"irfghan" wrote:

Jokey - why naaat?

Loud - maybe not.

Boistrous - not at all.

I agree

anyway-there's a lot to giggle about on ur wedding day

i feel sorry for depressed asian brides

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

actually what we cant accept is YOU advocating depression on ur wedding day

NORMAL people see weddings as HAPPY times

but I guess we're the "narrowminded" ones :roll: :roll:

why cant u accept my stance? does evry1 have to conform to ur understanding? i take it u cant accept the pakistani custom that happens all over pakistan that the bride is sad on her wedding day? i take it u reject all of pakistan weddings where this happens and u cant accept it?

yes i see weddings as happy times, but in my view the bride should look sad.

yes u r narrowminded because i can accept that ppl want the bride to look happy but u cant accept that some ppl think the bride should look shy and sad. so yes u r being narrowminded. I m not rejecting ur view, u r just not ready to accept that i some cultures it is regarded as normal and right for bride to look sad. dont try twistin it round on me.

evry1 can c that i have not said she cant look happy, all i said is i prefer her to look sad. so i am accepting ur view as valid, but u r not ready to tolerate mine so hence i have proved that u are being narrowminded

SUBHANALLAH!
my first application of mantiq and i won!!

Alhamdulillah i have learnt that well!!

ALLAHU AKBAR

Basically my point is this - it wouldn't be surprising if Fareed is right (Dave points to top of page where he provides link to fareed zakaria article) - that crying brides were entirely cultural and not an islamic creation

"Medievalist" wrote:

i take it u cant accept the pakistani custom that happens all over pakistan that the bride is sad on her wedding day? i take it u reject all of pakistan weddings where this happens and u cant accept it?

ur generalisations make me laugh

I'm a Paki-I've attended more then enough Paki weddings in my life

Irfan's a Paki so is Hayder

ALL us Paki's don't agree with ur depressed bride theory

SOME Paki brides look depressed in their wedding but many don't

if she's quiet and shy and is depressed at the thought of getting married then she can sit their looking depressed if she wishes

but to ADVOCATE depression for no reason is stupid

"Dave" wrote:

[i]Islamic fundamentalism got a tremendous boost in 1979 when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini toppled the Shah of Iran. The Iranian revolution demonstrated that a powerful ruler could be taken on by groups within society. It also revealed how in a broken society even seemingly benign forces of progress--education and technology--can add to the turmoil.[b] Until the 1970s most Muslims in the Middle East were illiterate and lived in villages and towns. They practiced a kind of street-Islam that had adapted itself to the local culture. Pluralistic and tolerant, these people often worshiped saints, went to shrines, sang religious hymns and cherished religious art, all technically disallowed in Islam. (This was particularly true in Iran.) By the 1970s, however, people had begun moving out of the villages and their religious experience was not rooted in a specific place. At the same time they were learning to read and they discovered that a new Islam was being preached by the fundamentalists, an abstract faith not rooted in historical experience but literal, puritanical and by the book. It was Islam of the High Church as opposed to Islam of the village fair.[/b]

In Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini used a powerful technology--the audiocassette. His sermons were distributed throughout the country and became the vehicle of opposition to the shah's repressive regime. But Khomeini was not alone in using the language of Islam as a political tool. Intellectuals, disillusioned by the half-baked or overrapid modernization that was throwing their world into turmoil, were writing books against "Westoxification" and calling the modern Iranian man--half Western, half Eastern--rootless. Fashionable intellectuals, often writing from the comfort of London or Paris, would critique American secularism and consumerism and endorse an Islamic alternative. As theories like these spread across the Arab world, they appealed not to the poorest of the poor, for whom Westernization was magical (it meant food and medicine). They appealed to the half-educated hordes entering the cities of the Middle East or seeking education and jobs in the West.[/i]

Interesting take.

It could therefore be said that Islamic 'fundamentalism' is a by-product of globalisation.

(But then that's another thread.)

Mr Medieval....

All MuslimSisLilSis is doig is arguing her point and expressing her opinions....and like the rest of us, we simply disagree...

WHAY ARE YOU GETTING SO WORKED UP!!! :roll:

jeez, calm down lad

"irfghan" wrote:

Interesting take.

It could therefore be said that Islamic 'fundamentalism' is a by-product of globalisation.

(But then that's another thread.)

Actually from his other writings I think his point was that "fundamentalism" - a word he doesn't like since he cannot divorce it from it's christian origins - takes [i]advantage[/i] of globalization and global communication - but it doesn't have to be that way.

I think he is all for standardization, while he does look back nostalgically at the Islam of his Youth I think he sees the necessity for eliminating innovations, but simultaneously he thinks that the only ones who have really recognized the potential for using global communications for standardizing islam - are the whackopaths in saudi arabia which are more obsessed with pushing their islam rather than looking for true islam.

i advocate looking depressed, looking sad.

u think its stupid ok, i can accept that. But u making out like its such big evil is strange.

Basically i think i have said all i need to on this topic. I can accept and understand ur stance, u think mine is stupid and anti islamic and haram and evrything else. SO i wil remain broad and accomodating while u remain intolerant and rigid.

I have said my stance, that she can look how she likes, i PREFER her to look subdued shy and depressed like many pakistanis do. As far as im concerned i have expressed mysefl clearly, i am not being intolerant and have only expressed my personal perference.

I consider this issue closed cos i dont have a problem with ur view, u hve a problem with mine but what can i do about that?

no problmes matey, u speak like you want a problem!!....calling us intolerant and rigid :x

we get the pic now, u like sad days and wet weather, u like grey walls, u like no-fun-zones everwhere in your house, u like not to smile!!! :roll:

"Dave" wrote:

Actually from his other writings I think his point was that "fundamentalism" - a word he doesn't like since he cannot divorce it from it's christian origins - takes [i]advantage[/i] of globalization and global communication - but it doesn't have to be that way.

I think he is all for standardization, while he does look back nostalgically at the Islam of his Youth I think he sees the necessity for eliminating innovations, but simultaneously he thinks that the only ones who have really recognized the potential for using global communications for standardizing islam - are the whackopaths in saudi arabia which are more obsessed with pushing their islam rather than looking for true islam.

Zakaria said, 'pluralistic and tolerant, these people often worshiped saints, went to shrines, sang religious hymns and cherished religious art, all technically disallowed in Islam.'

By saying that such 'localized' Islam is 'technically un-Islamic', by wanting 'innovations' to be eliminated, and by wanting 'standardisation', he appears is to be accepting the 'Islam' of the fundamentalists.

It is the 'fundamentalists' who call for a puritanical literalist rigid Islam.

It would seem that he may dissagree with the fundamentalists on their use of violence, or 'anti-US' violence, but he agress with them that they have the correct interpretation of Islam, even though he doesn't practice himself.

"irfghan" wrote:

Zakaria said, 'pluralistic and tolerant, these people often worshiped saints, went to shrines, sang religious hymns and cherished religious art, all technically disallowed in Islam.'

By saying that such 'localized' Islam is 'technically un-Islamic', by calling for 'innovations' to be eliminated, and by calling for 'standardisation', he appears is to be accepting the 'Islam' of the fundamentalists.

It is the 'fundamentalists' who call for a puritanical literalist 'un-altered' Islam.

It would seem that he may dissagree with the fundamentalists on their use of violence, or 'anti-US' violence, but he agress with them that they have the correct interpretation of Islam.

That would seem strange in light of the very next paragraph:

[i]The fact that Islam is a highly egalitarian religion for the most part has also proved an empowering call for people who felt powerless. At the same time it means that no Muslim really has the authority to question whether someone who claims to be a proper Muslim is one. The fundamentalists, from Sayyid Qutub on, have jumped into that the void. They ask whether people are "good Muslims." It is a question that has terrified the Muslim world. And here we come to the failure not simply of governments but intellectual and social elites. Moderate Muslims are loath to criticize or debunk the fanaticism of the fundamentalists.[/i]

I think he sympathizes with their aims and sees global communications as a tool - but disagrees with their bullyish tactics and a lot of their conclusions.

"Dave" wrote:

"irfghan" wrote:

Zakaria said, 'pluralistic and tolerant, these people often worshiped saints, went to shrines, sang religious hymns and cherished religious art, all technically disallowed in Islam.'

By saying that such 'localized' Islam is 'technically un-Islamic', by calling for 'innovations' to be eliminated, and by calling for 'standardisation', he appears is to be accepting the 'Islam' of the fundamentalists.

It is the 'fundamentalists' who call for a puritanical literalist 'un-altered' Islam.

It would seem that he may dissagree with the fundamentalists on their use of violence, or 'anti-US' violence, but he agress with them that they have the correct interpretation of Islam.

That would seem strange in light of the very next paragraph:

[i]The fact that Islam is a highly egalitarian religion for the most part has also proved an empowering call for people who felt powerless. At the same time it means that no Muslim really has the authority to question whether someone who claims to be a proper Muslim is one. The fundamentalists, from Sayyid Qutub on, have jumped into that the void. They ask whether people are "good Muslims." It is a question that has terrified the Muslim world. And here we come to the failure not simply of governments but intellectual and social elites. Moderate Muslims are loath to criticize or debunk the fanaticism of the fundamentalists.[/i]

I think he sympathizes with their aims and sees global communications as a tool - but disagrees with their bullyish tactics and a lot of their conclusions.

He shouldn't be calling things 'technically un-islamic'. That just gives credence to the extremists.

"irfghan" wrote:

He shouldn't then be calling things 'technically un-islamic'. That just gives credence to the extremists.

It's true though isn't it? There is nothing technically islamic about sad brides or any of that is there?

"Dave" wrote:

"irfghan" wrote:

He shouldn't then be calling things 'technically un-islamic'. That just gives credence to the extremists.

It's true though isn't it? There is nothing islamic about sad brides or any of that is there?

There is nothing Islamic about sad brides. No-one would say that it is Islamic.

Anyway g2g.

soon you shall see a new thread 'open apology part 2"

"I,

Medievalist of Bihari Village
Mirpur District
AzadKashmir,

in full mental capacity and with my free will openly apologise to ALL in this forum if I have committed excess or injustice on any 1 member or group of people" ....and so forth

"Hay-DUH" wrote:

soon you shall see a new thread 'open apology part 2"

"I,

Medievalist of Bihari Village
Mirpur District
AzadKashmir,

in full mental capacity and with my free will openly apologise to ALL in this forum if I have committed excess or injustice on any 1 member or group of people" ....and so forth

"Most especially Dave"

"Hay-DUH" wrote:

soon you shall see a new thread 'open apology part 2"

"I,

Medievalist of Bihari Village
Mirpur District
AzadKashmir,

in full mental capacity and with my free will openly apologise to ALL in this forum if I have committed excess or injustice on any 1 member or group of people" ....and so forth

Just before that will there be a thread calling everyone of us mushrik, and condemning us all to hell? Just to keep up with tradition?

"Admin" wrote:

"Hay-DUH" wrote:

soon you shall see a new thread 'open apology part 2"

"I,

Medievalist of Bihari Village
Mirpur District
AzadKashmir,

in full mental capacity and with my free will openly apologise to ALL in this forum if I have committed excess or injustice on any 1 member or group of people" ....and so forth

Just before that will there be a thread calling everyone of us mushrik, and condemning us all to hell? Just to keep up with tradition?

I get the feeling we are talking about somebody in specific?

sighs

/also sighs

However I advocate wearing a smile. Its a virtue. And a thing any true mumin does not go without!

ok ppl it seems my mode of communication doesnt fit well with you.

Let me try explaining my stance in your language!

im a paki, yeh and i fink that ma paki culture has some gud stuf in it yeh. like wen i get married i want ma bird to look shy and a bit sad cos in ma culture we fink its a sign of a gud gyal dat she bes shy n dat innit.

i dnt want ma bird 2 b depressed or suicidal like she gonna pop herself, nah nah nah dat aint rite man. i jus wan 'er to look a bit shy cos dats what ma mom looked like wen she was gettin married innit.

c i want me n ma bird 2 b happy and stuf yeh, i want 2 'ave a chillin 'ome life, but in ma hed a shy bird looks nice n i find she looks more fit like dat innit.

like some ppl like der birds to dress up in jeans n stuf, o som ppl wanna c der mrs smil @ d shadi; jus wiv me i seen ma mom n dads weddin vid innit n ma mom looked so shy and all my aunties and grannies say dat a gyal looks gud like dat. so i want 'er 2 b like dat as well innit.

but i dnt want er to top erself n i dnt want er 2 b depressed. i want 'er 2 jus look shy u get me, yeh?

i dunno wt i was finking wiv such paki bakhome stuf. i mean i shud want 'er to smile at evry1 but i ges im a bit fik innit?

is that gud enough?

yup far better.

:twisted:

"Medievalist" wrote:

ok ppl it seems my mode of communication doesnt fit well with you.

Let me try explaining my stance in your language!

im a paki, yeh and i fink that ma paki culture has some gud stuf in it yeh. like wen i get married i want ma bird to look shy and a bit sad cos in ma culture we fink its a sign of a gud gyal dat she bes shy n dat innit.

i dnt want ma bird 2 b depressed or suicidal like she gonna pop herself, nah nah nah dat aint rite man. i jus wan 'er to look a bit shy cos dats what ma mom looked like wen she was gettin married innit.

c i want me n ma bird 2 b happy and stuf yeh, i want 2 'ave a chillin 'ome life, but in ma hed a shy bird looks nice n i find she looks more fit like dat innit.

like some ppl like der birds to dress up in jeans n stuf, o som ppl wanna c der mrs smil @ d shadi; jus wiv me i seen ma mom n dads weddin vid innit n ma mom looked so shy and all my aunties and grannies say dat a gyal looks gud like dat. so i want 'er 2 b like dat as well innit.

but i dnt want er to top erself n i dnt want er 2 b depressed. i want 'er 2 jus look shy u get me, yeh?

i dunno wt i was finking wiv such paki bakhome stuf. i mean i shud want 'er to smile at evry1 but i ges im a bit fik innit?

is that gud enough?

What the hell, whats with the "finks"?

"Admin" wrote:

yup far better.

u being funny or is that how i m expected to express maself, bro, kuzzie.

never take me too seriously. Unless I am being serious.

I am serious about that! seriously I am.

Salam

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

can someone OTHER then the medievilist give me a Fatwa on women dancing in front of OTHER women in weddings

Wedding is a SOLEMN occasion.

And, in case you didnt know, let me break it to you:

Dancing is NOT a sign of solemnity.

God !!

Omrow

"Medievalist" wrote:

i advocate looking depressed, looking sad.

u think its stupid ok, i can accept that. But u making out like its such big evil is strange.

Basically i think i have said all i need to on this topic. I can accept and understand ur stance, u think mine is stupid and anti islamic and haram and evrything else. SO i wil remain broad and accomodating while u remain intolerant and rigid.

I have said my stance, that she can look how she likes, i PREFER her to look subdued shy and depressed like many pakistanis do. As far as im concerned i have expressed mysefl clearly, i am not being intolerant and have only expressed my personal perference.

I consider this issue closed cos i dont have a problem with ur view, u hve a problem with mine but what can i do about that?

salaam

the more i read Medievals comments i wonder what he's been taught....

he wants women to look depressed and sad on their wedding day...which happens to be the biggest and best days of their lives. Dont be happy, dont look excited, dont try to have fun, dont have a laugh....oh no- look depressed and sad...ahahhahahahahahhaha you gotta laugh!
its a wedding for God Sakes not a bloody funeral!

I can understand that at the time of 'rukhsati'- when the briode leaves her home and goes to her hubbys- she cries and so does all her family..... but before that EVERYONE is happy and having a good time...and so should she.
We shouldnt say something is Islam because it happens in some paki weddings. You study in a madrassah so you should give the Islamic viewpoints, the massla on the issue from Shar'ee point of view....not follow some paki culture!

wasalaam

Ed...............Medievalist has clearly stated that its his personal preference on how he wants his wife to be. lay off the guy, just his opinion on how weddings should be.

As long as when he becomes a Mufti/Imaam/scholar or whatever he plans on doing....he doesnt incorporate it into his teachings to others, then its ok.

Opinions are like A**Holes, everyone has one

true. but i think he simply wants his wife to look sad, not neccesarily be sad, just loook shy and quite. i can see where he comes from, a lot of pakistani weddings were like that...i dont agree, but i dont think theres anything wrong with the Medieval concepts of the Medievalist