As musicians, politicians and fans remember Sinead O’Connor, some Muslims are disappointed that the Irish singer and lifelong activist’s religious identity is not being highlighted in tributes.
UK police on Wednesday said the 56-year-old was found unresponsive in her London residence on Wednesday and that there her death was not being treated as suspicious.
Since the news of her death, Muslim fans of the 90s superstar have said her conversion to Islam, a cornerstone of her identity, was inspiring, but that some media reports have failed to note her religious beliefs in obituaries.
O’Connor, whose chart-topping hit “Nothing Compares 2 U” helped her reach global stardom, converted to Islam in 2018.
“This is to announce that I am proud to have become a Muslim. This is the natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian‘s journey. All scripture study leads to Islam. Which makes all other scriptures redundant,” the songstress tweeted on October 19, 2018.
At that time, O’Connor tweeted selfies donning the Muslim headscarf, the hijab, and uploaded a video of her reciting the Islamic call to prayer, the azan.
She took on the Muslim name Shuhada’ Davitt – later changing it to Shuhada Sadaqat – but continued to use the name Sinead O’Connor professionally.
One social media user said imagery of the singer without the hijab points to the glaring lack of Muslim reporters in newsrooms.
Meanwhile, some said that O’Connor was an inspiration for queer Muslims globally.
In 2000, she came out as a lesbian during an interview. But the singer, who was married to multiple men throughout her life, later said that her sexuality was fluid and that she did not believe in labels.
Some found joy in O’Connor’s conversion growing up, seeing themselves represented, while others, just learning about her Muslim identity at the news of her death, also took inspiration.
O’Connor was no stranger to controversy.
A lifelong nonconformist, she was outspoken about religion, feminism, and war, as well as her own addiction and mental health issues.
In 2014, she refused to play in Israel.
“Let’s just say that, on a human level, nobody with any sanity, including myself, would have anything but sympathy for the Palestinian plight. There’s not a sane person on earth who in any way sanctions what the f*** the Israeli authorities are doing,” she told Hot Press, an Irish music magazine.
Her iconic shaved head and shapeless wardrobe defied early 90s popular culture’s notions of femininity and sexuality.
In 1992, she ripped up a photo of Pope John Paul II during a television appearance on Saturday Night Live, vocal against the Catholic Church’s history of child abuse.
The late former star was also a firm supporter of a united Ireland, under which the United Kingdom would relinquish control of Northern Ireland.
Outspoken non-conformist feminist conforms and converts to Islam, declaring all other religions worldwide, wrong and invalid. Could almost be an Onion article title.
Sky daddy issues.
She’s vocal against the Catholic Church’s history of child abuse. Assuming you’re just like all other anti-theists, I would say some amount of her personal beliefs align with yours. Almost hypocritical of you.
Also, I don’t see any “issues” she’s having. Only issues people having against her. Not saying she’s the best person - she’s still kinda shit.
A woman converting to Islam has issues. Saying it’s the inevitable confusion of theological inquiry is hard evidence of brain damage.
Didn’t the Prophet Muhammad like… fuck a 12 year old?
Quote where it comes from. Not that hellish shit of a book that is Sahih Bukhari. I’m Shia, so I don’t buy that. Aisha be writing softcover porn in that book and there are so many contradictions that I am almost calling it a fairytale book.
A Shia source please.
So I don’t know or care enough to go trying to understand and quote books, but here’s a shia forum full of people refering to age 9 sexual maturity for girls.
https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235044362-what-is-the-exact-minimum-age-for-have-sex/
deleted by creator
Not to disprove the source, in contemporary Muslim teachings they married at 6-9, but didn’t consummate the marriage until 12.
deleted by creator
That makes it better
“I don’t believe in anything from that ancient book go find me another ancient book that I would believe” -religoids justifying outdated philosophies and untested world views
Because it has nothing I believe in. It’s like trying to prove Islam is wrong using quotes from the Bible. It’s something I don’t believe in, and Bukhari is something Shias don’t believe in.
I now know that there is no Shiite basis for the argument that Aisha was 9 at her marriages consumnation, and for many other issues. From whatever research I have done, the only sources for their truth is in Sunni Hadith books. I can live easily knowing most of the arguments against Islam repeated by anti-theists aren’t an issue for Shias.
“All religious texts are porn and fairy tales… Not mine though”
- literally every religious person on Earth
Well religion has clearly done wonders for your critical thinking skills, thank you for this hilariously batshit example of a brain on religion.
What a silly book!
She’s vocal against the Catholic Church’s history of child abuse.
Which is very good, but why did she then join another religion with pretty much the same history? Do people really think it’s only the Catholic church?
Edit: I learned that she also joined the a Catholic church (but not the Catholic church) for a while. Yes, definitely crazy.
Pretty common trope. Check the Indian English poet Kamala Das for comparison.
Let’s help people remember her Muslim identity then, I’ll start:
I think she was a complicated person who struggled in a lot of ways, but she did apologize for saying this…https://people.com/music/sinead-oconnor-apologizes-saying-white-people-disgusting/
Existence is very scary. The randomness of it all, the indifference of the universe, how little we matter, the finality of death… not everyone can cope with this stuff. Religion provides hope and comfort to them.
I mean I wish we’d move past religion, but I don’t think it’ll ever happen. Being alive is fucking terrifying.
You might feel like just a small grain of sand, but the beach is fucking beautiful.
On second thought, I have nothing useful to add to this topic.
She clarified why she did that in an interview. It’s quite funny.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=ibmsdJ5R0b0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Removed by mod
As a queer person, I COMPLETELY understand her sentiment here. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Are you telling me I shouldn’t move to an African country? That’s kind of racist.
deleted by creator
occasional uncomfortable moment
Sounds absolutely exhausting
deleted by creator
Exactly how she wanted it to be perceived. She was protesting racism against the non-whites.
“JOKES ON THEM, I’M ONLY PRETENDING TO BE RETARDED”
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=ibmsdJ5R0b0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
When I spend a lot of time around non-queer people (although even some cisgender gay people get in my nerves too) it gets to be really difficult for me. You’re constantly hiding parts of who you are, or getting sideways looks, or other things that tell you that they really don’t “get” you. You feel constantly judged and on the outside. It makes it difficult to not have at least a quick chat with someone who does understand.
Have you tried converting to Islam? I’m sure that’ll make it all better.
deleted by creator
She was angry for getting a lot of Islamophobia. It’s racism yeah but only in a very literal sense that doesn’t hurt white people. It’s not that hard to understand.
deleted by creator
It’s always the most racist asshole who believe “reverse racism” is a thing, always desperate to be the victim, never willing to acknowledge how they actively victimise already marginalised people constantly.
Yeah lol who said anything about “good racism”? Lemmy really is like the old Reddit, can’t say I missed “reverse racism” concern trolls.
How does she still have white fans? You’d have to be so self-hating to be a fan of hers.
I’m a white. A queer. An atheist. And a fan.
White people have a very long & deep history of saying some really nasty shit about non-white people, especially of the muslim faith.
Yeah that’s not just exclusive to white people
of course not, but Sinead… is white. As a white converted Muslim, she was probably hyper aware of the Islamophobia within her own communities, fan base, and just in general.
Her post, while the language was divisive, it was obviously written out of frustration and what she meant is pretty clear & obvious to anyone paying attention to Islamophobia, especially post 9/11 and then again especially during Trump’s administration.
I hate this “You need to understand and tolerate where their bigiotry is coming from” bullshit. How about no?
In the past she was Islamophobic. Now that she’s Muslim she’s projecting hate onto white people? Seems like she’s just a bigot.
What she said has no consequences at all comparable to what the Iraqis in 2001 had, Muslim immigrants in Europe face, or even the mass shooting in New Zealand.
How about just don’t be a fucking bigot?
She didn’t even convert to Islam until 2018, I doubt Trumps election has anything to do with it considering she’s not even American.
silly to ignore the ripple effects across the globe from the trump administration… We have seen a hard right turn in many countries, many people emboldened by what he said and did. Anti-immigrant, anti-muslim, anti-all kinds of crap. His hate spread far and wide, my friend.
As a global artist (and a divisive one to boot) who traveled the world many times over and had to deal with fans and haters from every culture, Sinead, more than most people, was acutely attuned to many white attitudes.
While influencing each other and using the same playbook the far right between the US and Europe is as separate as the left is. It didn’t really increase that much after Trump as it had increased exponentially and became more and more tolerated by centrists with the refugee “crisis”. That happened in the summer of 2015 with election wins and gains in multiple European countries for far-right during the second half of 2015. It was a more parallel instead of a directly causative process.
Why should that be an issue? As if Black people can’t be HP Lovecraft fans.
I understand the point here, but you realise this is stupid because it legitimises that other idiot’s sense of grievance against a supposed ‘reverse racism’. Structural reverse racism is impossible because of history.
By separating the art from the artist.
There’s people in every industry who surely have insufferable personalities but they make great art. Enjoying her music doesn’t mean you enjoy her as a person ya know
I’ve probably only heard 1 of her songs the entire time I’ve been alive
This whole comment section is a cesspit that demonstrates exactly why she felt that way, yet even in death you fuckers just want to keep pilling on.
You are the problem here, not her.Someone call the cops people are expressing opinions
Especially given this context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibmsdJ5R0b0
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=ibmsdJ5R0b0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Listen, I love Sinead, but she had some serious mental health issues. She became a catholic priest after lambasting the catholic church over child sexual abuse, then left the catholic church, then converted to Islam in 2018? I think if we want to completely divulge every single issue she had in her life, it does a disservice to her memory. From my perspective, there’s no reason other than mania that I can think of why someone like her would convert to a faith like Islam.
She became a catholic priest
That doesn’t sound right.
It was a not officially recognized sect
There are no unofficial Catholic sects. By definition, if you’re not official, you’re not Catholic. They’re allowed to define that.
There are numerous independent Catholic sects.
"Independent Catholicism is an independent sacramental movement of clergy and laity who self-identify as Catholic "
When you have a closed group, like a religion, you absolutely can set minimum criteria for membership, and disallow self-identification as a valid way to enter. Just like I can’t say I’m Canadian, those people aren’t Catholic. Who says so? The pope. And it’s his call to make.
No arguments there. But the ordainment did happen, is my point. The pope was not involved.
I too can go online and become ordained
The word “Catholic” just means universal. Most Christians claim to be Catholic as well, such as Anglicans, as they see themselves as descended from the Church of the Apostles. You’d really have to get into restorationism or people simply misunderstanding the faith to find those who don’t. Although whether or not they are Roman Catholic, as in, seeing the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Pope, is a different thing.
Islam as religious text basis doesn’t really differ in a bad way from the other two Abrahamic religions. It even gives some extra rights to women that Christianity and Judaism don’t. Forcing hijab on women is also expressively banned in Islamic theological texts. Doesn’t change how it works in practice as forced hijab is pretty common in fundamentalistic Islamic theocracies. But might explain why converting is a little bit less insane than at the surface level. If I had to choose one of the Abrahamic religions on a purely theological basis I might end up choosing Islam. Please note, I am not trying to give a pass to Islam, Islamic countries or especially fundamentalist Muslims. The issues are myriad. People outside Islamic countries just have a somewhat skewed image of the religion. Both in theory and practice.
It’s a religion founded by a guy who consummated a marriage to a 9 year old girl - on that basis alone, converting as a woman is super fucked up.
That’s no better or worse than the morals of the founders of the other Abrahamic religions.
yeah, and it’s dumb for women to convert to those, too. tbh it’s dumb for women to convert to any religion that allows men, period.
Playing with crystals doesn’t make you magic.
Its dumb for women to convert to a religion that allows men?
Yeah, you can get the cooties.
Holy yes yes no batman.
deleted by creator
While consummating marriage with Aisha is indefensible, it is also on bar with religions and historical realities.
Why call it indefensible, and then go onto defend it?
I realized later that’s what it sounds like. I am not defending the act itself. I have spent a lot of time criticising it myself. What I am trying to do is to frame it into context. Bible is not without its pretty heinous acts. What I have an issue with is that people frame Islam, Christianity and Judaism in completely separate contexts. It is no less insane to convert to Christianity than Islam. Both are problematic and all three are built on each other literally. IMO based on religious texts Islam is better but that doesn’t mean it is without significant faults. There are buts like with Aisha. Otherwise, I would have converted already.
People forget that countries, cultures, religions and people are not as simply understood as Islam bad. That would make my work easier. But religions are a complex mixture of all with a side of history. For example, both Christianity and Judaism also require veiling yourself as a woman but few do. I haven’t really met a Christian who doesn’t wear polycotton. And as few that don’t eat crustaceans. Not even Catholicism nor Orthodoxy require either. But Bible does.
Fundamentalist thought processes have been pretty widespread in Islam for the past half a century. But they are not also explainable with just Islam bad. A lot of it is overcorrection because of imperialism. Some are about the far-right which while Islamophobic carries a lot of commonalities with fundamentalists of all types. And some are about religion. It is a potent mix and is used by a lot of populists globally. While there is a lot to criticize, it is often mischaracterized. Which makes me sound like I am defending the faults. I am not and should have framed better.
No it isn’t. Most rapists back then waited until after puberty. 9 is extremely young no matter the era.
deleted by creator
Here’s a video on this presentism fallacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzXN6Mv9k8A
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=lzXN6Mv9k8A
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I don’t think this really applies to a prophet of god. What kind of god forbids bacon, but leaves friggen pedophilia on the table?
You have a time machine to prove that she was nine years old?
I’m a non-muslim from islamic country, i feels like the so called “skewed image” is justified. A lot of muslim isn’t right in their head. I know i can’t criticise the whole religion just because people practice it wrong, but man, these people do project these skewed image themselves, and dare i say, proudly.
I have lived in multiple as non-Muslims for long periods of time. My group of friends is pretty varied. I am not disagreeing with that in any way. A lot of Muslims are problematic at best. Why it is so is a lot more complex than just Islam. The skewed image comes not from the fact that a lot of the criticism of Islam, and especially Islamic countries, is not true. It comes from not knowing what religion says theologically, what the jurisprudence of Islam says and what Muslims actually do both in good and bad. Instead in the West we majorly hear about negative things without similar group understanding we have with Christians. When we hear that Iran is shooting people for protesting mandatory hijab majority of us do not have knowledge that mandatory hijab is pretty clearly against religious texts and that neighbour Bill while being Muslim is a good person. We do that with Christianity for example. For example, even Christian fundamentalists do similar you need to act like my religion says thing. A case-and-point example is the overturning of Roe vs Wade in the US. Nor did people start really deciding all Catholics are bad because the church had a huge CSA problem and might still have it.
Fundamentalist religion is a problem as it usually comes with extending religious values outside oneself. How Islam landed on that in many countries is a very complex issue but one thing is that it didn’t happen in a vacuum. Radicalization has a huge component of different types of marginalization. One huge and studied cause is colonialism.
It doesn’t sit well with me how the West is part of the cause for radicalized Islam while the widespread Islamophobia means that Muslims are treated badly no matter of their own actions which is likely to further radicalize Islam.
Islam has a completely different God to Christianity. Despite both being monotheistic, Christianity worships a triune God and believes that Jesus was a personage of God. It also rejects Jesus’ death and other historical knowledge of Jesus.
It also completely invalidates Islam in the eyes of the Qur’an
Religion is control. It doesn’t deliver freedom.
Nobody mentioned the relligion of Tonny Bennet, Tina Turner, Jerry Springer, Michael Jackson, Meat Loaf, Taylor Hawkins, Whitney Huston or any other celebrity that has died in my lifetime. The only two dead celebrities that I remember being connected to religion was the Pope and Mother Teresa (I am sure that I am biased though)
Removed by mod
I don’t remember prince having any other name than Ƭ̵̬̊, which was unpronounceable.
On a related note, Sinéad O’Connor, as a public figure, may have been ok with the media continuing to use her professional name. I’m only basing this off the article stating she also used her birth name publicly. It is interesting though, because Mos Def goes by Yasiin Bey both privately and publicly. But then we still call Yusuf Islam Cat Stevens, while Muhammad Ali’s birth name is more of a trivia nugget.
Are you implying that the media didn’t use her chosen name because she was Muslim or because she was a woman? I’m not trying to be condescending.
Could it be because she tore up the Pope on TV like a fucking boss?
Hmmm. I wonder why?
because nobody would know who that was, but everyone remembers Sinéad O’Connor. They also only bring up one song, because that’s what she’s known for. There doesn’t have to be a plot.
Then they could refer to it as how she used it, as her stage name - it seems like he still used it as her act title because her brand was her former name.
It’s like talking to a performer - when they’re on stage or in the artiface of their character, you recognise that by using their stage name or their characters name; when the artiface is removed and they’re not performing anymore, you recognise that by using their name.
I’m this way, we’re implicitly saying we’re mourning her act rather than her. If that’s not the case, we should be using her name - not her stage name.
we immediately go back to Sinéad O’Connor for Shuhada
Hmmm. I wonder why?
Probably because she continued to use Sinéad O’Connor as her professional name
Maybe because she was a troubled soul and so much happened in her life that it’s hard to pick single things out. She had so many phases that it would be equally wrong to only focus on the last ones
Changed her name but kept Sinead as her stage/performing name. It’s not dead naming.
Because she continued to perform under the name Sinead O’Connor after changing her name?
People having a stage name isn’t unusual. Using a stage name to refer to someone with a stage name isn’t dead naming them.
How long did it take people to stop calling Muhammad Ali, Cassius Clay?
There were still phobes calling him Clay the day he died.
I have to admit that I always thought she was agnostic, if not atheist, from that Pope stuff.
I idly wonder why a gay feminist would convert to Islam. Aren’t those things incompatible? Is this my ignorance showing? Are there sects of Islam that are more open minded, like there are sects of Christianity?
In short, yes, Islam varies a lot based on the actual community you’re a part of. Few places are as extreme as Afghanistan, even if you look at other conservative theocracies. When you’re looking at Muslim communities in Western Europe, it’s a very different situation.
She herself seemed to lack this sort of nuance. She refused to play in Israel, for example, effectively accusing and dismissing an entire nation as oppressors.
I suspect she was, deep down, not a particularly reflective person. We all know people like these. Feel a feeling, act on it immediately, and maaaybe consider the implications and consequences later. Maybe. Or just double down, and never dare to truly look at yourself in the mirror.
It’s unfortunate because these types of people also sometimes turn out to be incredible artists. I assume it’s the combination of talent plus the ability (/curse?) to experience raw feelings much more strongly than the rest of us.
Well, TIL a few things. Thanks.
Additionally, most of the world’s Muslims don’t live in the Middle East or North Africa. South and and Southeast Asia combined have by far the largest Muslim population in the world. India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. And the way they practice Islam is quite different from the Middle East and North Africa. According to Wikipedia, there are about 241 million in Pakistan, 236 million in Indonesia, about 200 million in India, and 151 million in Bangladesh.
And the way they practice Islam is quite different from the Middle East
Worth noting that fundamentalist Islam is exported from KSA, similar to how evangelical Christianity is exported from USA.
Only one brand of fundamentalist Islam is exported from KSA. There are a lot of brands including ones brought from Iran and Afghanistan not to mention whatever ISIS was doing.
Mental illness.
Yeah - her anger was directed at the church not religion. Wearing a hijab, however, seems completely irrational for a feminist. But doing something people don’t expect to get attention and make people mad is definitely on-brand.
Wearing a hijab, however, seems completely irrational for a feminist.
If it’s her own free choice, I see absolutely no contradiction there.
I see absolutely no contradiction there.
Then I doubt that I could explain to you why it is.
If you think its feminisn to tell a woman what shes should and shouldn’t wear, I don’t know what to tell you.
I’m not telling women to wear anything. Many militant islamists, however, have used hijabs to control women. Like it or not it’s become a symbol of oppression as a result.
You’re insuinating that feminism is incompatiable with women choosing what they wear if it’s a garment you don’t approve of. Feminism does not tell women what they can and cannot wear. Furthermore you claim its a hate image despite millions of Muslim women saying it’s part of their culture and not representative of a radical minority. How many women do you intend on speaking over in your persuit of “feminism”?
Feminism is incompatible with sexism.
Something Islam teaches as a core concept.
You’re insuinating that feminism is incompatiable with women choosing what they wear if it’s a garment you don’t approve of.
What I’m actually saying is that wearing a garment that has been used to terrorize and oppress thousands of women is incompatible with feminism. Most religions are incompatible with feminism since they tend to preach that women are a second class that can’t hold leadership positions.
She absolutely has the right to choose what she wants to wear. She choose poorly is all. It’s like showing up to a wedding as a guest and wearing a bridal gown. You don’t do it.
You’re insuinating that feminism is incompatiable with women choosing what they wear if it’s a garment you don’t approve of.
You could say the same thing about a Confederate flag though.
Not that I’m saying the two are comparable, but that it’s not a very good argument.
It isn’t “telling a woman what to wear” to call out it is logically inconsistent to champion the independence and equality of women, and also wear a sign of patriarchal theistic oppression.
It isn’t “telling a woman what to wear” to call out it is logically inconsistent to champion the independence and equality of women, and also wear a sign of patriarchal theistic oppression.
You have to speak over a lot of women to call a hijab a symbol of opression since there are millions of them that wear it of their own will, in places it’s not required, and will gladly tell you that it’s part of their culture and not representative of a radical minority. What you doing is akin to saying anyone who wears a crucifix necklace supports priests abusing kids.
Hundreds of million more women are forced to wear it…
Why people defend something as disgusting and abhorrent as religion I’ll never know.
Don’t care, all abrahamic religion is trash. Infact l religion that exploits a power dynamic is. Symbols of that “brand” come with all available baggage.
It is logically inconsistent to care about freedom, equality, etc and subscribe or put any stock in organizations that work to the very opposite of the spectrum.
That is not how the majority of Muslim women who wear hijab of their free will see it. Often it is framed in you hide what is most important to you. For Muslim women who have to wear hijab and do not want to it is seen as a tool of oppression. The difference is choice.
We are past second-wave feminism for the most part. If you can choose what you want to do, it is OK to choose traditionally feminine things. I am not Muslim. But I love kids, cooking and cleaning. It is OK. I can be more than one thing.
The majority of Muslim women live in countries where they are forced to wear it.
Stop acting like it’s a choice for so many just because a few privileged westerners get a choice.
To be clear: people can wear whatever they want Their life. Outside of a discussion like this, I don’t care.
Second, I don’t have a specific axe to grind with Islam. Only organized religion that doesn’t put equality in everything as their first tenet.
Regarding this person, and this conversation, my point is that to put yourself out there as a champion of equality and freedom, then wear the uniform of oppression (any artifact of a patriarchal, power abusing, non equality based religion is such a uniform) is inconsistent.
You can’t just start wearing a swastika in the nazi motif and claim you just wear it for yourself, and you have your own personal narrative with it, that it empowers you. It doesn’t matter if millions of people do it, or wear a headscarf, hijab, etc. Even if every one of them claims they like it, and do it only for themselves, they got that idea from a poison well.
To be clear: people can wear whatever they want Their life. Outside of a discussion like this, I don’t care.
Second, I don’t have a specific axe to grind with Islam. Only organized religion that doesn’t put equality in everything as their first tenet.
Regarding this person, and this conversation, my point is that to put yourself out there as a champion of equality and freedom, then wear the uniform of oppression (any artifact of a patriarchal, power abusing, non equality based religion is such a uniform) is inconsistent.
You can’t just start wearing a swastika in the nazi motif and claim you just wear it for yourself, and you have your own personal narrative with it, that it empowers you. It doesn’t matter if millions of people do it, or wear a headscarf, hijab, etc. Even if every one of them claims they like it, and do it only for themselves, they got that idea from a poison well.
The Qur’an doesn’t tell women to wear a hijab. It’s up to the woman to decide whether she feels called upon to wear it. Plenty of Muslim women don’t wear one and governments and men who force women to wear one are assholes.
PS feminism is about choice.
Let me guess, “It’s a symbol of oppression!”?
If so, then my reply is that she certainly didn’t think of it as such. And when it comes to what she wants to wear, her view is much more valid than and outsider.
Many western men have forced wives and daughters to not wear revealing cloths. That doesn’t make a loose pullover an instrument of oppression. The intent and reason of the person wanting to wear something is all that matters.
Bubba the redneck doesn’t think of his confederate flag as a symbol of oppression.
But it’s not up to him to determine that now is it?
One is a flag, literally a symbol of a group or a state of oppression and the other is a widely used religious garment where millions of women wear it out of their own free choice. Context matters.
And millions of women have it forced upon them under threat of imprisonment or death. One of whom was beaten to death in the street quite recently. Context matters.
Wearing a hijab, however, seems completely irrational for a feminist
Not if you understand that feminism is first and foremost about the freedom for women to choose what’s best for ourselves (rather than have, usually a man, often with no knowledge of your history or culture, tell you what you should or shouldn’t wear), and that neither feminists nor Muslims are a monolith and that members of either or both come from all walks of life and have a variety of views and opinions.
Perhaps try gaining a better understanding before you make such bold (and sexist as well as ableist) claims:
https://daily.jstor.org/muslim-women-and-the-politics-of-the-headscarf/
I think you missed a few “ists” to accuse me of.
That’s the Democrats whole play. Pretend to be happy friendly and inclusive while slowly subsuming and annihilating the religion itself through constant cultural pursue to be rational and decent, which ends up killing the religion. Did the same to Christianity.
uh… what? We also have a freedom from religion. I don’t know of any Democrat that has urged making anyone follow any specific religious tenet; only saying that one religion can’t force their religious rules on someone else, or use those religion rules to discriminate against someone else.
Do you have an example of what you mean?
I don’t know of any Democrat that has urged making anyone follow any specific religious tenet;
Exactly. Democrats oppose people doing that. Religions rely on being able to do that.
This isn’t evil, it’s good. Islam and Christianity should both burn. Christianity is already limping and dying. Islam is sheltered from modern national thought. However, the United States through this ability to subsume and neuter, will be able to accept way more Islamic immigrants than Europe can.
I’m not saying the Democrats are bad, only that their friendly face is a little less friendly than you might think.
I feel like most of the Democrats are also Christians themselves though? I’m not sure your narrative aligns with reality. You may be confusing separation of church and state, which most Democrats ascribe to with being supportive of Christianity. Do you have any examples that come to mind of Democrats taking away anyone’s ability to practice religion freely outside of public spaces?
Do you have any examples that come to mind of Democrats taking away anyone’s ability to practice religion freely
They don’t. They just support, you know, rational thought and human rights. Those naturally annihilate religion over time.
If the Democrats manage to integrate those values with Islam it’ll annihilate Islam. They’re fundamentally incompatible.
What are you talking about?
There is no scheme to “destroy” religions. Even the scenario you lay out is “be tolerant and accept other religions” and create a society where rationality and decency are valued. That’s actually being friendly and inclusive, not pretending
Even the scenario you lay out is “be tolerant and accept other religions” and create a society where rationality and decency are valued. That’s actually being friendly and inclusive, not pretending
And those values will in time annihilate religion. Islam and Christianity are nasty expansionist cultural viruses that rely on social force to keep their roots and spread their lies.
Integrating into Islam and spreading tolerance kills Islam.
Muslim here, so I can reply to the question as opposed to someone who only knows about Islam from what the media or the predominant islamophobic content we find on the internet tells them about what to think about it. When you have a question about the Mercator projection, you normally don’t go to a flatearther…
She was a theologian, so she studied religions and left Islam to the last, which she ended up accepting based on the scripture once she studied it.
As to the stance of Islam with regards to being gay, the sexual act is forbidden as in one should abstain from actually doing it. Thinking about it or having the desire without acting upon it is not considered a sin. There are punishments in the Islamic law for when a person has been seen by 4 eyewitnesses performing same-sex fornication. To my knowledge this has never been followed through by a judge in the Islamic state of the 4 caliphates as the prerequisites are, intentionally, hard to come by: spying invalidates the testimony, the act should take place out of the privacy of their home etc. So it’s really if the person is doing it in the open… Now I don’t speak about what western media uphold as THE Islamic states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia which are not following strictly the law (and its prerequisites). They have laws that are quite… theirs. Also being gay and being Muslim are not incompatible, since a Muslim is always striving to submit to the divine will and overcome one’s own desires. As long as a person is sincere and keeps repenting for his/her eventual shortcomings and never disbelieves in God they remain a Muslim.
About why would a feminist accept Islam, if you study it you’ll know that it is not misogynistic (ie. considers women as lower than men or is hateful against women). Rather it has a fundamentally different and more factual stance: women are psychologically and physically different from men. So it is about equity and not equality: women do some things better than men and men can so some things better that women; women desire different things than men. To each their role in a family and in society as a whole. Both are honoured in what they do, and you’d even find women are even more honoured, revered and protected.
“Openness” has less to do with sects and as another person commented is more about the society. Muslims, +90% of which are Sunni, have the same source of law but the differences do not come from the religion but are societal.
I don’t have enough knowledge to discuss the ins and outs of your religion, but I can point out that your use of misogyny seems very narrowly defined, perhaps solely to fit your stance. Telling a woman “you aren’t allowed to do that because you’re better suited for this” is misogyny. I don’t know for a fact that this is what you mean, so clarification wouldn’t be remiss, but I suspect due to your wording that your religion does tell women what they can and can’t do.
The religion tells both males and females what they should and what they should not do. Most of it is the same, some of it is different depending on the gender.
I genuinely don’t see how the above is misogynistic.
I encourage you to study it. Find reliable Muslim sources who know what they are talking about and increase your knowledge. I may recommend sine YouTube channels like Muslim Lantern or Dawahwise.
because unless that thing they’re told to do involves having specific sex organs, it has nothing to do with their sex. Like, if it says women should stay at home and care for the kids, while men go work and earn the money-- that’s bigoted; there’s no real reason for that except that it results in compliant, financially dependent women. Abuse flourishes in this type of scenario.
deleted by creator
I am an atheist. I do, usually, try to let the religious do their own thing as long as they’re not forcing other people, but as far as I’m concerned, all religions make just as much sense as people that believe in astrology. I just wish society would start treating religion like astrology. Imagine the SCOTUS reaction if someone from Hobby Lobby suggested they couldn’t provide birth control healthcare coverage because mars was in retrograde and they’re born under the sign of Aries. haha
Sex organs are something that males and females have in different forms, but it is disingenuous to say this is the only difference.
The man MUST provide for the house. The woman is not obliged to work and bring money, but she can do it if she wants. The way you phrased it can be understood that she is barred from working when this is not the case. Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) first wife Khadija was a successful tradeswoman for example. So the religion does not automatically make women financially dependant. There is abuse in some Muslim countries, no doubt like everywhere, but religion is not the reason.
Moreover, whatever the woman earns is 100% hers if she chooses to, and the man has no claim on it in Islam. She can put that to use for the house expenses, or not if she chooses to. It’s her right. Usually working women help the household’s finances but it’s up to couples to decide how they want to function.
Its the only meaningful difference in this context. And don’t think I’m giving a pass on the religion telling men what they can and can’t do. That’s also bigotry.
We do not have the same paradigm, that’s for sure. That’s why we need to learn about each other’s views.
Islam’s is: God created mankind and put it on earth for a propose. He gave us this life which is a test with do’s and don’ts. And depending on whether we follow the rules or not there is eternal bliss or eternal punishment.
Why am I or others positing this? Because God sent throughout our existence messengers to remind us of our purpose.
Why should we trust these so called messengers? They were granted miracles, ie. things others cannot perform like splitting the sea, reviving the dead, splitting the moon etc.
He also gave these messengers scripture with the laws to abide by. Where are these scriptures? Most of them were lost (Abraham’s tablet, David’s psalms…) or demonstrably corrupted by people (the old and the new testaments). The last scripture revealed is the Qur’an which is demonstrably preserved for everyone to read.
Read it and read about Muhammad’s life and you’ll understand what so called “Islam” (“peace through submission” in Arabic) is.
I have only one question. Can women worship with men and be imams in their mosque?
If no, then you don’t have equality and it is wrong.
It’s because people assume it’s just a phase for her, like being a lesbian or being Catholic. None of those lasted.
But theres a point here - what does it really matter if she does? People aren’t static, we all have constant varying degrees of change in our lives and our perceptions of the world around us - I think it’s worthwhile and even noble to try and find words to communicate those changes.
She said so herself, right? Like, we identify with the labels that’ll help people outside ourselves understand best where we’re at - sometimes we change, sometimes we find a more accurate label that articulates something the last one we identified with couldn’t quite reach.
Sure it’s reflective work for the perceived and asks a bit more headspace to process things in that frame for the perceiver - but we’re people. When we commit to being honest (for lack of a better word), we’re never going to live as simple narratives for others.
Sure. But should Muslim fans be proud of her Muslim identity as the article says, when she was also at different times a Catholic and given enough time might have become a Buddhist?
Did she take religion seriously?
But her being a great singer will last forever. Which is what we are remembering. Kinda weird that people are shaming that. Celebrate peoples talents and the things that brought them joy, not what was controversial or brought pain.
I just found out she converted to islam after her departure. I’ve been thinking about this.
It is easy to believe a religion is “the good one” when it’s under represented because the members of the religion don’t really have the power over the society so they don’t, or can’t, hold other people down with their extremist ideals.
When I first left islam I went through something similar. Here majority is muslim and other religions are scarce. So christians seemed like peaceful modern people minding their own business, respecting women and stuff. Which they were. But as I learned about the church and bible and all that, I understood I failed to analyze the religion as a whole properly. I just looked into a very small window and thought that was the whole thing.
Christianity was the antithesis of islam for me for a while. It’s the same with the artists and rich white folks who convert to islam. They get new eccentic sounding names and their melodies change. But they never really live in a real muslim community nor they experience a VERY oppressive muslim culture. They get this image of a religion where you casually cover your head if you want to and nobody cares about anything other than inner peace. Which is cool but far, far from any kind of reality.
Almost as if organized religion backed by a majority potentially intertwined with the state is what is really repressive and backwards.
Yeah, that’s what it boils down to.
My train of thought was more directed towards trying to understand her mindset and why she converted.
Edited a word
That’s insightful, thanks for sharing your views on this
because her religion had nothing to do with what she was famous for. Who the hell cares which fantasy book she liked the best.
I do feel like her relationship with religion was very much woven into her legacy.
Almost every article I read yesterday mentioned that she converted to Islam. They didn’t spend a lot of time on it, because it happened relatively recently and the articles mostly hit the highlights that most people would know, like the songs she released in the 90s and the infamous incident on SNL that resulted in an informal ban in the US.
Yeah this is just a shitty ragebait sharticle. In most countries, someone’s religion is a private matter and isn’t mentioned more than in passing in an obituary
If people are getting wound up about it, they’re probably stupid cunts looking for something to get wound up about
Because nobody in the west likes Islam.
There’s a fair amount of racism wrapped up in that sentiment that can’t be ignored, but Islam hasn’t exactly done itself many favours in the PR department.
Pre-2001 it was a kooky religion that popstars converted to and changed to a funny foreign sounding name and you’d hear little else about it. Maybe your local corner shop owner would get out his prayer mat to the bemusement of locals.
Post-2001 Muslims are scary bearded men with hooks for hands. They hate our way of life and we instantly feel less sympathy for them when we hear the word Muslim. If the Serbia/Kosovo situation had kicked off in 2002 instead of 1998, we’d have taken the Serb’s side on it.
PR? The story right above this one in my feed is about a woman getting Spanish citizenship because she’s afraid of going home after not wearing a hijab.
There is some racism. And there is some well deserved criticism as well.
It was the Bush administration that used their cultural differences as a justification for their hatred of the west. Of course, Bush could have just mentioned what Al Qaeda actually said, which was that they were a reaction to the US military, money, and support meddling in the Middle East. But then that might draw negative attention from legitimate concerns the Middle East has, which means the terrorists win according to their tortured logic, so instead “they hate us for our freedom”.
slam hasn’t exactly done itself many favours in the PR department.
Why should people numbering billions have to think about what wealthier populations think about them? Seems bigoted in itself.
You’re saying it like there’s no wealthy Islam. Obviously you’ve never heard of the middle east.
On average those countries are either poor, propped up by wealthy populations to do our bidding, or heavily sanctioned into immiseration for the common people.
Uhh, if anyone wants to highlight religion, especially a change of religion, to someone’s early death please feel free.
It’s just religion. Any fanatism should be ignored.
Unfortunately many religions are fanatic.
You’re welcome to downvote me into the depths of the underworld now.
Honestly I’ll never understand why she chose to go down that path. Becoming Muslim goes against everything she stood for. I just don’t get it.
One social media user said imagery of the singer without the hijab points to the glaring lack of Muslim reporters in newsrooms.
So we can’t use images of Sinead O’Conner pre-2018 when talking about her legacy and remembering her work?
One social media user said imagery of the singer without the hijab points to the glaring lack of Muslim reporters in newsrooms.
So we can’t use images of Sinead O’Conner pre-2018 when talking about her legacy and remembering her work?
My guess is that it’s probably more like a Muslim would point out that it would be more respectful of the dead to not use a headshot that the dead would consider immodest.
I’m not sure it’s that big a deal:
I wear it when I feel like it. There’s no rules as such.
The media, especially the tabloids, have been like vultures, picking apart her life, her mental health, her marriages, her kids, etc, since her death. There’s no dignity in death when you’re famous.
Tbh. I think religion should always be a private thing and should have no place in public.
While religion can be very problematic and causes much conflict and suffering, I don’t think you can expect people to be silent about something that for them is so important, personal and central to who they understand themselves to be and how they live. To demand silence on something so important to them is a little reminiscent of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to other aspects of people’s identities.
To demand silence on something so important to them is a little reminiscent of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to other aspects of people’s identities.
The big difference in the room is that DADT was regarding something intrinsic to a person, and religion is a choice. I see fewer problems when it comes to telling people to keep their personal choices to themselves. Not in “it should be illegal” but in “it should be socially shunned”. Like, treat religion like you would a hot new MLM that will definitely get you rich while working from home 4 hours a week. If that’s what you want, fine, but telling people about it in a public setting is uncomfortable and awkward and I really wish you just wouldn’t. If you get what I mean.
This comment here is a breath of fresh air on the internet and it will be lost on most. To call certain members of society fascists for trying to closest off certain identities and ideologies and then ask for the same of others.
The problem of today’s society is the lack of self-reflection. We “know” when others are “wrong” but can’t see ourselves when we are aggressive.
That’s why it should be private. No one wants to hear it. There’s tons of really important stuff in my life that I keep close to the chest. And as far as don’t ask don’t tell, yeah I mean, that shouldn’t mean repression, that should mean personal agency over your privacy.
Surely personal agency is to be able to tell people if you want to, not to be required to be silent until asked.
In this hypothetical scenario, no one will ask. That’s the other half of that platitude.
