaps she just said it to show the extent of her disgust.

You need to be more objective in evaluating arguments that go both for and against you position. At the moment, you have no objectivity at all. If you had, you would have recognised this video for the trash that it was, and never have praised it in the way you did. You would also no continuously dismiss without thought some of the very strong arguments that have been put against you, like on the issues of iddah and hijab. The way you just run away from evidence that goes against you doesn't make you look very good.

Your total inconsistency is also a major problem. When it comes to muta, you suddenly start talking about not opposing the sunna, and become a strong defender of the sharia (well, apart from on iddah of course), but on any issue you don't like then you throw all that you the window.

You think that everything she said in the video was garbage? You honestly think that? That's wild. I'm sorry, but you can't say this unless you can provide objective proof that can essentially throw her claims into the trash can.

Could you please stop attaching the words 'rational' and 'logical' to everything you like? I doubt anyone other than you thinks there was anyting particularly 'rational' in that video. And yes, we probably do have a different definition of logic. Mine is the normal one, where you lay out your axioms or premises, and build up your argument from there. It's very hard to even work out what your premises are due to your inconsistency on different issues.

Ok.

You need to provide some examples. If we are talking about issues such as women driving, then sure, there is obviously room for change there. But if it is on issues such as inheritence laws or hijab, then there is no room for change. And this is the problem. If the 'reformers' stuck to challenging laws that weren't clearly established in the Quran and ahadith, then maybe they could get somewhere, but nothing is off limits for them, and this is why they have no credibility among serious Muslims. You might think that doesn't matter, but if you want to make changes in a country where most people are quite conservative, then it does, as does the form in which you present your arguments. Remember that just because you have a few people that speak out and make various complaints, it doesn't actually mean most people in the country feel the same way.

Why do you talk as if this woman isn't even Muslim? You have no right to judge. Clearly, she does have boundaries and this is shown where she says that other religions should have the right to establish their own places of worship in cities other than that of Mekkah and Medina. If she had no limits, she wouldn't have made this exception. Sure, I'm sure some of her arguments could refuted with a narration that objects to it, but you must know that alot of issues are subject to interpretation, there is always a context and past laws can be repealed.

The problem women have in KSA is the lack of freedom, stringent rules in a patriarchal society, and lack of rights, equality. If I go into specifics, It's quite a broad range of things so I'll refer you to these links: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7689897.stm .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminism

[titumir]

Its quite absurd to say that Asian women for the most part don't wear hijab, so it isn't compulsory. (Although typical of female logic). If Asian women for the most part do or do not wear hijab, that does not have any relation of the status of hijab in Islam at all. Whether hijab is compulsory in Islam must be inferred from analyzing the Quran and ahadith, and our scholars, after much study, have unanimously deemed it compulsory for women to cover their hair in Islam.

And as for Asian women not wearing hijab, that is only because they do not know that it is compulsory, and it was never a part of the culture. However, now since the knowledge is getting out, the majority of Asian women do wear the hijab. So its not as if hijab was not compulsory, that they did not wear it. They were just ignoring the rules.

And as for "Islamic feminism" and all other related terms, I am absolutely opposed to any political movement putting on an Islamic mask and trying to change the fundamentals of our religion. IIRC, the Prophet(SAAW) told us to hold on to the Quran and Ahlulbayt, if we do not want to go astray. I don't remember him adding "And also, from time to time, you may adopt various popular ideologies from the non-believers, if it helps to make you look more 'progressive' to them".

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ]

And as for "Islamic feminism" and all other related terms, I am absolutely opposed to any political movement putting on an Islamic mask and trying to change the fundamentals of our religion. IIRC, the Prophet(SAAW) told us to hold on to the Quran and Ahlulbayt, if we do not want to go astray. I don't remember him adding "And also, from time to time, you may adopt various popular ideologies from the non-believers, if it helps to make you look more 'progressive' to them".

You don't know what you're talking about. Islamic feminists or activists advocate women's rights, gender equality, and social justice grounded in an 'Islamic framework'.

Quote by a female scholar activist:

"There is a difference between South East Asian Muslim countries and the ones in the Middle East - culturally we are less patriarchal, we can always respond to our detractors by pointing out we don't have the cultural practices that they do.

Our detractors would hurl empty accusations at us - calling us Western, secular or anti-Islamic.

Our arguments are rooted within Islam - we want renewal and transformation within the Islamic framework. They don't like that.

We have a holistic approach, seeking gender equality within the Islamic framework, supported by constitutional guarantees. We see that these are not inconsistent with the message of the Koran, particularly during its formative stages. We have to understand the history and cultural context and extract the principle that will be applicable in modern times."

Holding onto AhlulBayt (as) is one thing, but understanding their commands ,or what their commands are, is another thing.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Çåá ÇáÈíÊ

[Basim Ali]

Says who? There are plenty of hypocrites that enter the Haram annually, hypocrites are worse than non-muslims. Anyhow, anyone can pretend to be Muslim and go for Hajj, so I don't see why peaceful non-muslims are barred from it, hardly makes sense.

Yes, it does make sense. Makkah is not a tourist attraction. Like you said, with all the hypocrites out here, we don't need the extra people who openly profess another religion (or no religion at all) violating its sanctity.

Just think of all the problems allowing non-Muslims to enter the Masjid al Haram would cause. They will bring with them fornication, intoxicants, inappropriate dressing, their impurity (they don't perform the obligatory Aghsaal and most fail to clean themselves properly after answering the call of nature) and perhaps their religions which will misguide those weak in faith.

Believe me, you are arguing on the losing side if you argue that non-Muslims can be allowed. The Qur'aan mentions the rule for all non-Mulims (Mushrikoon) alike, violent or peaceful because regardless of their personality, they are impure in the eyes of Islam.

If you had authority, would you have banned him from hajj if you knew he wasn't really following Islam? If you did, he wouldn't have learnt the truth about what true equality actually constitutes, neither would he have been inspired to channel his revolution in the right direction. Clearly, the land of God is for all types of people, no matter what deviated beliefs they may have in their hearts.

So that's your best shot at the argument - one person? Sorry man, rules don't change because one person experienced something. Besides, Hajj wasn't the only factor that contributed to his conversion. Remember the Egyptian man who was the real man guiding him? Also, I can bring you examples of people who weren't Muslims, went to Makkah and did not convert. What about them? Guru Nanak is one very famous example.

The land that holds the shrine of Imam Hussein (a) is greater in status than the land of the Ka'aba, yet all types of people are welcome there, no matter what their beliefs.

The rule is put in place for the Masjid al Haram not Karbala. The rule of one does not apply to other like that as it is Qiyas (which is Haraam).

If non-muslims are banned from these holy places, how would they ever receive enlightenment?

Read this above quote again. Does it sound as silly to you as it does to me? I hope so.

So you mean people who never visit holy places can not be enlightened?

It's so typical that you judge this woman with such narrow-mindedness, not even bothering to watch the video. You have to understand that whether she chooses to wear a headscarf or not, in no way does it negate the validity of her arguments. Your whole objectivity is a fallacy. She is a Saudi citizen who has experienced this torture and wants to improve the situation of oppressed women in her country, and take her country out of the dark ages. Focus on what is in her head, not on top of it.

Take the reverse scenario. If a proper Hijabi women speaks for women in swimsuits, will it be an accurate representation of their views? I'm not saying the woman is equivalent to women in a swimsuit (she's obviously much better in covering herself up) but women who choose to reveal only their eyes will not think that this woman's voice is theirs because she is not a woman like them, with their view of the world.

Believe me bro, I have lived in Saudi Arabia my entire life. I know how this place and its people roll.

wa (salam)

[Ruq]

What evidence do you have to the contrary?

The first one is true for sure, and you can ask any Asian on this site. Asians don't wear loose hijab because their is any scholarly disagreement over the issue, they do it because proper hijab isn't part of their culture. If you look at a female Shia speaker from the subcontinent, you will see that she won't be wearing loose hijab.

As for the second, since you claim it is false, then presumably you will be able to quote a Shia scholar, past or present, who says hijab isn't wajib.

you said

However, only the religious Muslims there actually wear it properly

You have made that assertion, so you have to prove that is true.

2ndly, there are plenty of books offering differing views on hijab. If youre talking about a marja, i am not aware of one, maybe someone else could elucidate on that a little more, but i have already given reasons why that is not surprising.

Edited January 25, 2012 by ~Ruqaya's Amal~

[Haydar Husayn]

you said

You have made that assertion, so you have to prove that is true.

You already have the testimony of several Asians on this thread. Do you want me to make a poll to see how many Asians on this site agree with my statement? I would be surprised if you could find many who would disagree.

2ndly, there are plenty of books offering differing views on hijab. If youre talking about a marja, i am not aware of one, maybe someone else could elucidate on that a little more, but i have already given reasons why that is not surprising.

Anyone can write a book. The question is what kind of credentials does the author have. So name some eminent scholars, whether they be Sunni or Shia, who say that hijab isn't wajib.

As for your reasons for why it isn't surprising, I can just as well say it's not surprising why it is religiously uneducated modern secularists who are the ones advocating hijab not being obligatory, and that would make a lot more sense. You can't honestly expect people to believe that every single major scholar in Islamic history has let his prejudice get in the way of objective scholarship, while at the same time maintaining that those who are now advocating changes in the sharia are objective and not influenced by their own prejudices. And what about female scholars? They exist too, but you don't see them saying that hijab isn't obligatory.

[titumir]

I think someone referred to Guru Nanak and said that he didn't become a Muslim. But actually you will find that "Guru Nanak" was actually Muslim. He was born in a Muslim family, and a Sikh alem convert recently told us that knowledgable Sikhs fully accept that he was a Muslim.

Secondly, yes, sorry, but its true. The only reason why Asian women did not wear hijab was because they did not know that it was compulsory. You see there was a lack of Islamic knowledge back then. But now you will find the majority wearing hijab. My mother only started to wear the hijab in 1997. Asian women did not use to wear the hijab when they did not know that its compulsory, now that they know it, they do wear it. That is enough to finish the "Asian women do not wear hijab, so it isn't compulsory". As if Islamic laws change depending on how many people practice it.

[kim.tinkerbell]

Hm how comes there isint a specific punishment for not wearing hijab. Lol my arabic teacher used to say that you would get hanged from the hair, but I cant find anything that backs up what she said.

Is there a specific punishment ? Could this be the reason why some muslims dont wear it.

[Ruq]

You already have the testimony of several Asians on this thread. Do you want me to make a poll to see how many Asians on this site agree with my statement? I would be surprised if you could find many who would disagree.

Anyone can write a book. The question is what kind of credentials does the author have. So name some eminent scholars, whether they be Sunni or Shia, who say that hijab isn't wajib.

As for your reasons for why it isn't surprising, I can just as well say it's not surprising why it is religiously uneducated modern secularists who are the ones advocating hijab not being obligatory, and that would make a lot more sense. You can't honestly expect people to believe that every single major scholar in Islamic history has let his prejudice get in the way of objective scholarship, while at the same time maintaining that those who are now advocating changes in the sharia are objective and not influenced by their own prejudices. And what about female scholars? They exist too, but you don't see them saying that hijab isn't obligatory.

A few asians have agreed with you? Sorry i hadnt realised that, case closed then!

Depends what you mean by 'eminent'. Allama Tabatabai's opinion is one you trust it seems, at least when it comes to sexual antics with slave girls, though his eminent opinion appears to be of no import to you when it comes to something like intercession of ahlulbayt(as), which he did and advocated.

Out of interest, scholarly consensus being so important, what is the consensus on that issue?

[Haydar Husayn]

A few asians have agreed with you? Sorry i hadnt realised that, case closed then!

It's more evidence that you have, which as usual is completely non-existent. Why would Asians agree to an untrue statement that portrays their community in a bad light? That makes no sense. Just for once accept you were wrong, and move on. You aren't going to find any religious Asians that agree with you.

Depends what you mean by 'eminent'. Allama Tabatabai's opinion is one you trust it seems, at least when it comes to sexual antics with slave girls, though his eminent opinion appears to be of no import to you when it comes to something like intercession of ahlulbayt(as), which he did and advocated.

I never said that just because a scholar said something, then it proves anything in itself, but it would at least be a start. You provide nothing other than your own opinions. In the case of Allama Tabatabaei, what is interesting is that he is a modern scholar, and not a particularly conservative one as far as I can tell, yet he nevertheless backs up what the ahadith on the subject say. So obviously were classical tafseers to be consulted, or the views of scholars of the past, then they would do the same. It's not like I'm picking some lone scholar who is out on the fringe here. The fact that he backs this up just proves how mainstream this view actually is within Shia scholarship.

As for his views on tawassul, no doubt they are not the same as mine, but at least I can argue against this on the basis of lack of evidence for it in the Quran and ahadith (in fact, seeming to go against these sources), as well as the fact that these were not views advocated by the classical scholars.

So you see, the difference here is you have against you the sources and the views of both the classical and modern scholars. I have against me the views of modern scholars, and in my favour the views of the classical scholars as well as the Quran and ahadith. Of course, the latter is to some degree subjective, but at least I have something to support my argument with. What exactly do you have to support yours?

Out of interest, scholarly consensus being so important, what is the consensus on that issue?

The current consensus is against mine, but as I said, scholarly consensus is not the be all and end all of the matter. However, if you did have that behind you, it would at least lend some weight to what you are saying, even if it wouldn't necessarily end the argument.

[Ruq]

I will say again, the weight of evidence is upon you to back up the claim you make that women who do not wear hijab are not religious people or that any given non hijabi is less spiritually focused because she does not wear hijab. My evidence is my own experience of muslim women in my community who identify religiously as muslim and do not wear the headscarf or strict hijab, but are spiritually focused and also, i might add, aware of their sources. And i can go better than your couple, so i guess i win.

If your only interested in classical sources then there is no room for discussion. I see absolutely no reason to assume that thinkers 'then' know better than thinkers now. On the contrary, as people come to appreciate the different perspectives that can be taken regarding the reality of source prejudice and the ways that history, myth, cultural pressures, human psychology and sociology work, people will aproach these issues more analytically and with less fear about offending or upsetting the old guard and cultural grip that has traditionally stiffled such discussions. It is only comparatively recently that people have felt empowered enough to question some of these traditions openly, after all, whether the need for the headscarf is a reality or not, it has certainly served men to have women obeying this and other directives that promote the negation of responsibility of men to control them selves regarding their sexuality and transfer it onto women whether it issued from God or the cultural preferances of a pre-Islamic patriarchal society and this is why tradtionalist male dominated scholarly discussion is not a fertile ground for healthy debate on this issue.

[Haydar Husayn]

I will say again, the weight of evidence is upon you to back up the claim you make that women who do not wear hijab are not religious people or that any given non hijabi is less spiritually focused because she does not wear hijab. My evidence is my own experience of muslim women in my community who identify religiously as muslim and do not wear the headscarf or strict hijab, but are spiritually focused and also, i might add, aware of their sources. And i can go better than your couple, so i guess i win.

I think you need to read what I wrote more carefully. What I said was

That is because Asians by and large follow their culture, and not their religion. If you ask any scholar, Shia or Sunni, on the Indian subcontinent about hijab, they will all say it is wajib. However, only the religious Muslims there actually wear it properly.

In other words, only the religious women wear proper hijab (of course, I'm speaking generally here). That doesn't imply that all those who don't wear hijab are completely non-religious, although clearly something important is lacking in their religious practice if they don't.

As for being aware of their sources, I'm sorry but the average Muslim, Asian or otherwise, is completely clueless about their sources, and even if they aren't, is not qualified to determine whether something is wajib or not. Once again, give me the name of a scholar with serious credentials who says hijab isn't wajib. Maybe you can ask the next Asian woman you bump into who doesn't wear hijab which scholar has told her it isn't wajib.

By the way, you yourself admitted that these women were mostly Sunni, so in any case what they do, or what is or isn't in their sources, should be irrelevant to Shias. However, for the sake of the discussion, you can quote Sunnis scholars, because I doubt any of them have said hijab isn't wajib.

If your only interested in classical sources then there is no room for discussion. I see absolutely no reason to assume that thinkers 'then' know better than thinkers now.

Ok, and yet NO thinkers with any kind of scholarly credentials in Islamic history have said that hijab isn't wajib. Yet nowadays a few people with no credentials, who come at the question with an evident bias, say that they don't think hijab should be wajib, and they need to be taken seriously? Why? Because they are going against tradition?

The way religion works is by going back to the sources of that religion. This is what it is founded on, and without it there is no religion. So yes, unless you are willing to engage with the sources, then there is no room for discussion because that is the only thing that is going to convince serious-minded Muslims.

On the contrary, as people come to appreciate the different perspectives that can be taken regarding the reality of source prejudice and the ways that history, myth, cultural pressures, human psychology and sociology work, people will aproach these issues more analytically and with less fear about offending or upsetting the old guard and cultural grip that has traditionally stiffled such discussions. It is only comparatively recently that people have felt empowered enough to question some of these traditions openly, after all, whether the need for the headscarf is a reality or not, it has certainly served men to have women obeying this and other directives that promote the negation of responsibility of men to control them selves regarding their sexuality and transfer it onto women whether it issued from God or the cultural preferances of a pre-Islamic patriarchal society and this is why tradtionalist male dominated scholarly discussion is not a fertile ground for healthy debate on this issue.

It's always interesting how quick you are to point at prejudices and cultural pressures that you say has affected the entire history of traditional ISlamic scholarship, but refuse to entertain the notion that you are affected by your own prejudices and cultural pressures. I guess it must just be a coincidence that you have a problem with almost everything in Islam that modern non-Muslim society does (and use similar arguments to non-Muslims who critique aspects of Islam).

All your claims about aspects of Sharia you don't like necessitate a widespread fabrication of ahadith in both Sunni and Shia sources. We aren't talking about a handful here, but a huge amount, with no real way of determining which are fabricated or not because many ahadith with authentic chains of narrations would also have been fabricated. Of course, there is no evidence for this, but you have to believe it in order to make your theories work. But in that case, why believe in any ahadith? They are all under suspicion, and there is no way of authenticating them that is even close to objective. It would therefore make more sense just to forget about hadiths completely and only believe in the Quran, although that isn't a very tenable position either.

You also have to wonder what the point of the Ahlulbayt (as) was anyway, if it wasn't to ensure the preservation of the true religion by narrating ahadith to trustworthy followers who could then pass that information along. As it is we are allegedly left with a situation where not a single narration saying hijab wasn't compulsory has survived, and many fabricated ones saying the opposite have been attributed to the Imams (as) instead. When something like that is possible, then what was the point? And where is the Justice of Allah in allowing such huge distortions of His religion?