The Caged Virgin: A Muslim Woman's Cry for Reason

[Divernan]

This is a book review. In addition to the reviewer's comments, here's one quote:
"From a very young age, girls are surrounded by an atmosphere of mistrust. They learn early that they are untrustworthy beings who constitute a danger for the clan. Something in them drives men crazy . . .for this reason girls have to cover themselves, make themselves invisible. And for this reason they feel constantly guilty and ashamed, because it's almost impossible to live a normal life and be invisible to men."

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23110-2245016,00.html

The Sunday Times July 02, 2006

Islam
A plea to lift the veil on repression
REVIEWED BY KATE SAUNDERS

THE CAGED VIRGIN: A Muslim Woman’s Cry for Reason
by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Free Press £12.99 pp187


It is usual these days for old feminists to lament the apparent stagnation of the women’s movement, but we may have been looking in the wrong places. The next wave of energy will be rolling in from the East, when millions of chained women begin to question the religion that rules them body and soul. In Islamic countries, countless women are leading lives of appalling wretchedness. The women of the western world, who surely ought to be speaking up for them, are too timid to subject Islam to reasoned criticism. The author of The Caged Virgin, however, has no time for lily-livered political correctness. “Withholding criticism and ignoring differences,” she says in these essays, are racism in its purist form.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali lives under round-the-clock armed guard. In 2004, her colleague Theo van Gogh was murdered on an Amsterdam street by Muslim extremists. He had collaborated with Ali on a film about women and Islam, and the same extremists vowed to kill Ali. She refused to be silenced. This is a woman of exceptional toughness and bravery. In her angry clarion call of a book, she is not afraid to question some of the most sacred tenets of Islam. She also takes on the woolly liberals of the West. “Do you have to be mistreated, raped, locked up, and repressed yourself in order to put yourself in someone else’s position?” she demands. “Is it not hypocritical to trivialise or tolerate those practices, when you yourself are free and benefit from mankind’s progress?”

Ali has spent a large part of her life fighting to be free. She was born in Somalia in 1969. Her upbringing was strictly Muslim, though her father was modern enough to want his clever daughter educated. He also decided she should not go through the repellent custom of genital mutilation, in which a girl’s clitoris is removed and her labia stitched together. Ali fell out with her father, however, when she refused to marry the husband he had chosen for her. His total and cruel rejection of her, in the name of family honour, increased her fury at the sheer unfairness of her upbringing. She sought asylum in Holland, learnt Dutch and became a member of the Dutch parliament.

Ali is not particular about which political party she joins in order to get what she wants. In a way, her mission is too large for any single party. She is urging the West to judge Islam by its own standards. She is urging the Islamic world to take a look at itself. What Islam needs, she feels, is a swift dose of 18th-century enlightenment — it’s time to put down the Koran and pick up Voltaire. “We must structurally drive religion back to the places where it belongs: in the mosque and in the house.” Ali believes that religion — all religion — is the enemy of progress. The lives of Muslim women are constrained, she says, by the faith’s obsession with virginity. An unmarried girl is only as good as her hymen. If anything happens to that, the girl’s brothers may kill her to erase the family “shame” — there are 5,000 such killings around the world every year. Muslim women are the property of their menfolk. Countless millions of females are beaten and forbidden to leave the house. Ali is appalled that anyone should live by the rules of a faith that offers them so little in this world, and not much in the next. “Women can look forward to dates and grapes in paradise. That is all.”

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/islamandwomen/
Informative site on women’s role in Islam

[smirkymonkey]

1. Kicked & Recommended

Will comment later - I am at work now. Thanks for posting!

:kick:

[Divernan]

2. Request 1 more Recommend to keep this alive for the after work crowd.

nt

[Cleita]

3. I worked with a twenty year old Persian girl in exile many years ago.

She was Muslim and quite liberated. She dated and had a boyfriend soon to be fiancee. She was a student and worked part time in my department in a large university. Her mother and father were also very progressive, however, one day she told me that she wished she could go to Iran to visit her grandmother.

Then she started telling me her grandmother's story. She was married when she was nine years old and had five children before she was twenty.

"Can you imagine me," she said, with five children?"

I was a little taken aback and asked her why would her grandmother had been married off at such an young age. She said because the old people believe girls are bad if they don't get married young. The will tempt the men and lose their virginity. Well, I didn't ask her about her virginity. However, that story stuck in my mind. It isn't only Muslims that believe that. Other cultures are also as misogynistic, like gypsies and many eastern European cultures and asiatic cultures, who consider a girl who has lost her virginity damaged goods and not fit to be a wife.

There are many cultural customs that are often enforced with religion but often have little to do with the religion. I believe we need to help those women worldwide who are being abused by local customs, but we can't force our customs on them.

[Greyhound]

4. Even more than other religions, Islam has always mystified me.

Talk about a shitty lop-sided deal, I can't understand how so many people, especially women, buy into it.

OTOH, we have a generation or two of women here that had equality within their grasp and can't be bothered to take it, preferring, I suppose, the "easier" option of accepting the crumbs that men drop for them.

[Chulanowa]

5. Because it's not inherent to the religion

It's inherent to the cultures that happen to have adopted that religion.

[Greyhound]

8. I've never read the Koran, as my interest in religions was satisfied

many years ago, but isn't all of the subjugation of women dictated by it?

[LostinVA]

14. No, the Koran DOESN'T dictate any of

the anti-women practices of Islam.

[Greyhound]

18. Would you care to expand on this? It seems to be universal among

Muslims across the planet, at least that is what it appears to be.

[LostinVA]

20. Expound on what? The Koran doesn't mention this stuff

It's cultural, not religious, just like other posters have said. Islam is not fundamentally a religion that demeans and subjugates women. Christianity's and Judaism's scripture has WAY more anti-women stuff in it. The Koran has been perverted and twisted -- religious reasoning educated Iranian women have been using to try to get some of their rights back.

[Greyhound]

36. So Middle-Easterners, South Pacific Islanders, Europeans, and Asians

all came up with the rules on dress and acceptable standards of beating, mutilating, and killing women on their own?

I don't understand how this is possible, if it's not in the book.

[LostinVA]

54. It is NOT in the Koran n/t

[Greyhound]

59. Please explain the apparent anomaly.

This exchange is starting to sound like propaganda. If the repression of women is not dictated by the Koran, then how did well over a billion people in every part of the world decide that it is?

It is very easy, given the wide-spread practices of Islamic countries, to form an opinion that Islam is backward and repressive, I'm just trying to hear the other side, but you just keep saying it isn't so with nothing to establish that opinion (and no, I'm not going to spend the next week reading it for myself, the Xtians pulled that one on me and it turned out they lie).

Others have posted what appear to be passages that would seem to contradict your position.

[LostinVA]

61. No, you;'re starting to appear to be badgering me

If posters are quoting Koran passages saying women must cover their face and be FGMed, then they are making stuff up.

How is my stating the KOran doesn't say this propaganda? What???

I am not proving a negative nor doing research for you... very strange and aggressive post you just made.

[Greyhound]

63. Never mind. I asked a simple question which you have just danced around

without providing any information whatsoever. If you're a Muslim, I would think you have a vested interest in presenting the truth as you understand it, rather than letting your enemies dominate the conversation.

Apparently I am wrong.

[Cameron27]

65. ..

self-delete

[riderinthestorm]

67. I think I know what you are trying to articulate

Perhaps your goal is to try to discover if religious texts are somehow setting the stage for women to be treated as second class citizens - which usually sets them up for violence and abuse.

Religiously based "excuses" for poor treatment of women have been used historically for a long time. It's an interesting tangent.

That said, I do think that Islam and the Quran get unfair scrutiny. I'm not too keen on the Bible's portrayal of women for example and I believe it has been as culpable in global history's denigration of women as the Quran.

[Greyhound]

76. Absolutely. I rejected the Bible as a source of anything other than

a means of controlling those that prefer fantasy to reality early on. It was quite easy as there is no shortage of Xtians that are only too eager to tell me "the good word". Their book is just chock-full of absurdities presented as fact, but information regarding the Quran (thanks for the spelling correction) is not nearly as accessible (primarily due to the fact that I live in an almost exclusively white, RW, pseudo-Xtian, hell-hole) and I'm not qualified to make judgments about it without a great deal of study that I just don't want to do at this point in my life.

Obviously there are passages in the Quran that establish both subtle and overt subjugation of women, I was simply curious about how important they really are within the practice. The Bible is full of such crap, but only a teeny-tiny fraction of a percent of professed Xtians practice or advocate them, Muslims OTOH, seems to revel in the oddities of their book.

I was just looking to hear the other side.

[genie_weenie]

66. Post #39, has some of the anti-women sections in the Quran.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

99. Not true, or at least very misleading.

I know very little about Jewish religious law, but while the OT of the bible may be comparable in mysogyny to the Qu'ran (although "far more" isn't true, I think) a large part of the NT is devoted to making it clear that those bits don't apply any more, as I understand it.

I don't think the Qu'ran has been perverted, alas - I think it very probable indeed that Mohammed was every bit as mysogynistic as many of his followers.

[genie_weenie]

39. The Quran doesn't dictate anti-women practices?

2:228 And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them.

2:282 And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women

4:176 And if there be two sisters, then theirs are two-thirds of the heritage, and if they be brethren, men and women, unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females.

24:31 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment.

33:59 O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad).

[PsychoDad]

92. Happy Ramadan.

Here is an early Eid Present.

It's great when we read things out of context based upon what may be a flawed interpretation, Lets examine some of your proofs for Quranic discrimination against women.

First 2:228

Here is a better translation when considering the arabic meanings of 3 words in the verse. If desired, I can expound upon those, but the most accurate translation is:

"And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women."

Read that. Both sexes have rights over each other. No inequality there. There are biological and social differences between the sexes (duh.. right?). The Quran recognizes this and thus does not grant men and women the same rights in regards to certain issues.

So, What is the position and rights of women in the Quran? Here is a no holds barred examination of what the Quran states:


1) Rights of honor

The Quran condemns female and prohibits infanticide, a common practice in pre-Islamic times:

"When the girl-child that was buried alive is asked for what sin she was slain ..." (81:8-9)

"Slay not your children, fearing a fall to poverty, We shall provide for them and for you. Lo! the slaying of them is great sin." (17:31)

The scripture mandates, that the will of the woman be honoured in marriage:

"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will." (4:19)

In regards to the chastity of women, the Quran lays down severe punishments towards those who make false allegations about women:

"And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (four eye witnesses of the same act to support their allegations), - flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors." (24:4)

The Quran also directs men to honor their mothers:

"Revere God and the wombs (that bore you)." (4:1)


2) Financial rights of Women

The Quran instructs men to cover the financial expenses of women:

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (towards God's teachings and/or to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what God orders them to guard (which can be interpreted as their chastity and/or their husband's property)." (4:34)

But at the same time, the Quran does allow women to have occupations and earn money as well, indeed it is required that women receive an equal amount as a man would for the same work:

"Unto men a fortune from that which they have earned, and unto women a fortune from that which they have earned." (4:32)

Regarding inheritance the Quran says:

"From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large, - a determinate share." (4:7)

Later verses grant women a lesser share than men:

"God enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females ..." (4:11)

In response, orthodox Muslims contend that men are expected to meet their responsibility to fulfill the financial needs of their female relatives. Women, however, are under no such obligation.

Understand, that women have the right for the male members of their family cover all financial needs of themselves and children. Everything the husband owns belongs to the family and can be used by the wife to care for the family (even without consent of the husband) meanwhile everything earned, given and inherit belongs solely to the Woman only, there is no obligation for her to spend it in any way other than she wishes. Not so for the Male.

When a woman is to be married, the Quran makes it obligatory on a man to provide Mahr for her. ( Mahr: a dowery given to her, and remains hers even if divorced. She is the one who decides what it will be. A simple ring or a Mansion and 3 cars... She makes the demands. It is up to the husband to be to try and meet her conditions for marrage.)

"Wed them with permission of their folk, and give them Mahr according what is reasonable ..." (4:25)

The Quran makes it obligatory for men to provide for their ex-wives:

"For divorced women Maintenance (should be provided) on a reasonable (scale). This is a duty on the righteous." (2:241)

If the woman gains custody of a child then the man must provide for his offspring as well:

"And the mothers may nurse their children for two whole years, if they wish to complete the period of nursing; and it is incumbent upon him who has begotten the child to provide in a fair manner for their sustenance and clothing." (2:233)

A man is also ordered to make arrangements for his widow:

"Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and residence ..." (2:240)

3) Right to bear witness

Many critics point out that the Quran accepts the testimonies of two female witnesses for every male:

"O ye who believe! When ye contract a debt for a fixed term, record it in writing ... And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses, so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember." (2:282)

The former statement is not completely correct, since it only applies while dealing with financial transactions only . In other situations, the scripture accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man's and that her testimony can even invalidate his, such as when a man accuses his wife of unchastity:

"As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves, let the testimony of one of them be four testimones, (swearing) by God that he is of those who speak the truth; And yet a fifth, invoking the curse of God on him if he is of those who lie. And it shall avert the punishment from her if she bear witness before God four times that the thing he saith is indeed false, And a fifth (time) that the wrath of God be upon her if he speaketh truth." (24:6-9)


4) Right of Woman to divorce

Marriage in Islam is a sanctified bond that should not be broken except for compelling reasons, and couples are instructed to pursue all possible remedies when their marriages are in danger.

"And if ye fear a breach between them (the man and wife), appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they desire amendment God will make them of one mind. Lo! God is ever Knower, Aware." (4:35)

Although, the Quran does give the husband the primary responsibility to dissolve his marriage over a four-month period (2:226), during a time in which his wife may become pregnant and/or there may be a possible reconciliation between the couple (2:228). But at the same time, the scripture also allows the wife to end her marital union through a Muslim court under certain circumstances, such as when she's faced with: cruelty, desertion without a reason and/or the unfulfillment of conjugal responsibilities etc. on the part of her husband.

"If a woman feareth ill treatment from her husband, or desertion, it is no sin for them twain if they make terms of peace between themselves. Peace is better. But greed hath been made present in the minds (of men)." (4:128)

Furthermore, the husband is not allowed to keep his wife in a marriage against her will:

"When ye have divorced women, and they have reached their term, then retain them in kindness or release them in kindness. Retain them not to their hurt so that ye transgress (the limits). He who doeth that hath wronged his soul. Make not the revelations of God a laughing-stock (by your behaviour)." (2:231)

5) The right to remarry

The Quran allows divorced women to remarry:

"And when ye have divorced women and they reach their term, place not difficulties in the way of their marrying their husbands if it is agreed between them in kindness." (2:232)


The right to safety

According to some critics a given interpretation/translation of surah 4:34, encourages men to be physically violent towards their wives.

"And (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." (Translation by Shakir)

Other translations/interpretations of the Quran from Arabic, are a little different wording wise and aren't as severe in regards to the same verse:

"As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great". (Translation by Pickthall)

"As to those women on whose part you see ill ­conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, God is Ever Most High, Most Great." (Translation by Yusuf Ali)

Some scholars and students, myself included, believe that the latter version of 4:34 has exactly the reverse functionality, since domestic violence is usually the result of "temporary" anger. They argue that men are asked to first admonish their wives and refuse to share their beds with them, before going about the last act which also should be translated differntly when looking at the original Arabic. The verse in question should be translated to imply a disowning of unfaithful women, as the same word, coming from the root meaning hit or strike (Arabic: ضرب), is used to suggest travel in another verse, similar to the English idiom to "strike camp" or "hit the road".

"... He has known that there will be among you those who are ill and others traveling (Arabic: يضربون) throughout the land seeking of the bounty of God ..." (73:20)

Indeed, the Quran actually instructs husbands to be kind to their wives instead:

"On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike a thing and God brings about through it a great deal of good." (4:19)

Here it is in short :) Some of the Arabic may not come out correctly. I can expound on anything if desired. Please feel free to ask.

Thank you for reading, Ramadan Mubarak and peace.

[Cameron27]

95. Happy Ramadan

From the perspective of a western, liberal/progressive woman I have some questions & comments about the bits of text that you've provided.

Right off the bat, the Qur’an was written by a man as are all religious texts that I know of. So no matter how fair you think it is towards women, it was still written from a male perspective.


....We shall provide for them and for you

In regards to the chastity of women………..is there a regards to the chastity of men?

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women…..why? Because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because the support them from their means…….women are inferred to be inferior both in the ability to protect and maintain themselves physically and to support themselves financially.

…the righteous women are devoutly obedient towards God’s teachings and/or to their husbands…………..please provide the text where husbands are directed to be devoutly obedient towards their wives.

And guard in the husband’s absence what God orders them to guard (which can be interpreted as their chastity and/or their husband’s property.) again, unless a husband is instructed to guard his chastity, and his wife’s property, the woman is the inferior partner in this relationship.

Later verses grant women a lesser share than men:

….the male shall have the equal of the portion of two females…that’s not only lesser, it’s half as much as a male.

In response, orthodox Muslims contend that men are expected to meet their responsibility to fulfill the financial needs of their female relatives.. Women, however, are under no such obligation.

The second statement that you’ve provided, doesn’t nullify or diminish the first..it exacerbates it.

In other words:
1. Women are set up at birth to receive half as much as their male counterparts…..inferior status
2. Women remain a dependent sex, who should look to men to meet the financial needs of their female relatives….inferior status



The mahr that you describe as a dowry is a complicated phenomenon..


In “Why Sex Matters: A Darwinian Look at Human Behavior” by Bobbi S. Low

“One example of dowry as female competition is that in modern rural India. Since about 1950, demographic shifts have resulted in a decline in potential grooms for potential brides of marriageable ages—and dowries have risen steadily. By 1990, a dowry was likely to be over 50 percent of a household’s assets. Wives from poor families, able to pay less in dowry, may be less likely to marry; if they marry, they have a high risk of spousal abuse.”

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Bobbi%20S.%20Low&page=1

But in Welcome to IslamVison.org

It’s stated that the dowry doesn’t exist in the Qur’an.

Snip>
The mahr is a compulsory part of an Islamic marriage contract. The other words for mahr generally used in the Qur'an are sadaqah and ajr, meaning reward or gift to the bride in which there is profit but no loss, and faridah, literally that which has been made obligatory, or an appointed portion. Allah commanded: 'Give women their faridah as a free gift.' (4:4) (Unfortunately the word is frequently incorrectly translated as 'dowry).

snip>
It is a gift of money, possessions or property made by the husband to the wife, which becomes her exclusive property. It is an admission of her independence, for she becomes the owner of the money or property immediately, even though she may have owned nothing before. It has nothing to do with either of their parents, except that a husband might need to take a loan. This should only be done with the intention of repayment. It is also intended as a token of the husband's willing acceptance of the responsibility of bearing all the necessary expenses of his wife.

So on the one hand the mahr is an admission of her independence, for she becomes the owner of property immediately…and it can’t be taken away.

On the other hand, it is also intended as a token of the husband's willing acceptance of the responsibility of bearing all the necessary expenses of his wife.

Again, the wife is expected to give up her own responsibility of bearing any of the financial expenses or the decisions of how the finances are to be spent….inferior status
………………………………………………………………………………………………
“And the mothers may nurse their children for two whole years, if they wish to complete the period of nursing; and it is incumbent upon him who has begotten the child to provide in a fair manner for their sustenance and clothing.” A male prophet is setting the rules for a completely feminine, maternal function. Nice of him to give her two years with expenses paid.

The testimonies of two female witnesses for every male (only applies while dealing with financial transactions) inferior status only financial, that’s a big only.

No matter which way you’re trying to present this, the husband has the upper hand when it comes to matters of dissolution of marriage.

The woman gets to dissolve the marriage under certain circumstances…cruelty,desertion without a reason and/or with him not fulfilling his conjugal responsibilities etc.

So what are the certain circumstances that a husband can dissolve the marriage, besides “for any reason during the four-month period, during a time in which his wife may become pregnant” …am I even reading that right?

According to some critics a given interpretation/translation of surah 4:34, encourages men to be physically violent towards their wives.

“If a man fears desertion he can admonish, leave them alone in their sleeping-places and beat their wives.”

Different translation:” admonish them and banish them to beds apart and scourge them.”

Third translation: “admonish them, refuse to share their beds and beat them (lightly)”

But then you say that you, some scholars, and students believe that the latter version has the reverse functionality.
Well unfortunately all Islamic women aren’t married to you or the more “progressive” scholars and students.

Where are the admonishments, banishments and beatings/hit the road punishments that women are instructed to use against their wayward husbands?

[PsychoDad]

103. Some very good questions.

I'll try to do justice to at least a few of them now, and perhaps finish them later if I don't have the time right now.:)

Firstly we Muslims don't believe that the Quran was "written by a man". We hold that it was dictated verbatim to Muhammad (peace be upon him)from God, who is neither male or female, who recited what he heard, which was then memorized and written down by both men and women. The Quran takes great pains to impart the genderless quality of the One by using BOTH the male and female possessive alternatively when talking about God.

And although the Quran was transmitted to us through a man, Muhammad(saw), the bulk of the Hadeeth, the other half of what defines Islamic religious practices is transmitted to us through Muhammad's young wife Ayeasha(may Allah be pleased with her), of whom Muhammad said, "You will learn half your faith from her".

"In regards to the chastity of women………..is there a regards to the chastity of men?"

Yes, we are to remain equally Chase. The very same proscriptions apply equally.

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women…..why?

Because the One who dictated the Quran to Muhammad(saw) knew that raising a family was a full time job for a mother. Consider even today how many mothers, given the economic feasibility, would opt to stay home with their children and personally see to their upbringing.

Mind you, this was not the requirement. If a Muslim woman wished to she could work outside the home and anything she earned would remain exclusively hers. She could even be a marred woman with children, if she wished, the husband was required to find a nurse or caretaker for the child to allow his wife to work outside the house.

And if she wished, she could be financially independent from her family or even husband. The Quran acknowledges the importance of the Mother to the family (The gate to heaven is at the feet of a mother- Muhammad(saw)) but it does not restrict her to that role, nor does it require her to be financially dependent.

In short, what the Quran does is state that the role of a mother is so important and time consuming, and in those days made even more important in that the mother was also the teacher of her children (no pre-school, head start, day care centers or public schools), that it was the woman's right to expect the same amount of work to be put into providing for the family as she was putting into herself and that she would not have to worry about the financial part of raising a child.

In her elder years it was also expected that her family would provide for her.

Remember, the Quran gives woman the choice to be on her own or to rely upon her family or somewhere in the middle. It doesn't give men the same choice, men are required to provide for his wife and children.

This translates to the inheritance. Islamic Inheritance rules are complicated matters. Males only receive a portion from a short list of relatives while the women receive it from all relatives in her family. Also the males share of the inheritance goes to his family, his wife or mother can take it from him for household needs as she sees fit. The woman's smaller share remains hers, no one can take it or tell her what to do with in.

My wife can go into my wallet to take any money she needs for herself or the family, I cannot do the same with her's.. it belongs to her alone.

The mahr that you describe as a dowry is a complicated phenomenon..


In “Why Sex Matters: A Darwinian Look at Human Behavior” by Bobbi S. Low

“One example of dowry as female competition is that in modern rural India. Since about 1950, demographic shifts have resulted in a decline in potential grooms for potential brides of marriageable ages—and dowries have risen steadily. By 1990, a dowry was likely to be over 50 percent of a household’s assets. Wives from poor families, able to pay less in dowry, may be less likely to marry; if they marry, they have a high risk of spousal abuse.”

I think what you describe is the hindu practice of the Mahr. (I may be wrong) which is given to the family of the bride to be, In which case it is decided upon by the father and goes to him.

In Islam the bride to be dictates what she wants in the marriage contract with the groom to be and it is given directly and only to her. She can ask for anything, House, car, etc, she can even place a timeline on it (ie: I want a house in my name in 3 years, etc)

But in modern practice the Mahr normally consists of a ring and a dollar, or some other token gift which is requested by the bride. Hindu and Muslim dowery's are very different.

Again, the wife is expected to give up her own responsibility of bearing any of the financial expenses or the decisions of how the finances are to be spent….inferior status

Again, only if she so chooses.

Let me discuss this from personal experience here, my Daughter is planning on marrying a wonderful man from Sweden who is currently ready to finish his last year in school and become an electrician. She has already planned that her marriage contract will specify a few things, such as she will continue in college and medical school while he works. Once she has graduated she will then begin her career and they will both work until which time she decides to become a mother. Secondly, he will have no other wives while married to her. Abrogation or either of these on his part will be grounds for immediate divorce.

Does it sound like she is accepting an inferior position? All Islamic women have the same rights as she does.

The testimonies of two female witnesses for every male (only applies while dealing with financial transactions) inferior status only financial, that’s a big only.

In practice all Islamic contracts require 2 witnesses, male or female. 2 males, 2 females or a combination for a contract to be valid.

Ever hear the expression "she has no head for business", "Girls are no good at math", etc? The same fallacy seemed to exist in Muhammad's time also. What this verse does is state that in a situation where a man is claiming in a financial case that the woman may not have understood the complexities of the contract, the woman involved can bring in another woman to verify her side, that this is the way understood the conditions also.

This isn't saying 1 man = 2 women, it's saying that a woman can use and call upon another woman to be her witness. (Remember, the plaintiff is the first witness)

The woman gets to dissolve the marriage under certain circumstances…cruelty,desertion without a reason and/or with him not fulfilling his conjugal responsibilities etc.

So what are the certain circumstances that a husband can dissolve the marriage, besides “for any reason during the four-month period, during a time in which his wife may become pregnant” …am I even reading that right?

No, Firstly the man must take certain steps to bridge the gap between him and his wife. Only after the last step can he divorce her (By saying I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you. Then he must leave the house) The man must then wait a four month period before the divorce is finalized. During which time he must take steps to mind the marriage if possible. This does not have to go to court, and so no dirty laundry need be aired. (and he cannot talk badly of her as this would be backbiting.)

On the other hand, when the wife has decided that she has had enough she can go to the court and have the marriage nullified immediately. No waiting period. Going to court has the effect of allowing the wife to air the husband's dirty laundry in front of the entire community.

But then you say that you, some scholars, and students believe that the latter version has the reverse functionality.
Well unfortunately all Islamic women aren’t married to you or the more “progressive” scholars and students.

Where are the admonishments, banishments and beatings/hit the road punishments that women are instructed to use against their wayward husbands?

While they may not me married to me (my wife would kill me, then divorce me :P ) I can only hope they find better husbands than I am.

I do honestly think that this understanding of the verse fits more closely with the spirit of the Quran and the overwhelming majority of Hadeeth (sayings and doings of the Prophet).

The admonishments for husbands? A husband has to leave the house of his wife if she so desires, he cannot cast her out of his for as long as they are married.

In the end it is our duty to teach not only non-muslims but also muslims about what Islam really teaches. There is currently a debate within Islam, a struggle for the very soul of Islam as moderate muslims fight to reclaim the way of life that the Prophet wished for us from the influences of men who over the years have sought political power and control by skillful mis-interpetions of the Quran. At the end of the day, Islam has no pope or priesthood, it is up to each of us to understand the Quran in the best way we can.

Hope this helps :)
Peace.

[Cameron27]

106. Thank you for your courteous reply

I'll have to take some time to consider this before I reply.

[Cameron27]

122. I do have questions regarding the explanations that you've given.

I want to be very careful when I write about the things that I believe and how they determine what I consider to be equitable lives for men and women, so that I don’t seem to be trampling over your beliefs and values. And I'm only writing this because you presented the opportunity.

I have no evidence that would lead me to believe that a genderless supernatural entity dictated verbatim to Muhammad who recited what he heard, which was then memorized and written down by both men and women.

If I did believe what you did, I would be compelled to ask why a genderless supernatural entity did not dictate in a way that both woman & man could hear together at the same time.

From the point of view of a skeptic it is only evident that a man spoke his personal belief, developed through his very human mental processes and dictated this to a woman as coming from a supernatural source, whether he believed that or not.

I ask the same of all religions in which men are given the “holy” task of transmitting the words, wishes and demands of a supernatural entity to human being of both sexes.

Would you please provide the text that shows the same consideration for the chastity of men as it does for women.

I’d also like the text that shows that a married woman can work outside the home without permission from her husband, and the text that gives permission for the husband to work outside the home.

Why is the husband required to find a nurse or caretaker for the child – why not just assume she can find a nurse for herself or that either of them could do it. Is this written in the Qur’an? Why would a genderless supernatural entity, not expect this to be a shared responsibility in a marriage?

Edited to add: would a Muslim woman living in an Islamic country, be allowed to write what I just wrote above, without fear of incurring harsh consequences? Could an Islamic woman, question tbe duality of laws as presented in the Qur'an, or the nature of Muhammed himself without severe punishment?

As a Catholic, I could have gotten up in a church and asked these questions about Jesus, and would have only faced the consequence of ex-communication, not severe bodily harm....at least at this time in history.

What are the teachings regarding lesbian marriages and gay marriages? A genderless supernatural entity would know that sexual orientation occurs because {he-she/neuter, or whatever) made it that way in the first place and that it's not a question of choice, and would include this in the dictation of laws to the prophet.

"The gate to heaven is at the feet of a mother." I don’t understand religious beliefs that take this to be a good thing. It implies that if a mother doesn’t comply with some dicta, then gate of heaven will not be open to her children. That’s quite a hefty responsibility for one sex.

When you say:
“In short, what the Quran does is state that the role of a mother is so important and time consuming, and in those days made even more important in that the mother was also the teacher of her children (no pre-school, head start, day care centers or public schools), that it was the woman's right to expect the same amount of work to be put into providing for the family as she was putting into herself and that she would not have to worry about the financial part of raising a child.”

I would respond that a supernatural genderless entity would understand that the customs of the world would change, and that dictating the amount of work that a women should provide for the family, based on the given mores or standards of a particular time in history, would not make any sense

“Remember, the Quran gives woman the choice to be on her own or to rely upon her family or somewhere in the middle. It doesn't give men the same choice, men are required to provide for his wife and children.”

Inheritance rules are only as complicated as the Qur’an makes them. If they are one-sided in any way, then that is not equitable.

If the rules of inheritance were constructed to meet the needs of women at a particular moment in history, then the supernatural entity would understand that these needs would change.

As far as the dowry, you’re correct. I reread that passage, and it was not Islam but the Hindu practice that was described in the study in India.

Why does the Qur’an feel it necessary to provide a practice of the Mahr at all?

What is it about the state of women that impels the writer of the Qur’an to make rules that a bride should be allowed to dictate what she wants in the marriage contract with the groom and that these gifts are given only to her?

In your daughter’s situation, why isn’t her husband expected to specify his conditions of the marriage? If he does that’s fine, but why isn’t it expected of him. Why isn’t that clearly written in the Qur’an?

When you speak of the fallacies of the financial state of women during Muhammad’s time, I again am compelled to query why a supernatural entity would dictate such a rule to him, knowing that this would only be a temporary state for women.

A man can divorce his wife after taking certain steps to bridge the gap between himself and his wife, and then can divorce his wife without going to court. Then he needs to wait 4 months before the divorce is finalized…..

But the wife must go to court to have the marriage nullified.


Whether dirty laundry is aired or not, the husband gets the better deal here.

When it comes to understanding and debating the Qur’an, are women equal partners in that anylsis? In Islamic countries, are women allowed to join the struggle for the soul of Islam publicly?

Is it permissible to question whether the Qur’an was dictated by a supernatural entity or whether it was written by a very human man, who may have thought that he had been touched by the divine? Is this permissible in Islamic countries without severe, or even lethal punishment?

Again, I’m only speaking as a woman and as a skeptic, and as one who has asked the same questions of the religion in which I was born, Roman Catholicism. The answers that I found were the reason that I became an ex-Catholic, non-believer when I was 18 years old.

Edited to add: Can a Muslim woman, living in an Islamic country, raise the questions and comments that I made above publicly, without fear of incurring severe bodily punishment?

Can a man or woman challenge the duality of Islamic laws as written in the Qur'an, or debate the very circumstances in which the dictation to Muhammed occurred, without severe, or even fatal punishment?

[Cameron27]

131. I can't re-edit the previous post.

This:
.....................................................................................................................................
"Edited to add: Can a Muslim woman, living in an Islamic country, raise the questions and comments that I made above publicly, without fear of incurring severe bodily punishment?

Can a man or woman challenge the duality of Islamic laws as written in the Qur'an, or debate the very circumstances in which the dictation to Muhammed occurred, without severe, or even fatal punishment?"

.....................................................................................................................................

somehow got inserted twice, once in the middle of my post, and again, at the end where I intended.

Sorry if this causes any confusion.

[Cameron27]

137. You know what

Believe what you believe.

I really don't want to start debating the text of a religion that has no meaning at all for me.

I've read through other threads, and found answers to my questions that make more sense to me.

Peace

[Shakespeare]

145. You're engaging in selective quotations....

...and very, very dubious interpretation. Yes, the Quran treats women as--at best--second-class citizens. You can spin it all you like, twist your interpretations as hard as you can, but you can't remove the truth that women are considered less than a man within the text.

[PsychoDad]

146. I disagree.

And those conclusions are based upon my own study and knowledge of the text as well as study of other sources. In fact, these are not only my interpretations, but also the interpretations of many Scholars in the Islamic world.

Could you elaborate upon these "very, very, dubious interpretation"? Please show me where I err, and according to which sources and their credentials.

Please cite only sources dealing with Quranic statements about women, as that is the scope of my reply. Please save dubious hadeeth and Sharia rulings for later.

If you wish, I can provide sources for my opinion.

Indeed, if I have erred, it is only my fault, and would like to see other Scholarly opinions that I may not have already considered.

I make no apology for the abuse of women in the "muslim" world, what must be made clear is that what the Prophet (saw) taught and what is practiced today are not the same. Indeed, every Muslim man and woman must fight against the injustice done in the name of Islam.

Thank you in advance .

Peace.

[Shakespeare]

159. Of course you disagree.

You are devout in your religion, so you are going to bend over backwards to rationalize and justify. I expect nothing less than your complete disagreement. I, however, stand by my statements.

[genie_weenie]

105. The problem is one of interpretation

It's great when we read things out of context based upon what may be a flawed interpretation, Lets examine some of your proofs for Quranic discrimination against women.

Since most of the Words in the Quran are Allah's the problem is one of interpretation. You have provided me with many quotes and passages which show how men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah. I don't doubt the authors of those interpretations believe them wholeheartedly. But as with any idea, over time drift and other viewpoints invade and alter the original spirit.

So who's interpretation of the writing is correct? It is my understanding lay muslims (that is those without scholarly Islamic training) are not allowed to interpret the Quran for themselves and must rely on their imam or cleric. Is that correct?

This is no different than any other belief system where certain people exert the right to interpret.

Islam is like any human constructed ideology. New rules covering things not previously imagined have to be created. New philosophical ideas which alter the thinking of mankind change the way people look at the Quran.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. I remember reading that in Iran, the passage about mothers nursing

children for two years is interpreted to mean that after the child is two years old, custody automatically goes to the father.

[PsychoDad]

147. Perhaps in shia, I'm not sure.

I would have to ask.

But in Sunni tradition the child remains with the mother or a female relative of the mother's family until the child is old enough to decide which parent it wishes to live with.

Unfortunately, these rules are not always followed by many of these countries, and thus you get cases of fathers kidnapping their children, sending the mother away without their child, etc. :(

Peace.

[formernaderite]

132. The later verses supercede any earlier contradictions

or so a former practicing muslim explained to me. Which is why so many also get away with pushing the Islam is a religion of peace etc....because the sweeter texts appear earlier in the Koran. Hey...I'm an atheist, but I really do consider Islam the goofiest of the large religions on earth.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

98. Not true.

Several - that a woman's word is worth half that of a man in court, for example, or that wife beating is acceptable - are strictly Qu'ranic.

Moreover, while some of the others aren't Qu'ranic, they're nevertheless part of Islam if you define it as "what Muslims say Islam is" rather than some notional platonic form. They're justified on the grounds of Islam, by Islamic religious authorities who defend them by religious arguments.

[LostinVA]

11. Bingo

[PsychoDad]

93. Perhaps you should read my post 92

May answer some questions.

Peace.

[AwakeAtLast]

6. PM Kick!

:kick:

[Generic Other]

7. I am a Moslem woman. I have no face. I have no identity.

I Am a Moslem Woman - Parvin Darabi

"I am a Moslem woman. I have no face. I have no identity..."

MORE
http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352725

I am reposting this link which was deleted from a previous thread. Irony, no?

About the author:
Rage Against the Veil: The Courageous Life and Death of an Islamic Dissident

On February 21, 1994, a gesticulating and screaming woman entered a crowded public square in Tehran, removed her government-mandated veil and full coat, poured gasoline on her body and lit herself on fire. The crowd watched in horror as this woman, who had shouted, "Death to tyranny! Long live freedom!", committed a slow, painful suicide in a last, desperate attempt to make the world aware of the slavelike conditions of women living in Iran.

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/product424.html

[lukasahero]

9. Over 650 posts defending the right to wear a veil

8 for the cry of a Muslim woman fighting for women's lives. :cry:

[Matariki]

13. hear, hear.

[LostinVA]

15. I cry those tears also, lukasahero

[mondo joe]

25. Highly selective reading on your part.

More accurately, there were over 650 posts defending the right of a woman to choose for herself.

[lukasahero]

27. Sounds like "the right to wear" it to me.

The right to an abortion = the right to choose an abortion.

The right to wear a veil = the right to choose to wear a veil.

Just because you'd rather focus on something other than the point of this OP and the violence against women, don't try to change the subject. Go back to that other thread and continue to fight for that right. Here, we should be fighting for the lives of these women.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Um, you're the one who brought up that particular subject.

Frankly, the people who tell women they can't wear a veil are just the same as the people who tell women they have to wear veils.

[lukasahero]

44. Way to miss a point

I "brought it up" only to suggest that people don't care about the real issues facing women all over the world. It's so much more fun to argue about what women can and cannot wear than it is to actually get involved in helping women facing the threat of violence.

But whatever. I'm not going to argue that other thread in here. This one should be discussed for it's own merits.

[LostinVA]

55. Don't be baited, LH

Your point is a great one, and this thread is important!

[mondo joe]

42. Or the right to not wear. And it was you who brought it up here.

So go back yourself.

[lukasahero]

45. Again, way to miss the point

I "brought it up" only to suggest that people don't care about the real issues facing women all over the world. It's so much more fun to argue about what women can and cannot wear than it is to actually get involved in helping women facing the threat of violence.

But whatever. I'm not going to argue that other thread in here. This one should be discussed for it's own merits.

[mondo joe]

47. But you obviously don't get it.

And there's more than one real issue.

Coercing women to dress acertain way here is just as wrong as coercing them to dress another way there.

But if you don't want total about that here DON'T BRING IT UP.

[femrap]

71. Maybe you should worry yourself with

your own masculine attire and attitude. It's unfortunate that a male interrupts an intelligent conversation about one of the most important issues facing women in the world today.

I have much faith in Moslem women to fight for their liberation and we in the Western world will offer help in any way we can.

Say buh-bye Joe. Annoying and ignored.

[Cameron27]

74. Yes, it's very strange that some male posters

hover (and I do mean hover) over threads concerning issues of women's oppression..... questioning female poster's motives.x(

[femrap]

91. I think these 'hoverers' have issues.....

and they need to look inward for their answers instead of blaming others for their weaknesses.

[LostinVA]

101. There is a cadre that definitely do this

Very disturbing...

[Susang]

164. Unfortunately, it has always been like that

You should have seen the abortion wars a few years ago. :nuke:

[Shakespeare]

112. Disheartening, isn't it.

Pretty much shatters any illusions one might have about how far we've come, especially as it regards our allegedly liberal brothers-in-arms. It disgusts me to read it--over and over and over--on DU.

[mondo joe]

84. Funny - you want people to beconcerned with the issues

and then you tell them not to be.

[Duppers]

114. notice the gender differences posting on this subject

I couldn't help but notice the differences in the p.o.v.

[LostinVA]

115. I have

I've noticed it on probably every thread concerning women's issues. Very telling.

[Cameron27]

139. I noticed it on these threads about women's issues

But I suspect if I go back & re-read other threads on other topics, I'll find it pop up there too. I just wasn't paying attention, because I never expected to find this kind of thing on a liberal, progressive, Democratic message board.

[riderinthestorm]

28. Still conveniently overlooking all of the links and data about

the importance of visual cues for learning, especially for young children, on those threads?

Conveniently omitting the fact that many of those posts on those threads are about a UK ESL teacher's performance - and her lack of ability to do her job appropriately with a mask on, not religious discrimination.

Or the posts that point out how her own students were complaining about her performance, as they couldn't see her face and the way her mouth shaped words as an ESL teacher.

Or the numerous posts pointing out how she cannot interface with all of the children in the school and that just doesn't work for authority figures in that situation.

:eyes:

This is way OT anyway, and I don't really care to rehash it on yet another thread. I can't even get into the other ones anymore because I'm on dialup and they are way too big so frankly, it was with relief that someone posted something other than the UK case. Can we focus on Divernan's OP?

[distantearlywarning]

49. Exactly.

I was pretty horrified by those posts too, although I didn't feel like getting in that particular flame war this week. Not everything is good just because it's someone else's culture.

[Quantess]

125. I don't get it either.

"How wonderful, it's someone else's oppressive culture. Let's encourage them to introduce their oppressive culture here, just so we can be more multicultural."

[Divernan]

134. Your comment nails it! Quite succinct.

I wonder how all those people who say, oh, great, let's let our little girls and boys think that veils are no more significant than Haloween masks, would react if centuries long and cruel practise of binding little girls' feet - thereby crippling them physically AND psychologically was practised by teachers and fellow students and presented as a harmless and quaint cultural practise.

[Quantess]

142. Understanding another culture

goes deeper than looking at their outfits.

That goes for foot binding, as well. Once people understand the rationale for the face veils on women, in the context of the culture where they originated, they may not be as warmly accepting of having women come here and wear those face veils in their own, western, culture.

[BoneDaddy]

10. Excellent

And we are supposed to accept ALL religions as valid when this kind of retro-fundamentalist, patriarchal domination of women in Islam is allowed to continue.

[Matariki]

16. It's fundamentalism that's the problem

whether Christian or Islamic or whatever.

[BoneDaddy]

24. Yep

totally.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

100. Yes and no.

There's a large element of truth in that, but I think the implicit implication that Islam is no worse than Christianity or other religions is probably misleading. That said, one could perhaps argue that that's just because it's more prone to fundamentalism, although I'm not sure I would do so.

[Matariki]

12. I wish some of the apologists for this horrid sexism would read this

the ones who were rabidly posting in those threads yesterday. the people who mistake fundamentalism that represses women as 'freedom of religion'.

[kiahzero]

43. These women aren't free to choose

I don't feel like it's controversial to say that women's rights in Britain are a fair bit stronger than in many Middle Eastern countries. Women should not be forced to wear the veil, but they should not be forced to remove it if they so choose. How is that a hard concept to understand?

[Cameron27]

17. It IS important to keep this kicked...

Here's a photo of the woman behind the 600+ contentious thread.




Someone started a thread today comparing this, to Jackie Kennedy's transparent mourning veil.:eyes:

[Clark2008]

26. I think its sexist to tell her what she can and cannot wear, myself.

Since when were liberals dictators?

The issues of marrying off at the tender age of nine or not being able to drive or go to work or school are SO VERY MUCH more important in non-free countries than imposing YOUR belief system on a woman in a free country who CHOOSES to wear that veil.

I like your choice of candidate, but I think you're being every bit as dictatorial as those Saudi's or Iranians who force a woman TO cover by telling a woman she can't.

I don't care about all the psychological trappings you allege this woman MUST be going through to WANT to cover because I don't buy it. I know many a Muslim woman who cover because THEY want to - because it's THEIR choice.

The OP above is a completely different issue. Being forced to bear children while still a child or NOT having the choice in what to wear or NOT having choice in who to marry or whatever: those are human rights issues and we're fighting over a woman's right to wear a fucking veil?

Oh - and I could understand and communicate with someone in a veil. I have before. It's NOT all that hard. Geesch.

[Cameron27]

29. You're digging a whole lot out of my post.

I can't engage in a deep anaylsis of why I think that you don't clearly understand what I'm fighting for, and what I've been fighting for since 1972. I have to pick up my son this morning & drive him to work...his car died last night.

Peace to you though, I know that you have deep feelings that come from your heart. My feelings come from my heart also, and this is a subject that woman can discuss without hard feelings I think.

On edit: My previous post was in reference to post 9, and the threads pertaining to the UK teacher's aid. I wan't trying to hijack the OP.

[Clark2008]

31. Actually, it was from a collection of posts.

I just think it's just as sexist to tell when what they can't wear as it is for Saudi's to tell them what they have to wear - that's all.

I agree that this topic is much more important and that we should be fighting to help women in non-free countries gain independence and freedoms, but we don't do that by restricting their religious freedoms here.

Peace to you, too.

[Lurking Dem]

32. Where's the choice?

If you actually read what the woman is saying there IS no choice. You are taught from the day you come into this world that you are "less than", unworthy, and the cause of men's inflamed passions that will lead them to rape - so it is all your fault if it happens.

[femrap]

73. Geesch? Now that's a comment.

Listening to males discuss what women can or cannot do is so enlightening.

I wish males would spend more time devoted to THEIR issues...such as why do they rape? Maybe the veil wouldn't be necessary if males could somehow govern themselves. Males need to perform introspection and monitor themselves. So tiring to listen to them discuss what women should do.

[riderinthestorm]

79. Violence against women isn't predicated on their clothing

Men need to "govern" themselves regardless of if a woman is wearing a veil.

I believe a more interesting version of your question to me would be, what does the veil signify to men in a culture where women are veiled? Does it signify that women are vulnerable to violence? I think its interesting the way the veiled societies have co-opted feminist language: that veils "empower" women, that women are treated with so much more "respect" when veiled, that a veil means men "focus more on women's intelligence than their beauty".... And yet, some pretty powerful manifestations of abuse against women occur in these communities. Mix into that some real concerns about brainwashing and conditioning about the clothing, by male mullahs and imams, and there's a lot of fodder for conversation.

Be that as it may, I'd really love it if we could move off the whole veiling topic actually since it derails meaningful conversation about the roots of why women are abused.

Perhaps instead of talking about clothing we could talk about the religious underpinnings which enable men to abuse women... or even the passive role women across the world have been acculturated with - that we aren't "strong" enough (physically? mentally? emotionally?) to overpower patriarchal societies.

[Cameron27]

82. When I was a teenager

I read "The Church and the Second Sex" by Mary Daly

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/daly1.html

I wonder if there's a book of Islam from the feminist perspective?

(It's good that this discussion is taking place in GD because it will get more exposure, but unfortunately we can't keep it limited to women which I think would prove more valuable)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

108. According to friends who traveled in the Middle East as young women

being unveiled meant that one was fair game for groping, cat calls, and attempted rape.

One of my friends started wearing sunglasses and a scarf, and the hassles stopped. Evidently being veiled says, "I'm a 'good girl'" and being unveiled says, "I'm a 'bad girl.'" In other words, the old virgin/whore complex.

[Lurking Dem]

111. Very much how

going braless used to be viewed in this country.

[Shakespeare]

113. Oh, we've tried that here already.

And, doncha know, there is NO pattern of violence by males against women, and we're all a bunch of hysterical bitches for daring to say there is.

[LostinVA]

116. You're right -- we are all such silly willies n/t

[Shakespeare]

117. And people wonder why I've developed....

....a "fuck with me and I'll kick your ass" attitude over the years. Has saved me LOADS of trouble....and discrimination. God, it turns my stomach to come on DU and see that crap.

[LostinVA]

118. It also made my ignore list HUGE

[Shakespeare]

121. I dunno.

As much as I'd like to ignore the posters who pull that shit repeatedly (and there's a group who definitely DO, as we know), I think I need the sobering reminder that people who call themselves liberals are still capable of such an ugly, toxic mindset. It keeps me aware of how much work there still is to do.

[etherealtruth]

138. Oh heck no ...

.... some man somewhere was abused by a woman at sometime ... that proves it ... "there is NO pattern of violence by males against women" ... it's all
in our minds ...yep ...that's right!

I am so sick of this.

[Cameron27]

140. That's so disgusting

and you're absolutely right. I've seen those posts, and men actually get all offended & huffy when someone sticks an actual fact under their noses.

[Lurking Dem]

19. This story is so important.

But it's like talking about Muslim on Muslim violence in Darfur. Sinks like a rock.


I'm glad there are Muslim women shining a light into the dark corners of these practices.

[LostinVA]

22. People would rather get off on arguing about the woman in the UK

Ugh.

[kiahzero]

52. There's something to discuss there

The reason there's not a whole lot of discussion on topics like this is that there's nothing to discuss. For the most part, we all agree. Imagine that... a bunch of progressives agreeing that forcing women into subservient roles is bad. What is here for us to discuss? Do you just want a bunch of "I agree! Discrimination is bad!" posts to make this thread have a high number next to it?

[genie_weenie]

56. Well, this is not about the War on Women apparently...

This is about how great Islam has been for Women's Rights for 1400 years...

[kiahzero]

57. I'm very confused.

I really don't get how that response at all relates to what I just said.

[lukasahero]

168. Hey what do you know

maybe there was something to discuss here after all? :shrug:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

21. Kick and Recommended....

[riderinthestorm]

23. I vowed to stay off those other threads today

It's not worth even opening them since they're just going around the same old merry go round.

Thank you for posting this though.

[ichblog]

30. Underling for Perle

Ayaan Hirsi Ali works for the American Enterprise Institute under the Prince of Darkness, Richard Perle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

She was kicked out of Holland by her own party (Right Wing) because they had to follow the political refugee status rules when is was proven that she did not come a camp in Somalia, but rather, her family lived in a middle class neighbourhood in Kenya.

She lied. And now she's the Muslim Poster girl for the 'other side' and will probably play like Malkin in the US media.

[riderinthestorm]

34. That's an interesting tidbit however UN studies, and Irshad Manji

and other authors like her, appear to back up this woman's perception.

Do you disblieve Ali?

[Duppers]

119. does that negate her points?

nt

[ichblog]

155. Yes

It discredits her to a certain degree.

She is a proven opportunist and there are a lot better women who can better represent the women of Islam than her.

Having said that, I don't disagree with everything she says of course. I just disagree with her intensely for a. leaving the Political Left in Holland when the Political right proved more profitable and b. Lying about her position as a political refugee which foiled an entire nation as they all 'felt' for her and rallied to her side when controversy came her way.

Neither the political left nor right in the Netherlands has much good to say about Hirsi.

And now by becoming the AEI's poster girl, she's proving that she's doing what she does best... going where the money is.

[JCMach1]

35. Women are abused all over the planet... there is nothing so special

about the Islamic world,,,


...To investigate, 48 Hours traveled to Bucharest, Romania, with hidden cameras to find out if it was really possible to purchase a sex slave.

Posing as traffickers from America, 48 Hours crews went undercover, hoping to rescue a victim of this insidious industry. To infiltrate this world, crews hired streetwise journalists Paul Radu and Daniel Neamu as guides.

Like many poor Eastern European countries, Romania has become a popular place for international traffickers looking to recruit, or even purchase, girls.

After dark, the 48 Hours team ventures into the older sectors of Bucharest, to see what money can buy. Within minutes, the crew finda what looks like the kind of pimping and prostitution you can see in any large city. But soon it learns that some of these girls are for sale as slaves.

"You can buy 10 girls in one night, if you want to. You can say I want a 13-, a 16-, a 17-, and a 21-years-old, and you can buy them all like that," says Iana Matei, who runs a shelter for trafficking victims outside Bucharest.

Matei agreed to take in any girl that 48 Hours could rescue. "Young girls and women, bought and sold, first to work in prostitution. That's slavery. We choose to believe that they are prostitutes and we don't look into it," says Matei.

She says that many of the girls on the street look like prostitutes but are actually slaves, ready for purchase and export to Western Europe or the United States... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/23/48hours/main675913.shtml

Nothing so special except that many people are trying to demonize this part of the world for their own political reasons...

[riderinthestorm]

37. Horrifying! Thanks for the links! Abuse against all women must be

exposed, regardless of where on the planet it is happening. I welcome a spotlight on any area that could use the extra attention and I would love to see this thread move into any of these areas - I was actually kind of hoping this thread could evolve into a real discussion of the global problem of the abuse and mistreatment of girls and women.

[JCMach1]

38. This is a serious and major problem ALL governments are covering up

because it is hard to fight and terribly embarassing.

[Matariki]

50. 'Nothing so special'?? I don't get your logic

this horrifying info you post DOES NOT minimize, or make merely political, what happens to women in fundamentalist muslim countries. sounds like you have some sort of agenda of your own.

[JCMach1]

64. Let's talk about the abuse-- unfortunately news like this gets

triangulated with the other anti-muslim pieces popped-out by the MSM.


i.e. look at the latest horror story coming from the Muslim world. Now in other news a cute puppy in Ohio...

[Greyhound]

89. But the institutionalization of abusing women is predominant in nominally

Muslim countries.

In the story you talk about in your reply, the abuse is, at least officially, illegal.

[JCMach1]

96. These things in the article are also not Koranic and do not fall under

Sharia law.

Legal, illegal... abuse is abuse...

It's just the West doesn't wear much clothes on this issue either...

[Greyhound]

120. It is not Quranic in your opinion, and that opinion is not shared by the

majority of Islamic states. The inability of the Muslim defenders here, as well as the other places I've tried to find answers, leads me to doubt the legitimacy of the religion as practiced.

This behavior is abhorrent and wide-spread, but it is illegal in every non-Muslim country on earth.

[JCMach1]

126. Would care to clarify MAJORITY of ISLAMIC STATES?

Islam doesn't need you to make it legitimate.

In regards to women, take a look at what the Southern Baptist convention has to say... or any other Patriarchal group.

Muslims are the favorite bogeyman of the day and as long as the MSM promotes stories like this, there is little chance of anyone in the West understanding the Middle-East.

[Greyhound]

128. The day the Southern Baptists rule a state or country and make it

lawful practice to publicly beat or stone a woman to death for having the audacity to be raped, and by that, shame the family, I'll put them in the same category.

There is even less chance of anyone in the west understanding anything about this belief, when they won't stop the most inhuman abuses carried out under the guise of law. The list of offenses that are, apparently, a part of Islam is far too long to go into detail, but it is endemic and is not limited to the ME, it is, to some degree, practiced everywhere that Islam rules .

Patriarchy is indeed the source of the world's ills, I think Elaine Reisler(?) is absolutely correct in her theories, but no other major religion practices this type of barbarity as a matter of governance, none.

Obviously, my opinion is irrelevant, except in that I have no favorable opinion of any religion, but seek to understand the motivations behind them, and no Muslims seem to be willing or able to explain nor condemn, these heinous and legally sanctioned practices.

There is a conflagration coming, and the Muslims seem to be as determined to force it on us as the nut-bar Xtians. If the Muslim world does not make a firm stand in opposition to this kind of thing, I can see a future where they will indeed be a persecuted people.

As far as I know, all Islamic States the world over classify women as second class at best, they have no standing in the community at all, and excuse all manner of abuse against them. I qualified my statement with the word majority because there may well be one that I'm not aware of.

[JCMach1]

148. Keyword here: as far as you know

Please...

I've had enough of the Muslim bashing already... continue if you must.

[woo me with science]

157. I notice

that you did not refute any of the points greyhound made.

[Greyhound]

165. Nor is it likely they will.

I started out trying to find an explanation for what seems to be barbaric behavior, and got nothing but defensive non-replies.

In the post you replied to, there was no example of this benevolent Islamic state that I'm not aware of.

Do Muslims imagine that they can win a war of who's crazier with the Xtians?

[Little Star]

40. TYVM for posting this. I have been getting

my but kicked and even been called freeper like on the other threads over this. My point was, when men wear veils, then maybe, I could accept this so called 'custom'. I found the whole thing very repressive of females and I'm not exactly a women's liber (just a little). It was amazing to me, how people could not see, how demeaning and oppressive this custom was. Someone else said that even a dog can become happy on a leash all the time, with no freedom to run.

Your article also begs the question 'why can't men just control themselves instead of having the female hide her face?' How about we cover their eyes instead? :sarcasm:

[kiahzero]

46. It's a question of rights

Does a person have a right to decide for themselves whether they will so garb themselves? You seem to be arguing that women shouldn't have a right to wear a veil, because you don't think they should.

[Cameron27]

51. And as an ex-Catholic woman,

I'll suggest to you that the question as to why some women decide things "for themselves" can be a week long discussion.

[kiahzero]

53. And at the end of the week comes the big question

Do we give society (the government) the power to make decisions for people, instead of giving individuals that power, knowing that sometimes they will make decisions that are harmful to them?

[Cameron27]

60. When it comes to blatantly sexist,, oppressive,or racist customs

that can cause harm to other people, and the decision is made to force these customs outside of the country of origin, then yes, the legality of these practices should be challenged in a court of law.

If a woman wears a cloth over her face, although I'll question how she made that decision, if she's not causing any harm by wearing it, then I wouldn't support government involvement.

When these practices occur in the country of origin, where the laws are such that they encourage or demand that these customs be followed, then I can only hope that education will help.

[Duppers]

127. that depends on how libertarian you are. nt

nt

[Little Star]

69. I also don't think people should teach class naked.

The point is not about individual choice (though I would argue that brainwashing is not choice). It is about living in a civilized society where sometimes the greater good overrules your personal choice. Sorry, I can not accept this arcane custom. It is not mentally healthy for the wearer of the veil or for the children seeing it. I don't care to have my children (grandchildren) think it is ok to have WOMEN ONLY with covered faces.

[Cameron27]

72. Precisely

[kiahzero]

85. Ironic choice of analogy

Some women feel that forcing them to be in public unveiled is just as inappropriate as most American women would feel about being forced to be in public with exposed breasts.

It is not mentally healthy for the wearer of the veil or for the children seeing it. I don't care to have my children (grandchildren) think it is ok to have WOMEN ONLY with covered faces.

Interesting how you think that preventing your children from thinking certain things justifies forcing people to remove clothing against their will.

[Cameron27]

87. Breast feeding is a normal function of a woman's body

Concealing a woman's face with a cloth is not. Why are you attempting to confuse the issue here.

[LostinVA]

102. Agreed n/t

[Duppers]

124. NO! this is also about indoctrination!

nt.

[LostinVA]

58. I read your posts on the other thread

I was appalled by many of the posts, too... what gets me is that WE were the ones called unprogressive for decrying the subjugation of women.

[Little Star]

70. I hear ya.

Wonder what they think is so progressive about a women who covers her face? It is just like the poster on the other thread said about a dog and a leash, it becomes the norm for them. How can anyone tell if it is really her choice or just a custom that she has been brainwashed into? Beats me! Regardless, its really about the subliminal message for me. Put a veil on men also and my problem with it will be solved.

[LostinVA]

78. Agreed with everything you said

And, I really agreed with the dog-leash analogy. Kind of akin to the Stockholm Syndrome, too.

[lukasahero]

75. Hey LiV

It's a tactic - it's called "crazy making". Seriously, google it. It's used to undermine. The Republicans excel at it.

[LostinVA]

77. Very, very interesting.... tahnks!

[riderinthestorm]

81. Wow. Really interesting article!

It has totally flummoxed me how some of the other threads have been so hostile to any discussion of veiling. The real attempts to shut down conversation about it, as though it's so cut and dried, have been pretty disgusting to watch.

And now I know this whole thing's a repuke tactic???!!! It makes it even more grotesque.

:puke:

[Little Star]

41. K&R

[donsu]

48. if the US congress had to be divided equally between men and

women, then we would have some power to do something to help repressed women around the world. by demanding those govts. give their women rights or we don't do business with them etc.

and as individual women we can speak up and act out to help repressed women around the world.

get off the couch

throw off fear

[Cameron27]

62. I agree.....bravo!

[woo me with science]

68. Thank you for this post. nt

[Alameda]

80. "Rights of Women: Qur'anic Ideals Versus Muslim Practice"

It seems to be fine to denigrate Islam, but it is rather doubtful many here have much of an idea of exactly what they are talking about. Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a very provocative and outspoken woman. What she speaks about are things that are practiced in countries that purport to be "Islamic". That does not mean the practices are in reality condoned by Islam. It does not seem she actually knows the difference.

Reading works by feminist Islamic scholars such as Dr. Riffat Hassan, a very knowledgeable and outspoken woman, would be a benefit to such discussions.

Don't blindly follow and believe all the negative anti Islamic propaganda.

This is a paper written by Dr. Hassan:
http://www.religiousconsultation.org/hassan2.htm#six

The following link shows strong Muslim women from history:
http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Muslim_Leaders.htm

Yes, there are problems now in Islamic societies, but it is not the problem with Islam, the problem is with ignorance of Islam. Just as in Christian societies there are many different schools of interpretations, the same exists in Islamic societies.

[riderinthestorm]

83. It is not fine to denigrate Islam. And thanks for the additions to the

discussion!

What do you think of the UN Arab reports and authors like Irshad Manji which seem to support Ms. Ali?

[Alameda]

86. discussion

I can not say I'm terribly familiar with all the items you mentioned, but it would seem these are not actual Islamic scholars, but reports of things happening in "Islamic" societies.

Note: Arab does not necessarily mean Muslim. It doesn't seem there are any truly practicing Islamic countries. By that what I mean is practicing the tolerance of early Islam. If one reads the stories of Muhammed one will gain an view of a compassion and tolerance.

There are countries that practice a particular interpretation of Islam. Saudi Arabia, of course, comes to mind. Then, they practice a particularly intolerant and austere branch that is most disagreeable to many and do not show that early tolerance and compassion.

Islam, like Christianity, Judaism, and other religions, is a spiritual path, misunderstood by many, even those purporting to practice it.

There are parables in the Gospels such as "he that is without sin throw the first stone" From this it would seem stoning was a practice. Most religious text speak in allegory. Words are not to be taken in the literal sense. Arabic, in particular is a very subtle and complex language. Even those who speak it, can not easily understand Quranic Arabic.

[NuttyFluffers]

97. people should definitely reread this post

it's probably the best one here.

yes, there needs to be a dialogue in many countries, not just ones where Islam is the majority/state law, about women's rights. yes, there's a lot of abusive and unsavory practices everywhere and much needs to be improved. and, even though i think Ali is being a touch melodramatic, hyperbolic, and factually incorrect in conflating concepts, she does bring this dialogue to the front which is good. there's a whole hell of a lot that needs to change in the world to reach the morally right goal of true equality between the sexes. and it's only going to start when we start speaking to, or screaming at, each other. silence really does equal death.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

150. What do you mean by "denigrate"?

How far would you say it is acceptable to go in criticising Islam? Would you say that e.g. I did so in post 104?

My position, for what it's worth, is that Islam is (among other things) a system of ideas, and as such it's not reasonable to demand that it's critics go too far in the direction of kid gloves - no idea should be protected from criticism, and it's not clear to me that "denigration" is any different.

[PsychoDad]

94. Salam Alikum

And welcome to DU :)

Please feel free to stop by and visit the Islamic/Muslim Forum. A link can be found on my sig.


Ramadan Mubarak and Peace.

[Bridget Burke]

88. The author's certainly had an interesting career....

This Wikipedia entry gives an outline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

She's now with the American Enterprise Institute. So there's a political edge to her comments.

More recently, it has emerged as one of the leading architects of the Bush administration's foreign policy. AEI rents office space to the Project for the New American Century, one of the leading voices that pushed the Bush administration's plan for "regime change" through war in Iraq. AEI reps have also aggressively denied that the war has anything to do with oil.

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute

Could the roles of (some) Muslim women be improved? Of course. But Ayaan Hirsi Ali has allied herself with the "Let's Invade Them" folks.

[Divernan]

90. The ripple effects of "honor killings" in European countries.

Why do women live a lifetime choosing to hide their faces in public? Some posters seem to conclude that it doesn't matter WHY a women does this as long as she says she "wants" to do this, particularly women living in Western countries, which guarantee women personal freedoms. However, those of us famliar with what has occurred in large Muslim communities in European countries, particularly Germany, know that young Muslim women who reject forced marriages, limited education/career opportunities, let alone covering their faces in public, have been victims of "honor killings" by the men in their families. These men are so fanatical about their "honor" that they are willing to avenge it even if it means spending a life in prison for murder.

Consider the ripple effect within such Muslim communities of every such "honor killing". Each of them has to scare the shit out of every young woman who is a member of the victim's family, or was a neighbor of the murdered young woman, or went to school with her. Similarly, the men in the community have reinforced for them that such deadly actions are the price of their honor, and that they will be respected in their families and their communities by other men and feared by women if they too react in the same way. I wish there was a clinical psychologist on this thread to comment on how people rationalize accepting their situations to reduce stress and fear. Certainly there is no higher motivation to "willingly" accept your "fate" than the knowledge that you will be killed if you rebel.

The Oxford English Dictionary definition of "faceless" is: (1)"without identity; purposely not identifiable; (2)lacking character." (Note: the definition is not that faceless means lacking good OR bad character - it means that there is no character of any kind.)

Someone alluded to the fact that dogs get used to being on a leash. They wag their tails when you get the leash out, because they know it means they can go for a walk. I think some women are so uncomfortable with the sexual aggressiveness of men that they (the women) feel safer and happier hiding from men than interacting with them, face to face. Other women have been raised from birth to believe that their bodies/faces must be hidden, for their own protection and the good of their community. As to those raised with such negative self-images, I compare them to people born into slavery - having known nothing else, and having no alternative choices, they make an inner peace with their situation. At the end of the American civil war, freedom was a frightening, abrupt and difficult adjustment for people who had never had the power to control their lives or responsibility for making choices. I feel that men and women should have equal rights and equal opportunities. Requiring women to hide their faces is an archaic and psychologically crippling practise with no place in the modern world. The Muslim faith does not require it. It is a difficult issue for a government to deal with, and we see the European countries and the EU struggling with it.

[Duppers]

130. another great post.

thanks, Divernan.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

104. Some thoughts:

:-Islamic societies are, on average, more prone to sexism and a variety of other social evils than non-Islamic ones.

:- with the exception of the Vatican City there is, so far as I know, no Western society where the status of women is worse than in any Islamic society (I can't rule out one or two exceptions either way, though - can anyone point any out?)

:-A common refrain on DU is that this is not the fault of Islam; those social evils are "cultural, not religious". However, the people practicing them would almost always disagree, and say that they were part of Islam.

:-It is, I think, foolish to use "Islam" to refer to some notional platonic form, rather than what is actually practiced by Muslims. I see no reason to take the word of a few Western liberals (some Muslims, some not) over the word of the majority of Muslims around the world as to whether or not a given practice is part of Islam.

:-If you want to claim that these practices are cultural rather than *Qu'ranic*, you'd be on much stronger ground - so far as I know, many of them aren't. However, as I've said above, I think it makes far better sense to define Islam as "the religion followed by Muslims" rather than "the religion one would arrive at from a literal interpretation of the Qu'ran in a vacuum".

:-The Qu'ran is clearly an inherently highly sexist text. A case could be made that it's no worse than the Bible. I don't *think* that's true but I'm not sufficiently well informed to rebut it authoritatively. However, even if it is, that's a fairly low standard, especially given a large part of the NT is devoted to making it clear that most of the commandments in the OT, including most of the more sexist ones, no longer apply.

:-There is a lot of unjustified criticism aimed at Muslim and Islam from the right nowadays. That doesn't mean that there aren't justified criticisms, and plenty of them, but it does mean that we should be careful when delivering them to go no further than is justified.

[Divernan]

110. Thanks 4 Insightful thoughts; any sign this will come before the EU?

nt

[Cameron27]

136. A wonderful summation

that'll teach me to reply to a post before reading through the whole thread.

I surely would've saved myself a lot of trouble by reading this when replying in post 95 & 122.

[Divernan]

109. Italian PM opposes veils; says men/terrorists could disguise themselves

I just spoke with a friend from Italy today who told me he heard on his news yesterday that the PM opposed veils, and one reason was that men/terrorists could conceal themselves and weapons underneath the traditional garb. Then I saw in the New York Times that Tony Blair (not MY favorite person) had spoken out against the veils in public settings, and that article quoted the Italian PM also. The situation reflects the difficulty of attaining a balance between multiculturalism and integration. Britain has 1.6 million Muslims, which is 3 percent of the popoulation.

www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/world/europe/18britain.html?th&emc=th

By ALAN COWELL
Published: October 18, 2006
LONDON, Oct. 17 — Prime Minister Tony Blair joined a passionate and increasingly contentious debate on Tuesday over the full-face veils worn by some British Muslim women, calling it a “mark of separation.”


At his office Tuesday, Tony Blair said he understood why a school aide was suspended for refusing to remove her veil when men were present. It was the first time Mr. Blair had so explicitly backed Jack Straw, the leader of the House of Commons, who raised Muslim ire this month by saying he did not believe that women should wear the full-face veil, a headdress with only a narrow slit for the eyes. Mr. Straw had asked Muslim women meeting with him to remove their veils, arguing that it prevented communication and set the wearer apart.

“It is a mark of separation, and that is why it makes other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable,” Mr. Blair said at a regular news conference, echoing some of Mr. Straw’s sentiments.
His remarks reflected a sense that British society is heading toward ever deeper fissures between Muslims and non-Muslims, evoking questions about the nation’s readiness to embrace Muslims, and Muslims’ willingness to adapt.

The discussion mirrors earlier public disputes in France, Turkey and elsewhere about head scarves, though in Britain it is largely limited to the use of the full-face veil, the niqab.“No one wants to say that people don’t have the right to do it,” Mr. Blair said. “That is to take it too far. But I think we need to confront this issue about how we integrate people properly into our society.”

There were signs that the dispute had spread farther across Europe. In an interview in Italy, Prime Minister Romano Prodi was quoted Tuesday as saying that women should not be hidden behind veils.
“You can’t cover your face; you must be seen,” Mr. Prodi told Reuters. “This is common sense, I think. It is important for our society.”

[Bridget Burke]

123. Good news, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is no longer under armed guard!

May 22, 2006AYAAN HIRSI ALI HEADS FOR THE STATES
Settling Scores with Old Europe
By Gerald Traufetter

Her Dutch citizenship withdrawn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is packing her bags for Washington. SPIEGEL spoke to her about leaving the Netherlands, her book project and the American Enterprise Institute, which has offered her a fellowship.....

She has accepted a fellowship from the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the famous think tank which vociferously advocated regime change in Iraq and the exportation of democracy to the Middle East. She's planning on using the fellowship to write a book providing possible guidelines for the opening up of Islam. The book's working title is "Shortcut to Enlightenment" and she sent the proposal to Christopher DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Institute months ago...

Points of agreement between Ali and the AEI aren't hard to find, especially when it comes to questions such as that whether or not a preventive strike against Iran is justified. On this point, Ali accuses Europe of weakness. "We're faced with a simple choice," she says. "Either we go to war against (Iranian) President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad before he has the atom bomb, or we go to war with Ahmadinejad after he's obtained the bomb. But no one in Europe seems to understand that."

www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,417478,00.html

Apparently the author lied a bit to Dutch immigration--name, age, country of residence. In short, she won "political asylum" without qualifying. Her Dutch party frowned upon those who break immigration laws.

From Rightweb, more about the American Enterprise Institute:

Founded in 1943, the American Enterprise Institute is today the single most influential think tank in America and the country's main bastion of neoconservatism. In a January 2003 speech at an AEI dinner celebrating the life of neocon godfather Irving Kristol, President Bush underscored the institute's impact. After commending AEI for having "some of the finest minds in our nation," the president said: "You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds." That was a conservative estimate: Since the Bush administration took over in 2001, more than two dozen AEI alums have served either in a policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions--like the Defense Policy Board, which until early 2003 was chaired by AEI all-star Richard Perle.

The president also used the AEI dinner as an opportunity to build the case for expanding the war on terrorism, which was only appropriate: For years, AEI's many high-profile fellows and scholars pressed for war in Iraq and for a potentially wider U.S. intervention in the Middle East. Said the president: "We meet here during a crucial period in the history of , and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us." It must have been music to the many neocon ears in attendance.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1431

AEI rents office space to the Project for the New American Century; that's PNAC.

[KitSileya]

129. One interesting point I've observed,

has been that many muslim families gradually loosen restrictions - until they get a daughter. Many Muslim men claim that they agree that women are equal to men and should have equal rights, but when it's their daughters who ask for it, they have problems with it. One Muslim couple I know of - I worked with the wife - were ok with not wearing the hijab (covering their hair), and stopped being very strict about the prayers, and Ramadan etc. But as soon as they had a daughter, 6 years younger than their oldest son - they started gradually becoming stricter and stricter. The woman started wearing the hijab, and when asked about it, she admitted that her husband had convinced her it was important that their daughter get a proper moral upbringing, and not letting her become too Norwegian. In other words, it was fine for their sons to learn Norwegian values and social norms - but their daughter must be 'policed'. How better to illustrate the suppression of Muslim women in 'diaspora'?

[Duppers]

133. it's still about sexism, isn't it?!

:(

[KitSileya]

135. Yup. And while people seem to have cottoned onto it in my Church

the Roman Catholic Church (these liberals would never give the RCC an inch when it comes to their misogynistic ways - rightly so,) they keep excusing it in Islam. They keep excusing it with culture, and customs, and religious freedom, but they simply don't realize it's even worse than sexism - it's enslavement.

I've been reading several of the threads that enlightened female posters here at DU have tried to foster a debate and dialogue about male violence and seen how male posters, who proclaim themselves liberal, have behaved like their fundamentalist brethren - if only more insiduously. It has been most disheartening, and it doesn't give me much hope - this is one problem women cannot solve on their own. In fact, this is a problem men must solve on *their* own, as the problem is theirs. To paraphrase Kipling,

When you get a woman in the case,
They're like as a row of pins --
For the Western man an' the Muslim Qu'ran
Are brothers under their skins!

[Duppers]

141. Wonderful post! Right on!

I know some misogynistic southern men and I know some Muslim men (had a relationship with one) and found that they only differ in degree.

Thanks for your posts, Kit.


:yourock:

[KitSileya]

149. :) Thanks.

I had hopes, but from what I've seen in the past few years, those hopes have been pretty crushed. I see my students wear clothes that endanger their health - bare midriffs and down-to-the-navel decolletage in January - and I almost want to cry. I see them dismiss feminism, and declare they have equality, while at the same time, seeing their older sisters start the traditional double work week - work at home and work at work. I see my boys pay lipservice to equality, while judging girls with the same old tired double standards, and being homophobic. I see the men my age surge ahead in their careers while girls choose the traditional occupations.

Disheartening.

[Cameron27]

143. It's so sad to see this happen here

Since you bring up the Roman Catholic Church, I've noticed that when I talk about my own ex-faith, I feel comfortable trouncing it's faults in any way that I please & have never been called on it.

When I've questioned the aspect of women's rights in Islam however, even though for some bizarre reason I feel the need to be more respectful, I've ALWAYS gotten a snarly reply back from somebody. It never fails to amaze me.

Men pontificating their opinions, or challenging the facts whenever the subject of violence to women comes up, of course makes one question their motives. I get so emotionally upset by all this BS, that there are only a few theads about women's issues that I've actually participated in.

And after all the arguments have been made, all the assertions challenged, the same people will still feel it necessary to shovel the same crap over & over.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

151. Liberals defending Islamic sexism is understandable but not justifiable.

Many liberals have a very creditable built in reflex that when they see a minority group being unjustly persecuted they automatically go to their defence.

There's an awful lot of unjust and very unpleasant criticism launched at Muslims, mostly but not exclusively by conservatives, in which words like terrorists and barbarians and moon-worshippers feature predominantly. This means that some liberals file Muslims under "persecuted minority, defend" without really thinking about it.

However, while there is a great deal of unjustified cricitism aimed at Islam, there are also a great many justified ones that can be made.

Interestingly, they're not made as often - in the popular press I see far more people talking about Islam and terrorism (something only a *tiny* minority of Muslims have anything to do with) than about Islam and e.g. the repression of women (something that the majority of the world's Muslims support, to greater or lesser degrees), but interestingly people making the former criticisms are often at pains to avoid associating themselves with the latter, and to claim that there is nothing inherently wrong about Islam as a religion.

It does behove those of use who genuinely care about things like women's rights, gay rights, ppposition to corporal and capital punishment, abortion, freedom of speech and religion, and so forth to be very critical of Islam, because all of those things are supressed in the name of Islam in a great many Islamic cultures, but we have to be careful not to go further than is justified.

On the other hand, it also behoves those defending Islam from accusations like "Muslims are terrorists" not to take that into trying to claim that a great deal of social repression doesn't take place in the name of & because of Islam (by which I mean, and have meant throughout "the religion followed by Muslims", not "Some notional platonic form of Islam based on a literal interpretation of the Qu'ran by Western liberals).

Don't defend something just because it's a minority practice. And always, on this and other topics, be as precise with your words as possible; make sure that they can't be taken to mean a stronger criticism or a stronger defence than you intend.

[Bridget Burke]

152. All too many liberals accept the word of the formerly Dutch writer...

Discredited Somali Quits Dutch Politics
Advocate for Women Is Critic of Islam

By John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 17, 2006; Page A16

PARIS, May 16 -- Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali woman who moved to the Netherlands, won a seat in the Dutch parliament and became one of Europe's best-known champions of immigrant and Muslim women's rights, said Tuesday she would give up her seat and leave the country because she is being stripped of citizenship for lying on an asylum application 14 years ago.

Hirsi Ali, a harsh critic of Islam and Dutch intolerance toward immigrants, has been negotiating for a position at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and expects to begin there in September, according to her spokeswoman, Ingrid Pouw...

On her asylum application, she gave a false name and date of birth and lied about the countries she had lived in and visited before arriving in the Netherlands, claiming she recently had fled war-torn Somalia when she actually had lived in Kenya for 12 years. Although it has been known for at least four years that she put false information on her asylum application, the issue came under renewed focus last week when a Dutch TV documentary looked at her case. The report included statements from family members that her marriage was consensual, not arranged.

That element of her life story goes to the core of her international persona, and, if untrue, could seriously damage her reputation and credibility.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601872.html

By joining the AEI she'll continue to exploit some very real problems in order to serve the "let's invade 'em" school of foreign policy.

She has accepted a fellowship from the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the famous think tank which vociferously advocated regime change in Iraq and the exportation of democracy to the Middle East. She's planning on using the fellowship to write a book providing possible guidelines for the opening up of Islam. The book's working title is "Shortcut to Enlightenment" and she sent the proposal to Christopher DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Institute months ago....

Points of agreement between Ali and the AEI aren't hard to find, especially when it comes to questions such as that whether or not a preventive strike against Iran is justified. On this point, Ali accuses Europe of weakness. "We're faced with a simple choice," she says. "Either we go to war against (Iranian) President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad before he has the atom bomb, or we go to war with Ahmadinejad after he's obtained the bomb. But no one in Europe seems to understand that."

www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,417478,00.html

[Donald Ian Rankin]

154. The idea that you can persuade people that your ideas are better

Than theirs are by invading them is one that has always struck me as slightly odd.

It seems to me not merely true but obvious that if we want to reduce the amount of repression perpetrated in the name of Islam then the only way to do it is by economic and cultural engagement and pressure, not by military force.

Invading an Islamic country is obviously going to lead to a hardening of Islamic attitudes and increased support for fundamentalism, not to mention thousands of pointless deaths.

Tacit support for more liberal and democratic regimes, economic and political pressure on less so ones, and the export of Western cultural products, is, I think, the only approach that will produce any dividends (although it will be far from a panacea).

[riderinthestorm]

158. Do you disbelieve her then?

Does this mean these abuses aren't happening?

What do you think of the many other sources that support Ali? Like the UN Arab study, or the work of Irshad Manji (who is also under 24 hour guard in Toronto from numerous death threats for her published work)?

I will agree that the "invade 'em" approach to change doesn't work and her joining the AEI isn't going to win her a lot of support at DU, clearly Ali is wrong in this respect. But there were other Muslims like Fareed Zakaria who also believed that invading for regime change was/is the answer, does that mean they are always wrong then on any other issue regarding the Muslim world?

[Bridget Burke]

162. I think the timing is suspect.

Islam is hardly new. And the status of some Muslim women is not new, either. Muslim feminists have been active for a century & they've got a tough row to hoe. Not all of them are safely in the West, either. Building a Canadian media career by critiquing Islam but needing bullet proof glass in your apartment is not the same as (successfully) filing charges against your rapists in rural Pakistan. (However, Irshad Manji feels wearing thijab is a personal decision--good for her.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irshad_Manji
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhtaran_Bibi

Yes, there are abuses. I wish success to those working for change in their communities. (By the way--there's no "Muslim world." Those suddenly upset by the "Clash of Civilizations" appear to have missed more than a thousand years of history.)

But I wonder that a book written by a woman who told multiple lies to get "asylum" in the Netherlands should suddenly be regarded as newsworthy. And I wonder why so many DU'ers seem to think it's more important than, oh, say, what Bush has been up to lately.

Thanks for your mention of Fareed Zakaria.

Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward revealed in his 2006 book State of Denial that Zakaria attended a secret meeting on Nov. 29, 2001 with a dozen policy makers, Middle East experts and members of influential policy research organizations to produce a report for President George W Bush and his cabinet outlining a strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and the Middle East in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

The meeting was held at the request of Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense. The unusual presence of journalists at the strategy session also included Robert D. Kaplan of The Atlantic Monthly. Woodward reported in his book that, according to Mr. Kaplan, everyone at the meeting signed confidentiality agreements not to discuss what happened. Mr. Zakaria told The New York Times that he attended the meeting for several hours but did not recall being told that a report for the President would be produced. Mr. Kaplan said much of the meeting was spent drafting and reworking the document, which in the end carried the names of all 12 participants and was "a forceful summary of some of the best pro-war arguments at the time." Kaplan told the Times that it would not have been possible for any of the participants to have been unaware there was a document in the making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zakaria

I'd prefer to get my viewpoints on Islam from those who don't support Bush's neo-Imperialism. There's plenty to critique, but Bush-loving is a deal breaker for me.

[riderinthestorm]

163. Yeah, obviously you hate it when people jump on a worthy issue

and bring it into the spotlight?
:eyes:

I mean, damn her right, for putting in her two cents?

And my point about Zakaria (and Ali being with the AEI) means that their more progressive opinions about abuses within the Islamic "world" (is that better for you? sheesh talk about parsing) will ostensibly be heard in those very regressive orgs.

I'll take it, even if it's hypocritical, as long as it moves us closer to change.

[Bridget Burke]

167. This worthy issue is not NEWS!

And Ali is jumping into the spotlight for her own benefit. She was discredited in the Netherlands so she's moved her show over here.

What do you mean by "moves us closer to change"? What is "us" in this context?

If needed change is going to come, it must come from within communities. Not from someone who's in favor of invading Iran. (As Ali is.)

The needed change that I'm more concerned about is the upcoming election. (Remember that?) But so many DU'ers are posting here & on the "they wear veils" threads that I wonder about their priorities. Remember that "torture" thing? Remember how Iraqi women have seen their rights disappear? Remember how we were going to "get" the Taliban--but now we aren't?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

169. I don't agree with one part of this.

You say "If needed change is going to come, it must come from within communities. Not from someone who's in favor of invading Iran".

There's a whole range of options between laissez-faire and invasion. I don't think invading Iran is a good idea, to put it mildly, but I do think that the West should be putting cultural, political and economic pressures on the Arab world (and many other countries, both Muslim and non-Muslim) to change, rather than just waiting for it to happen spontaneously from inside.

[riderinthestorm]

156. Great post. I just got through reading the recent additions to this thread

Up the ways a bit you asked me to define "denigrating" Islam. Actually, I was taking vocabulary utilized by the poster I was responding to, that word choice wouldn't have been my choice.

And then I read your post and you took the time to outline my own position! Lovely! Bravo!

[KitSileya]

160. I think what enraged many of us pre-9/11

was how we feminists worked so hard to get the world to notice the situation of the women in Afghanistan under the Taliban, yet the only thing that made the world press sit up and do one byte of reporting was when the Taliban blew up the Buddha statues.

[Divernan]

144. Pity the little girls who have these fundamentalist men as fathers.

nt

[KitSileya]

161. Yes, and while I pity the girls equally whether their fathers are

Christian fundies or Muslim Fundies, at least in the West, we've started to gain equality in law, education, attitudes, and norms, so that those daughters of Christian fundies have many good examples and opportunities to fight for their rights. The Muslim girls generally face much bigger obstacles - and have a much great chance of having to pay with their lives if they oppose their fathers.

[Cameron27]

166. I think it goes deeper than fundamentalist men

Many men just don't accept or appreciate the effect of indoctrination on women, whether it involves an abused woman who "choses" to remain with the abuser, a woman who indulges in expensive plastic surgery only for pleasing a man, the alienation from affection that some women feel merely in response to the aging process, to a woman choosing to veil her face in a country that permits the freedom not to do so.

The forces that drives a woman to do these things are largely ignored or misunderstood by some men and hell, sorry to have to say, some women themselves.

[LostinVA]

153. Excellent post