# Ask another muslim guy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2006, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010 "2006-08-16T21:28:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/61 "2006-08-20T00:48:11Z")
NSMASTA – I have some questions regarding a woman’s place in Islam, in light of your earlier post on that topic: > [@](#): > > 1 ) Woman is recognized by Islam as a full and equal partner of man in the procreation of humankind. In the event of a divorce, what is a Muslim woman’s rights to care and custody of her children? > [@](#): > > It is reported in the Qur’an and history that woman not only expressed her opinion freely but also argued and participated in serious discussions with the Prophet himself as well as with other Muslim leaders. . . . Historical records show that women participated in public life with the early Muslims, especially in times of emergencies. So why are there some Muslim countries in which a woman cannot hold office? Are Muslim women generally extended the vote? > [@](#): > > In some instances of bearing witness to certain civil contracts, two men are required or one man and two women. Again, this is no indication of the woman being inferior to man. It is a measure of securing the rights of the contracting parties, because woman as a rule, is not so experienced in practical life as man. This lack of experience may cause a loss to any party in a given contract. What does this mean, “not so experienced in practical life as man”? How is the lesser valuation of a woman’s testimony justifiable in modern countries where women participate equally in public and private life as men? > [@](#): > > So the Law requires that at least two women should bear witness with one man. if a woman of the witness forgets something, the other one would remind her. Or if she makes an error, due to lack of experience, the other would help to correct her. This is a precautionary measure to guarantee honest transactions and proper dealings between people. This rationale doesn’t make sense to me. Regardless of whether a woman lives a secluded, wife-and-mother-based life at home, or an outside, professional-job-holder life outside, how is she more or less forgetful than a man? And how does a lack of experience lead one to make errors in what one has witnessed? > [@](#): > > Woman enjoys certain privileges of which man is deprived. She is exempt from some religious duties, i.e., prayers and fasting, in her regular periods and at times of confinement. It is my understanding that she is not merely voluntarily “exempted” from religious duties at such times, as she is involuntarily _excluded_ from full religious participation when menstruating, pregnant, or shortly after childbirth. Is this incorrect? > [@](#): > > The Muslim woman is always associated with an old tradition known as the “veil”. It is Islamic that the woman should beautify herself with the veil of honor, dignity, chastity, purity and integrity. How does veiling add to any of these things? > [@](#): > > She should refrain from all deeds and gestures that might stir the passions of people other than her legitimate husband or cause evil suspicion of her morality. Assuming a woman is behaving circumspectly and appropriately, why is it incumbent upon _her_ to cover herself head to toe to present a _man’s_ inappropriate thoughts? [quote] The veil which she must put on is one that can save her soul from weakness, her mind from indulgence, her eyes from lustful looks, and her personality from demoralization. [quote] Why is a woman’s soul particularly suceptible to weakness, her mind to indulgence, and her personality to demoralization? How is this view of a woman’s frailties consistent to deeming them equal to men? To me, there is a fundamental disconnect between “protecting” a woman, or “saving” her, by imprisoning her in a head to toe garment that impedes her freedom of movement and therefore inhibits what those jobs, tasks, and activities she can participate in. > [@](#): > > Islam is most concerned with the integrity of woman, with the safeguarding of her morals and morale and with the protection of her character and personality. Why is a woman’s integrity, morals, and character more in need of safeguarding than a mans? I appreciate your attention to these questions. As a Christian woman, I frankly have trouble understanding how any woman not raised in a restricted Muslim household would agree to put herself in head-to-toe purdah. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/62 "2006-08-20T01:56:25Z")
[QUOTE=NSmasta] hey people, may peace be upon all of you My name in Anas. I’m muslim. i’m new here, but please fell free to ask any questions about islam , and whatever is happening around the world that has a relation with islam, and i’ll try my best to answer… [/QUOTE] [sarcasm]So, in your opinion, should we kill you first and then convert you to christianity, or should we do it the other way around?[/sarcasm] ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/63 "2006-08-20T04:09:22Z")
[QUOTE=Monty] Here’s an interesting tidbit: some individuals I’ve met in the academic field of religious studies have made a very good argrument for modern Hinduism actually being a monotheistic religion. Their basis for that argument is that the various gods of Hinduism are just manifestations of one deity. [/QUOTE] Be that as it may, I don’t think those scholars think that that deity is the god of Abraham, at least as far as Muslims are concerned, and therefore not people of the book. ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/64 "2006-08-20T04:13:00Z")
I would like to know the original poster’s opinion of Osama bin Laden. Do you approve of his actions? If so, why? How should the West deal with him? Thanks for your help, Rob ---
**Author:** ![gum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bbe5ce/32.png) [@gum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gum)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/65 "2006-08-20T05:59:31Z")
**NSmasta** , How often is Al-taqiyya practised by muslims? Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/66 "2006-08-20T06:35:46Z")
[QUOTE=sweeteviljesus] Be that as it may, I don’t think those scholars think that that deity is the god of Abraham, at least as far as Muslims are concerned, and therefore not people of the book. [/QUOTE] You’d think so, but historically at least it hasw been a much debated and rather open question. This verse in particular has tended to muddy things: \*022.017 **YUSUFALI** : Those who believe (in the Qur’an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- Allah will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for Allah is witness of all things. **PICKTHAL** : Lo! those who believe (this revelation), and those who are Jews, and the Sabaeans and the Christians and the Magians and the idolaters - Lo! Allah will decide between them on the Day of Resurrection. Lo! Allah is Witness over all things. **SHAKIR** : Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and those who associate (others with Allah)-- surely Allah will decide between them on the day of resurrection; surely Allah is a witness over all things. \* Combined with verses that seem to acknowledge that the ‘people of the Book’ can reach heaven, this has led some ( by no means all ) authorities to take rather broad views. Certainly Umar added Zoroastrians to the list of protected peoples pretty early ( the “Magians” above were Zoroastrians ). In India: \*Whether the polytheists who confronted the Muslim conquerors within the Indian subcontinent could be classified as ‘people of the Book’, might appear at first sight to be a moot question. But in fact Baladhuri’s **Futuh al-Buldan** , one of the principal sources for the Muslim conquest of Sind in the early eighth century, tells us that the Arab general Muhammed b. Qasim treated the idol-houses ( **budd** ) on a par with Christian churches, Jewish synagogues, or Zoroastrian fire-temples. The term dhimmi was extended to embrace Hindu princes and their people who submitted and offered tribute, so that we read of the acceptance of dhimma status by the inhabitants of Dvarasmudra in 711/1311-12, the ruler of Tilang in 718/1318, and the rai of Nagarkot in c. 766/1364-5. The list of those prepared to recognize the Sultanate’s Hindu subjects as dhimmis includes not merely Hasan-i Nizami, Juzjani, Afif, Ibn Mahru, Abd al-Hamid Ghaznawi and the anonymous author of the **Sirat** , but also Barani, who as we shall see was by no means well disposed towards even the submissive infidel, and the supposedly uncompromising Tughluqid Sultan Firus Shah in his **Futuhat** , drafted originally as an inscription and hence for public consumption. Even the legal text of Firuz Shah’s reign includes several refernces to dhimmis, by which it clearly means Hindus. That the Indian polytheists who submitted to Islamic rule qualified, therefore, as ‘protected peoples’ seems to have won acceptance among a fairly wide spectrum of the educated Muslim community within the subcontinent…\* From The Delhi Sultanate: _A Political and Military History_ by Peter Jackson ( 1999, Cambridge University Press ). That describes the Delhi state - in the Mughal period, equally or even more explicitly “Nasirean” ethics ( after Nasir al-Din Tusi, a 13th century theologian who proposed the concept of an ideal society ruled over by a philosopher-king that included diverse social and religious elements ) prevailed at least down to the reign of Auranganzeb/Alamgir. Nasir’s rather theological opposite number, Ibn Taymiyya ( from which the fundamentaliswt Wahhabis and Deobandis derive their inspiration ), didn’t get any traction in India until the 17th and 18th centuries with the writings of Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Wali-Allah. And of course echoes of that theological divide continue down to this day. Another source that goes into this, especially the Nasirean impact, is The Languages of Political Islam: _India, 1200-1800_ by Muzaffar Alam ( 2004, University of Chicago Press ). - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/67 "2006-08-20T06:44:46Z")
I’m starting to think that this thread should’ve been called Ask The Guy Who Might Stop By Every Couple Days To Vaguely Answer 1 Or 2 Random Questions. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/68 "2006-08-20T11:37:56Z")
[QUOTE=NSmasta] good evening, i have never heard anything about not giving equal rights to both men and women.The status of woman in Islam was never a problem to begin with. [/quote] I wonder if the women would agree with that statement…? > [@](#): > > Her role is not less vital than his. By this partnership she has an equal share in every aspect; she is entitled to equal rights; she undertakes equal responsibilities, and in her there are as many qualities and as much humanity as there are in her partner. And yet, later on you say that she does NOT have equal responsibilities in regards to financial matters, and as for the civil affairs issue, I deal with that later with the relevant quote. > [@](#): > > She is equal to man in bearing personal and common responsibilities and in receiving rewards for her deeds. Yet it’s OK for her to receive less than someone else when her husband dies? > [@](#): > > Historical records show that women participated in public life with the early Muslims And yet, we see women systematically marginalized and excluded in many modern muslim socieites such as Saudi Arabia. > [@](#): > > In some instances man receives two shares whereas woman gets one only. This no sign of giving preference From my viewpoint you sure have a peculair viewpoint on “fair”. > [@](#): > > First man, is the person solely responsible for the complete maintenance of his wife, his family and any other needy relations. It is his duty by Law to assume all financial responsibilities and maintain his dependents adequately. It is also his duty to contribute financially to all good causes in his society. All financial burdens are borne by him alone. What about women who are the sole support of their families, without husband, brother or son but perhaps an ailing mother, several sisters, and a few nieces and daughters? Sounds to me like they’re SOL under this system. > [@](#): > > Secondly, in contrast, woman has no financial responsibilities whatsoever except very little of her personal expenses, the high luxurious things that she likes to have Oh, _really?_ When I was on my own I didn’t consider my rent and food to be “luxuries” but “fiscal responsibilities” equal to that of any man. I had no idea I was living in “high luxury”. > [@](#): > > If she is a wife, her husband is the provider; if she is a mother, it is the son; if she is a daughter, it is the father; if she is a sister; it is the brother, and so on. In other words, women are the perpetual wards of a male under this system and are thus never truly adults. What do you do with women with no male relatives? Put them in foster care? Find another family to adopt them? Force them to get married to a man, any man, to conform to the rules? > [@](#): > > If she has no relations on whom she can depend, then there is no question of inheritance because there is nothing to inherit and there is no one to bequeath anything to her. Right, because, despite being “equal” to men, women don’t get to own anything or accumulate enough wealth to pass it on to anyone else… or am I misunderstanding something here? A wealthy woman isn’t able to leave her money/possessions to another woman? > [@](#): > > However, she will not be left to starve, maintenance of such a woman is the responsibility of the society as a whole, the state. Ah, it’s worse than I thought - women without relatives aren’t put into foster care, they become inmates at state orphanages. > [@](#): > > She may be given aid or a job to earn her living, and whatever money she makes will be hers. She is not responsible for the maintenance of anybody else besides herself. So… if a woman without father or brothers becomes widowed she is not allowed to support her two daughters? What do you, take the kids away and give them to someone else? Or are they just left to starve? If their own mother isn’t responsible for them who the hell is? > [@](#): > > Thirdly, when a woman gets less than a man does, she is not actually deprived of anything that she has worked for. Bullshit. If she does the same work and gets less pay that’s not equal, plain and simple. > [@](#): > > In some instances of bearing witness to certain civil contracts, two men are required or one man and two women. Again, this is no indication of the woman being inferior to man. It is a measure of securing the rights of the contracting parties, because woman as a rule, is not so experienced in practical life as man. In other words, women are considered too stupid and naive to take care of their own affairs - even when educated to the equal of men. > [@](#): > > In fact, it gives woman a role to play in civil life and helps to establish justice. In my country we give women a role to play in civil life by allowing them careers, the right to vote, hold public office, and otherwise gain that experience in civil life that, apparently, your culture systematically deprieves them of. > [@](#): > > As a mother, she enjoys more recognition and higher honor in the sight of God So if she never has children, what? She’s screwed? > [@](#): > > She is entitled to three-fourths of the son’s love and kindness with one-fourth left for their father. How nice. How do you measure love in such a fashion, and how do you enforce _that_ particular rule? > [@](#): > > As a wife she is entitled to demand of her prospective husband a suitable dowry that will be her own. We don’t have dowries where I come from. In fact, a lot of people where I come from see that as a buying and selling of women, as if they were property. > [@](#): > > She is entitled to complete provision and total maintenance by the husband. She does not have to work or share with her husband the family expenses. What if her husband is disabled? Do they just get to starve, or, if she goes to work does she get equal pay since she is now supporting a family? > [@](#): > > She is free to retain, after marriage, whatever she possessed before it, and the husband has no right whatsoever to any of her belongings. But since it’s OK to pay her less for work and give her a smaller inheritance it probably doesn’t amount to much anyway, right? > [@](#): > > As a daughter or sister she is entitled to security and provision by the father and brother respectively. Again, women are seen as incapable of taking care of themselves. > [@](#): > > That is her privilege. If she wishes to work or be self-supporting and participate in handling the family responsibilities, she is quite free to do so, provided her integrity and honor are safeguarded. And if that “honor” isn’t intact apparently a large number of Muslims in the world think it’s OK to kill her - even if the Bad Thing that happened was not her fault but rather the criminal act of a man. > [@](#): > > The standing of woman in prayers behind man does not indicate in any sense that she is inferior to him. Woman, as already mentioned, is exempt from attending congregational prayers which are obligatory on man. But if she does attend she stands in separate lines made up of women exclusively . This is a regulation of discipline in prayers, and not a classification of importance. In men’s rows the head of state stands shoulder to shoulder to the pauper. Men of the highest ranks in society stand in prayer side by side with other men of the lowest ranks. But apparently women of any station are somehow not fit to stand shoulder to shoulder with a male pauper. Ah, yes, another fine example of equality. > [@](#): > > Moreover, no Muslim man or woman is allowed during prayers to touch the body of another person of the opposite sex. If men and women stand side by side in prayer they cannot avoid touching each other. You can’t simply stand further apart? > [@](#): > > Furthermore, when a woman is praying in front of a man or beside him, it is very likely that any part of her dressed body may become uncovered after a certain motion of bowing or prostrating. Excuse me? I am not in the habit of wearing attire that simply falls off my body because I moved. Seeing what some muslim women are forced to wear I can’t imagine this being likely for them, either. > [@](#): > > The Muslim woman is always associated with an old tradition known as the “veil”. It is Islamic that the woman should beautify herself with the veil of honor, dignity, chastity, purity and integrity. She should refrain from all deeds and gestures that might stir the passions of people other than her legitimate husband or cause evil suspicion of her morality. She is warned not to display her charms or expose her physical attractions before strangers. The veil which she must put on is one that can save her soul from weakness, her mind from indulgence, her eyes from lustful looks, and her personality from demoralization. Islam is most concerned with the integrity of woman, with the safeguarding of her morals and morale and with the protection of her character and personality (cf. Qur’an, 24:30-31). In my culture, the only people who hide their faces are those who are ashamed of themselves, such as criminals. Why do you force your women to conduct themselves as if they are ashamed of their bodies and faces? Why do you obligate them to act guilty by hiding their faces? > [@](#): > > By now it is clear that the status of woman in Islam is unprecedentedly high and realistically suitable to her nature. Her rights and duties are equal to those of man but not necessarily or absolutely identical with them. If she is deprived of one thing in some aspect, she is fully compensated for it with more things in many other aspects. So says a man… do the women really agree? > [@](#): > > The fact that she belongs to the female sex has no bearing on her human status or independent personality, and it is no basis for justification of prejudice against her or injustice to her person. But despite her “equality” her female status is used to justify depriving her of equal pay, equal freedom of movement, equal civil rights and participation, equal weight of testimony in court, equal inheritance, equal right to do something as simple as showing her face in public… > [@](#): > > And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but man have a degree (of advantage as in some cases of inheritance) over them (2:228). So women are equal until it’s inconvenient for men. I see. > [@](#): > > This degree is not a title of supremacy or an authorization of dominance over her. Then you are operating under a different definition of “a degree (of advantage as in some cases of inheritance) over them” than most user of English. > [@](#): > > It is these extra responsibilities that give man a degree over woman in some economic aspects. It is not a higher degree in humanity or in character. Nor is it a dominance of one over the other or suppression of one by the other. Prove this. Because from what I’ve seen, that’s exactly what this is - a dominance of men over women. Of course, since as you have plainly stated several times your religion mandates my death I suppose you could just disregard everything I say. I will also admit it accounts for considerable bias and hostility on my part, but then I am not disposed to feel good towards people who have no qualms in stating their God requires my death. The only peace Islam offers me is the peace of the grave, so don’t expect me to embrace that fate with open arms. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/69 "2006-08-20T11:50:02Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] I’m not sure where you are digging this up. The statements regarding killing have been references to apostates, not merely to people who are not Muslim. [/QUOTE] I’m sorry, but I can’t help but read > [@](#): > > and Allah also says that he may forgive any sin no matter how grave, **but will never forgive belief in many gods,** or spread lies about him. **Their can’t be any tolerance in this** one and only case and > [@](#): > > \*\*“Kill those who believe in many gods” \*\*Sura al-Tawba 9:5 As anything other than a death threat to those of my faith. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/70 "2006-08-20T15:28:54Z")
Couple of excellent posts **Broomstick** I doubt our Muslim friend will be back to offer any answers tho’ ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/71 "2006-08-20T16:47:15Z")
[QUOTE=chowder] Couple of excellent posts **Broomstick** I doubt our Muslim friend will be back to offer any answers tho’ [/QUOTE] I found this very interesting. Once a long time ago I was tempted by Sufism, by a guy from Poole. I’ve never looked into the Koran, but occasionaly asked people about it. eg: ex Indonesian ambassador to Germany, ‘alcohol is not wrong outside a mosque’ Recent: cornershop guy checking on his mobile for the pub for ‘breaking Ramdan’, the answer was it used to be allowed, but Mahommed got pissed of with too many people being drunk. Less recent: The selfish ba\*tards streaming out of the Domes on the Mount, where I live you pass around joints, they did not. This lad really alarmed me, he actually seems to believe the cr\*p he is spouting. Since I saw this thread I have been thinking I have a distinct aversion to people that want to kill me - and unlike many people I was brought up by WWII remnants ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/72 "2006-08-20T17:03:47Z")
What the HELL is up with the ads in this thread? "Obese Breasts Free to join. 1000s of pictures & videos of Big & Beautiful singles." ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/73 "2006-08-20T17:11:58Z")
[QUOTE=Monty] Here’s an interesting tidbit: some individuals I’ve met in the academic field of religious studies have made a very good argrument for modern Hinduism actually being a monotheistic religion. Their basis for that argument is that the various gods of Hinduism are just manifestations of one deity. [/QUOTE] Strictly speaking, since there is only one God, any worship is worshipping Him. The problem Jews and Muslims have is with the _form_ of worship - namely, the idolatry. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/74 "2006-08-20T17:24:44Z")
[QUOTE=Alessan] Strictly speaking, since there is only one God, any worship is worshipping Him. . [/QUOTE] I have a pretty fair authority that claims there are other gods that people are tempted to worship: '3) you shall have no other gods before me" ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/75 "2006-08-20T18:27:48Z")
[QUOTE=Broomstick] I And yet, we see women systematically marginalized and excluded in many modern muslim socieites such as Saudi Arabia. [/QUOTE] Geez, I’m not a Muslim but even I can see what a bogus cheap shot this is. We’ve seen women systematically marginalized and excluded in ALL societies pretty much since the invention of static agriculture; there is nothing unique about Muslim countries in this regard and it’s pretty obvious that when it comes to oppressing women, religion seems to matter little. Before we Westerners get too comfortable in the saddle of that high horse, let’s remember that less than a century ago women couldn’t vote in our countries, either - a period of time that constitutes a burp in the grand scope of human affairs. Christian countries have a fine history of genocide and oppression. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/76 "2006-08-20T20:37:32Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] Geez, I’m not a Muslim but even I can see what a bogus cheap shot this is. We’ve seen women systematically marginalized and excluded in ALL societies pretty much since the invention of static agriculture; there is nothing unique about Muslim countries in this regard and it’s pretty obvious that when it comes to oppressing women, religion seems to matter little. Before we Westerners get too comfortable in the saddle of that high horse, let’s remember that less than a century ago women couldn’t vote in our countries, either - a period of time that constitutes a burp in the grand scope of human affairs. Christian countries have a fine history of genocide and oppression. [/QUOTE] But “Christian countries” at least western countries are **way** beyond where they were a hundred years ago with regard to women. And western countries are way beyond Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has managed to acquire all the modern benefits from western societies yet their women are still stuck in the 7th century. Cheap shot indeed. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/77 "2006-08-20T22:32:36Z")
**NSmasta** - Maybe instead of quoting scripture from the Quran you can tell us what you personally believe and why you do or do not believe that way. Reading from the employee handbook does not mean I blindly follow it. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/78 "2006-08-20T22:55:41Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] Geez, I’m not a Muslim but even I can see what a bogus cheap shot this is. We’ve seen women systematically marginalized and excluded in ALL societies pretty much since the invention of static agriculture; there is nothing unique about Muslim countries in this regard and it’s pretty obvious that when it comes to oppressing women, religion seems to matter little. Before we Westerners get too comfortable in the saddle of that high horse, let’s remember that less than a century ago women couldn’t vote in our countries, either - a period of time that constitutes a burp in the grand scope of human affairs. Christian countries have a fine history of genocide and oppression. [/QUOTE] Complete bullshit and you know it. We’re not talking about 100 years ago; we’re talking about today. No one on this board was alive 100 years ago and can’t very well apologize for what happened back then. Conversely, no one on this board would allow the kind of barbaric treatment of women that is the status quo **TODAY** in many muslim countries including SA. “Bogus cheap shot” my hairy beanbag :rolleyes:. ---
**Author:** ![anu-la1979](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/47e85d/32.png) [@anu-la1979](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anu-la1979)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/79 "2006-08-21T04:16:48Z")
Those are very interesting sources, thanks for posting them **Tamerlane**. My questions are: 1. Don’t they presume Hindu submission to Islamic rule in order to qualify? What about the independent Maharashtrian kingdom organised under Shivaji Bhosle, who threw off Mughal rule? Wouldn’t the Hindus under such a kingdom still be shirk? 2. Are there any modern schools of thought that consider Hindus “people of the book”? As an Indian with many Muslim friends I have yet to hear one express the belief that Hindus are anything other than “shirk” (sorry, I don’t know how to spell it). I appreciate that there might have been splinter groups three hundred years to four hundred years ago that debated whether or not Hindus were entitled not to be massacred, but I have yet to hear of a modern source stating that we’re anything other than hell-bound. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010/80 "2006-08-21T05:53:01Z")
[QUOTE=anu-la1979] 1. Don’t they presume Hindu submission to Islamic rule in order to qualify? [/quote] Originally, certainly. It was kind of de rigeur you submit to be ‘protected’ ;). As frontiers became more flexible, accomodation more attractive, the wooing of Hindu princes more important, I believe it came to be more a general concept. Hindu nobility almost always formed a major section of the lesser nobility and gentry of ostensibly Muslim states and winning new political adherents in the name of territorial expansion often trumped religious conservatism. Indeed India is unusual in the extraordinary amount of syncretism that arose between Islam and Hnduism. Out and out syncretic faiths like Sikhism are only the most obvious manifestation of this. Sufism for example, much as the idea was resisted ( and often still is ) by the Sufis, was undeniably heavily influenced by Hindu mysticism. And in went in the other direction as well - Stewart Gordon in The Marathas, 1600-1800 ( 1993, Cambridge University Press ) notes that there is considerable evidence that many Hindus regularly prayed at the shrines of Muslim Pirs ( saints ) - the Sufi concept of Brotherhood and personal achievement having great resonance with some Hindus as a critique of the concept of caste. In the bhakti movement in particular ( which predated Islam ), which often challenged Brahminical orthodoxy, there was a number of attempts to bridge even the liturgical gap between Hindu and Muslim. > [@](#): > > What about the independent Maharashtrian kingdom organised under Shivaji Bhosle, who threw off Mughal rule? Wouldn’t the Hindus under such a kingdom still be shirk? Maybe to Alamgir, a notorious conservative in such matters, quite distinct from his forefathers ( or his elder brother Dara Shikoh, who made a Persian translation of the Upanishads and clearly considered Hindus and Muslims to both worship the same God - sadly he lost the civil struggle with his bigoted brother ). But even Alamgir’s orthodoxy didn’t compromise practicality. To counter Shivaji he enlisted Maratha nobles ( many of them with personal rivalries with the Bhonsles ) by the boatload - 96 were listed as amirs in the second half of his reign, comprising 16.7% of the total nobility, though they proved to be of dubious loyalty. Numbers courtesy of The Mughal Empire by John F. Richards ( 1993, Cambridge University Press ). So to is Shivaji’s Hindu orthodoxy exaggerated - he patronized a number of Muslim scholars who served him in an official capacity as judges and he recruited Muslim troops ( for example one group consisted of 700 Afghan mercenaries ). The interpenetration of the Muslim and Hindu worlds was at the time pretty damn extensive at most levels of society. > [@](#): > > 1. Are there any modern schools of thought that consider Hindus “people of the book”? I’m pretty sure at least some of the Indian branches of the Naqshbandi Sufis do. One of their most important 18th century saints considered the Vedas to include revealed truths, making them ‘people of the Book’. Even beyond that I have no doubt that many other moderate Muslims ( including other Indian-saturated Sufi orders ) would also agree with such thoughts, but I couldn’t even guess as to numbers and proportions. However certainly one shouldn’t ever assume that a particular member of a particular sect or brotherhood is automatically liberal. Mullah Omar of the Taliban was also once a Naqshbandi ;). But his brand of noxious Deobandism suffused with Wahhabi tidbits and backwoods Pashtunwali could hardly be considered friendly to any non-Muslim. - Tamerlane [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-another-muslim-guy/369010.md?page=5)