Actually, trying to twist what I have said does nothing to make yoir point. I have not said “that Muslim countries aren’t sexist.” Our initial exchange was
I freely acknowledge that there are Muslim countries that are clearly sexist. (There are also Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, secular, and other countries that are clearly sexist.) However, your claim is that there is a variety of sexism that is particular to Islam and pervasive within Islam that may have stunted the development of all countries that are significantly Muslim. I have merely asked that you demonmstrate your claims. Your first few attempts to defend your position were simply to repeat that “everybody knows” your position and your later attempts (when you finally began providing some support) were to link to sites that have a particular grudge against Islam (and that used the same vague generalities as you had used), to a couple of articles that talked about sexism related to specific cultural regions, and to a couple of reports that talk about the sexism of Islam in the way that NOW would talk about the sexism of American society.
If sexism is rampant in all societies, then pointing to sexism in Muslim societies does not provide a special hindrance to development.
If sexism is particularly bad in a limited number of countries that are coincidentally Muslim but does not appear in all Muslim countries, then it is not legitimate to lay the blame on Islam. Your specific allusions to the chador, to honor killings, and to humiliation rape are clearly not true in Southeast Asia (or even in every country in the MENA reagion). So what is the particular sexism that is “endemic” to Islam that differs from the sexism endemic to the Christian West or the nominally secular West or the sexism that is endemic to Hindu and Buddhist nations?
“Rank sexism endemic to Islam” has not been established. That there are specific regions of the world that are both Muslim and misogynistic has not been denied.
(A search for chador in GD and the PIT should turn up a couple of those discussions.)
It seems while I was away reading the Koran, this thread has taken off without me. Excellent points, Kimstu, Angua, tomndebb. Good to know that some Dopers are actually using evidence (!) to fight ignorance.
(And this if for Jojo.) The Koran and the Bible, read side-by-side, are very similar.
This point has been wel illustrated in above posts: Political and economic underdevelopment in certain countries cannot be attributed to a specific religion. All nations have gone through under- and re-development, regardless of religion. Besides which, being rich and powerful does not make majority Christian nations better. Likewise, a nation’s Christian character is not the factor that makes it rich and powerful.
My supervisor is wrong to not recognize this. If he said “I hate Blacks,” he would be called racist. If he said “I hate Blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos, Arabs, Jews and every other ethnic group,” he would be called not a racist but a misanthrope. Likewise, him saying “Muslims are backward,” shows him to be a bigot. No way around it.
Of course they can become entwined but they are still different. Culture is a set of customs and traditions dating back over time while religion is a set of ideological strictures that comes from a particular book (at least Christianity, Judaism and islam - particularly islam).
Cultures can change and develop over time since they don’t have any kind of written manifesto to which they must adhere. If we decide we don’t like something within our culture then we can positively work to change it.
Religion is inherently resistant to change because it’s the word of God. Even if we don’t like something in our religion we are not allowed to change it. I’m not saying that religions can’t change but it’s not an easy process. You may say “well it’s good that religions don’t change, religions should be immutable since they are believed to be the word of God”.
Well ok, but what if that religion is wrong? Do you want a large part of the world to cling blindly to a doctrine that is wrong?
Not at all, I was talking about jezyah which is set down in the quran. It is totally a muslim concept not just a concept that coincidentally happens to exist in muslim countries.
Captain Amazing said:
No I’m not aware of any muslim countries where it is enforced either, at least enforced by the state but that doesn’t mean it’s not still valid. Far as I’m aware it’s still “on the books” that is, it hasn’t been abrogated by a later verse in the quran.
You quite rightly take a practical view of things and say:
“Well if it isn’t being enforced anywhere, why worry about it?”
You need to understand where I’m coming from. Islam is an ideology with a set of rules and regulations. All I’m interested in is whether this ideology is right or wrong. I’m not out to offend muslims or even to decry islam.
Angua belongs to a sect that no longer has jezyah (Ahmadi?) but most muslims you speak to will defend jezyah because it’s still on the books - Aldebaran, where are you?
You’re kind of right and kind of wrong. Yes non-muslims pay jezyah and muslims pay zakat. The theory being that non-muslims receive the protection of the muslim state. But it’s not a case of non-muslims not having to serve in the army, non-muslims are not allowed to serve in the army.
There’s a difference because once again we are seeing religious discrimination. The whole dhimmi concept is all about religious discrimination. Islam is inherently religiously discriminatory.
You say:
“I’m pretty sure that was the logic behind jizya…Non-Muslims had to pay it in lieu of military service.”
That’s not the logic behind it so much as the practical effect of it. The logic behind it is laid out in the verse from the quran that I mentioned earlier. It’s a tax to be paid by the defeated to the victors, a humiliation tax. And this tax is just the most visible manifestation of dhimmitude - there are other things.
Other aspects of dhimmitude include not being allowed to build new churches or synagogues. Take a look at Copts.com. You need to understand where islam is coming from - it thinks it is the right religion and all other religions must be suppressed because they are blasphemy. Consider the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. All criticism of Mohammed and islam is pretty much banned in most islamic countries.
We’ve lived with islam in the world for 1400 years so I’m sure we can continue to live with it so it’s no big deal - I just think it’s quite majestically wrong is all. It’s not a culture, it’s an ideology. It’s foundations are laid out in one book. I happen to disagree with that ideology but more than that, I think most people (even muslims) would disagree with it if they were able to look at it with any degree of emotional detachment (but that’s just my personal view, I’m quite good at looking at things with emotional detachment).
No islam and christianity are not synonymous. I wish people would stop saying this. They are different ideologies, they say different things, they have different attitudes.
The only thing that they have in common is that they’re both wrong.
I don’t wanna get into the pissing contest between Tom and Evil but as regards sexism in islam, I think a more productive line of inquiry is to look at those things which are actually contained in islam’s teachings itself. For example, in Pakistan they have a law that a rape victim must produce 4 male witnesses or 8 female witnesses.
If she fails to produce these witnesses then she runs the risk of being punished for adultery or making a false charge.
Now all this is wrong on so many levels it’s hard to know where to start but it’s the current law in Pakistan (I think Musharraf wants to change it). This law is NOT connected in any way to Pakistan’s cultural background - it’s pure islam.
For which you are going to mine the Qur’an for Suras that say things you find repellent? Even dismissing Christianity, you have to recognize that there is a lot in the bible (or even the New Testament) that has little bearing on the lives of Christians in the current world. Looking at the raw text of ancient religious works is about the least instructive way to see how the religion shapes the world in which it is practiced. (At minimum, you need to look at the scripture in conjunction with the Talmud, the Hadith, or the declarations of the Councils and the ongoing commentary by theologians along with pastoral decisions made by actual leaders in the real world.)
This is equally true in the secular realm. It is nice to read the Declaration of Independence from time to time, but reading that document without looking at the historical milieu from which it sprang, the history of the country as it gained independence, the travails of the Confederation, the creation of a Constitutional Republic, and all the history since then, including a civil war, slavery, the abuse of former slaves and immigrants, genocide, isolationism, imperial power, reactions to unbridled capitalism, reactions to the labor movement, external threats, internal threats, and eventual status as a (later the) world power is required to understand where the country stands, today. The DoI simply does not explain it.
If Evil Captor and TomDebb don’t mind a newbie jumping in, I think I can add a bit to the conversation.
I returned in August 2003 aftert living in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates for four years. During that time I lived in the city, worked with the Arab population, and in general blended in as well as a 6’2", 260lbs balding white American could.
For reference sake, the UAE is a confederation of seven small Emirates, each with a heriditary family ruling it, with the Shiek of Abu Dhabi currently ruling the country for the last 34 years, based on election by his fellow Shieks. They practice the Sha’ira law as prescribed in the Koran and women dress in the Albaya, or head to two black covering. Some women cover all but their eyes, others leave their faces uncovered by the top of the head is covered. This is background.
Women in the UAE can obtain education through the University level, albeit in separate but equal education systems. They hold jobs, drive cars, and participate in sports–indeed, on of the Shiek of Dubai’s grand-daughters is a highly skilled Judo Player.
Non-Muslims are allowed to practice their religion, churches can be found, and I met a few Arab Christians that had been living there for years. There is also a large Hindu community of Guest Workers, although I would note that I saw no Hindu temples. The one rule seemed to be that you could not convert a Muslim from following the one true faith, and several Christian missionaries found themselves in jail for a day or two until being put on a plane out of country.
While practicing Sha’ria law (which is rather based on the Moasic law of the Bible), there were no executions or amputations while I was there and no women stoned to death for adultery (several were convicted and sentenced to stoning, but always were commuted to prison and whipping). Not that all is sweetness, as I noted, whipping is still a punishment and one Filipina maid went to jail for ripping up the Qu’ram in front of her sponser (she accussed him of sexual abuse, not sure how that case turned out).
In sum, it is a different country with different customs but hardly the backwards and manifestly sexist place one might attribute to the Middle East.
