Muslim Clothing

Feb 21st, 2007, in IM Posts, by David

View the original article here.

93 Comments on “Muslim Clothing”

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »

ananda Says:
April 13th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
We can see that ‘religiosity’ in Islam is just about the exterior, about covering the body. It is not about characters. That is why Muslims are always crazy about covering their bodies. They never care about their characters.
Mandy Says:
May 8th, 2009 at 6:38 am
I have to say just this , when will muslims just leave every one alone whos not muslims about what they wear . This whole topic is childest . The middle east needs to grow up and become grow up in their way of thinking . Thats why the Indian people from over their have such a problem with wanting what others have and don’t like others having freedoms they don’t . Get Over it ! This is the reason why clothing is such an issue . YOU people can’t stand it when others have what you don’t. Its really not that big of a deal . Americans are so much more mature than you people from places such as Iraq . Iran and so forth . Stop the whole hating some one just cause they be christan and all and live a different life style than you all . To which being a christan is some thing none of you will ever understand and not all of us are people with out any morals . You all think that its ok to kill some one who dishoner the family , well , for me I believe that the ten commandments clearly state that one is not to murder any one or they should lose their life for even killing to protect family honor .Believe there is no way that any just God would approve that by any means . He hates it when people murder others for any reason . So thats one of the reason I choose not to have any thing to do with muslims when it comes to what you all believe.
Mohammed Khafi Says:
May 8th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Mandy,

Please go back to school, and study english language, comparative religion, and geography. Your comments are so poorly written and display a lack of understanding in all three subjects.

Peace
Odinius Says:
May 8th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Must be frustrating to you, Khafi, being an open-minded, tolerant and liberal religious Muslim, to constantly deal with the people who are either: 1) intolerant of religion; 2) intolerant of your religion; or 3) intolerant of the way you choose to practice your religion.
ET Says:
May 9th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Must be frustrating to you, Khafi, being an open-minded, tolerant and liberal religious Muslim, to constantly deal with the people who are either: 1) intolerant of religion; 2) intolerant of your religion; or 3) intolerant of the way you choose to practice your religion.

If Khafi couldn’t stand the heat he wouldn’t be in the kitchen. And btw, intolerance isn’t the prerogative of one religion only. Others are also allowed to have their say. Too bad if you consider their opinions as intolerant or not politically correct.
Odinius Says:
May 9th, 2009 at 6:09 am
Dear ET,

From what words, phrases or sentences, exactly, did you get the idea that I believe intolerance is only aimed at “one religion?” Or for that matter, to people who are religious? Please let me know, because it just doesn’t appear to be there. Perhaps you have an advanced method of analysis that can lead you to such a conclusion?

Eagerly awaiting,

Odinius
ET Says:
May 9th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
@ Odinius

From what words, phrases or sentences, exactly, did you get the idea that I believe intolerance is only aimed at “one religion?”

You didn’t say intolerance is aimed at ‘one religion’. I said it isn’t the prerogative this ‘one religion’.
Odinius Says:
May 9th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
ET: isn’t that just a semantic difference? If not, then what exactly are you implying that I said?

If you read my post carefully, you can see that, first, it’s specifically addressed to Khafi, who is of a particularly persuasion of a particular religion, and one who gets it from all sides, very much including members of his own faith. To me, that’s a bit of a bummer, since I generally find what he says quite interesting and intelligent.

If his name was “Francis Xavier Luther” and he was a “open-minded, tolerant and liberal religious Christian,” and he was posting on a site where, quite commonly, atheists say things amounting to: “all real Christians are fanatics,” Muslims and members of other religions say “Christianity is devil worship” and Christian fundamentalists said that “liberal Christianity is a sin and heresy,” then the same would apply to Francis, wouldn’t it?

And if his name was “Darwin Dawkins” and he was an “open-minded, tolerant and liberal atheist/agnostic,” who kept getting attacked by, say, Marxists, radical atheists and a host of religious zealots, I’d feel similarly towards Mr. Dawkins.

etc.

“Tolerance,” as I see it, is about rejecting the idea of judging someone based on ascriptive criteria, and instead judging them on their individual merits, beliefs and practices. Its not being a “Muslim,” “Christian,” “atheist” or whatever that makes someone good or bad, it’s what they say and do.

Now I happen to also believe that certain organized ideologies bring out the worst in people, so this isn’t some extreme multicultural point I’m trying to make. I think a lot of people have done a lot of bad things in the name of communism, for example. But then again, a lot of people have tried to do good as communists too. So I would never determine that someone is “good” or “bad” simply because they self-identify as a a communist. But if they were in 1960s China promoting the Cultural Revolution, then…
Lairedion Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 3:22 am
ET,

Indeed every single person is entitled to have his/her opinion, not only the well-educated and intellectual people. But Khafi was right here. What to think of this:

The middle east needs to grow up and become grow up in their way of thinking . Thats why the Indian people from over their have such a problem with wanting what others have and don’t like others having freedoms they don’t .
Odinius Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 3:55 am
Don’t stop there, Lairedion. There’s also this:

You all think that its ok to kill some one who dishoner the family

If that’s not intolerant…and ignorant…I don’t know what is. Not only for the essentializing and judgemental “you people,” but also total ignorance of vendettas, blood fueds, Hatfields and McCoys, etc.
Lairedion Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 6:57 am
I deliberately stopped there, Odinius.

Her statement about Indians from the Middle East is a good laugh and deserves a second chance to be corrected with demography/topography lessons at school.

All the other stuff, whatever…..

Moreover I believe Khafi is more frustrated with mainstream Islam and its followers…
Odinius Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Moreover I believe Khafi is more frustrated with mainstream Islam and its followers…

Noted that here:

3) intolerant of the way you choose to practice your religion.

Like Hasyim Muzadi in the other thread…
ET Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
@ Odinius

ET: isn’t that just a semantic difference? If not, then what exactly are you implying that I said?

I was implying that you seem to consider criticism of the intolerance of a certain religion, i.e. Islam, as being intolerant and frustrating itself. Sorry, I can’t put this more clearly.

“Tolerance,” as I see it, is about rejecting the idea of judging someone based on ascriptive criteria, and instead judging them on their individual merits, beliefs and practices. Its not being a “Muslim,” “Christian,” “atheist” or whatever that makes someone good or bad, it’s what they say and do.

Overcome by indignation commentator Mandy made indeed a semantic mistake by generalizing

You all think that its ok to kill some one who dishoner the family etc

but I believe what she meant to say was “Many among you think its ok to kill some one who dishonor the family etc”, for which you can’t blame her if you consider the facts happening in Taliban-, Wahabbi- or Salafi dominated areas. And it doesn’t take the mind of a genius to ascertain that they all base their attitude on the intolerance of Islamic teachings. History has proven abundantly to what degree this intolerance could amount to. Or just take a look at the reaction of some mainstream muslim commentators here to their brother Mohammed Khafi’s idiosyncratic, in their eyes heretic viewpoints. Mohammed Khafi himself is a pre-eminent victim of islamic intolerance, just like the demonstrators for tolerance who got bashed up last year at Monas in Jakarta. If you need further examples of intolerance you should have a look or get a translation of the comments in the thread about this incident. You can find it under ‘Most Commented’ on IM’s homepage.

Now I happen to also believe that certain organized ideologies bring out the worst in people, so this isn’t some extreme multicultural point I’m trying to make.

Which is exactly my opinion too and the reason why I incessantly point it out. The basic idea of ‘submission’ is a dangerous and mind-numbing psychological weapon turning people into blind followers of dogma. Thanks to television and the internet the hysteric and violent behaviour to which adherents of such ideologies can be incited is for all of us to witness.
Odinius Says:
May 14th, 2009 at 3:18 am
ET said:

I was implying that you seem to consider criticism of the intolerance of a certain religion, i.e. Islam, as being intolerant and frustrating itself. Sorry, I can’t put this more clearly.

Depends on what the criticism is and how far you take it. If you were to say “the Muslims in Bogor who block the construction of churches and then attack Christians who, as a result, worship at home for running an illegal church are intolerant,” then I would not see that as a problem. Actually, I would agree.

But if, because Muslims in Bogor are blocking construction of churches and attacking Christians who, as a result, worship at home for running an illegal church, you then conclude that “Islam and all Muslims are intolerant,” then you are not basing your judgement on action, but on projecting others’ actions onto individuals who had nothing to do with it and may, in fact, also find the practice of said Muslims in Bogor repugnant. If that’s not intolerant, the word has no meaning.

Which is exactly my opinion too and the reason why I incessantly point it out. The basic idea of ‘submission’ is a dangerous and mind-numbing psychological weapon turning people into blind followers of dogma. Thanks to television and the internet the hysteric and violent behaviour to which adherents of such ideologies can be incited is for all of us to witness.

We’re not talking about the same groups, though, are we. I was talking about radical ideologies within and outside of religions. The Islam espoused by groups like JI, the Taloiban and Hamas fit the bill. So would Hindutva in India, Avi Leiberman in Israel, the Christian Identity movement in the US, etc. So, for that matter, would secular types such as radical nationalists in ex-Yugoslavia, Hutu Power, Nazis, Maoists, etc. As I see it, these are all dangerous ideologies. Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, nationalism and socialism don’t have to be, however. Depends on how zealous you are about it, and how intolerant you are of difference.

On the other hand, you appear to be talking about “Islam” writ large. But it’s not exactly a homogeneous category, as anyone interested in Indonesia should know. Aside from the syncretist/orthodox divide, there is also the fundamentalist/conservative/moderate/liberal continuum. I know plenty of liberal and moderate Muslims, whose faith does nothing of what you describe. They are, in fact, quite open minded and tolerant people. Unfortunately, few people are tolerant of them. They get it from both the Islam-bashers and the Quran-thumpers. That was my original point, and one that you have just underscored.
ET Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
@ Odinius

When I speak about Islam I mean what is written in the Koran and the Sunnah and its influence on historical and contemporary events. When I mention Islam I don’t refer to individual Muslims who are either mislead or born in the wrong place. Whatever positive ideas they may find in their religion – which in my opinion are rather inspired by common sense than by so-called divine revelation – I simply cannot overlook the historical facts and the general tenet of doom, gloom and abuse of credulity that remains after reading those ‘holy’ scriptures.
Odinius Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 12:12 am
A few problems with that statement, ET. Going to pick them apart.

First, the Quran, like any holy book, contains exhortations to peace and exhortations to violence. The point, for the religious, is to interpret these. There is no simple answer, but the fact remains that, like any holy book, it is incumbent upon the believer to draw their own conclusions about how to reconcile seemingly contradictory points. Muslims call this ijtihad; Christians call it exegesis. So, more precisely, the problem is not the Quran, or the existence of belief in its holiness, but in specific interpretations of it that prejudice certain passages over others, in a way that promotes poor and often violent relations with non-Muslims..

Second, at no point is it as disturbingly violent as the God-warranted genocide in the Book of Daniel, nor does it contain injunctions restricting personal choices as deep or numerous as the Leviticus. The Sunnah does contain more of this, but about on equal footing with the Old Testament. That said, these are responses to the conditions of their time. So the problem is not Islam, but the idea that ANY ancient or medieval texts written for ancient readerships can be understood literally in today’s world.

On that note, have to point out that almost no Muslims agree as to how important the Sunnah is, or which Hadiths are the ones you should follow. In fact, if it were not for institutionalized legal systems, you would have a far greater diversity of opinion on the Sunnah and its individual Hadiths. So again, the problem is not Islam, but the lack of personalized, individualized rational interpretations of the text and its implications.

People like Khafi, Sputjam, etc. appear to think that the Sunnah is heretical, and have produced sophisticated arguments for why this may be more theologically sound than the alternatives. For an elaborated and argument along these lines, I refer you here:

Which means the problem that arises from some of those who claim to be Muslims is not Islam, but specific, historical interpretations of Islam, as well as reactionary reform movements.

Finally, on the note of “history,” it would be helpful to look at the histories of the 19th and 20th centuries. In the former, most of the domination, subjegation and murder that occurred in the world derived from explicitly Christian European states under ideological cover of Racism, Social Darwinism and the “white man’s burden.” In the latter, from explicitly non-religious ideologies or those ambivalent to religion, especially extreme forms of Communism, from Nazism, fascism, nationalism, and so on. Islam played no role in the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Milosevic, Hutu Power, etc. Where it did play some role–the anti-PKI massacres of 1965–it was alongside other organized interests, such as Hindu, Catholic and secular nationalist ones. But all of these have one thing in common–and one thing in common with extremist religion–and that is the division of the world into “the righteous” and “the parasitic.”

Therefore, the problem is not Islam, but organized ideologies that posit a division of the world into “the righteous” and “the parasitic.”
Odinius Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 12:14 am
My link got lost. Here it is:

http://www.submission.org/hadith/sunnahdogma.html
Cukurungan Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Where it did play some role–the anti-PKI massacres of 1965–it was alongside other organized interests, such as Hindu, Catholic and secular nationalist ones.

Islam did not play role on the anti-PKI massacres because we just killed PKI member who lived around our neighborhood otherwise PKI will kill us to take over our house and land like in the other place such as Cambodia and China.
Astrajingga Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 9:55 am
@ Cukurungan

Islam did not play role in any killing. Nor any religion play role in any killing. The culprit, as always, is ‘false interpretation of the teaching.’ Well, some says that it is the dogmatic teaching that kills. But which religion is not dogmatic?

On the other hand, anything that is non-religion can be dogmatic too. The military, for instance.

otherwise PKI will kill us to take over our house and land like in the other place such as Cambodia and China.

That was exactly what the army says to people at that time. Those who are uncritical enough will believe it and ready to kill with their machetes. Most of those peoples are somewhat muslim, mostly because statistically around 80% or more of Indonesian are muslim. So, when the military needs supporters, surely they will choose the group with many members.

But what those killers, or unofficial executioners said about the killing reveals that Islam, more or less, got something to do with it. Some cexecutioners say that they did it because they musn’t tolerate kafir peoples, which includes atheists, communists, and PKI, BTI, PR, Lekra, Gerwani members. And they believe that Islam teaches muslim to fight kafir people wherever whenever, with sword if necessary. Some of them even got blessing from their religious teacher/kyai.

Some other says that what they did was not a killing, but a jihad, a war in God’s way. So, those killers can feel ‘safe’ because they feel that what they did is somehow justified in Islam. I mean, if you believe in God, you need God to help you with the killing. You can’t just kill a man.

Some did it simply because they’re angry with PKI who ‘robbed’ their (landlord’s) land through national land-reform program, and, specially in Central and East Java.

Most of them did it simply because they were afraid that the military would kill him, or at least would send him to prison if he didn’t help the army with the killing.

Yes, Pater Beek, catholic sect had also some role in crushing communism in Indonesia, but that’s another story.

All and all, Cukurungan is right, it’s not Islam who played the biggest role in killing. Islam, if it got something to do with the killing at all, was merely a tool for a bigger project. A US/British/neo-colonialist-imperialist project to secure Indonesian rich resources, the greatest prize in Asia, to win the Cold War against communism everywhere in the world.

Anyway, we’re talking about muslim clothing. The blessing from kyai, the belief that killing communists is part of jihad is like choosing clothing you gonna wear. Follow the rules or you gonna end up in hell.
Oigal Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Second, at no point is it as disturbingly violent as the God-warranted genocide in the Book of Daniel, nor does it contain injunctions restricting personal choices as deep or numerous as the Leviticus.

As a non-believer when was the last time you saw a crowd of lunatics waving the book of Daniel demanding death to the infidels?

Sorry but the days of people claiming its just radicals that are giving Islam a bad name have long gone. The majority who remain silent by their very silence deny their right to cast aside the reality of the situation..Dafur anyone?
Cukurungan Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
As a non-believer when was the last time you saw a crowd of lunatics waving the book of Daniel demanding death to the infidels?

Pak Oigal Yth,

Please be patient I tell you that the reason for those lunatic chanting dead infidels…dead infidels…because those lunatic has nothing except the chanting , if once day those lunatic manage to acquire the same weapon arsenal as the Western or Jews, trust me, they will stop on chanting “dead infidels” or video threatening on the net instead of they will just send war plane and missile to bomb New York or Tel Aviv like the western and Jew doing today, today the people who hold Daniel and Lectivious books does not need a chanting anymore because if they want to killed un-civilized and undecomacratized people they just send bomber and drone to Baghdad, Afghanistan, Gaza and anywhere place they wish to bomb.

Again at the moment please be patient.
Astrajingga Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Oigal may be patient enough to wait, but muslim can’t be patient nowadays.

For hundreds years, muslim all over the world has always been trapped in a bigger war between one kafir against another kafir. Like in 1965, the Indonesian muslim was trapped and used in a war between communist kafir against capitalist kafir.

Now, again muslims are trapped in a big war between kafirs. I don’t know which kafir against other kind of kafir, all I know is that they must be kafir.

Because muslim is the only one who still devoutly chants, “Dead infidels! Dead infidels!” and can’t even wage a war against its own chanting.
Odinius Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Astrajingga said:

Islam did not play role in any killing. Nor any religion play role in any killing. The culprit, as always, is ‘false interpretation of the teaching.’ Well, some says that it is the dogmatic teaching that kills. But which religion is not dogmatic?

I agree with your overall point, that the religion didn’t cause the killings.

But religious organizations carried out many of the killings, esp Ansor in East Java, and a number of religious leaders, including the contemporary head of Muhammadiyah, told adherents that getting rid of the PKI was a religious obligation.

While I don’t think this reflects specifically on the religion of Islam, it does perhaps reflect on some of the dynamics of organized religion, or maybe more accurately, organized ideological groups, where cadres brainwash followers. Happened to be Muslim organizations in Central and East Java, alongside Hindu ones in Bali, and secular nationalist ones in all three areas.

This is why, as much as I respect individual religious commitments and political philosophies, I am extremely wary of any organized ideological group, with dogmas and power structures. Becomes a bit of a hive mind…
Astrajingga Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:39 am
Ever think that when there’s a loaded gun behind you, and you’re not sure where it’s pointed at, suddenly you lost your critical mind and start to love dogmatic doctrine?
Odinius Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 5:01 am
Well, there’s very little evidence that people were forced to kill, and many accounts that demonstrate that these organizations went beyond the call of duty, so to speak. The instruments of coercion are not just military, after all. They are also social.

While the military holds ultimate responsibility for what happened, the scale of it and the actual accounts of what was going on on the ground suggest that many of these dogmatic organizations did not need a lot of coercing.
Cukurungan Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Well, there’s very little evidence that people were forced to kill, and many accounts that demonstrate that these organizations went beyond the call of duty, so to speak. The instruments of coercion are not just military, after all. They are also social.

Pak Odin Yth,

You are correct because at that time, we were also waiting a good time to take them all and fortunately, those good time was finally coming when KORAMIL (Military Stationed in Village) whispered on us that we can wipe out PKI member, criminal and other bad guys if we want so, hence, we organized our self prepare machetes and dig a big hole around the forest close to our village and what we need help from the military just a truck to transport wrapped PKI member to near by forest and the rest story we took them all by our own hand. I tell you that there were so many bizarre stories behind the execution process because many PKI member is Orang Sakti, many of them can not be killed by normal killing method so every Tokoh PKI had undergone a specific execution method.
Astrajingga Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Cuk describe it better. Anyway, it was called BUTERPRA.

KORAMIL was later formed under Soeharto regime.
ET Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
@ Odinius

First, the Quran, like any holy book, contains exhortations to peace and exhortations to violence. The point, for the religious, is to interpret these.

What other religion than Islam has a notion of jihad, a war in god’s way? With the exception of the Bagavad Gita, which implies that it is the duty of a ksatrya to fight a justified war, I invite you to show exhortations to violence in the Upanishads, the Tipitaka, the Tao-te Ching and for my part in the New Testament too. I never said that Islam is the only ideology with violence on its agenda – nazism, communism and all the others you mentioned are equally guilty – I only said that Islam is an ideology disguised as a religion demanding an attitude of unconditional submission to a chimera, attitude which eases the way for using people as blind, fanatical, murderous tools.

@ all interested infidels

Once again, if you have time and the patience, read the Koran and the Hadith and make up you own mind.
Odinius Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
ET said:

What other religion than Islam has a notion of jihad, a war in god’s way?

First, what does jihad mean? Does it actually mean war? Is war the only means of jihad? Is it even the most important, according to mainline Islamic practice?

Second, have you ever read the Old Testament, which is holy for both Jews and Christians?

E.g.

31:13-18 Moses, Eleazer the priest, and all the chieftains of the community came out to meet them outside the camp. Moses became angry with the commanders of the army, the officers of thousands and the officers of hundreds, who had come back from the military campaign. Moses said to them, “You have spared every female! Yet they are the very ones who, at the bidding of Balaam, induced the Israelites to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so that the Lord’s community was struck by the plague. Now, therefore, slay every male among the children, and slay also every young woman who has known a man carnally; but spare every young woman who has not had carnal relations with a man.”

Or, for a real doozy, read about God’s sanctioned genocide against the city of Jericho in Joshua book 6.

The point here is not to denigrate Judaism or Christianity…their holy books are also full of other passages that are exhortations to peace and tolerance. But it’s to point out that this idea that Islam is somehow different in this respect is totally bogus.

From any of these religions, I could just as easily cherry-pick a) passages of violence; or b) passages of peace to try to argue that they are a) religions of peace; or b) religions of violence. But if you take their entire texts to bear, they’re both, really. Thus it is incumbent upon the believer to rationally work through these contradictions.

Buddhism is an exception, in that it unequivocally denounces violence. But this has not stopped Buddhists from committing vast and deep crimes against humanity. Japanese Zen Buddhists justified their warmongering in religious terms:

“If ordered to march: tramp, tramp or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest wisdom of enlightenment. The unity of Zen and war … extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war now under way.”

-Zen Master Harada Daiun Sogaku – 1939

As for the New Testament, at what point did Jesus’ exhortations to peacefulness stop the Crusades, the Inquisition, the forced conversion of pagans in Northern and Eastern Europe, the rape of the world under colonialism, etc. from being justified in religious terms?

What this makes me think is that organized religion–any religion–can be mobilized for the purposes of violence. This is true of Islam. It is also true of virtually every other religion. This is only possible when you have the hive-mind, group-think of religious organization and ideological dogma, rather than people thinking for themselves. Has very little to do with content.
atse amae g. yer Says:
August 17th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
this is beautiful 2 be It sounds like there are some non Muslims having a fuss about some Muslims wanting o enforce the small basics of Islam on it’s people. Islamically, and in most religions I’ve studied (Judaism, Christianity, and Islaam), it is your religious rite and duty on your people to guide them towards the truth, including dress (in Islaam that means first with your hands, if you can’t with your hands, then with your words, and if you can’t with words, then with your heart, and with your heart is the weakest of Iman). and Allah knows best. Now the people complaining to much, if they are Muslim, they should first feel ashamed that they are actually upset about some people enforcing the people to cover properly…good grief covering properly is the outward part of Eman, and if you can’t even cover properly how are you gonna work on the heart? It’s really said but its sounds like some people on this forum really need to read some Quran and stop spitting ignorance and nonsense out of their mouths w/o knowledge. Furthermore Shariah came with Islaam. Whoever said that it was around long before islaam is a lier. Before islam came most of the women were dressing like the Jews. Subhanallah sisters and brothers, STUDY YOUR DEEN! This isn’t about Arab, Javanese, American, European, Pakistani, THIS IS ABOUT MUSLIM! PERIOD FULL STOP!

don’t be serios to your jobs because there are some muslim that is bad