There are at least two Orthodox Jews reading this thread, and I’m sure I can speak for cmkeller to say that we’d both love to hear something a bit more specific.
She’s a very loud far-left feminist sociologist who is viewed by some as being “among the leading public intellectuals of her generation.” If that is indeed true, there’s not much to be said for this (my parents’) generation.
A “relatively recent idea”? Yes, everywhere. Let us remember that when the U.S. was founded, there had never been a democracy or republic in all of recorded history that allowed women to vote – with the arguable exception of the Iroquois Confederacy. Among the Iroquois, only men could be chiefs, but the chiefs were elected by councils of women.
That’s as much as to say that the prime purpose of the male of our species is to sire children. As a male, I do not think I will regard my life as having been wasted, if I never father a child. Was Christ’s life wasted? Was Leonardo da Vinci’s? We are humans, not dumb animals, and as sentient beings we get to invent purposes for ourselves that Nature never thought of.
The problem of literacy is a problme of the whole MENA region, as it is a problem of many developing countries.
It affects both men and women yet it affects these days more people of the older generations then the young ones.
To state that women in the ME have no education is ridiculous.
To write the nonsense Milum comes up with about women in general borders hate speech to me.
To gain some insight in how the system of segregation between the genders works, how it is kept in place by all means possible and why that is, I recommend the works of the sociologist Fatima Mernissi.
To Milum:
Sorry for you , but that author is a woman.
To those who hold on to the idea that women do not have the right on education:
Sorry for you, but she was born in the MENA region(more specific: she is Moroccan.)
For those who think the USA brings such great opportunities for the Iraqi women, things they “did not have before”.
Sorry, but regarding the status of women this invasion was the worst thing that could happen to them.
Chances are great that Shia lunatics who already now try to get family law under (their version of) the shari’a will gain much more influence in the future.
I hear the women in Iraq already scream : Hail Bush! Hail USA! from under their shador or inside the house while occupied with the children.
Salaam. A
Just out of curiosity – what position do you think Mohammed would have taken on all that? Perhaps the question is meaningless – he died centuries before feminism was even thought of. But it’s certainly a question even secular Muslims will be asking themselves, isn’t it? What would Mohammed do?
Well, if Riverbend is any indication, they love him anyway. :-p
What would he do about what, BG? Are you asking what were Muhammad’s opinions on women’s rights? Or what is the position of Sunnism / mainstream Shi’ism on women’s rights? Or how he’d feel about the invasion of Iraq?
I am asking, what would be Mohammed’s opinions on the women’s-rights situation in Iraq right now, assuming he miraculously were alive again, or could look down on the situation from Paradise.
It’s pretty much the same kind of question Christians pose when they ask, “What would Jesus do?”
**Aldebaran **: .
To write the nonsense Milum comes up with about women in general borders on hate speech to me.
Now now, Aldebaren, you who can’t converse properly in the English language, can’t possiblity discern “hate speech”.
Now be a good little Arab and apologize. 
The comparison between Jesus and Muhammad isn’t a very good one, unfortunately. Since Jesus, in the opinion of Christianity, was the son of God and God at the same time, he could make divine law just by his say-so. In Islam, Muhammad was a mere mortal man, though a very pious one, and thus not entitled to create law, but merely to pass it down from God. So Muhammad’s opinion would be persuasive, but not law in and of itself.
That said, I believe that Muhammad would take issue with many more things in Iraq before he would take a look at the situation of women. For instance, he certainly wouldn’t want an American governor in charge, nor even a secular governing council. He would want a religious government, ruling in the way of God (what’s usually called shari’a law). Such a government, if it followed God’s law closely, would naturally give women all the protection they’re entitled to. (Note the word ‘protection’ rather than ‘rights’. Talk of ‘rights’ is unhelpful this context - it won’t get us anywhere if we’re trying to get inside Muhammad’s mindset.)
Women would be safe and protected by God’s law, but would not have the same role in society as men. For example, they probably wouldn’t have a role in government, and could own a business but not be out on the streets running it.
The kind of situation for women as envisioned by Muhammad would be unacceptable to most Westerners today, as well as most Iraqis. As I’ve noted before, the Saddam regime was relatively liberal as women’s rights went, certainly closer to today’s situation in the West than Muhammad’s concept.
No, Milum. You, who can’t spell a poster’s name correctly, learn how to use quote tags, or participate in a discussion without intentionally offending as many people as possible, should not be posting on these boards.
So . . . is it possible to ascribe rights, as such, to women, and still be a good Muslim?
For that matter, in the Islamic ethical world-view, do men have rights? As we understand the concept of “rights” in the West?
Tough questions, and debatable ones.
Both sexes have certain ‘rights’ and responsibilities in Islam. I’m of the opinion that they can’t quite be called rights, as this idea suggests a great deal of classical Western liberal thinking. A major difference between ‘rights’ in Islam and rights in classical liberal thought is that the rights in Islam come as one big package, and they all come from God.
That is, God says that there are certain things you are allowed to do, certain things that you must not do, and certain things that you must do to be a good Muslim. It’s a big mix of permissible things, forbidden things and good things - it is a solid legal system rather than a purely philosophical one.
If you accept this as a system of ‘rights’, then men do have rights, and women do have (different) rights. But since there isn’t the sharpish delineation between rights and everything else, you might say that women have the right to be protected, safe and happy, and to raise a family in peace. Not quite what you or I might think of when we hear the word ‘rights’.
Therefore, in a traditionally Muslim society, it might take a while to move from the idea of rights which are given by God and by the state, and thus revocable when necessary, to the idea of innate and inalienable rights.
Without the Western concept of innate rights as supreme, it’s hard to have the idea of a social contract, for example. No Islamist government gains its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, but only from the mandate of God.
Please remember, though, that most of the Middle East has been hearing these ideas for at least a century. That there aren’t more democratic governments around and a more Westernised political system is partly the result of political and economic turmoil, and can’t just be attributed to a dominance of Islam in everyone’s mindset.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Milum, cool it. NOW, please.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
OK…goodnight. :mad: