Support shuttlecock burqa

[Fahd]

^heyyy what the **** :@
u said before 18th and we give pic near to this and now u askin for 14th and 15th
what the **** u want :?

lol what r u jealous about our fameles were wearing burqa before ur dad and gandba born :p ?

LOL

[roadrunner]

^heyyy what the **** :@
u said before 18th and we give pic near to this and now u askin for 14th and 15th
what the **** u want :?

I do wish people like you would stop lying.

Not only did I never mention the 18th century as the point I was interested in, I even have the post #217. Here is my post that quite clearly says I wasn't talking about the 18th century.

I certainly wasn't talking about the 1800's, but way before that.

It is possibly true that in the 1800s veiling was more common. Afghanistan was not very stable at the time with heavy warfare going on (the Anglo-Afghan wars).

Salafist Islam was just a continuation of the Middle Eastern tradition of veiling. It just formalized it as part of religion.

Veiling was not a tradition of pashtuns.

Are you going to apologize for putting words into my mouth? I thought not.

lol what r u jealous about our fameles were wearing burqa before ur dad and gandba born :p ?

LOL

I'm really not jealous of anyone.

I do wish the best for Afghanistan though. I don't believe you do.

[Roshina]

the assyrians made it law for respectable women to wear veils. 900bc-600bc.

This is very true, although I'd have to verify the time period. Veiling in the Persian society was also for the same thing: Only the elite women had to veil; the non-elite, or lay women, didn't veil. For those who are familiar with the history of the veiling in Muslim regions, I'm sure they also know that even in Islam, "slave women" don't have to veil. Why is this? Why are they exempt from veiling? If the idea of veiling is to protect you from the harms of hungry men looking for a woman to rape or molest or tease or whatever, then are slave women any less women than free women?

During the Abbasid era, veiling became mandatory for (Muslim) women throughout the empire. It attracted the rest of the people who didn't veil before because ... well, this is where logic comes in: Veiling was a sign of prestige, so who wouldn't wanna veil then? (For those who won't believe this, that's fine, but feel free to read a little history every now and then. If you don't have access to material that infringes on your limited knowledge of history, especially Islam-related, and I guess "controversial facts," I suggest you read some books online, such as through Google Books. Type in, for example, "Veiling in Islam" or "Veiling in Afghanistan" or "The History of Veiling," and you'll get hundreds of results. Read any you wanna read, but please, just read. 'Tis good for you .)

Oh, and that pic that someone gave of an Afghan woman wearing a burqa ... dude :| When were cameras invented, and which era of veiling are YOU talking about?
LOL @ the jealousy part! Could you get any more ignorant and immature than that, Fahd?

Anyway, this thread is going nowhere. Would someone mind exactly what the purpose of their discussion is? Say, for example, what would you prove or disprove if you prove or disprove that Afghan women have been veiling since time immemorial?

And, Roadrunner, you are SO wasting your time. I say just let it go. You're talking to the wall, a group of people who are absolutely unwilling to tolerate a new or different perspective because they consider it haraam or un-Islamic. Just let them talk and be entertained. I am certainly entertained.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Scimitar, why are you trolling me?

how many more times do I have to give citations. I have given this citation 3 times already

When I give them, YOU et al seem to ignore them.

Here is a solid citation

Originally, it was the Chinese who kept women strictly covered thousands of years ago. In the varying dynasties, white was the preferred colour of full body cloaking, red for weddings. The reasoning behind this full covering for women was none other than wealth: hiding one’s jewellery and fine silk clothes from potential thieves was essential, and a woman was not permitted to leave her house without being covered from head to toe. For members of the aristocracy, they were also concealed underneath layers of curtains surrounding their carriages, suspended upon wooden poles and lifted by servants even if merely travelling from one house to another next door. Furthermore, every person on the street was required to turn around and look away until the procession had passed. Until the end of theQing dynasty in the 20th century, this remained Chinese custom.
Next door to China in Afghanistan, women covered because of the climate, as was the case in varying forms throughout the world, whether heavy fur coats, hats and gloves, or gossamer sarongs.

Afghan women did not, however, veil their faces like the Chinese, nor the Arabs to the West - who wore veils for practical reasons and to fend off blistering desert sandstorms.

Afghan women instead resorted to warm practical clothes to protect against harsh cold and snow. When Christian Byzantium entered Afghanistan after the 4th century AD, the women introduced their own top-to-toe coverings carried down through the centuries from ancient Greece and Macedonia.

http://www.islamdaily.org/en/islam/8...-suspicion.htm

look above pleae.

It is called a link. It is a citation. Agreed?

It says that Afghan women never used to wear a veil, unlike the Arabs and the Chinese women. I have provided a link.

Please provide your link that the majority of Afghan women veiled prior to the 15th century.

It was when invaders from Christian Byzantium came that Afghan women initially covered up, because they were invaders. Byzantine thought held it that women who did not veil were fair game.

All this makes it Byzantine and Greco-Roman Medieval Culture, not Afghan tradition.

THat's NOT a citation, a citation has referential support to back it up

Where does this author GET her information?!?!?!?!?!?! Look at your article itself and look at the Bottom

SHE LISTS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in support of her statements here, You're basically offering an Editorial or Opinion piece as evidence.

And you keep switching goal posts; the argument here is whether it's a Pashtun Muslim tradition, not "when" it became a tradition.

And We can historically extrapolate by the Normalcy of the custom during recorded eras what was practiced before then; because it would be highly illogical without any verified basis to assume that Pashtuns just SUDDENLY practicing veiling as a norm. It would have to have been a long standing practice.

In fact if you believe your Akbarnama Miniature is evidence, that would give some clues since if you examine the entire Miniature there are no women there, which corroborates with practices associated with veiling women.

[graveyardofempires]

GUys dont waste your time on these people who always come with these fancy version of Afghan culture and history.

lets say chadari is not from Pashtun culture,so what?
pakol,kameez partog,and that sindhi khwala are also not from our culture yet we are the ones who use these items the most.

so leave these people tto their own little world where they can high five eachother while drinking Koolaid.

[ScimitarXEdge]

And, Roadrunner, you are SO wasting your time. I say just let it go. You're talking to the wall, a group of people who are absolutely unwilling to tolerate a new or different perspective because they consider it haraam or un-Islamic. Just let them talk and be entertained. I am certainly entertained.

you're a good writer Roshina, but you make very logically incoherent surmises in your debates and other writings,

firstly I for one don't even advocate the burqa/full veil on issues of public health, women who persistently veil all over and restrict themselves from sunlight habitually tend to suffer from different issues and complications related to malnutrition of vitamin D, which is photosynthetically produced in the body.

The argument here is not whether it's harram or halal or whether women should do it; but Roadrunners' largely unfounded belief that it's somehow an "alien" custom amongst Muslim Pashtuns, the fact is the claim he's making is based on weak support and mainly on an article which has NO cited references to support it. It's merely some lady's opinion paper.

[ScimitarXEdge]

lol, edge you are funny..
most of the women who cover up from head to toe are the women back home. they get plenty of vitaminD from sun exposure inside the yards of their houses.

That's good then; but this isn't always the case, and that would be personally my major concern is the health/welfare of people who are chadari.

There have actually been studies about this issue in the Middle East at how lack of vitamin D corresponds to low birth weight/infant mortality and such.

I'll have to see studies on women in Afghanistan/Pakhtunkhwah to address the issue relevantly; have any peer reviewed citations?

[IamDZJ]

i doubt that vitaminD deficiency is their only issue but the factor behind that can be very easily marked as their poor diet. other than that they are working in the sun all day. and no, i don't have any citations.

[ScimitarXEdge]

WHERE? Give one bit of evidence for face veiling being a custom of Pashtun women prior to the 15th or 16th century.

I've asked for just one bit of evidence, and noone's provided it. I've provided evidence to suggest that at various stable points in Afghan society history, women did not veil.

.. could anyone else provide evidence for veiling prior to the 16th century?

Because you're doing what's called shifting Goal Posts; when someone presents evidence, you say "well Then I want proof that it happened before this century" when I showed your Akbernama has NO women in the miniature if you closely examine, you Shifted to before the 15th Century.

The point is We have no clear information about Pashtuns AT ALL before around the 15th Century. When I say clear I mean things which are definitively Pashtun characterizing things, like tribe names, language etc etc etc.

I'm sure you can Site Masudi, or Biruni or similar, but the most used in reference is the word "Afghan" and not "Pashtun/Pakhtun" which is not clear, because Afghan is a foreign applied word, not native word, so Afghan could have referred to people of a certain region at that time rather than Pakhtuns/Pashtuns exclusively. We dont know anything even about the Pashto language.


Have you ever read Baburnama?
Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur Prince Emperor page 971

bowed before him, and stood as before. A second time he said, "Afghaniya, be seated." Again she prostrated herself before him and came a little nearer, but still stood. Then the Padshah pulled the veil from her face and beheld incomparable beauty. He was entranced, he said again, " O, Afghaniya, sit down." Then she bowed herself again, and said, " I have a petition to make. If an order be given, I will make it." The Padshah said kindly, " Speak." Whereupon she with both hands took up her dress and said, "Think that the whole Yusuf-zal tribe is enfolded in my skirt, and pardon their offences for my sake." Said the Padshah, " I forgive the Yusuf-zal all their offences in thy presence, and cast them all into thy skirt. Hereafter I shall have no ill-feeling to the Yusuf-zal." Again she bowed before him-; the Padshah took her hand and led her to the divan.

This event took place in Babur's life which would indicate that the practice was envogue already prior to the 16th century

You said "15th OR 16th"

there you go.

[ScimitarXEdge]

i doubt that vitaminD deficiency is their only issue but the factor behind that can be very easily marked as their poor diet. other than that they are working in the sun all day. and no, i don't have any citations.

What's with people and Straw Man Arguments

I never claimed Vitamin D defiiciency is the "only issue"

But not having enough Vitamin D is certainly an issue and given there's a large population of women in Afghanistan who probably seldom see the sun or get enough sun exposure, then yes it would be reasonable to conclude it's an issue.. Not all Afghan women work in the sun all day, at least not ones who are either primarily veiled or restricted to their homes.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I read the ACP (American College pf Physicians) notifications from time to time. The recently commented on the sunlight and Vitamin D issue. There is a debate about how much to supplement vitamin D and how much ought to be expected to arise from sunlight exposure. The actual thresholds of a deficiency diagnosis are variable. The bottom line of the discussion was that the American sedentary lifestyle is also an affector on Vitamin D status. By the diagnostic criteria that are in use at many academic centers, vitamin D deficiency can be considered fairly widespread here in the US. Here is a recent Mayo Clinic Proceedings discussion on the subject:

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com...50.full#ref-23

"Factors known to influence 25(OH)D levels include race, vitamin D intake, sun exposure, adiposity, age, and physical activity. Even when all the factors known to influence 25(OH)D concentrations are taken into account, most of the individual variation of 25(OH)D values is difficult to explain. Consequently, it is difficult to assess the risk of clinical or biochemical consequences of vitamin D insufficiency in a patient on the basis of concentrations of 25(OH) D alone. The duration of vitamin D insufficiency, the responsiveness of the vitamin D receptor, dietary calcium intake, and individual calcium requirements likely modify the clinical consequences of vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency based on levels of 25(OH)D.
A single exposure to summer sun in a bathing suit for 20 minutes produces the equivalent of 15,000 to 20,000 IU of vitamin D3. In a study of Hawaiian surfers with sun exposure of at least 15 hours per week for the preceding 3 months, 25(OH)D levels ranged from 11 up to 71 ng/mL, demonstrating wide individual variation.22 Outdoor sun exposure and time spent outdoors are better predictors of serum 25(OH)D values than dietary vitamin D intake

[IamDZJ]

edge women who wear burqas and lose their babies surely do.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This is very true, although I'd have to verify the time period. Veiling in the Persian society was also for the same thing: Only the elite women had to veil; the non-elite, or lay women, didn't veil. For those who are familiar with the history of the veiling in Muslim regions, I'm sure they also know that even in Islam, "slave women" don't have to veil. Why is this? Why are they exempt from veiling? If the idea of veiling is to protect you from the harms of hungry men looking for a woman to rape or molest or tease or whatever, then are slave women any less women than free women?

During the Abbasid era, veiling became mandatory for (Muslim) women throughout the empire. It attracted the rest of the people who didn't veil before because ... well, this is where logic comes in: Veiling was a sign of prestige, so who wouldn't wanna veil then? (For those who won't believe this, that's fine, but feel free to read a little history every now and then. If you don't have access to material that infringes on your limited knowledge of history, especially Islam-related, and I guess "controversial facts," I suggest you read some books online, such as through Google Books. Type in, for example, "Veiling in Islam" or "Veiling in Afghanistan" or "The History of Veiling," and you'll get hundreds of results. Read any you wanna read, but please, just read. 'Tis good for you .)

Oh, and that pic that someone gave of an Afghan woman wearing a burqa ... dude :| When were cameras invented, and which era of veiling are YOU talking about?
LOL @ the jealousy part! Could you get any more ignorant and immature than that, Fahd?

Anyway, this thread is going nowhere. Would someone mind exactly what the purpose of their discussion is? Say, for example, what would you prove or disprove if you prove or disprove that Afghan women have been veiling since time immemorial?

And, Roadrunner, you are SO wasting your time. I say just let it go. You're talking to the wall, a group of people who are absolutely unwilling to tolerate a new or different perspective because they consider it haraam or un-Islamic. Just let them talk and be entertained. I am certainly entertained.

Its not about unwilling to tolerate new ideas... its as I told you before, Islam places a special emphasis on preservation of the law. This is the reason why Muhammad (S) said, learn the Quran from four of them: Abdullah ibn Masud, Ubay ibn Kaab, Muadh ibn Jabal, and Abu Musa. The Quran affirms this when it tells the Prophet (S) that the message is easy to memorize and that God will protect it. In other verses a serious and grave accusation is leveled at Christians and Jews for covering up the truth of their messages or introducing their own fanciful whims into its interpretations. Finally, the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaaminaa (quality control measure) for Muslims when reading the former scriptures as even the Bible itself warns regarding the hebrew scribes and internal corruption:

"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie." (Jeremiah 8:8)

For example, what is problematic in either vein of thought (extreme reactionaryism (fundamentalism- the pink toe has to be in the exact right position for prayers to be expected crowd) or extreme liberalism (the Jesus ok'd homosexuality crowd) is that they are bending the religion to suit their whims versus bending their will to serve what God commands.

So take our discussion on alcohol:
You attributed the banning of alcohol in Islam to a small group of Arab men. Your evidence centered around the word Haram not being used in exact conjunction with alcohol. However, you ignored its direct classification with idolatory, gambling, etc being all called Satan's handiwork. You also dont take into account that the Quran does not refer to other deadly sins as haraam directly; but makes it rather obvious, in an eloquent way, that it is a terrible sin (for example the burying of female infants is not declared openly haraam but is referred to in the most odious of terms).

Also, the hadith literature may be ignored by you when you say you do not want to derive spiritual guidance from it, but everything from Maliks muwatta to Bukhari to Dawud all provide another major service. In the least, they provide a corpus of literature that does give us a view into how earlier generations of Muslims, including the Sahaba and their inheritors viewed these ayaahs. So for example, even a Christian orientalist, when presented with the question about the ban on alcohol, will look for evidence from jurists and other texts from those eras regarding how alcohol consumption was interpreted. He may look to poetry as well, by Khayyam and others, to understand how the masses interpreted alcohol consumption in relation to local culture and religion.

You also have to provide a motive for how a small group of arab men could not impose uniform doctrine, but would suddenly decide to make alcohol consumption ipso facto condemned.

The problem of the extremist faction here may very well be that they do not want to hear alternate interpretations, but the problem of the extremist liberal opposition is that their stances are all over the place. On the one hand they wail about the failure of the Islamic caliphate and decry its subsequent monarchial decadence but have an extremely difficult time commenting on how this "small group of Arab men" then imposed a rigid ban on alcohol over a corrupt monarchy... much less over the ottomon sultanate.

I mean these "new age views" are the equivalent of what the Christians have to deal with when they are told:

1) Soddom and Gomorrha was actually an allagory and the Bible truly has no issue with homosexuality.

2) Jesus never commented on homosexuality so therefore its reasonable to accept

3) The word translated as "virgin" from the original biblical text actually means "young girl." So therefore, Christ was not born of virgin birth and the early Christians did not believe this.

Just because something is presented as new age and in vogue doesn't make it worthwhile to consider.

Religion is about reason, but it is also about sacrifice. That is exactly why the Quran tells man to stand and bear witness even against one's own parent if he must. So the man who wants to restrict his wife and claim Islamic law disallows her right to divorce is playing fast and loose with the text... but in some ways those that come with these radical liberal proposals, the goal appears to be to bend religion in the same way, to suit vain desires. This is opposed to the sacrifice and standing against the status quo of wrong that religion sometimes asks of man (or woman).

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This is very true, although I'd have to verify the time period. Veiling in the Persian society was also for the same thing: Only the elite women had to veil; the non-elite, or lay women, didn't veil. For those who are familiar with the history of the veiling in Muslim regions, I'm sure they also know that even in Islam, "slave women" don't have to veil. Why is this? Why are they exempt from veiling? If the idea of veiling is to protect you from the harms of hungry men looking for a woman to rape or molest or tease or whatever, then are slave women any less women than free women?

During the Abbasid era, veiling became mandatory for (Muslim) women throughout the empire. It attracted the rest of the people who didn't veil before because ... well, this is where logic comes in: Veiling was a sign of prestige, so who wouldn't wanna veil then? (For those who won't believe this, that's fine, but feel free to read a little history every now and then. If you don't have access to material that infringes on your limited knowledge of history, especially Islam-related, and I guess "controversial facts," I suggest you read some books online, such as through Google Books. Type in, for example, "Veiling in Islam" or "Veiling in Afghanistan" or "The History of Veiling," and you'll get hundreds of results. Read any you wanna read, but please, just read. 'Tis good for you .)

Oh, and that pic that someone gave of an Afghan woman wearing a burqa ... dude :| When were cameras invented, and which era of veiling are YOU talking about?
LOL @ the jealousy part! Could you get any more ignorant and immature than that, Fahd?

Anyway, this thread is going nowhere. Would someone mind exactly what the purpose of their discussion is? Say, for example, what would you prove or disprove if you prove or disprove that Afghan women have been veiling since time immemorial?

And, Roadrunner, you are SO wasting your time. I say just let it go. You're talking to the wall, a group of people who are absolutely unwilling to tolerate a new or different perspective because they consider it haraam or un-Islamic. Just let them talk and be entertained. I am certainly entertained.

Also, can you provide me the Quranic or hadith reference regarding veiling/modestry restrictions and slave women? This is the first time I have heard of this and want to read up on it.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Caveat to the above is that the discussion about veiling vs burkah vs face veil etc vs what constitutes awraah and what does not, is actually being had in scholarly circles. So there is a divergence of opinion and a discussion going on in the classical literature itself and continues into today. The reason why its being ramped up in the modern world and under the magnifying glass is that the possibly stricter interpretation comes into a clash with western mores. So instead of having an objective discussion on the issue, the reactionaries will use this as a measuring stick of someone's faith and imaan and make impositions (which is unfair) and the liberalists will use it to further impose their lifestyle on foreign populations (neoliberal imperialism).