posted
Okey dokey. In my religion in America class last semester, we learned that Mohammed married a women who'd been married twice before and was the town's most prominent business women.
So a religion founded by a prophet who's wife had more social status and business status than the prophet turns around and strips women of all rights?
See. No religion is safe from people using it as their own tool to control the people and gain power.
It makes no sense.
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So a religion founded by a prophet who's wife had more social status and business status than the prophet turns around and strips women of all rights?
Would you like a serious discussion of the history of women's rights under Islam? Because it's quite an interesting topic, and you don't seem to know anything about it, and I suspect you'd probably find it fascinating. But if you're just poking your willie into the fire, Thor, it's not worth my time.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I disagree completely! I would pay good money to see Danlo poke his willie into a fire.
I think this is the first time KoM has had me nearly in tears laughing, with people wondering what I was doing. Thanks, KoM.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So a religion founded by a prophet who's wife had more social status and business status than the prophet turns around and strips women of all rights?
Would you like a serious discussion of the history of women's rights under Islam? Because it's quite an interesting topic, and you don't seem to know anything about it, and I suspect you'd probably find it fascinating. But if you're just poking your willie into the fire, Thor, it's not worth my time.
I don't know anything about it? That sir is a sweeping generalization. I know that I read a quote from a leading woman's rights lady who said that "religion and culture have been used through out history to keep woman down." I know that in Somalia a month ago, 1000 people filled an arena to watch men stone a muslim women to death.
Her crime was being raped by five men. I know that Christians are way ahead of the curve on women's rights compared to Muslim's rights for women.
Mohammed married a woman who had taken husbands before him. I know she was a very successful business woman, one of the most successful business people of the area. I know that he was considered a good worker and a very honest man. I know that many woman have been denied the chance of prosperity that Mohammed's wife had.
I do not know how a religion could go from a marriage of equality to the Muslim track record of woman's rights in history. It is as down right bizarre as Muslim's targeting innocent woman and children for murder. I read an article where Muslim men threw buckets of acid all over mulsim women and their daughters.
quote:I do not know how a religion could go from a marriage of equality to the Muslim track record of woman's rights in history.
That's actually what I meant. It didn't seem like you knew the history of women's rights in Islam.
As you note, Islam was founded by someone who clearly had more liberal attitudes about women's rights than many of his modern followers. In fact, the Quran assigns Adam and Eve equal culpability in the Fall and asserts that both sexes were created as equals from the same eternal soul. It explicitly bans what was then a common practice, that of killing unwanted girl babies, and insists that all human life is of value. Early Muslim culture also insisted that a married woman be given a bridegift from her husband's family that remained her own, even in the event of their divorce -- and moreover would be permitted to retain as her own private property any wealth she had prior to the marriage, and indeed any income she earned during the marriage.
There are no clergy in Islam, but the Quran explicitly permits women to lead congregations in prayer and serve as imams. And even the head scarf requirement -- like all religious modesty requirements -- is meant to be protective and empowering, not degrading.
So how did we get from these early principles to the degraded practice, in which female imams are rare on the ground (and, in many areas, profoundly controversial), women are often beaten and forced into loveless marriages despite koranic bans on both behaviors, and whole societies require full-body coverings by law despite the complete lack of scriptural justification?
The short answer is that Mohammed was exceptional, but his successors were not.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The short answer is that Mohammed was exceptional, but his successors were not." - TD
Yes. It is amazing how far religions can stray from core beliefs. A strong society must have strong women who are recognized as equal to men. America has moved forward in the equal rights movement, but witnessing our society worship the Hannah Montana, Facebook, Britney Spears, Porn culture is stomach churning.
Marriage ain't what it used to be. Thanks Gays! You jerks weakened marriage to the point it's a farce 70% of the time!
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A strong society must have strong women who are recognized as equal to men.
How do you know this? If you want to give historical examples, please consider how long your examples lasted and how these compare with the length of time recognisably modern Western society has survived. (Ie, maybe thirty, forty years so far.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A strong society must have strong women who are recognized as equal to men.
How do you know this? If you want to give historical examples, please consider how long your examples lasted and how these compare with the length of time recognisably modern Western society has survived. (Ie, maybe thirty, forty years so far.)
Uh, wow.
How do I know this? The same way I know that for our world to prosper we need to treat blacks as equal. Women are the back bone of this world. As they stand, so stands the world.
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is very fine rhetoric, but is it true? You should not hold fine-sounding, fair-minded beliefs merely because they sound good; you might be converted to some less nice belief which sounds even better. You need to turn off your internal applause for liberality and fairness, and check if you can actually show evidence for what you propose.
Now. Has it historically been true that societies which gave women equal rights or, equality being rare, more rights, did better than those which did not? Same question applies to blacks. Also consider whether you can show anything about the direction of the causality, bearing in mind that societies have the morals they can afford.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do I know this? The same way I know that for our world to prosper we need to treat blacks as equal.
Bear in mind that I don't necessarily disagree -- but, again, how do you know either of these things?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now. Has it historically been true that societies which gave women equal rights or, equality being rare, more rights, did better than those which did not? Same question applies to blacks.
This question is meaningless without an agreed-upon notion of what it is for a society to "do better."
I'd imagine that a society with less wealth and power than ours, but more liberty and equality, would be "doing better" in the sense Thor is interested in. For him, liberty and equality are good things in themselves, not just via their indirect effects.
quote:witnessing our society worship the Hannah Montana, Facebook, Britney Spears, Porn culture is stomach churning.
Hey! I'm a big fan of two of those things.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The short answer is that Mohammed was exceptional, but his successors were not.
I knew that Mohammed and his wife were exceptional and have been curious for a while about what has gone so wrong. Would you be willing to give a longer answer or at least steer me to a good book on the history of Islam, especially as it pertains to women's rights?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a really excellent article by Fatima Mernissi on this - she is a Moroccan Muslim feminist. It's a pdf and I'm happy to email it to anyone who asks - my email address is firstname dot surname at gmail.
Posts: 1550 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And even the head scarf requirement -- like all religious modesty requirements -- is meant to be protective and empowering, not degrading.
I am intrigued to hear you say this, Tom.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I don't agree. I think it's insulting to men to assume that their lusts are so uncontrollable, and culturally narrow-minded to believe that hair is inherently such an object of lust, and insulting to women to think that they can't handle being found very attractive. But I understand that the philosophy under which the head-scarf thing has been scripturally justified is one in which these things are not true.
-------
BTW, Christine, I'm looking for sources now. Unfortunately, a casual Google isn't working out for me, so I might have to contact some people I knew back when I was religious to get some names.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) Your view of the actual reasoning is far more narrow than I hoped it was. Certainly far more narrow than I believe it to be. 2) Your complete rejection of the reasoning. I didn't expect you to agree with it entirely or even largely. But your original comment led me to believe you might believe there to be some merit.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's merit if you accept the premises, and if you reject mine. I'm open-minded enough to recognize that it's an internally consistent practice, and is not necessarily oppressive from the POV of its practitioners. Since I completely reject their premises, though, and do not reject my own, headscarves are another example (to me) of the countless little harms done by religion.
Edit: we once had a discussion on Sake about how I feel about the idea of a certain sort of "modesty" as a virtue. This ties into that a bit. I can understand why people consider it a virtue, but that conclusion is so far from my own premises that I have to admit strong disagreement.
posted
I'm genuinely sorry. I don't know what you would have wanted me to respond, in an ideal world, but I can't help feeling like I'm being as fair as possible in this regard towards a practice I personally don't endorse (for reasons that I don't expect its practitioners to share).
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not know how a religion could go from a marriage of equality to the Muslim track record of woman's rights in history.
That's actually what I meant. It didn't seem like you knew the history of women's rights in Islam.
As you note, Islam was founded by someone who clearly had more liberal attitudes about women's rights than many of his modern followers. In fact, the Quran assigns Adam and Eve equal culpability in the Fall and asserts that both sexes were created as equals from the same eternal soul. It explicitly bans what was then a common practice, that of killing unwanted girl babies, and insists that all human life is of value. Early Muslim culture also insisted that a married woman be given a bridegift from her husband's family that remained her own, even in the event of their divorce -- and moreover would be permitted to retain as her own private property any wealth she had prior to the marriage, and indeed any income she earned during the marriage.
There are no clergy in Islam, but the Quran explicitly permits women to lead congregations in prayer and serve as imams. And even the head scarf requirement -- like all religious modesty requirements -- is meant to be protective and empowering, not degrading.
So how did we get from these early principles to the degraded practice, in which female imams are rare on the ground (and, in many areas, profoundly controversial), women are often beaten and forced into loveless marriages despite koranic bans on both behaviors, and whole societies require full-body coverings by law despite the complete lack of scriptural justification?
The short answer is that Mohammed was exceptional, but his successors were not.
Thank you for saving this thread from oblivion.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
