Submit your comments on this article |
Arabia |
Scholars Frustrate Extremists on Women Driving Issue |
2005-05-31 |
![]() In addition, some of the extremists referred to statements by the late Saudi scholars, Sheikh Bin Baz and Sheikh Ibn Othaimeen. They were among the most learned scholars in the Islamic world and their opinions and ideas are still respected in matters of religion. The extremists accused the present-day scholars of being less strict and less honest than the two sheikhs. Some of them said that Ibn Othaimeen said in the late 90s that women driving was religiously prohibited. Arab News, however, listened to a recording of the sheikh's speech and he never used the word "haram" (forbidden) when speaking of women driving. What he said was that for women to drive was a "mistake because it could lead to corruption." His idea was that the community was not ready to accept women driving. |
Posted by:Fred |
#6 a cornicopia of gray. LOL! 9.483 Points for mixer mets. |
Posted by: Shipman 2005-05-31 14:41 |
#5 Hmmm... Y'ain't from around here, air yew? Since I'm too lazy to repeat myself yet again on the subject of fascism, perhaps you could try reading more than one article and its comments out of an archive going back four years. Then you can read up on who Safar al-Hawali is, and maybe find out something about the other three clerics and ponder what an "absolutist" point of view actually is. |
Posted by: Fred 2005-05-31 14:27 |
#4 PTAH, Theory indeed, Your absolutist comments are representative of a fascist point of view, are you a fascist or just too lazy too look beyond your immediate stereotype comfort zones? The world is not black and white my friend, but a cornicopia of gray. Absolutism is far too akin to fascism for any good redblooded American to purport to subscribe to it, however, I am sure that the fuehrer would agree with your absolutist statements? While I would agree with your first statements, why must you indict all Muslims, I know a few fundamentalist christians who don't allow their women to ct their hair. So must we indict all Christians? No, so step back and take a look at your statement again, while it may be semantical error on your part. It seems you need to evaluate your "theory" again. MM |
Posted by: Mountain Man 2005-05-31 13:58 |
#3 Actually, it appears that the threshold is not that the activity will inevitably lead to bad consequences, but that the activity MIGHT lead to bad consequences. It does not matter if 99% of the time the consequences are good or benign. That possible 1% is what is used. Further evidence of a theory I have, where I postulate that leftists and muslims share similar mind-sets, ways of thinking, and behaviors that are strangely self-destructive. |
Posted by: Ptah 2005-05-31 09:27 |
#2 the ruling on women driving is based on the sharia principle that the activity will have bad consequences, e.g., women leaving the home and not cooking for the men, women seeking independence, women rebelling against their fathers, etc. these consequences are not universal; in some communities they would not occur there was a ruling in about 1990 by the Saudi religious authority this is the ruling that was being discussed |
Posted by: mhw 2005-05-31 08:21 |
#1 So women never drove the oxen/camels? |
Posted by: anonymous2u 2005-05-31 02:48 |