(My bold) Can you give one or two examples of where anybody has tried to justify the events of September 11 on these or any grounds, Neurodoc? The only people I’ve heard saying that the WTC attack was justified have been Osama and his friends, and I wasn’t aware that he posted to this board.
Side note on your side note. Re: “numbers and polls.” Please cite the recent methodologically coherent studies by which you’ve drawn your broad conclusions.
Define “large minority.” Would you concede that it’s a growing movment? What about the Saudi example?
Please explain what you mean by “the real people of Pakistan”?
That’s it for now. I’ll be abroad till Sunday eve. Take care.
It should be noted here that Islam originated in, as I understand it, a deeply misogynistic culture, and that many of Mohammed’s laws regarding the treatment of women were quite progressive by the standards of that time and place; for instance, I believe restriction to only four wives for a man, and the admonition that they must be all treated equally, was quite radical. I’ve heard that some female Muslim fundamentalits in repressive nations are actually agitating for greater female equality based on the letter of the law as stated in the Qu’ran. Middle Eastern culture and Islam theology are not the same thing, any more than feudalism is an integral part of Christianity. I refer you to The Muslim Womens’ League for further information here.
I’m quite certain that this is simply false. Jews and Christians are considered Peoples of the Book, and must be tolerated - and, historically, they have been. The repressiveness of modern Islamic nations is a historical anomaly; during the Middle Ages, Islamic kingdoms were known for being far more tolerant of Jews and Christians than Christian kingdoms were of Jews and Muslims.
Jihad. Does. Not. Mean. Holy. War.
Jihad translates as “struggle.” It refers to any struggle against evil, not necessarily violent ones. For instance, your personal jihad might be a struggle to control your temper, or to be more humble. In a case where, for instance, the right of Muslims to worship freely is threatened, and diplomatic efforts have failed, the idea of jihad may encompass warfare, but this is a small subset of the concept. In fact, there is a well-known Islamic saying that any military conflict is the “lesser jihad;” the greater jihad is the personal struggle for spiritual growth.
Also, everything I’ve heard about this since the attacks indicates that women are indeed included in those who must not be harmed in war, as are priests.
**
Yep, they did. And according to Islam, they’ll have to answer for disobeying the Qur’an.
I was not attempting to elaborate a detailed history of Islam in every nation since 622. I was responding, in general, to several statements such as
These statements are historically inaccurate. My suggestion to Neurodoc was to take the time to learn the history. You responded
I will agree that my statement was broad and unsupported, but I had made no comparison between current extremists and the teachings of the Prophet. Rather, I had pointed out that Neurodoc’s sweeping generalization needed to be addressed by a study of history.
When I get time, I will dig up some references regarding the general treatment of non-Muslims by Muslims throughout history. That is a legitimate request. However, your original objection was to a point that I was not attempting to make. (I’m not accusing you of setting up a straw man; I suspect we’re just talking past each other at this point.)
Regarding the rights of women: they tend to be affected more by local culture and tradition than by religion, but I will drag up some citations for that, as well. For the period of comparison? I will use the last 150 years–beginning at the time when, in many European-influenced countries, women were denied suffrage (until 1893 - New Zealand, 1902 - Australia (with restrictions), 1917 - U.S.S.R., 1918 - Canada (with restrictions), 1920 - U.S, 1928 - U.K., 1944 - France)***** and had to put up with special restrictions on inheritance, as well as being barred from law schools, medical schools, engineering schools, etc.
Turkey and Pakistan(!) have each already had women Prime Ministers–within fewer than ten years of the U.K. having their first woman PM.
I specified “western views of women’s rights” simply because I have read essays by literate, professional, Muslim women who do not consider that every single thing demanded of the world by N.O.W. should apply to them. I make no claim as to what they should want and I make no claim to know what percentage of the Muslim population they represent, so I specified that the general view of rights with which we would be familiar is that of a Eurocentric or Western society.
Regarding the “monolithic” nature of Islam: your statement that I had “omit[ted] women from your calculus. That’s half the population–and thus half the history you’ve overlooked.” certainly seems to imply a fairly broad characterization of Islam and Neurodoc (whose comments prompted my posting to this thread) has made much more sweeping statements.
Good example/bad example? I’m not sure of your question. Iran is a good example of a Muslim nation that is not being studied beyond 6:00 News preconceptions as it wrestles with its own traditions in the context of religion and culture. A bad example would be a nation which is wrestling with its culture which many Westerners have studied. Do you know of one?
*****(Portugal and Switzerland did not grant suffrage until the 1970s, quite a while after Syria (1949), Egypt, Malaysia, Mauritania, Sudan, Tunisia (1950s), and (pre-Taliban) Afghanistan, Algeria, and Libya (1960s).)
MODERN Islam theology can be roughly divided into two groups: progressive and those who are by-the-book.
The progressives claim that we shall be like Mohammed. Muhammed struggled for a humanization of society. (E.g. thieves were killed before - after Mohammed they got their hands cut off. It was a step in the right direction, at least.) Now, the progressive side of the fence says that since Mohammed struggled for a more humane “justice” system, we should walk further down the path he started - i.e. thieves being imprisoned rather than getting limbs cut off.
The other side claims that Mohammed didn’t just start up a path, he finished it. Since it says in the Quran that thieves should get their hands cut off, thieves should get their hands cut off. Period.
Just like in Christianoty, there are several lesser categories of muslims. Not as many as in Christianity - but they’re there. Saying that “muslims believe this” and that “muslims believe that” is a dangerous oversimplification.
Following your criterion of the last 150 years, have Christian women been forced into a western equivalent of the burkha, to the point where they have been physically beaten for displaying a wrist or ankle? Have Christian women been confined to their homes at nearly all times, and never to go out without accompaniment by a male relative? Have Christian Adultresses been marched into sports stadiums and shot in the head before crowds of jeering men?
Maybe if we go back to the Salem witch trials were women treated so badly, even then, some men were killed as well. Hester Prynne faced ostracism, not death, for her “crime”.
I must have misunderstood your posts, because I don’t see how you can say that the treatment of Muslim women and Christian women has been anywhere near equal.
milroyj wrote:
Um … I though The Scarlet Letter was fiction.
milroyj wrote:
Um … I thought The Scarlet Letter was fiction.
First Milroyj, let me thank you for allowing me to make my return to the board in my customary form. I was intending a rather longish commentary on the profiling issue and on Bahrain but it’s evening and I am tired. Oh, let me discourage anyone from welcoming me back. I’m afraid I am not sure how long I can stay.
But all that aside.
I suppose one should not let facts, accuracy and an understanding of history get in the way of preconcieved ideas, no? Well, at the risk of being a killjoy, I shall.
First, burqah or burkah might be somewhat more acccurate, although I rather suspect the difference would not be discerned by you.
Secundo, the burqah is not a universal Muslim custom. Indeed it is something of a eastern mashriq custom, found in areas of Iran, Afghanistan, the eastern Gulf etc. It’s certainly not universal, although the hyper-pseudo-traditionalists like the Taliban certainly have been trying to impose what is in many respects an innovation.
(A side note, I can’t recall reading on the precise range and history of the same, but I do recall the burqah/purdah usage being connected with pre-Islamic customs in the old classic Fertile Crescent area. Ironies of ironies)
Now it’s a bit hard to say what the western equivalent of the same might be, but we can certainly find highly restrictive dress codes in Xtian history.
And then we can also find large swaths of the Islamic world which did not even impose the viel (e.g. the Maghrebine berber communities).
And finally we can address the historicity issue: last 150 years, shall we say since 1850, has seen a fairly large scale movement in the Arab world (that does include Xtians) away from vieling in general, although the head scarf (hijab) in its various forms remains or has regained popularity in the Med. region
So many questions, so few facts.
Well, perhaps you should ask if that is the case in much of the Islamic world? Without excusing the idiotic macho abuses in the Arab world, your ascription of Taliban practices onto the entire Islamic world is neither logical nor factually founded. Although I have been largely absent for this fall, I do believe that there have been threads which have helpfully provided balanced, fair context and background.
In large part these kinds of comparisions are of little value. How much sense would it be for a Muslim to write a long treatise on how legally speaking, Islam has from the get go recognized women’s rights to hold property, and that seperately from even her husband? (Of course one could pick holes in this, but this is simply illustrative of how one can commence selective arguments…)
Fact and fiction.
Perhaps you might consider reading some history. I was going to advise Islamic history but it strikes me that some Western history would be well-advised also.
Well, Tom, if I may speak for him, I believe was attempting to comment on a broad range of experiences. See, on one hand, Women under the Taliban does not equal Muslim women’s condition nor does Western most-developed-nations’ women’s status = Xtian women status.
I hope to make some comment on those threads which I can be more helpful in shortly.
Hester Prynne was a fictional character? Really? I never knew.
Hmm, spelling and grammar checks are always good arguments in GD. Not.
Restrictive dress codes? Maybe. Where they beaten for violating said dress codes? Cite?
I’m sure Tom would like to speak for himself.
Drawing attention to the more obvious signs of your lack of command of the facts. Slight point to be sure, but getting the word right does suggest at least a passing familiarity with the issue. Not knowing that the burqah is a regional garmet and not even universal suggests otherwise. Or perhaps a deliberate distortion? Either way, not a terribly strong departure for an ‘argument’, no?
Firstly, you continue to confound Taliban and other fundamentalist practice with Islamic practice.
Secondly, I suggest you read into the history of English common law and the powers which a husband was given over his wife. Physical punishment for disobediance is specifically permitted, including disobeying the husband’s desires.
He is more talented than I, but we get along well enough that I think I can permit myself a correction on his behalf for a stunningly distorted reading of his post and indeed history.
Thanks, Col.
And how many women have suffered these insults in how many countries out of a world population of how many Muslim across how many countries? You are arguing from the specific to the general and ignoring all the contradictory evidence. The incidents you point out, as tagic and repressive as they are, are rooted in culture cloaked in religion. Those adherents to that religion who do not share that culture are not perpetrating the same oppression.
You did note that my statement that you quoted included both the phrases “in general” and “through history,” correct? Now your selection of a single set of events in a very restricted portion of even the Islamic world that has occurred in only the last 21 years hardly counts as a specific argument against a general statement covering 1500 years of history–or even 150 years.
You will also note (if you take even a cursory glance at the story of the fall of the Shah of Iran) that the women of Iran deliberately chose to wear the burqah as a specific act of defiance against the Shah’s prohibition. (They may have regretted Khomeini after he arrived, but they were initially arguing for the right to choose that dress.)
Along the same line of thought, the particular sect from which the Taleban has arisen was being treated as a marginalized faction throughout most of the 20th century because their fellow Muslims thought they were backwards. They are only players on the stage today because the U.S. government supported the Pakistani ISI in building up those groups that would later become the Taleban to the exclusion of other factions within the mujahedin. (The point is not to rehash U.S. policy decisions, but to point out that a specific set of circumstances gave great power to a minority faction; the Taleban does not “represent” Islam any more than Fred Phelps “represents” Christianity.)
You seem fascinated by the repressive dress laws in (current) Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and a couple of other places. If Islam in general is so repressive, then why are there no similar events occuring in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan (everyone’s current favorite “bad” Islamic country), Indonesia, or any of a dozen or more other Islamic nations?
On the other hand, As Col has noted, Islamic women have had consistently better property rights than women in Christian countries in general for a very long time. Note also the number of Islamic states where women were given the right to vote prior to even some European countries: Women’s Suffrage Timeline.
If you are arguing that Islam in general is extremely repressive towards women, selecting the aberrations within that collection of cultures does not seem to be a profitable way to do it.
Nor by CNN (burka), ABC (burqa), or CBS (burka), apparently.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/07/gen.uk.ridley/index.html
http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/gma/goodmorningamerica/gma011010veils_sawyer.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,243429-412,00.shtml
So who died and left you in charge of the proper English renditions of Arabic words, anyway? Do you likewise get your undies in a bunch if someone writes “Koran” or “Kandahar”? Which are correct between Osama vs. Usama and Taliban vs. Taleban? Enlighten us, O wise one.
Just for fun, the French also render the word “burqa”.
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/011024/1/25zs6.html
Are they wrong too?
My dear fellow. Please, you’re evading the real issue, which was your inaccurate attack on Tom’s statement and fairly willful ignorance.
Now as a trivial matter, you wrote burkha, which would be incorrect insofar as kha typically is used to represent an entirely different sound. Writing burkah burqa etc is simply an issue of transliteration, hardly worth arguing over.
Trivial I readily admit, I simply used that as a symbol for your evident lack of substantive knowledge about the issue. If you desire an apology (to the board not to you) for the waste of space on a triviality, I readily offer it insofar as the substance remains the same.
So, there you have it.
If I’m not mistaken, I believe Women’s suffrage in Russia was due to the Kerensky government, and NOT the USSR.
First of all, I did not “attack” Tom’s statement.
Second, nowhere did I implicitly or explicitly say that the actions of the Taliban represent all of Islam.
What I questioned was Tom’s statement that appeared (to me) to be saying that the treatment of Muslim women and that of Christian women have been equal in their respective societies.
But I do question that statement. Tom mentions property and voting rights, which Muslim women have enjoyed more of earlier than their Christian counterparts. Fine. But what about the physical violence towards Muslim women in some countries, up to and including death? It’s not the burqah or burkah 
or the other social restrictions I find appalling, but the violence.
Saying that the Taliban represents all Isalm (which I never did) is just as stupid as saying that Phelps represents all Christianity.
But Tom’s statement seems to swing the pendulum completely the other way to the point where the treatment of women in Muslim culture and in Christian culture are somehow equal. I disagree.
In how many Islamic countries is physical punishment of women meted out for infractions that we would identify as trivial? In those countries, are only women subject to those punishments and no men suffer from corresponding infractions?
In those countries where we determine that women are treated more harshly than men, how often is the harsh treatment due to a strict reading of the Qu’ran and in how many is the harsh treatment a cultural artifact that would occur regardless whether the nation was Islamic or Ba’hai?
For example, as has been noted already, Afghanistan was a moderately progressive society throughout the 20th century that looked upon one ethnic group, the Pashtun, and saw within it a smaller cult of backward-looking extremists. Aghanistan was nearly 100% Muslim and had women working in professional capacities, studying and teaching in universities, and living a normal 20th century life until the backwards cult was given the opportunity to impose their will on the rest of the nation.
There is no reason to equate any of the harshness of the Taleban with Islam, per se. So does anyone have evidence that Islam has made life more difficult for the women of Indonesia? Egypt? Syria? If Islam is the issue, the answer must be yes to these questions for a large percentage of Muslim countries. I see no evidence of repression outside the Arabian Peninsula, Afghanistan, and some small Afghan-influenced sections of Pakistan.
Rot and double rot. At best this is hypocritical backpedeling. You’ve cited behaviours which are nothing more than what you’ve read about the Taliban and practices and Afghanistan (e.g. the execution of adultresses in a stadium, the bit about the burqah etc) or perhaps more generously, Saudi Arabia and ascribed them willy-nilly onto Islam.
Both explicitely and implicitely you’ve implied that the extreme the idiocies of extremists are the yardstick for Islam. By such standards I might as well seek out extreme Xtian practices and talk about Xtianity as if it were a monolith.
His statement was neither extreme nor what you make it. He noted rather a wide range of practices and that * some * Arabo and Muslim nations have granted political rights to women in advance of some Xtian nations and that some of those nations have even seen women enter into the public arena (at least for some time periods) in greater numbers than in some Xtian nations. And his point was that the variations are large and significant, making a generalization based on Islam rather unfounded. One would no doubt do better to focus on a particular culture.
In short, he was refuting the very kind of simplistic equation that you clumsily and without much understanding of facts nor history, attempted to resurect.
I refer you to your denial above. How about learning as to whether there are physical, legally sanctioned punishments in countries other than Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and say Yemen? In short, here you display the exact same ignorance Tom and I have just taken you to task for, and which you have disingenously denied.
None of this is to whitewash continued discrimination in Arab societies in particular against women, continued idiot-macho behaviours but this is not the same as beatings for not wearing a burqah or executions.
Further, based on actual observation over years in the Middle East, I will note that the modern, urban Arab woman (the majority of the population) while at a disadvantage and suffering from discrimination, does not live in a world half as oppressive as some people’s fantasies. (Except in Saudi, to a lesser extent the other Gulf states and Yemen, which is one fucked up country). It could be and should be better, but it doesn’t match your fantasy.
Saying that the Taliban represents all Isalm (which I never did) is just as stupid as saying that Phelps represents all Christianity.
But Tom’s statement seems to swing the pendulum completely the other way to the point where the treatment of women in Muslim culture and in Christian culture are somehow equal. I disagree. **
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**
What a helpful contribution! So you tell us: which specific countries, do and which don’t “follow that practice”? Surely you have “taken the time” to research the point, so why hold us all in suspense? Or perhaps you’re just bluffing? So which is it? Are you as ignorant on the subject as those whom you castigate or are just playing school marm?