Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmad al-Sabah
Despite resistance from hardline Muslims, Kuwaiti women may get the vote. From Reuters, with thanks to Miriam:
KUWAIT (Reuters) - Kuwait's cabinet approved a draft law Sunday allowing women to vote and run in parliamentary polls, moving them a step closer to full political rights they have sought for decades in the conservative Gulf Arab state.The draft needs parliament's approval to pass into law. A decree issued by Emir Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmad al-Sabah giving women the vote was narrowly defeated in the 50-man house in 1999 by an alliance of Islamist and conservative tribal MPs.
Kuwaiti women have been fighting for suffrage for more than 40 years, only to be blocked by Islamists and male politicians.
"The council (of ministers) decided to approve the draft law and transfer it to the Emir, God protect him, in order to transfer it to the National Assembly," a cabinet statement said. ...
Leading women's rights activist, Dr. Fatima al-Abdali, welcomed the news, adding that the issue of refusing women the vote was "sabotaging Kuwait's image internationally."
Islamist and conservative MPs, who wield great influence in parliament, are opposed to Western influences and may prove to be a stumbling block in the face of the new draft.
"I'm hopeful," Abdali said. "If this bill is serious and is not just a fight between the Islamist bloc and the democratic bloc, I think women can quickly gain everyone's confidence."
PROGRESS ACROSS THE REGION
Regarded by some as among the most emancipated in the conservative Muslim region, Kuwaiti women have had to sit back and watch their sisters in other Gulf states -- such as Qatar, Bahrain and Oman -- make modest progress.
Kuwaiti women serve as diplomats, run businesses and help steer the vital oil industry in the country of 900,000 citizens.
They constitute up to 70 percent of college graduates in Kuwait, but account for less than five percent of the country's decision makers. Some have moved up to mid-level public ranks, but none holds a top post such as government minister.
Signs of change came last October when the government approved allowing women to stand for office and vote in municipal council elections, a move observers hailed then as a first step toward granting women greater political rights.
Women's rights in Islam do not necessarily lead to any lessening of hostility to Islam. The famously female "Dr. Germ" who worked on biological weapons for Saddam Hussein was allowed to turn her talents to such deadly use precisely because the Ba'ath regime was, in matters of vocational advancement for women, "secularist." Would it really be to the advantage of non-Muslims really if Muslim women were to be even more active participants in the Jihad instead of being home-bound breeders of Jihadis, now able to work on weaponry, or to engage in more plausible propaganda for Islam because they would be (false)proof that "Islam does not discriminate against women." Is Shirin Ebadi, who is interested in Muslim women's rights (the rights of Infidels, both men and women, is another matter), consistently and meretriciously denies that there is anything wrong with the tenets of Islam. No truth-teller she. Was the Sabena plane hijacker Leila Khaled, no burka-ed and shrinking violet, not a heartwarming example of an equal opportunity terrorist and murderer? As a propagandist, is not Hanan Ashrawi, that pseudo-"Christian" Arab pushing the Muslim Arab agenda of the PLO, a great and good friend, and confidante, of Peter Jennings, not a far more effective and cunning propagandist than Arafat or Erekat? Non-Muslims should not enthusiastically assume that "women's rights" in Islam means any let-up in the Jihad. Such developments could even make the Jihad more deadly.
Will these women have a full vote or one-half of a vote as per their testimony in a court of law?
Will non-Muslim women be allowed to vote or do we assume that all citizens in Kuwait are Muslims?
jihan
I don't think any Kafir will be allowed to vote, since they won't vote "Islamically" in any event.
Still, it's a step in the right direction. With womens votes come womens rights and more secular laws.
lets not forget that just 100 years ago women never had the right to vote here either.
Muslim women always have had many rights which were given to them in islam. It is just the tyrants of today who are so called "muslims" that are going against the teachings of the prophet Muhhammad(pbuh) and the Quran. They just want to gain,wealth, power and supremecy. they have forgotton the truth behind the quran just to satisfy their worldly pleasures. Islam bestowed upon women many rights, rights which they have had for over 1400 years. Before Islam if a female child was born she would be buried alive. A woman could be inherited and she was nothing but a mere object not loved for who she really was. Islam changed that.
The dreamy belief, as encapsulated in the comment above, that Islam gave women rights they did not possess, is so far from the truth, so self-evidently preposterous, that one hardly knows where to begin. But any reader inclined to accept this sort of thing might do well to consult the writings of Azam Kamguian, which can be located, I think, at www.faithfreedom.com, or the articles by others at that site, and at www.secularislam.org. In the Qur'an and the hadith, men are permitted to beat their wives, though in ways that do not permanently disfigure them, or show the beating to outsiders. Women have half the inheritance rights of women. Women have to find male witnesses to make a charge of rape. Women are not allowed out of the house without the permission of their husbands. Women are treated everywhere in the Muslim world as inferior beings -- except in Turkey, where Kemalism has limited the application of the Shari'a, limited the power of Islam, and now in Tunisia, which, as part of the legacy of Habib Bourguiba, who regarded with disfavor much of Islamic teachings, and who did attempt to raise the status of women through his Destour Party's regime of relatively enlightened despotism.
"Lena" and others need to confront reality. Why do they think that Khomeini's first act upon coming to power was to lower the marriageable age of girls to nine years -- precisely the age at which Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Aisha, whom he had "married' when she was six? Why does she think "honor" killings of girls and women are found in Muslim countries, and the Jordanian Parliament recently rejected mild attempts to punish such killings? Why in pictures of public scenes -- you know, those frenzied mobs in Gaza, or Ramallah, or in Cairo, or Najaf -- are there never any women present? Why, when a handful of Saudi women actually dared to drive cars, were they arrested? Why, in fact, do Saudi women have to stay indoors, go out only in the company of male relatives and with the express permission of their husbands? Why are women in Islam mostly relegated to the role of breeders --- and breed they do, more soldiers for the Jihad and the greater glory of Islam? Why do the devout Muslims burn alive, as they have in recent months, young Afghani girls for the crime of attending school? Why do apologists for Islam, ignoring this and a thousand, ten thousand, other examples of the intimate connnection between the teachigns of Islam, as expressed in Qur'an, hadith, and sira (the sacred life of Muhammad, who is taken as a model of human behavior), continue to prate about how wonderful Islam is for women, how all the acts which occur that harm them in the Islamic world, and with an Islamic basis, are actually "against" both the letter and spirit of Islam, when chapter and verse can so easily be quoted to show the precise oppoosite, and the observable practice of severe discrimination and even persecution of women can be easily observed as well, in every single country where the Shari'a is imposed, from Saudi Arabia (the virtual house arrest under which its women, however rich they may be, must live), to Iran (where any scintilla of female freedom is in defiance of Islam, not because of it), in the Sudan (the country whose Muslim regime murdered an 82-year-old dissident, and engages in the wholesale massacre of non-Muslims), to Pakistan (where the position of women has steadily declined as the role of Islam has become ever more prominent), to Afghanistan under the Taliban (and even now, where those who are most devoutly Muslim are the ones killing schoolgirls for the crime of being -- schoolgirls).
The inability of some Muslim women to accept this reality, and to act as apologists for a belief-system that, coute que coute, they simply must defend, and must defend by lying about the system, or by claiming just how wonderful it is compared to Western debauchery, blah blah, is extraordinary. The only people who are taken in by this, at this point, are those who want to be fooled, who want to protect Islam at all costs. Their nonsense and lies are transparent, and it is annoying to even have to bother refuting what is self-evidently absurd.
Islam is a religion which cannot progress because when it was created, people in the seventh century had enough troubles worrying about living to see tomorrow let alone years from then. The Middle East was filled with tribal wars, and living from war to war, and conflict to conflict was the way of life. Most women and men back then covered up to to protect themselves from the harsh climate and the sun. Back then, women from most religions were treated as second-class citizens. Therefore, it's only natural that Mohammed made it a point that women would stay that way in his new religion. He created Islam as a way to create tribal idenity and create some power for himself as he was a merchant getting kicked out of villages here and there.
Whenever I'm back home in Egypt, it is far from uncommon to see the Muslim men who supposedly hate the West so much wearing Nike and Adidas. The women around them however have to go around wearing black in the intense heat. I guess it's ok for Muslim men to progress, but not the women. They are picking and choosing what they'd like to keep in or keep out from the West. In Egypt, Islam is a little bit more relaxed (for lack of a better word). In the more urban areas of the country about as many women walk around in hijaab as dont. Arab TV and music videos are getting more and more risque (though it is nothing compared to what you would see on MTV, and film and music is being pumped out of more progressive countries such as Lebanon and Morocco as well). However, as a result, Egypt gets heat for being untrue to Islam etc. This is a general statement but worth making: it seems the stricter the Islamic religion is in a country- the poorer it becomes.
This supports my point that Islam is a geopolitical religion. It did not take the future or change into account. It borrowed from relgions around it (for example, the moon, a symbol of Islam, has been traced back to belonging to one of the pagan gods once worshipped in Mohammeds region) and then laws were created that suited the customs of the day. It was nothing radical, was practical for the time and gave Mohammed and people that gathered around him something to identify to. As time went on, rules were altered (hence the errors found within the Quran) to accomodate (mostly) Mohammed's lifestyle, and his wars against different people's as he began to mass more people and more power.
Unfortunately for the women, Islam is an extremely frightening religion to stand up against since it is based on war and religious anger and tribalism and/or tribal pride. And even though the women may want to take a stand next to a brave female family member who tries to take a position different from her husbands, they cant. When their husbands take them home after dinner, they too will be beaten. And that's if they're lucky: in many Islamic countries they could be dragged out of the house and killed.
Being an Arab I can see the (little) good in Islam and I weep about the bad. Not all Muslim men make their wives or daughters wear hijaab, but I honestly dont know where the others get off forcing their wives too. In some heat, coverings such as the Burka could suffocate the women. The air underneath it is stagnant. It's wrong for Christians and Jews who claim to be religious to allow their daughters to wear Britney Spears type outfits and to allow their sons to have sex with every girl they can--- but then we have Muslim boys who are allowed, even encouraged, to take a non-Muslim girl's virginity. There's even rewards for it apparently. I don't know, but that doesnt seem pious to me. And if Allah is also the god of the Bible and the Torah, which the Quran is supposed to be based upon, then Allah had a dramatic change of mind. Such behaviour is condemned in the Bible and Torah.
However, back in the dark ages of the seventh century, villagers were kept in fear of having their daughters and wives raped and killed. The captive woman's only hope of escape/better treatment was to assimilate and win the man's favor. Hence, today, the Muslim boys conditioning to bring women to Islam and/or else corrupt her. Shouldn't our fellow Muslim women, knowing the fear of being mistreated have compassion on others and teach their sons not to be such barbaric, backward-thinking animals? No, how can they when they're taught that by hiding themselves from the outside world they're being better than us, and wont deserve the same treatment we're getting? Don't they realize that in those days both men and women weren't outside in the heat if they didn't have to be? And that in such times it was practical for women to not be out in a harsh world where they and the village could be attacked at any time?
So may be- MAY BE- Islam was a practical religion for one and all in the seventh century- but it certainly isn't up to scratch today. (Having said this, I don't believe Islam is a true religion. The Bible clearly states that Jesus was the last Prophet, the son of God, who paid the final punishment for all of our sins).
To all my Arab sisters- please, go to school and don't allow men to treat you like cattle be they Muslim or anything else. I'm not hear to convert you, I'm here to present a few facts. If after reviewing them you believe hijaab is what you want, then so be it. I appreciate and respect your modesty. However, if you feel you are being imposed upon, you must do something to change it. Women are not lesser beings. Men should not abuse their mothers who fed them, loved them and cared for them. Same goes with their wives, sister and daughters who loves them equally. The Quran says this.
I pray for peace in the Middle East. May God bless the Arabs, the US and all of us.
Dear Hugh,
"In the Qur'an and the hadith, men are permitted to beat their wives, though in ways that do not permanently disfigure them, or show the beating to outsiders."
A number of comments on this, primarily I will refer to what Robert Spencer had earlier posted on Dhimmi Watch.
In the article "Muslim Clerics on the Religious Rulings Regarding Wife-Beating",
Mustafa states: "The [wife-]beating must never be in exaggerated, blind anger, in order to avoid serious harm [to the woman]." He adds, "It is forbidden to beat her on the sensitive parts of her body, such as the face, breast, abdomen, and head. Instead, she should be beaten on the arms and legs," using a "rod that must not be stiff, but slim and lightweight so that no wounds, scars, or bruises are caused." Similarly, "[the blows] must not be hard."
Mustafa noted in his book that the aim of the beating was to cause the woman to feel some emotional pain, without humiliating her or harming her physically. According to him, wife-beating must be the last resort to which the husband turns in punishing his wife, and is, according to the Qur'an, Chapter 4, Verse 34, the husband's third step when the wife is rebellious: First, he must reprimand her, without anger. Next, he must distance her from the conjugal bed. Only if these two methods fail should the husband turn to beating.
Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) stated
"The word 'beating' is used in the verse, but it does not mean 'physical abuse.' The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it 'dharban ghayra mubarrih,' which means 'a light tap that leaves no mark.' He further said that [the] face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush"
What robert spencer failed to mention was, the siwak is a very thin stick, about the length of ones hand. The pain resulting from such a hit is negligible, however when practicing this in an islamic manner, the beating pains the womens feeling, rather her scences.. In islamic societies, rather western societis, marriage is considered sacred. Family life is held as one of the highest regards in an islamic houshold (or atleast an ideal one). However, it is here that the west fails to take culture differences into consideration, and while their is no law governing ones relationship in western countries, islam proposes a law/system for every possible scenario.
Furthemore, it is the belief on the average westeners part that "beating" ones wife is unnaceptable. There is no one standard to what is right and what is wrong, and no one standard to justice, such views are arrogant. And statistical figures from the USA is witness to the failing system, with gun related deaths usually seen as a result of gang warfare, and drug disputes, in a statistical sheet i looked at earlier on this year, the majority of gun related deaths and injuries in the USA was as a result of domestic disputes.
Key Statistic: A 1976 to 1987 analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation data reveals that more than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husband or intimate acquaintance than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.
This article reports on a 12-year analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports homicide data for the years 1976 to 1987. It compares differences among men and women by: the risk of homicide; victim/offender relationship; and, self-defense homicides.
It is also interisting to note the following statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/)
Marriage and Divorce
(Data are for U.S. in 2001)
Number of marriages: 2,254,000
Marriage rate: 7.8 per 1,000 total population
Divorce rate: 4.0 per 1,000 population (46 reporting States and D.C.)
The divorse rate is catching up with marriage rates, yet you address problems half a world away, and turn a blind eye to the real problem back home in the USA?
Systems can be compared effectively by what they produce, and while there is no rolemodel islamic state out there (which i will come back to in a while) there is more than enough evidence on the failings of "democratic" and capitalist systems.
"Women have half the inheritance rights of women"
There is a more complex system than just that. And also, there are a number of things that you do not take into account. Primarily that in different scnarios, different shares are allocated. For example, in the case where a Mother and father have a deceased child, the mother may recieve an equivilent amount of inheritance as the father. Also, the system and cultural difference between our socities. While the western society is ever changing in the quest to find a system that suites the demands of their citizens, islamic societies have roles for individuals in society. And while it is permited in an islamic society for the Wife to work, the men are the main income source for the family, they also are the financial caretakers in the houshold, hence it is only reasonable they take the greater share. However, i find it common that, while attacking what islamic reform produced, it is never compared to what it replaced, which is far more relevant. And if any individual studies what existed prior to the islamic state in arabia (and ofcourse elsewhere), no space in his/her mind will be left for doubt that it brought good. I do recall that during jahal (pre islamic times) women had no financial status in any of the worlds societies. Also, even today in western societies, inheritance is not a fixed obligation. Should islam not have introduced these laws, would women in the region have enjoyed any of the benifits they recieved, Inheritance being only one of the many things they enjoyed under the new islamic state? Certainly not, their plight would have been the same as that of the world at large, where women were seen as second class, and infirour beings, rather less physically capable with a role in society.
Also, western societies have grown out of chritian ones, and the message of christianity does differ from that of islam. While islam regards women as inferiours to be protected, but equivilent to one another as beings, christianies father founder regarded women as inferior, the ones who were decieved, who were created second, who may not teach. Islam however recognized a womens rights to complain in the event of unislamic doings on the part of her husband, to either family members, or close friends. Here i quote the teachings of paul, then a quote from the last seremon delivered by the prophet Muhammed (PBUH):-
2:9 In the same way, that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and propriety; not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing; 2:10 but (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works. 2:11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. 2:12 But I don’t permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 2:14 Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;
Now A quote from Prophet Muhammeds last seremon
O people, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve, as well as never commit adultery.
"Women have to find male witnesses to make a charge of rape"
Firstly, you simplify the laws by which islam governs. Also, islamic law is flexible (depending on the sect you follow, ofrourse) in the sence that so long as somthing fullfils the purpose intended, then it is accepted. And i refer to the famous saying by the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH)
"Inama al aamal bin niyat"
which is translated to
"Verily, ones actions are judeged by ones actions!"
Also, in Surat (chapter) Al noor, of the Quran, it specifically states that 4 witnesses are neccessary to make the charge of adulty (or in this case, rape). However, should other means produce equivilent, or better credibility today, then these means may be sought and used. The term "men" is usualy in reference to gods creation of human nature. However, i will have to further look into such accusations (in hadeeth, as the quraan is clear on the matter)
"Women are not allowed out of the house without the permission of their husbands"
Neither, in a civilized society, is one child allowed out without the permission of ones parents. Here is where, once again, our societies differ. This law was not pased to discriminate against women, howver a close study of islam only reveals the role of men in the protection of their wives and daughters. And certainly men do not need the protection of women. Also, islam does not imply in anyway that a man may do injustice to his wife by blocking her right to leave the house. It however excpects sound judgement to be used in assessing wether the women leaving the house will be safe, as it is the mans god given duty to protect his wife and daughters. I see this as beutifull, but i recognise too that your cultural difference causes a difference in thinking.
"Women are treated everywhere in the Muslim world as inferior beings "
And i ask, how long have you spent living in the "muslim world" ? This is a blind comment, though there may be many men in the arab/islamically dominant societies that abuse their wives, the attempted link between islam and the actions of individuals who believe in islam is unacceptable, besides the vague description of "inferiour beings". That, and the life that i spent in the islamic communities is witness to what i say.
"except in Turkey"
Im sorry, but you apparently havnt been following stories about banning of hijaab, and banning women who wear the hijaab from specific public gatherings and places.
The Turkish government has placed a ban on Muslim women attending schools and universities wearing the scarves and the Hijaab.
Also, last year in a government organised rally, the so-called islamic government banned any women wearing the veil from attending the rally. Is this not inferiour treatment?
""Lena" and others need to confront reality. Why do they think that Khomeini's first act upon coming to power was to lower the marriageable age of girls to nine years -- precisely the age at which Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Aisha, whom he had "married' when she was six?"
Because in our culture, that is the the minium age at which a girl may marry. However, before i go on expressing other thoughts on islam, i would like to highlight the problems that arise in the west as a result of marriage taking place as late ones 30's and 40's.
Statistics carried out in the USA showed that more than half of 17 year olds have had sexual intercourse. And i need not highlight the effects of sex before marriage, the resulting sexually transmitted diseases, and the long term marriage relationships that deteriorate as a result of pre-marriage relations.
There too, came a report on the BBC that indicated that a girls sexuality, and awarness of sexualtiy develops at the age of around 8 years.
Islamically, sex prior to marriage is unacceptable by all means. Their is a number of reasons as to why laws regulating pre marrian sexuality have been introduced. Primarily it is the implications when a man, who excpects marrying a virgin, discovers otherwise. Her divorse may be imminent, and her reputaion disfigured. That, and a disgrace on her families part. That is why honour killings occur (i will come back to that later)
Also, the second thing i would like to address is the faked information you provided. There is a dispute amongst scholars as to wether Muhammed (PBUH) had married Aisha at the age of 8 or 9, however, the age of 6 was never mentioned. As for sexual intercourse with her, islamically that cannot take place till the girl is sexually mature. Hence the reason why Aisha only moved to the Prophets house at the age of 14, as opposed to the age of 9 years as you have stated. Please enlighten me as to where you obtained your information...
"Why does she think "honor" killings of girls and women are found in Muslim countries, and the Jordanian Parliament recently rejected mild attempts to punish such killings?"
Honour killings is not as a result of islamic faith, but the jealosy that one feels towards his sisters, or daughters. And while islam sanctions honour killings, you continue to portray it as a result of islamic teachings. And as islam sanctions it, how can you accuse the people who commit these acts of acting within the islamic faith. The punishment of sex prior to marriage in islam is clear
An noor, verse 2
"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes... "
So how then can you come up to muslims, and tell them "they must confront reality" when what they are infact confronting are decietull lies on your part.
Also, you ignore a few facts. The nature of the Jordaninan government is a secular one, with no islamic prinicples held to any regard, and no sharia instituted. The late king was a free masson, and while his son does not acknowledge his own status, it is clear that islam is the furthest thing from mind.
"Why in pictures of public scenes -- you know, those frenzied mobs in Gaza, or Ramallah, or in Cairo, or Najaf -- are there never any women present?"
Because you are either blind, or are ignorent to the male/female segrecation in these countires, particluarly in protests and street rallies. Also, countless times one has seen pictures of women in large palestinean protests, and i do recall the large famous square in iran filled with women in black clothing.
"Why, when a handful of Saudi women actually dared to drive cars, were they arrested?"
Id like a bit more on this piece of news. But from my personal experience of living in Saudi for well over a decade, I can say, that while i would like to see the right for my mother and sisters to drive, i think the most insane think they could do would be to drive around the city.
Also, women can drive in any other state, whose population is predominantly muslim.
"Why, in fact, do Saudi women have to stay indoors, go out only in the company of male relatives and with the express permission of their husbands?"
This is rubbish. Women in Saudi Arabia do not have to travel with an acompanying male relative.
"Why are women in Islam mostly relegated to the role of breeders --- and breed they do, more soldiers for the Jihad and the greater glory of Islam?"
Once again, biased words with no proof. Women in islam are not "mostly relegated to the role of breeders" But offsprings are one of the joys of marriage, prior to and post islamic era.
"Why do the devout Muslims burn alive, as they have in recent months, young Afghani girls for the crime of attending school?"
Why do you choose the word devout to describe them?
The meaning
"de·vout ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-vout)
adj. de·vout·er, de·vout·est
Devoted to religion or to the fulfillment of religious obligations. See Synonyms at religious.
Displaying reverence or piety."
However, for a start, the use of fire to kill ones enemies was sacntioned by the Prophet Muhammed (when Ali burnt the apostates, the Prophet Muhammed declared that none has the right to use the punishment of god. The main weapon used by modern armies, Fire.)
Also, islam permits education of women, so in either case, your use of devout was purely for propaganda purposes.
"Why do apologists for Islam, ignoring this and a thousand, ten thousand, other examples of the intimate connnection between the teachigns of Islam, as expressed in Qur'an, hadith, and sira (the sacred life of Muhammad, who is taken as a model of human behavior)"
Because i have just shown the way in which you make up a lie, make false connections. And after your done using your imagination, you condemn others for not publishing your imaginative lies.
"continue to prate about how wonderful Islam is for women"
Certainly it is, but different people do have different views, and ways of thinking. Islam, however, is certainly a retreat for the portrait of women as Sex symbols in the west. And its a retreat for women who want to marry men who have not slept with 100 other women prior to marriage, and its a retreat for women who wish to keep hold of their dignity and honour.
"when chapter and verse can so easily be quoted to show the precise oppoosite"
Unfortunate for you, that has only been aplicable in my case, not yours
"in every single country where the Shari'a is imposed, from Saudi Arabia (the virtual house arrest under which its women, however rich they may be, must live), to Iran (where any scintilla of female freedom is in defiance of Islam, not because of it), in the Sudan (the country whose Muslim regime murdered an 82-year-old dissident, and engages in the wholesale massacre of non-Muslims), to Pakistan (where the position of women has steadily declined as the role of Islam has become ever more prominent), to Afghanistan under the Taliban (and even now, where those who are most devoutly Muslim are the ones killing schoolgirls for the crime of being -- schoolgirls). "
Not one of the countries you mentioned has anything close to an ideal Sharia system.
Saudi Arabia-
The whole government system, the monarchy, is unnacceptable in islamic terms. They have no majlis shura (planned on making one, which is just a ploy to fool people)
"The inability of some Muslim women to accept this reality, and to act as apologists for a belief-system that, coute que coute, they simply must defend, and must defend by lying about the system"
The inability to accept your lies is somthing that anyone with a substantial information on his own religion is a result of natural moral standings, and inability to accept lies.
The only one lying is you, and you certainly are not on the defence, but offence.
"The only people who are taken in by this, at this point, are those who want to be fooled, who want to protect Islam at all costs. Their nonsense and lies are transparent, and it is annoying to even have to bother refuting what is self-evidently absurd. "
well then, i put your honesty to the test. Have a well prepared responce on EVERY point i made by june the 14th. I will check for it, but respond at the date given. I challenge you, oh honest one, to produce detailed proof using quranic verses and hadeeth from Bukhari.
Regards
Ahmad
Ahmed said:
"In islamic societies, rather western societis, marriage is considered sacred."
Excuse me, in much of Western socities, marriage is considered sacred. You don't know what you speak of.
"and while their is no law governing ones relationship in western countries, islam proposes a law/system for every possible scenario."
I can speak here as someone who knows the impossibility of fulfilling any divine law in full. As I read this, you're only in good standing with Allah as long as you keep every law he proposes. Good luck.
You also talk about the failing of capitalist and democratic systems as a whole, without understanding that it is a moral failure, not a system failure. How has democracy failed if the people don't care about what is right? How has freedom failed if people choose foolishly? Many of America's founders recognized that without a moral citizenry, the liberty experiment was doomed to failure. For only a moral populace can effectively govern themselves. A moral populace does not need laws, for again, they are self-governed. You wish to push a slew of laws upon the West because you think people cannot be trusted and thus need the heavy hand of law. You might do well to remember what Patrick Henry said when throwing off the yoke of British oppresion, "Give me liberty or give me death!"
I don't have time to respond to the rest of your article, but you've missed the boat in the first few paragraphs. That doesn't bode well.
This new law has nothing to do with secularism. Islam recognized women's rights 1,400 years ago
The farrago of primitive illogic, lies, half-lies, concessions masquerading as stout rebuttals, bref -- all this nonsense from one "Ahmad" simply bores me. If he wishes to see chapter and verse from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim re Aisha (6 when married, 9 when Muhammad has sexual intercourse with her -- which is why, I repeat, Khomeini lowered the marriageable age of Iranian girls to nine), he can look -- and so can others who wish to assure themselves of the truth of the matter -- here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm
That should put paid to that little question.
If one wishes to find further details about the abominable treatment of women, I suggest further reading at the website of Ibn Warraq, www.secularislam.com, and in particular, look at www.secularislam.com/women/ for a good summarizing article.
For the testimony of women who were either, through no fault of their own, born into Islam, or for various reasons "reverted" (as Muslims like to say, since in their view we are all Muslims originally), one might begin with that excellent anthology of testimonies of those who have jettisoned Islam forever, "Leaving Islam," edited by the tireless Ibn Warraq, and deserving of wide circulation. Indeed, were I in the CIA, I would subsidize all such publications and make sure they were widely available to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
There is no need to further refute the incoherent and "incondite" (the word Carlyle used about the Qur'an) gobbledygook of the injured sensibility of Ahmed. Consider, for amusement purposes, how he deals with the matter of Saudi women being unable to drive, or the burning to death of Afghani schoolgirls for the crime of going to school. Has he, since he lived in Saudi Arabia for ten years, forgotten the little matter of the schoolgirls there who burned to death because the religious police had locked them in? It made quite a splash, even in backward Saudi Arabia. Basta. As Pushkin wrote at the end of Exegi Monumentum, ne osparivay gluptsa. (In Nabokov's translation: "And do not contradict the fool.")So I won't waste any more time.
Dear Hugh,
"The farrago of primitive illogic, lies, half-lies, concessions masquerading as stout rebuttals, bref -- all this nonsense from one "Ahmad" simply bores me"
I assure you, i enjoy a victory, but i certainly am bored by ever lasting arguments by islamaphobics, and arrogant people such as you, and the people of the like.
However, you classified what i wrote as "primitive illogic, lies, half-lies, concessions masquerading as stout rebuttals", while not specifically arguning any of the points I made. A pathetic way out of a challenge, incapable of answering the questions of your "enemy"?
"If he wishes to see chapter and verse from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim re Aisha"
Primarily, you dont seem to be addressing me, why so?
Secondly, i have made a mistake. I was aware that she had moved to the prophets home at the age of 14, and i took that to be the age at which the marriage was consumated. However, there is still doubt with regard to that all, as notable islamic scholers have argued over the age of the marriage. Partly due to conflicting age reports on the part of aisha, and others present at the time. I will research more on the subject...
Thirdly, i am in full support of early marriage, as i agree fully with the following hadeeth, from my own logical point of view:-
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 4:
Narrated 'Abdullah:
We were with the Prophet while we were young and had no wealth whatever. So Allah's Apostle said, "O young people! Whoever among you can marry, should marry, because it helps him lower his gaze and guard his modesty (i.e. his private parts from committing illegal sexual intercourse etc.), and whoever is not able to marry, should fast, as fasting diminishes his sexual power."
This, and again the cultural difference many in the west either fail to understand, or donot wish to acknowledge.
"If one wishes to find further details about the abominable treatment of women, I suggest further reading at the website of Ibn Warraq"
So what exactly are you attacking.
Is it Islamic sharia, which Lana and millions of other women seem more than content with, or is it trying to present the minority of women who fancy western ideals as being the majority who are suppressed. Or are you trying to split Male and female oppinions within the islamic world. However, i have seen, on this site, that some of the most active muslims have been women. E.g. hala who posted post after post, and on this section lana. I assure you, my mother and 3 sisters will find your accusations, as well as Ibn Warraqs as baseless and unnacceptable as do i, and i am far more aware of the opinions on sharia in the islamic world. Ill take egypt for example. While no statistical figures are provided from any reliable sources part, it dosnt take much for any forign visitor to recognise the extent to which women value the Hijab. In a country where it is not obligatory, women in their millions do wear the hijab, and unfortunately this is somthing you can only go see for yourself.
Ibn Warraq or not, his hate for the viel means little to women of islam, who wether practicing hijab or not, would not agree with any of this apostates teachings.
"one might begin with that excellent anthology of testimonies of those who have jettisoned Islam forever, "Leaving Islam," edited by the tireless Ibn Warraq, and deserving of wide circulation."
I have not looked into them. So i will not take the dicission of comenting on such.
"There is no need to further refute the incoherent and "incondite" (the word Carlyle used about the Qur'an) gobbledygook of the injured sensibility of Ahmed."
There is no further ability to refute...
"Consider, for amusement purposes, how he deals with the matter of Saudi women being unable to drive"
How about we conside a bit more, how about we consider the following hadeeth:-
arrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "The BEST WOMEN are the RIDERS OF THE CAMELS and the righteous among the women of Quraish. They are the kindest women to their children in their childhood and the more careful women of the property of their husbands."
Camels were the past form of transport, today its the car. I take it you have more to say than just "look at how he argues". Cmon, wheres the verses and hadeeths contradictory. Your the sites spokesmen kneeling before me right now.
"or the burning to death of Afghani schoolgirls for the crime of going to school"
Lets consider how i argued this one
*I brought a hadeeth whereby the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) condemned and forbid the use of using fire as a punishment
*.I earlier made the point that islam permits women to seek knowledge, and if that is somthing you are disatisfied with, proove to me it is otherwise in islam.
Also, consider the banning of hijab in french schools, if muslim girls were not permitted to have an education, why all the uproar by all the scholars, and muslims in general?
The burning of the girl is fully condemnable under islam, and from the 10 greatest sins is murdering.
If my argument did not hold water, then please proove it to me! Your only making a fool of yourself in your own little islamaphobic base.
"Has he, since he lived in Saudi Arabia for ten years, forgotten the little matter of the schoolgirls there who burned to death because the religious police had locked them in?"
Not really. And i aslo recall the local sheikh showing discontent with the hayah (the "religous"police) But then again, every religion has its people who will comit such acts. I however want proof that such action was taken as an example from either the hadeeth or the quraan. I am defending my religion, not every follower. Tell me then, do you defend every christian, if so, i would like to enlighten you to a few disturbing quotes on the part of southern baptist ministers and their likes.
"made quite a splash, even in backward Saudi Arabia."
Backward? I am no saudi, however 25% of all forign investment (or investment in general, am not sure) in the USA comes from that "backward"society. Also, Saudi Arabia is one of the regions richest and most modern countries. It is developped in terms of consumption (though developing in terms of poduction) It has a GNP per capita of around $8000 (figures from 1995) which is the 4th highest in the region (UAE is highest with about $24000 then kuwait $21000 then Israel $14000, the rest of the region ranges around $1000-3000)
Also, the figure is partly due to the huge increase in employees from 3rd world countries, e.g.300000 from phillipen and such.
Secondly, ofcourse it made "quite a splash". Its disgustingly unislamic.
-No more jihad
"Excuse me, in much of Western socities, marriage is considered sacred. You don't know what you speak of."
With the rate of divorse within a small distance of marriage rates (7.0 to 4.0) and you excpect me to believe that load of rubbish.
I made quite a number of points in the last post, how most of gun related death and injuries were as a result of domestic disputes (12000 dead each year)
And i provided statists which showed the enormity of marriage problems in the US. Its far from sacred. In my 14 years living in Saudi, i have known only one person whos father had got a divorse, and it was shocking. On coming to the UK i have known 6 or so, and it has become the norm.
"I can speak here as someone who knows the impossibility of fulfilling any divine law in full. As I read this, you're only in good standing with Allah as long as you keep every law he proposes. Good luck. "
Certainly god does not excpect his followers to keep within every law. And this is somthing recognized strongly in islam. However, it excects ones utmost effort to keep within the set boundaries.
May 17, 2004
Kuwait Approves Draft Law Giving Women the Vote
Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmad al-Sabah
Despite resistance from hardline Muslims, Kuwaiti women may get the vote. From Reuters, with thanks to Miriam:
KUWAIT (Reuters) - Kuwait's cabinet approved a draft law Sunday allowing women to vote and run in parliamentary polls, moving them a step closer to full political rights they have sought for decades in the conservative Gulf Arab state.
The draft needs parliament's approval to pass into law. A decree issued by Emir Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmad al-Sabah giving women the vote was narrowly defeated in the 50-man house in 1999 by an alliance of Islamist and conservative tribal MPs.
Kuwaiti women have been fighting for suffrage for more than 40 years, only to be blocked by Islamists and male politicians.
"The council (of ministers) decided to approve the draft law and transfer it to the Emir, God protect him, in order to transfer it to the National Assembly," a cabinet statement said. ...
Leading women's rights activist, Dr. Fatima al-Abdali, welcomed the news, adding that the issue of refusing women the vote was "sabotaging Kuwait's image internationally."
Islamist and conservative MPs, who wield great influence in parliament, are opposed to Western influences and may prove to be a stumbling block in the face of the new draft.
"I'm hopeful," Abdali said. "If this bill is serious and is not just a fight between the Islamist bloc and the democratic bloc, I think women can quickly gain everyone's confidence."
PROGRESS ACROSS THE REGION
Regarded by some as among the most emancipated in the conservative Muslim region, Kuwaiti women have had to sit back and watch their sisters in other Gulf states -- such as Qatar, Bahrain and Oman -- make modest progress.
Kuwaiti women serve as diplomats, run businesses and help steer the vital oil industry in the country of 900,000 citizens.
They constitute up to 70 percent of college graduates in Kuwait, but account for less than five percent of the country's decision makers. Some have moved up to mid-level public ranks, but none holds a top post such as government minister.
Signs of change came last October when the government approved allowing women to stand for office and vote in municipal council elections, a move observers hailed then as a first step toward granting women greater political rights.
Posted at May 17, 2004 07:44 AM
Comments
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)
Women's rights in Islam do not necessarily lead to any lessening of hostility to Islam. The famously female "Dr. Germ" who worked on biological weapons for Saddam Hussein was allowed to turn her talents to such deadly use precisely because the Ba'ath regime was, in matters of vocational advancement for women, "secularist." Would it really be to the advantage of non-Muslims really if Muslim women were to be even more active participants in the Jihad instead of being home-bound breeders of Jihadis, now able to work on weaponry, or to engage in more plausible propaganda for Islam because they would be (false)proof that "Islam does not discriminate against women." Is Shirin Ebadi, who is interested in Muslim women's rights (the rights of Infidels, both men and women, is another matter), consistently and meretriciously denies that there is anything wrong with the tenets of Islam. No truth-teller she. Was the Sabena plane hijacker Leila Khaled, no burka-ed and shrinking violet, not a heartwarming example of an equal opportunity terrorist and murderer? As a propagandist, is not Hanan Ashrawi, that pseudo-"Christian" Arab pushing the Muslim Arab agenda of the PLO, a great and good friend, and confidante, of Peter Jennings, not a far more effective and cunning propagandist than Arafat or Erekat? Non-Muslims should not enthusiastically assume that "women's rights" in Islam means any let-up in the Jihad. Such developments could even make the Jihad more deadly.
Posted by: Hugh at May 17, 2004 08:23 AM
Will these women have a full vote or one-half of a vote as per their testimony in a court of law?
Will non-Muslim women be allowed to vote or do we assume that all citizens in Kuwait are Muslims?
jihan
Posted by: jihan at May 17, 2004 09:06 AM
I don't think any Kafir will be allowed to vote, since they won't vote "Islamically" in any event.
Posted by: Ibn Rushd at May 17, 2004 05:41 PM
Still, it's a step in the right direction. With womens votes come womens rights and more secular laws.
lets not forget that just 100 years ago women never had the right to vote here either.
Posted by: Nathan at May 18, 2004 11:30 AM
Muslim women always have had many rights which were given to them in islam. It is just the tyrants of today who are so called "muslims" that are going against the teachings of the prophet Muhhammad(pbuh) and the Quran. They just want to gain,wealth, power and supremecy. they have forgotton the truth behind the quran just to satisfy their worldly pleasures. Islam bestowed upon women many rights, rights which they have had for over 1400 years. Before Islam if a female child was born she would be buried alive. A woman could be inherited and she was nothing but a mere object not loved for who she really was. Islam changed that.
Posted by: Lena at May 18, 2004 09:22 PM
The dreamy belief, as encapsulated in the comment above, that Islam gave women rights they did not possess, is so far from the truth, so self-evidently preposterous, that one hardly knows where to begin. But any reader inclined to accept this sort of thing might do well to consult the writings of Azam Kamguian, which can be located, I think, at www.faithfreedom.com, or the articles by others at that site, and at www.secularislam.org. In the Qur'an and the hadith, men are permitted to beat their wives, though in ways that do not permanently disfigure them, or show the beating to outsiders. Women have half the inheritance rights of women. Women have to find male witnesses to make a charge of rape. Women are not allowed out of the house without the permission of their husbands. Women are treated everywhere in the Muslim world as inferior beings -- except in Turkey, where Kemalism has limited the application of the Shari'a, limited the power of Islam, and now in Tunisia, which, as part of the legacy of Habib Bourguiba, who regarded with disfavor much of Islamic teachings, and who did attempt to raise the status of women through his Destour Party's regime of relatively enlightened despotism.
"Lena" and others need to confront reality. Why do they think that Khomeini's first act upon coming to power was to lower the marriageable age of girls to nine years -- precisely the age at which Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Aisha, whom he had "married' when she was six? Why does she think "honor" killings of girls and women are found in Muslim countries, and the Jordanian Parliament recently rejected mild attempts to punish such killings? Why in pictures of public scenes -- you know, those frenzied mobs in Gaza, or Ramallah, or in Cairo, or Najaf -- are there never any women present? Why, when a handful of Saudi women actually dared to drive cars, were they arrested? Why, in fact, do Saudi women have to stay indoors, go out only in the company of male relatives and with the express permission of their husbands? Why are women in Islam mostly relegated to the role of breeders --- and breed they do, more soldiers for the Jihad and the greater glory of Islam? Why do the devout Muslims burn alive, as they have in recent months, young Afghani girls for the crime of attending school? Why do apologists for Islam, ignoring this and a thousand, ten thousand, other examples of the intimate connnection between the teachigns of Islam, as expressed in Qur'an, hadith, and sira (the sacred life of Muhammad, who is taken as a model of human behavior), continue to prate about how wonderful Islam is for women, how all the acts which occur that harm them in the Islamic world, and with an Islamic basis, are actually "against" both the letter and spirit of Islam, when chapter and verse can so easily be quoted to show the precise oppoosite, and the observable practice of severe discrimination and even persecution of women can be easily observed as well, in every single country where the Shari'a is imposed, from Saudi Arabia (the virtual house arrest under which its women, however rich they may be, must live), to Iran (where any scintilla of female freedom is in defiance of Islam, not because of it), in the Sudan (the country whose Muslim regime murdered an 82-year-old dissident, and engages in the wholesale massacre of non-Muslims), to Pakistan (where the position of women has steadily declined as the role of Islam has become ever more prominent), to Afghanistan under the Taliban (and even now, where those who are most devoutly Muslim are the ones killing schoolgirls for the crime of being -- schoolgirls).
The inability of some Muslim women to accept this reality, and to act as apologists for a belief-system that, coute que coute, they simply must defend, and must defend by lying about the system, or by claiming just how wonderful it is compared to Western debauchery, blah blah, is extraordinary. The only people who are taken in by this, at this point, are those who want to be fooled, who want to protect Islam at all costs. Their nonsense and lies are transparent, and it is annoying to even have to bother refuting what is self-evidently absurd.
Posted by: Hugh at May 19, 2004 08:13 AM
Islam is a religion which cannot progress because when it was created, people in the seventh century had enough troubles worrying about living to see tomorrow let alone years from then. The Middle East was filled with tribal wars, and living from war to war, and conflict to conflict was the way of life. Most women and men back then covered up to to protect themselves from the harsh climate and the sun. Back then, women from most religions were treated as second-class citizens. Therefore, it's only natural that Mohammed made it a point that women would stay that way in his new religion. He created Islam as a way to create tribal idenity and create some power for himself as he was a merchant getting kicked out of villages here and there.
Whenever I'm back home in Egypt, it is far from uncommon to see the Muslim men who supposedly hate the West so much wearing Nike and Adidas. The women around them however have to go around wearing black in the intense heat. I guess it's ok for Muslim men to progress, but not the women. They are picking and choosing what they'd like to keep in or keep out from the West. In Egypt, Islam is a little bit more relaxed (for lack of a better word). In the more urban areas of the country about as many women walk around in hijaab as dont. Arab TV and music videos are getting more and more risque (though it is nothing compared to what you would see on MTV, and film and music is being pumped out of more progressive countries such as Lebanon and Morocco as well). However, as a result, Egypt gets heat for being untrue to Islam etc. This is a general statement but worth making: it seems the stricter the Islamic religion is in a country- the poorer it becomes.
This supports my point that Islam is a geopolitical religion. It did not take the future or change into account. It borrowed from relgions around it (for example, the moon, a symbol of Islam, has been traced back to belonging to one of the pagan gods once worshipped in Mohammeds region) and then laws were created that suited the customs of the day. It was nothing radical, was practical for the time and gave Mohammed and people that gathered around him something to identify to. As time went on, rules were altered (hence the errors found within the Quran) to accomodate (mostly) Mohammed's lifestyle, and his wars against different people's as he began to mass more people and more power.
Unfortunately for the women, Islam is an extremely frightening religion to stand up against since it is based on war and religious anger and tribalism and/or tribal pride. And even though the women may want to take a stand next to a brave female family member who tries to take a position different from her husbands, they cant. When their husbands take them home after dinner, they too will be beaten. And that's if they're lucky: in many Islamic countries they could be dragged out of the house and killed.
Being an Arab I can see the (little) good in Islam and I weep about the bad. Not all Muslim men make their wives or daughters wear hijaab, but I honestly dont know where the others get off forcing their wives too. In some heat, coverings such as the Burka could suffocate the women. The air underneath it is stagnant. It's wrong for Christians and Jews who claim to be religious to allow their daughters to wear Britney Spears type outfits and to allow their sons to have sex with every girl they can--- but then we have Muslim boys who are allowed, even encouraged, to take a non-Muslim girl's virginity. There's even rewards for it apparently. I don't know, but that doesnt seem pious to me. And if Allah is also the god of the Bible and the Torah, which the Quran is supposed to be based upon, then Allah had a dramatic change of mind. Such behaviour is condemned in the Bible and Torah.
However, back in the dark ages of the seventh century, villagers were kept in fear of having their daughters and wives raped and killed. The captive woman's only hope of escape/better treatment was to assimilate and win the man's favor. Hence, today, the Muslim boys conditioning to bring women to Islam and/or else corrupt her. Shouldn't our fellow Muslim women, knowing the fear of being mistreated have compassion on others and teach their sons not to be such barbaric, backward-thinking animals? No, how can they when they're taught that by hiding themselves from the outside world they're being better than us, and wont deserve the same treatment we're getting? Don't they realize that in those days both men and women weren't outside in the heat if they didn't have to be? And that in such times it was practical for women to not be out in a harsh world where they and the village could be attacked at any time?
So may be- MAY BE- Islam was a practical religion for one and all in the seventh century- but it certainly isn't up to scratch today. (Having said this, I don't believe Islam is a true religion. The Bible clearly states that Jesus was the last Prophet, the son of God, who paid the final punishment for all of our sins).
To all my Arab sisters- please, go to school and don't allow men to treat you like cattle be they Muslim or anything else. I'm not hear to convert you, I'm here to present a few facts. If after reviewing them you believe hijaab is what you want, then so be it. I appreciate and respect your modesty. However, if you feel you are being imposed upon, you must do something to change it. Women are not lesser beings. Men should not abuse their mothers who fed them, loved them and cared for them. Same goes with their wives, sister and daughters who loves them equally. The Quran says this.
I pray for peace in the Middle East. May God bless the Arabs, the US and all of us.
Posted by: lilegypt at May 20, 2004 12:08 AM
Dear Hugh,
"In the Qur'an and the hadith, men are permitted to beat their wives, though in ways that do not permanently disfigure them, or show the beating to outsiders."
A number of comments on this, primarily I will refer to what Robert Spencer had earlier posted on Dhimmi Watch.
In the article "Muslim Clerics on the Religious Rulings Regarding Wife-Beating",
Mustafa states: "The [wife-]beating must never be in exaggerated, blind anger, in order to avoid serious harm [to the woman]." He adds, "It is forbidden to beat her on the sensitive parts of her body, such as the face, breast, abdomen, and head. Instead, she should be beaten on the arms and legs," using a "rod that must not be stiff, but slim and lightweight so that no wounds, scars, or bruises are caused." Similarly, "[the blows] must not be hard."
Mustafa noted in his book that the aim of the beating was to cause the woman to feel some emotional pain, without humiliating her or harming her physically. According to him, wife-beating must be the last resort to which the husband turns in punishing his wife, and is, according to the Qur'an, Chapter 4, Verse 34, the husband's third step when the wife is rebellious: First, he must reprimand her, without anger. Next, he must distance her from the conjugal bed. Only if these two methods fail should the husband turn to beating.
Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) stated
"The word 'beating' is used in the verse, but it does not mean 'physical abuse.' The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it 'dharban ghayra mubarrih,' which means 'a light tap that leaves no mark.' He further said that [the] face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush"
What robert spencer failed to mention was, the siwak is a very thin stick, about the length of ones hand. The pain resulting from such a hit is negligible, however when practicing this in an islamic manner, the beating pains the womens feeling, rather her scences.. In islamic societies, rather western societis, marriage is considered sacred. Family life is held as one of the highest regards in an islamic houshold (or atleast an ideal one). However, it is here that the west fails to take culture differences into consideration, and while their is no law governing ones relationship in western countries, islam proposes a law/system for every possible scenario.
Furthemore, it is the belief on the average westeners part that "beating" ones wife is unnaceptable. There is no one standard to what is right and what is wrong, and no one standard to justice, such views are arrogant. And statistical figures from the USA is witness to the failing system, with gun related deaths usually seen as a result of gang warfare, and drug disputes, in a statistical sheet i looked at earlier on this year, the majority of gun related deaths and injuries in the USA was as a result of domestic disputes.
Key Statistic: A 1976 to 1987 analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation data reveals that more than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husband or intimate acquaintance than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.
This article reports on a 12-year analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports homicide data for the years 1976 to 1987. It compares differences among men and women by: the risk of homicide; victim/offender relationship; and, self-defense homicides.
It is also interisting to note the following statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/)
Marriage and Divorce
(Data are for U.S. in 2001)
Number of marriages: 2,254,000
Marriage rate: 7.8 per 1,000 total population
Divorce rate: 4.0 per 1,000 population (46 reporting States and D.C.)
The divorse rate is catching up with marriage rates, yet you address problems half a world away, and turn a blind eye to the real problem back home in the USA?
Systems can be compared effectively by what they produce, and while there is no rolemodel islamic state out there (which i will come back to in a while) there is more than enough evidence on the failings of "democratic" and capitalist systems.
"Women have half the inheritance rights of women"
There is a more complex system than just that. And also, there are a number of things that you do not take into account. Primarily that in different scnarios, different shares are allocated. For example, in the case where a Mother and father have a deceased child, the mother may recieve an equivilent amount of inheritance as the father. Also, the system and cultural difference between our socities. While the western society is ever changing in the quest to find a system that suites the demands of their citizens, islamic societies have roles for individuals in society. And while it is permited in an islamic society for the Wife to work, the men are the main income source for the family, they also are the financial caretakers in the houshold, hence it is only reasonable they take the greater share. However, i find it common that, while attacking what islamic reform produced, it is never compared to what it replaced, which is far more relevant. And if any individual studies what existed prior to the islamic state in arabia (and ofcourse elsewhere), no space in his/her mind will be left for doubt that it brought good. I do recall that during jahal (pre islamic times) women had no financial status in any of the worlds societies. Also, even today in western societies, inheritance is not a fixed obligation. Should islam not have introduced these laws, would women in the region have enjoyed any of the benifits they recieved, Inheritance being only one of the many things they enjoyed under the new islamic state? Certainly not, their plight would have been the same as that of the world at large, where women were seen as second class, and infirour beings, rather less physically capable with a role in society.
Also, western societies have grown out of chritian ones, and the message of christianity does differ from that of islam. While islam regards women as inferiours to be protected, but equivilent to one another as beings, christianies father founder regarded women as inferior, the ones who were decieved, who were created second, who may not teach. Islam however recognized a womens rights to complain in the event of unislamic doings on the part of her husband, to either family members, or close friends. Here i quote the teachings of paul, then a quote from the last seremon delivered by the prophet Muhammed (PBUH):-
2:9 In the same way, that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and propriety; not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing; 2:10 but (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works. 2:11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. 2:12 But I don’t permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 2:14 Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;
Now A quote from Prophet Muhammeds last seremon
O people, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve, as well as never commit adultery.
"Women have to find male witnesses to make a charge of rape"
Firstly, you simplify the laws by which islam governs. Also, islamic law is flexible (depending on the sect you follow, ofrourse) in the sence that so long as somthing fullfils the purpose intended, then it is accepted. And i refer to the famous saying by the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH)
"Inama al aamal bin niyat"
which is translated to
"Verily, ones actions are judeged by ones actions!"
Also, in Surat (chapter) Al noor, of the Quran, it specifically states that 4 witnesses are neccessary to make the charge of adulty (or in this case, rape). However, should other means produce equivilent, or better credibility today, then these means may be sought and used. The term "men" is usualy in reference to gods creation of human nature. However, i will have to further look into such accusations (in hadeeth, as the quraan is clear on the matter)
"Women are not allowed out of the house without the permission of their husbands"
Neither, in a civilized society, is one child allowed out without the permission of ones parents. Here is where, once again, our societies differ. This law was not pased to discriminate against women, howver a close study of islam only reveals the role of men in the protection of their wives and daughters. And certainly men do not need the protection of women. Also, islam does not imply in anyway that a man may do injustice to his wife by blocking her right to leave the house. It however excpects sound judgement to be used in assessing wether the women leaving the house will be safe, as it is the mans god given duty to protect his wife and daughters. I see this as beutifull, but i recognise too that your cultural difference causes a difference in thinking.
"Women are treated everywhere in the Muslim world as inferior beings "
And i ask, how long have you spent living in the "muslim world" ? This is a blind comment, though there may be many men in the arab/islamically dominant societies that abuse their wives, the attempted link between islam and the actions of individuals who believe in islam is unacceptable, besides the vague description of "inferiour beings". That, and the life that i spent in the islamic communities is witness to what i say.
"except in Turkey"
Im sorry, but you apparently havnt been following stories about banning of hijaab, and banning women who wear the hijaab from specific public gatherings and places.
The Turkish government has placed a ban on Muslim women attending schools and universities wearing the scarves and the Hijaab.
Also, last year in a government organised rally, the so-called islamic government banned any women wearing the veil from attending the rally. Is this not inferiour treatment?
""Lena" and others need to confront reality. Why do they think that Khomeini's first act upon coming to power was to lower the marriageable age of girls to nine years -- precisely the age at which Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Aisha, whom he had "married' when she was six?"
Because in our culture, that is the the minium age at which a girl may marry. However, before i go on expressing other thoughts on islam, i would like to highlight the problems that arise in the west as a result of marriage taking place as late ones 30's and 40's.
Statistics carried out in the USA showed that more than half of 17 year olds have had sexual intercourse. And i need not highlight the effects of sex before marriage, the resulting sexually transmitted diseases, and the long term marriage relationships that deteriorate as a result of pre-marriage relations.
There too, came a report on the BBC that indicated that a girls sexuality, and awarness of sexualtiy develops at the age of around 8 years.
Islamically, sex prior to marriage is unacceptable by all means. Their is a number of reasons as to why laws regulating pre marrian sexuality have been introduced. Primarily it is the implications when a man, who excpects marrying a virgin, discovers otherwise. Her divorse may be imminent, and her reputaion disfigured. That, and a disgrace on her families part. That is why honour killings occur (i will come back to that later)
Also, the second thing i would like to address is the faked information you provided. There is a dispute amongst scholars as to wether Muhammed (PBUH) had married Aisha at the age of 8 or 9, however, the age of 6 was never mentioned. As for sexual intercourse with her, islamically that cannot take place till the girl is sexually mature. Hence the reason why Aisha only moved to the Prophets house at the age of 14, as opposed to the age of 9 years as you have stated. Please enlighten me as to where you obtained your information...
"Why does she think "honor" killings of girls and women are found in Muslim countries, and the Jordanian Parliament recently rejected mild attempts to punish such killings?"
Honour killings is not as a result of islamic faith, but the jealosy that one feels towards his sisters, or daughters. And while islam sanctions honour killings, you continue to portray it as a result of islamic teachings. And as islam sanctions it, how can you accuse the people who commit these acts of acting within the islamic faith. The punishment of sex prior to marriage in islam is clear
An noor, verse 2
"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes... "
So how then can you come up to muslims, and tell them "they must confront reality" when what they are infact confronting are decietull lies on your part.
Also, you ignore a few facts. The nature of the Jordaninan government is a secular one, with no islamic prinicples held to any regard, and no sharia instituted. The late king was a free masson, and while his son does not acknowledge his own status, it is clear that islam is the furthest thing from mind.
"Why in pictures of public scenes -- you know, those frenzied mobs in Gaza, or Ramallah, or in Cairo, or Najaf -- are there never any women present?"
Because you are either blind, or are ignorent to the male/female segrecation in these countires, particluarly in protests and street rallies. Also, countless times one has seen pictures of women in large palestinean protests, and i do recall the large famous square in iran filled with women in black clothing.
"Why, when a handful of Saudi women actually dared to drive cars, were they arrested?"
Id like a bit more on this piece of news. But from my personal experience of living in Saudi for well over a decade, I can say, that while i would like to see the right for my mother and sisters to drive, i think the most insane think they could do would be to drive around the city.
Also, women can drive in any other state, whose population is predominantly muslim.
"Why, in fact, do Saudi women have to stay indoors, go out only in the company of male relatives and with the express permission of their husbands?"
This is rubbish. Women in Saudi Arabia do not have to travel with an acompanying male relative.
"Why are women in Islam mostly relegated to the role of breeders --- and breed they do, more soldiers for the Jihad and the greater glory of Islam?"
Once again, biased words with no proof. Women in islam are not "mostly relegated to the role of breeders" But offsprings are one of the joys of marriage, prior to and post islamic era.
"Why do the devout Muslims burn alive, as they have in recent months, young Afghani girls for the crime of attending school?"
Why do you choose the word devout to describe them?
The meaning
"de·vout ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-vout)
adj. de·vout·er, de·vout·est
Devoted to religion or to the fulfillment of religious obligations. See Synonyms at religious.
Displaying reverence or piety."
However, for a start, the use of fire to kill ones enemies was sacntioned by the Prophet Muhammed (when Ali burnt the apostates, the Prophet Muhammed declared that none has the right to use the punishment of god. The main weapon used by modern armies, Fire.)
Also, islam permits education of women, so in either case, your use of devout was purely for propaganda purposes.
"Why do apologists for Islam, ignoring this and a thousand, ten thousand, other examples of the intimate connnection between the teachigns of Islam, as expressed in Qur'an, hadith, and sira (the sacred life of Muhammad, who is taken as a model of human behavior)"
Because i have just shown the way in which you make up a lie, make false connections. And after your done using your imagination, you condemn others for not publishing your imaginative lies.
"continue to prate about how wonderful Islam is for women"
Certainly it is, but different people do have different views, and ways of thinking. Islam, however, is certainly a retreat for the portrait of women as Sex symbols in the west. And its a retreat for women who want to marry men who have not slept with 100 other women prior to marriage, and its a retreat for women who wish to keep hold of their dignity and honour.
"when chapter and verse can so easily be quoted to show the precise oppoosite"
Unfortunate for you, that has only been aplicable in my case, not yours
"in every single country where the Shari'a is imposed, from Saudi Arabia (the virtual house arrest under which its women, however rich they may be, must live), to Iran (where any scintilla of female freedom is in defiance of Islam, not because of it), in the Sudan (the country whose Muslim regime murdered an 82-year-old dissident, and engages in the wholesale massacre of non-Muslims), to Pakistan (where the position of women has steadily declined as the role of Islam has become ever more prominent), to Afghanistan under the Taliban (and even now, where those who are most devoutly Muslim are the ones killing schoolgirls for the crime of being -- schoolgirls). "
Not one of the countries you mentioned has anything close to an ideal Sharia system.
Saudi Arabia-
The whole government system, the monarchy, is unnacceptable in islamic terms. They have no majlis shura (planned on making one, which is just a ploy to fool people)
"The inability of some Muslim women to accept this reality, and to act as apologists for a belief-system that, coute que coute, they simply must defend, and must defend by lying about the system"
The inability to accept your lies is somthing that anyone with a substantial information on his own religion is a result of natural moral standings, and inability to accept lies.
The only one lying is you, and you certainly are not on the defence, but offence.
"The only people who are taken in by this, at this point, are those who want to be fooled, who want to protect Islam at all costs. Their nonsense and lies are transparent, and it is annoying to even have to bother refuting what is self-evidently absurd. "
well then, i put your honesty to the test. Have a well prepared responce on EVERY point i made by june the 14th. I will check for it, but respond at the date given. I challenge you, oh honest one, to produce detailed proof using quranic verses and hadeeth from Bukhari.
Regards
Ahmad
Posted by: Ahmad at May 20, 2004 11:28 PM
Ahmed said:
"In islamic societies, rather western societis, marriage is considered sacred."
Excuse me, in much of Western socities, marriage is considered sacred. You don't know what you speak of.
"and while their is no law governing ones relationship in western countries, islam proposes a law/system for every possible scenario."
I can speak here as someone who knows the impossibility of fulfilling any divine law in full. As I read this, you're only in good standing with Allah as long as you keep every law he proposes. Good luck.
"You also talk about the failing of capitalist and democratic systems as a whole, without understanding that it is a moral failure, not a system failure"
Capitalisims ideals where in principil attractive, in practice horrifying. How then do you justify your own system bent on making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Certainly capitalism and communism are to extremes on a spectrum. Dont you think that the best way for man kind is a socialist system?
I however appreciate your comments
-Regards
Ahmad