I’m sorry, but the above statement is a cop-out.
You proclaimed:
You’re not talking about “associations” or perceptions in that statement, you’re specifically claiming that women have it “worse when in a country which enforces Islamic law.”
When proven wrong you’re trying to use the “this thread is about associations not truth” line to hide behind rather than simply admit you were wrong.
How do you figure? Would you care to compare and contrast economically similar countries and their gender development?
I know I’d much rather be a poor Muslim girl from a remote village in Burkina Faso than a poor Hindu girl in a remote village in India. Treatment of women seems to be much more strongly associated with geography and economics than religion. Indeed, in many parts of the world, Islam is still an improvement over the traditional way of doing things. Islam does given women some rights in marriage and society, which is a huge step up from treating women as chattel slavery- which was the global norm for a lot of human history.
Nothing wrong in saying that both options are sub-optimum though.
Islam gives some rights you say? well hurrah for that. The fastest growing religion, one with a definite political identity and expansionist policy gives women *some *rights?
You’ll forgive those of us living in the 21st century for our lack of applause.
“Those blacks were being treated worse than cattle, our own code of slavery ensures that they have at least 1 square meter each on the ships and can be beaten no more than twice per week”…A. N. Enlightened slave owner circa 1800
It may be better than the worst imaginable circumstances but that is no reason to defend it. When it fully embraces the equality of all humans, I’ll cut it some slack.
The WHOLE DISCUSSION is about peoples perceptions!
And we’ve moved on into the modern era. We need these religions to come along, too.
This. Again, a PERCEPTION based on the experience of a typical westerner who cares about gender equality, a common cause.
(bolding mine)
IMHO, the media pays more attention to atrocities committed by radical Muslims because of the simple fact that there are far more radical Muslims committing atrocities than radical Christians.
(Not that I’m defending them, just for the record.)
(bolding mine)
+1!
(bolding mine)
It may not be clear to you, but it looks pretty damn crystal clear to me, from my perspective.
(And JFTR, I’m a man.)
Cite please, for the statement, “women are treated better in Iran than either China or India”? :dubious:
And since you’re providing ‘examples’, I’m curious as to why Saudia Arabia was not trotted out as an example of a predominately Muslim country, where women are treated better.
Quite a few things actually:
Lashkar-e-toiba, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Haram, Hamas, Repression of women, Homosexuals, Sharia, intolerance, hypocrisy, forced conversions, Ghettos which are risky for kafirs to go to, Religious Madrassas, idiotic and cruel killing of animals for sacrifice to God or for food.
In short - A Cancer for civilized world.
I am an Indian BTW.
The very first thing I think of is the Taj Mahal, almost always.
The Muslim emperor had craftsman’s hands cut off , so he would never be able to duplicate the structure.
This. But then I also think of the astounding Islamic architecture, and it’s hard for me to reconcile that the same religion that creates so many beautiful buildings like the Alhambra can be so oppressive.
That’s just a myth.
You mean just like all those really pretty Christian cathedrals from the equally oppressive Christian religion? For that matter, the Nazis were quite good at spectacle, and they certainly qualify as “oppressive”. The ability to make cool looking things doesn’t have much to do with how nice you are.
Romantic myth. There is zero contemporary evidence pointing to any such event. Wouldn’t have made much sense, anyway. Not only were thousands of craftsmen involved in the construction, but Shah Jahan was always building something, some of which like the Jama Masjid in Delhi, post-date the Taj Mahal. Hardly make sense for him to dispose of craftsmen he’d need for further projects. Indeed we know the names of some of the chief designers and there is no record of any them ending up with their eyes gouged out or hands cut off.
Thats mentioned in Indian history textbooks which glorify Islamic rulers so as to not ‘offend’ sentiments of Indian muslims. So, when Indian text book mentions a bad deed of an Islamic Ruler, it has to have good level of credibility.
Various forms of persecution including mutilation were common under Mughal rule, so it wouldn’t have been that big a deal.
Gangs of young criminal and violent immigrants.
A woman in a hijab. Not niqab. Wearing black.
Maddy jihadis.
Neckbeards, and hats made out of doilies.
Not really, I’m afraid. Religious nationalism of various stripes has unfortunately been an issue in India. The period of BJP rule in 1998-2004 in certain areas seems to have been particularly guilty of this.
This is hardly unique to India, either. The rise to dominance of nationalistic ideologies in the 19th century led to all sorts of biased claptrap all over the world ( ETA: well, I guess I should add that biased claptrap has been the stock in trade of historians for millenia, but we’re talking recently ). Just anecdotally in seems to me that many Eastern European countries have been particularly prone to overtly nationalistic-tinged textbooks that tended to distort history on the margins. Such histories needn’t even be blatant lies, more often they tend to be guilty of uncritical acceptance of propagandistic or hagiographic contemporary sources. So for example when Herodotus claims there were 2.6 million soldiers in Xerxes I’s invasion army, one should be wary of taking that at face value ;).
At any rate, no, I wouldn’t trust that anecdote even if it got printed in an Indian textbook. As I noted there really doesn’t seem to be any evidence of such an event and frankly it is illogical. Not because the Mughals were sweethearts, because they certainly weren’t. But rather because as I noted savaging thousands ( or even dozens ) of craftsmen when you have numerous other projects for them doesn’t make much sense.
You probably do not have much idea about India.
Indian potilics has always been about psuedo-secularism, muslim appeasement because of them being a substential (14-15%) portion of our population. Tens of thousands of kilometers of borders with islamic neigbhors especially pakistan which will seek any opportunity to fuel religious divide in India.
In a secular country of India, the ruling party recently announced reservations\quotas for Muslims for political gains, which was quashed by courts. If servers of straightdope were in India, I would have feared of being jailed for writing anti-Islamic stuff for the possibility of my location getting revealed.
Marriage laws are different in our nation for Muslims and for everyone else. A Muslim man, at any point, can have as many wives as he wants and be divorced just by saying ‘divorce’ 3 times.
Its all about Muslim appeasement here in India.
According to Indian textbooks, the hands of chief architect were cut off not of every worker.
The very first thing I think of is a picture of the Kaaba, surrounded by rings of pilgrims circling around it, absolutely filling the courtyard.
A Palestinian girl I went to high school with, and her birthday party, which was all girls and featured the most boring game of truth-or-dare I have ever seen.