| Theory |
|
Women in Islam July 8, 2004 by RedStar2000 |
Many "western" lefties feel "uncomfortable" when called upon to criticize "eastern" religions and cultures. The record of western imperialism is so enormously monstrous that it seems almost "unfair" to mention the atrocities of the "east".
In addition, one can be certain of the usual accusations: cultural insensitivity, Euro-centrism, and even "racism".
But the fact of the matter is that we communists should never allow ourselves to be intimidated from attacking reactionary ideas regardless of any other considerations.
A reactionary idea is not magically "transformed" into an acceptable idea simply because it's articulated in a non-western language by someone who looks "non-European".
Indeed, to suggest that reaction is "ok for them" but "not for us" is very much an expression of "Euro-superiority" in and of itself.
It may be an objective fact that "they" have "further" to go than "we" do...that is not an acceptable excuse to support reaction "for them".
We are one species; liberation is for all of us.
======================================
A big frosty mug of hypocrisy for all concerned here.
The Turkish government arguing for the secular rights of women? What a joke!
Muslim Women in "Secular" Turkey: Scathing Report from Amnesty Int'l
"Human Rights Watch" is not, in fact, a "human rights" group at all; it's a de facto agency of U.S. imperialism...check out the bullshit they've been writing about Venezuela lately.
Only the European Court of Human Rights emerges with any shred of decency here; they did make the right decision.
----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 1, 2004
----------------------------------------------------
quote:
I don't think it's their decision at all if a woman chooses to dress modestly...
As if Muslim women get any choice in the matter!
quote:
Europeans need to get off their own jock for a moment and show some "ethnic" tolerance.
I am intolerant of the oppression of women, regardless of "ethnic" considerations.
I'm also pretty intolerant of people who apologize for reactionary crap in the name of "tolerance".
----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 2, 2004
----------------------------------------------------
quote:
The fact is that not all Muslim women are forced into wearing the hijab. Declaring that "Muslim women don't get any choice in the matter" is a sweeping and ignorant generalisation.
How the hell would you know?
Go and read that thread on violence against women in Turkey...and then come back and tell me about the "freedom" that Muslim women have to "choose"...anything!
quote:
That is an idiotic statement.
It is a plain statement of fact...and only an "idiot" would deny it.
----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 3, 2004
----------------------------------------------------
quote:
It is unfortunate that customs and cultures "force" women to wear a hijab, among many harsh things.
Yeah, and it's also "unfortunate" that there are no "blood and thunder" mullahs preaching against it, are there?
In fact, there aren't any female mullahs, are there? Is that another "unfortunate" "custom"?
And it's also a little embarrassing that Islam has imported the charming "custom" and "culture" of honor killings into non-Muslim countries, isn't it?
Ah, unfair, you say. Yes, I guess that's true...it wasn't that long ago that Christian males used to kill their disobedient female relations...in Sicily they're probably still doing it.
But then, we know that religion is always reactionary, don't we?
Don't we???
quote:
Educated people can make this distinction between custom and Islam.
Poor Islam.
It had the terrible misfortune to spread among people with really rotten cultures. Barbarians! Savages! Ape-men!
No, that excuse will not fly.
If Islam is "the command of Allah", then why did neither "Allah" nor his followers speak out against those "cultural" atrocities and forbid them?
When Roman armies conquered Gaul, people there had the "custom" of human sacrifice. The Romans made them stop that!
When the British conquered India, the Hindus had the "custom" of widow-burning. The British made them stop that!
But while the armies of the "prophet" were marching through North Africa and across Asia and even to the walls of Vienna forbidding the consumption of alcohol, neither "Allah" nor the prophet nor any of his "holy followers" remembered to say "and, incidentally, don't beat women...they are smaller and weaker than men".
quote:
However, once a woman attains a strong identity, she naturally embraces this form of modesty. And she wants to be recognized as a woman of faith rather than a woman of fashion.
I'll bet she does "want" to be recognized as a woman of "faith"...otherwise she'll have acid thrown in her face, be flogged, or even killed!
Strong identity my ass! Those poor women live their whole damn lives in fear of male violence.
Some identity!
quote:
Sadly, the women in these repressive societies and cultures aren't educated and taught the true significance of hijab.
It's hardly necessary as the "true significance" is quite obvious; it is a badge of patriarchal servitude and nothing more.
quote:
Because a Muslim woman has spoken, and since this is our experience we are discussing, can you make a qualified statement about what hijab is and the experience of a muslim woman?
What are you suggesting? That you speak for all the women trapped in Islam? That the atrocities committed against women in the Muslim world are all "fabrications"?
Or that because you "choose" that costume, other Muslim women should be compelled to do likewise? After all, they are not "educated" (like you)...they have no choice in their countries.
The fact that you are female and Muslim "cuts no ice" with me. We have hundreds and perhaps thousands of black people in this country (the U.S.) who make a living on the banquet circuit telling white conservatives what they want to hear -- American is "just great" for black people.
Do you have a job like that? Going around telling American women that female subservience to males is "what makes Islam really cool"?
If so, you picked a hell of a way to make a living.
----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 3, 2004
----------------------------------------------------
quote:
And about female mullahs, what muslim woman wants to be a mullah? Not me! Do you know any muslimahs that want this position, I don't know of any!
Of course you don't. A position of power and influence in the Muslim community...why should a "mere woman" want something like that?
Why want what you will never be permitted to have?
quote:
You turn a blind eye to our plea about these human rights abuses.
redstar's "blind eye"...
http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...n+womens+rights
quote:
But it's cool, because you obviously wouldn't be able to hold a fruitful discussion on what we can do, in the community of human rights activists, in order to stop these harsh practices.
I think it's unlikely that you will make much progress unless you directly attack Islam itself as a thoroughly reactionary superstition and a vicious and implacable enemy of women's liberation in those countries.
There's never been a "French Revolution", a 1789, in the Muslim world. You know what I'm speaking of here? A massive and determined effort to break the influence of the Islamic clergy over public life for good!
In the meantime, exposure is your best weapon; keep pounding away at how Islam works in practice wherever it has power.
Just like Christianity in the Middle Ages!
quote:
And you will find nothing that legitimizes this harsh treatment and abuse of women in the Qur'an or in Ahadith.
Didn't read that thread on Turkey, did you? Look what you missed...
quote:
Surah 4 - Women (Al Nisa) verse 34: "Men have authority over women because God has made /the/ one superior to the other, and because
they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them (hymen). As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no further action against them. God is high, supreme."
Going to blame this charming verse on "western secularists" and their lack of "cultural sensitivity"?
Sorry, it's the "words of the prophet himself".
May camels piss on his grave!
quote:
The women of Turkey are exercising not only their freedom of speech but also freedom to protest.
Oh yeah...like black people in the 1950s demanding "more segregation"!
quote:
Amongst the rights that Islam has conferred on human beings is the right to protest against government's tyranny.
Humans have always had the right to resist tyranny and kill tyrants; it was not "granted" by Islam or anything else.
It's recognizing the tyranny that's the hard part...as your posts demonstrate.
quote:
The talisman of Section 1444 may protect such a tyrant in this world, but it cannot save him from the hell-fire in the Hereafter.
There's no such thing as a "Hereafter" or "hell-fire". A tyrant that dies peacefully in old age and in his own bed has gotten away with it.
quote:
Your argument is laced with an uneducated, inarticulate, reactionary stab at Islam and its global presence.
The Christians and the Hindus tell me the same thing.
For some reason, that only encourages me.
----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 5, 2004
----------------------------------------------------
quote:
I am from a family which is Islamic.
That's a tough break...but it doesn't relieve you of the obligation to give up superstition.
quote:
Do you object to a Muslim woman wearing the hijab because she wants to?
In what context?
In Muslim countries, the failure to "don the tent" is a potentially life-threatening decision. I can hardly object to the fact that nearly all women in those countries will "choose" to wear the tent...they have no real choice if they want to remain alive.
In the "west", matters are different. Young women who insist on wearing western attire catch a great deal of flak from their families...even being called a "whore" or physically beaten. On the other hand, wearing the tent in public invites discrimination (or worse!) from anti-Arab racists.
I think even believing Muslim women would do better to abandon the tent and the scarf; it is always possible to dress "modestly" (whatever is meant by that odd term) without making yourself into a walking billboard for a medieval superstition.
quote:
Why can't a woman choose what she wants to wear?
Why can't a man "choose" to wear a Nazi uniform in public?
Certain clothing "sends a message"...and some messages are a great deal worse than others.
quote:
Read this article.
As I understand it, the Telegraph is one of the U.K.'s conservative tabloids...thus it's not surprising that they would print an article about some Catholic dummy masquerading as a traditional Muslim woman.
It's probably all made-up bullshit.
----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 5, 2004
----------------------------------------------------
quote:
Despite what you constantly hear from the West about women’s rights, it is Islam -- not carnal-driven capitalism -- that places real value on the honor of a woman.
Yes...we know this is true because of the charming Muslim custom of honor-killings.
quote:
The degenerate behavior of the U.S. soldiers at Abu-Ghraib was to be expected in a culture where their sexual instincts are constantly being agitated by a porn-obsessed society that is continuously pushing sexual boundaries.
No, the degenerate behavior of the U.S. soldiers at Abu-Ghraib is the way armies behave.
The USSR was a very puritanical society by modern western standards...and Soviet troops in occupied Germany went on a rape-spree that lasted for weeks.
The ethnic wars in the former Yugoslavia were accompanied by massive numbers of rapes by all sides.
In patriarchal societies, rape is seen not so much as a sexual act but as a demonstration of power and victory over the "enemy's women". If Iraq or any other Muslim country invaded and conquered the U.S., do you imagine that their armies would not rape?
quote:
In Western cultures, men relate to the opposite sex primarily at the sexual level and consequently exhibit primitive behavior towards them, where the woman becomes an object of pleasure.
An utterly moronic statement.
There are certainly many men who have such views; most women sensibly avoid such cretins.
quote:
But how many of the western prisoners taken captive by Saddam’s men, the Iraqi resistance fighters or the Taliban were raped?
Well, we don't know the answer to that one, do we? First, we'd have to find the bodies and do autopsies, etc.
quote:
Ironically, these same people have marched into Iraq upholding the flag of women’s rights.
There's nothing "ironic" here; the U.S. waved a whole bunch of flags to "justify" its imperialist wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...all of them were lies and every sensible person knew that as soon as they were uttered.
quote:
One cannot build real respect for women based on the superficial rhetoric of women’s rights, which aims to reduce inherent gender differences...
Ah, the heart of the argument. The Koran says that "Allah" created men "superior" and Allah-damn-it "we're going to keep it that way!"
May a Pakistani feminist cut off his penis and stuff it in his lying mouth!
quote:
The United States proceeded to lecture the world about how sorry they felt about the entire episode at Abu Ghraib and then went on to dispense laughably light sentences to the few culprits. If the punishment given for a crime reflects the values of a nation, then the United States apparently did not consider these acts to be serious.
This is typical imperialist behavior and has nothing to do with women's rights at all.
The butcher of My Lai (Vietnam) was "confined to quarters" for a couple of years and then pardoned...by Ford, I think.
quote:
The issue of male rape at Abu-Ghraib was also glossed over by the media.
I have no doubt that in every respect the atrocities committed by the U.S. and the British were and are much worse than what has become public.
This likewise has nothing to do with the wretched oppression of women in Muslim societies.
quote:
Homosexuality has been legalized in parts of the United States...
It's now legal everywhere.
quote:
...and regions of San Francisco have practically been turned into a gay theme park...
Stupid remark! Gay neighborhoods in San Francisco look just like straight neighborhoods. In fact, a surprising number of heterosexual females choose to live in those neighborhoods because they feel "safer".
quote:
So sodomy as a crime has little significance.
It has none. It's not a "crime" anymore.
quote:
The mass media often uses the cause of women’s rights as a political tool to take a swipe at Islam and Muslims.
Indeed it does...and from reactionary and imperialist motives to boot.
That does not mean that "it's not true".
During World War II, Radio Berlin delighted in broadcasting vivid accounts of British atrocities against the people of India struggling for independence.
Did the Nazis give a rat's ass about the people of India?
Of course not; they just wanted to make the British "look bad" and the Germans "look good".
Does that mean that the British atrocities didn't exist?
They did exist and were atrocities!
The treatment of women by Islam is a standing atrocity.
quote:
Yet, when non-Islamic Western societies violate the same notions of women’s rights, such incidents--no matter how numerous--are portrayed as isolated occurrences.
The imperialist media is hypocritical...is anyone surprised by that? The oppression of women -- especially working class women and women of color -- still exists, yes indeed!
Does that get Islam "off the hook"?
No.
quote:
The ulterior motive in raising the flag of women’s rights is not to seek the betterment of womankind but to use it to discredit and attack Islamic values.
A true statement...of sorts. The U.S. has no objection to "Islamic values" as long as the government of each Muslim country is properly subservient to U.S. imperialism. (Note: the military dictatorship in Pakistan qualifies.)
But what are the "Islamic values" with regard to women? As quoted from the Koran earlier, they are...
1. Men were created superior to women.
2. A good woman is obedient to male authority.
3. And if she is disobedient, beat her!
I am all for resistance to U.S. imperialism...no matter what the source. But to use the cause of resistance as "justification" for an attack on women's liberation is, in my view, the act of a coward and a bully.
It's as if he tells himself that every time he beats his wife or daughters, he is "striking a blow against U.S. imperialism".
What a turd!
----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 5, 2004
----------------------------------------------------
quote:
Ahh...redstar, glad to have your attention again! You like me? That's so cute, I'm married though.
If you construe my observations as some kind of "flirtation", I must respectfully inform you that such is not the case.
The flirtation threads are in Chit-Chat and I am, alas, far too old to participate.
quote:
Your ignorance of Islam, its various nations (world wide), is not upsetting me, as you may like to have it, rather it's inspiring me!
To do what, I wonder. Meditate on the "glories" of male supremacy, perhaps? The "joys" of subservience and obedience?
Or a pleasant fantasy of people like me "burning in Hell" for "eternity"?
Meanwhile, why don't you consider a thoughtful reply to the points I raised in my previous post to this thread? Only if your husband gives you permission, of course.
----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 6, 2004
----------------------------------------------------
quote:
The Surah you quoted, does not address "honor killings".
I agree it does not directly address "honor killing".
What it does is provide a framework for the systematic oppression of women.
1. The prophet says that Allah created men superior to women.
2. The prophet says that a "good woman" is an obedient woman. (Obedient to men is obvious from the context.)
3. And the prophet says that if a woman is not obedient to men, she should be beaten.
Now what form of disobedience on the part of women is "greater" than forbidden sexual activity or even the hint of that?
It's hardly a "great leap" to extrapolate from the words of the prophet that it is permitted and even obligatory to murder a female relative so disrespectful of male authority as to engage in forbidden sex.
Granted, it's a stretch; I have no idea what theological arguments are actually used to justify "honor killings".
I've also never heard of any prominent Muslim clerics who condemn "honor killings" and say flatly that the "honor killer" will "burn in Hell".
You'd think there'd be at least one or two, somewhere along the line.
quote:
Islam is the system and way of life, Muslims who don't follow lose in this life and the next. But that's a level of spirituality that I doubt you would comprehend.
You're right...I don't "comprehend" it at all. It's a statement straight out of the middle ages.
What you need is a ham sandwich and a beer.
quote:
And while you were "researching" to give leverage to your overtly racist and ethnocentric ideals...
Why is opposition to Islamic superstition "racist"? Or "ethnocentric"?
It's usually the Christians on this board who complain most bitterly of my relentless attacks on their reactionary babble. For every word I've written against Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., I've written 100 or even 1,000 against Christianity. (Check my site if you don't believe me.)
If anything, the main reason I occasionally take up the struggle against Islam is because certain westerners, perceiving the rotten nature of Christianity, think Islam "must" be "cool".
It isn't. It's just as reactionary and oppressive and wrong as all other religions.
quote:
...did you come across any other Qur'anic verses and Ahadith that is positive and uplifting?
All "holy books" have a generous portion of "peace & love" drivel...it's not meant to be taken seriously, ever.
quote:
I just love how westerners take one, almost clichéd, quote and blow it up as if they've really uncovered something! It's becoming so repetitive, so played!
Not to mention so embarrassing and so irrefutable.
You can absolutely count on me to bring it up every time the subject of Islamic practice arises.
quote:
It's comical when most of you don't even read the commentary and know nothing of the women in pre-Islamic Arabia during that time. Do you know just how lewd the women were?
I see nothing wrong with "lewdness" in women or men. Humans are sexual animals and consensual sex is as natural as breathing.
But even if you do think there's something wrong with "lewdness", how does commanding female obedience to their male relatives "solve the problem"? You know what the actual practice is...it was quite the same in medieval Christianity.
The only way a woman can get out from under her male relatives is to become a prostitute.
Or die.
quote:
...it stood for the expulsion of sexual lawlessness and promiscuity...
For women only; men could continue to be as sexually "lawless" and "promiscuous" as they wished (and could afford).
quote:
The Surah and its commentary addresses women who CHEAT on their husbands and commit open lewdness.
Then why did it not make that explicit? "Superior" is a general term. So is "obedience".
If the prophet wanted to condemn "open lewdness" (you make Mecca sound like Las Vegas!), he knew what words to use, didn't he?
The generalized assertion of female inferiority is plain to see. The "ideal" of female obedience, enforced by the threat or use of violence, is likewise unmistakable.
No "commentary" can disguise that.
Not to mention the fact that monogamous marriage is a rather unrealistic idea in the first place. If men like "variety", why shouldn't women? We are both members of the same species, after all.
quote:
In our societies, adultery is a serious offense, for men and women, because it is destructive to the family unit.
Sure...that's why there are all these stories coming out of the middle east about men being killed to preserve the family's "honor".
The reason that adultery is a "serious offense" for women is that it is a direct attack on the idea that women are the property of their male relatives.
quote:
The family unit is the basis for society at large. Without family, you wouldn't have humanity! duh!!!
Actually, the original form of the human "family" was probably matriarchal. A woman and her sisters would raise their children collectively with assistance from men who agreed to help (and did not behave like assholes). The role of men in pregnancy was unknown then...there was no "father right".
The patriarchal family of which you are so fond is a historically recent development...almost certainly less than 15,000 years old. (The human species is thought to be 150,000 to 200,000 years old.)
It is most likely that the discovery of the male role in reproduction corresponded with the first notions of private property in domesticated herd animals...indeed, the observation that herd animals only give birth if they have mated may have inspired the discovery of the male role in human reproduction.
That's when men first learned how to say "my cattle", "my sheep", "my woman", "my children, etc.
I suspect men quickly concluded that they have rights over their property; their property does not have rights over them.
Well, it's been a long time coming, but all that garbage is going to go. Within a few centuries at most, women and children are going to be equal to men in every sense.
"Duh" to you too.
quote:
Islamic Law and those who truly implement this in their societies, goes to great lengths to protect the family structure.
Yes, like murder.
quote:
Yes, adultery is taken seriously, and that is why globally, we have much lower divorce rates than in western societies.
No doubt...if you murder the "unfaithful spouse", then it's hardly necessary to divorce her, is it?
Actually, this is an absurd argument. Do you imagine the governments of the Muslim countries even keep divorce statistics? Or that their numbers are worth the paper they're written on?
quote:
If you are attacking the ideals of the patriarchal family unit, then you are attacking the basis of humanity itself.
You wish! Most of human history did not include the patriarchal family. We will get along without it -- and without Islam -- just fine...in fact, better!
------------------------
quote:
I'm an agnostic.
If you say so...you sure don't post like one.
quote:
Many Muslim women, and most whom I know, wear the hijab because they want to. They wear it with pride and it gives them a sense of dignity and liberation.
Well, they'd sort of have to say that, wouldn't they? What happens to a Muslim woman (at the hands of her husband, uncles, brothers, etc.) if she even expresses the desire to dress in "western" clothing?
"You want to go out in public looking like a whore???"
I fail to see much "dignity" and "liberation" there.
quote:
Your claim that Muslim women in the western world get beaten for wearing clothes that are of "western attire" is utter bullshit.
It's been reported in the bourgeois media on a number of occasions.
quote:
None of the Muslim women I know have been insulted or even beaten for wearing clothes of a western nature.
Would they be likely to tell you (a man) about it? Why should they trust you?
quote:
Comparing wearing a hijab to a man wearing a nazi uniform is plain stupid.
Yes, it was not the best choice of comparisons. Better would be a Jew in the Third Reich wearing a big yellow "star of David" pinned to his coat...proclaiming his "racial inferiority" for all to see.
The hijab is a badge of female inferiority. Women only wear it because they fear what will happen to them if they don't.
quote:
What is the difference between forcing a woman to wear the hijab and forcing a woman not to wear it?
Variety of alternative choices, of course. The woman forbidden to wear the hijab still has an enormous number of other things that she could wear if she chose to do so.
The woman forced to wear the hijab has no other choice...except perhaps to lose her life.
----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 6, 2004
----------------------------------------------------
quote:
Are you out there working against these injustices? Because we are. Right now, we are in the process of not only forming alliances with these same human rights groups, but also establishing our own organization. Check out this group of Muslima activists
From your link...
quote:
On December 4th, Dr. Condoleezza Rice visited the KARAMAH headquarters at an Iftar dinner attended by more than sixty women representing a rainbow of ethnic backgrounds and affiliations...
http://www.karamah.org/news_iftar_dr_rice.htm
So...hang out with war criminals, do you?
Interesting sort of "spirituality" you've been "developing"...quite an "identity", I must say.
(All religion is reactionary, remember?)
It is self-evident that this particular outfit is nothing but a lobbying group...probably with extremely dubious motives. A "slice of the pie" is the normal goal of such groups...personal careers are the main "strategy".
About what you'd expect from lawyers!
quote:
You cannot come with any solid evidence, through Qur'anic ayat or Ahadith (traditional sayings), that in Islam, these horrific cultural practices are permissible.
Well, they all exist. I see nothing in the way of an Islamic "Martin Luther" (much less a "Thomas Muenzer") who opposes them.
Correct me if I'm wrong: the two figures who actually did the most to bring Muslim women out of the dark age were Gamal Abdul Nasser and...Saddam Hussein!
Neither of whom were particularly noted for their "piety".
quote:
What you base it on is what has been reported by humanitarian groups, whose employees/volunteers, might I add, are usually trained to demonstrate much more cultural awareness and tolerance than you ever will. Many humanitarian workers have published articles articulating that these are cultural practices and not accepted under the Shari'ah, with the exception of punishment for adultery, which is another subject.
Sheer evasion! Whether I am "culturally insensitive" is totally irrelevant.
The "holy men" of Islam universally endorse and advocate all of these barbaric practices...and pity the Muslim woman who tries to resist them.
Universally? Well, perhaps there are a few obscure clerics who balk at some of the worst practices. I want to be as fair as I can...but I must say I've never heard of any.
quote:
Your replies are full of emotionalism, rather than rational. Your attack on Islam as a means of oppressing women is simply your opinion, which you are entitled to, but please realize that your argument is barely standing.
Then answer the points and quit evading them with reflections on my "emotionalism".
quote:
You disagree with hijab, because....umm...you want to, right?
Yes, a "brilliant summary" of my arguments.
quote:
Fine, but that still doesn't change the fact the millions of Muslim women, the world over, will still fight for this right and this identity.
Sure...just like millions of black people fought for the "right" to "remain slaves".
quote:
You and I can agree that violent practices against women are rampant and unwarranted. But let me point out that if we are discussing violence against women, I can tell you that I live in a country where this phenomenon is uncontrollable as well. American women have their own victimization...
The epidemic of male violence against women in the "western" world is not in dispute.
Again, that is irrelevant to a discussion of the oppression of women by Islam.
All of the world's major religions arose in patriarchal societies; thus all of them are fundamentally anti-woman right down to the core!
That definitely includes Islam.
quote:
I would really like to get back to the subject of this thread, if RED doesn't mind.
Also evasive. The subject of this thread and any thread dealing with Islamic practices always turns to its fundamentally reactionary nature.
There's no escaping it.
----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 7, 2004
----------------------------------------------------
This is getting really messy. Not only do you ignore nearly all the points I make against Islam, you completely miss the points that you do "respond" to.
When I pointed out that Islam has had no "Martin Luther", I was not referring to the civil-rights advocate of the 1950s-1960s.
I was referring to the German protestant reformer of the early 16th century who successfully attacked papal supremacy and the Catholic monopoly of Christianity.
Historians generally consider this "protestant reformation" the beginning of the end of the theological domination of western society. It was the "crack" through which secular ideas could enter the realm of public discourse...something which is still to all intents and purposes impossible in Islamic societies.
The especially strong appeal of religion to African-Americans in the U.S. has long been noted; it is "psychological compensation" for the racist oppression that they have traditionally suffered here.
That a small number have converted to Islam is simply evidence of further alienation from "white" Christianity; perfectly understandable under the circumstances.
Haven't you ever noticed that whenever there is some kind of rebellion (or "riot" as the bourgeois media puts it) against police racist violence, it is the black clergy that are immediately brought forward to "cool things down"...telling people to be "patient" and "go through channels", etc., etc.
We will know that Islam has become significant among African-Americans when the preachers are joined by the imams and mullahs in telling people to "accept" being oppressed.
quote:
Violence against women is the issue at hand, on a universal level, although you are associating it with Muslim men for your own convenience and leverage in this discussion. Funny, because we don't hear of the man's religion anywhere else in the world, unless they are Muslim.
Why "funny"? Islam says publicly what Christianity and other religions practice privately.
Of course Christians point the finger at Islam...it takes attention away from their own private atrocities.
The Christians have a "public relations" edge over the Muslims; the Christian "holy book" does say that women must obey their husbands...but doesn't make the error of specifically advising husbands to beat their disobedient wives. Muhammad did make that crucial error...and now Islam must "take the heat".
(Christians reserve their public violence for use against children, by the way. There are many embarrassing quotations in the "Bible" which can be summed up as "Thus sayeth the Lord, beat your kids!")
quote:
If people were truly concerned about what's going on with the abused women overseas, they would be in the international courts, representing for those victims.
At this point in history, the "international courts" either lack jurisdiction, have no power to enforce their judgments, or both.
If Turkey becomes a member of the European Union, it may then be possible to file a "class action" suit in the European Human Rights Court against the Turkish Government for permitting wide-spread violence against women...but even then, I'm not sure how or even if a judgment by that court would be enforced.
In class societies, the "law" only means something if there is a "gun" to back it up. We have many "human rights" on paper in the "west"...but the only ones that actually mean anything are the ones that the state is willing to enforce.
That's a pretty short list...and getting shorter.
The record suggests that it is only when people organize and flatly refuse to be intimidated by the violence of their oppressors that progress is made.
quote:
Point blank, the entire global Muslim community is not going to take responsibility for the actions of these sick individuals, nor shall our reputation be tarnished. We have made a clear distinction. Accountability is a primary aspect of this way of life, and if these people, and the societies in which they live, are lacking accountability and justice, that isn't the fault of Islam; that is the fault of those people and their leadership. And in that case, they need Shari'ah to be implemented. And not the garden variety Shari'ah (subservient to western control), they need the real deal. So far, we haven't seen the likes of that.
Do you know how many times I've heard this argument from the Christians? Whenever a Christian is caught "red-handed" in some atrocity and there's no plausible lie available to cover it up, the Christians fall back on "Well, he wasn't a real Christian. It's not Christianity's fault, it's that sinful bastard who did that bad stuff."
In fact, all apologists for all religions use this excuse. "Religion is good but humans are ever ready to fall into sin."
Even when I can quote "chapter & verse" from their own "holy book" (as I did with you) and show them in plain words that the atrocity is not only permitted by "god" but actually approved of and even enjoined as an obligation of the faithful...it makes no impression.
"God" tells believers "do X!" (an atrocity). A true believer goes out and actually does it, commits the atrocity. It becomes public knowledge. Non-believers point it out. The fellow-believers of the guy who committed the atrocity respond "oh, he wasn't really a true believer".
How many thousands of years has this con been going on?
Do you imagine that you can still get away with it...in the age of the internet?
quote:
Unless, you want to talk about Iran and the Revolution there. Now that's movement, that's revolution for you. And the women there, who live in an Islamic state, do not undergo the same cultural nonsense that women in Pakistan and India go through. Saudi Arabian women are known for their suppression, but that's a monarchy, not an Islamic state.
I find this the most bewildering of all the things you said in your last post.
Are you saying that Iran is really what you have in mind when you use the phrase "Islamic state"? Did you read the link that I posted on what life is like for women in Iran?
As I understand it, women in Iran can be flogged for wearing the hajib "incorrectly"!
A minor point: I am, as it happens, aware of the fact that Islam does not endorse "monarchy" as such...even though the overwhelming majority of Islamic governments have been, indeed, not only monarchies but particularly despotic ones at that.
That does not make Islam "democratic". Iran may be, in formal terms, a "republic"...but they have a special council of theocratic despots (self-appointed, of course) that not only can veto any legislation that it deems "un-Islamic" but can also forbid anyone it wishes from running for office. In the last parliamentary elections there, this council blocked one or two thousand people from running for office.
Another minor point: as "culturally insensitive" as I may be, I at least know not to refer to the Arabian peninsula as "Saudi Arabia". Most of the people who live there despise the "royal family" and their insolent act of naming the country after their own dynasty.
"Saudi" Arabia is the preferred way of designating that country, according to the people that live there.
quote:
Truly, the condition of a people will remained unchanged, if they do not change the condition themselves.
On this, at least, we can agree.
----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 9, 2004
----------------------------------------------------
quote:
Iran police in fashion crackdown
Iran's morality police have made several raids in Tehran, in an apparent crackdown on women who flout the strict Islamic dress code.
Witnesses said dozens of young women were held in the raids on shopping centres and shops in the capital.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/3887311.stm
-----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 12, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------
quote:
Iran's policies towards westernization are theirs and theirs alone. If they don't want American culture permeating their very society, so be it. I respect them for being so upfront about it. The people, the citizens, aren't subject to any sort of persecution, but they are expected to socially conform to Iranian laws as opposed to submitting to and glorifying American pop culture. They have a value system and are desperately trying to uphold it, in the face of western hedonism. Big up to Iran. And their revolution is noteworthy in the Islamic world.
Ok, let me understand exactly what you're arguing here.
It's "repression" for Turkey and France to ban the headscarf in public schools and universities.
But it's "really great" for the Iranian "morals gestapo" to persecute young women for not wearing the hajib...even during the sweltering Iranian summers.
Fess up! What you really want is to impose your barbaric "morality" on the "west"...and the whole world.
It won't be as easy as you think.
quote:
Islam does not advocate brutality against women or children or any other innocent peoples.
A lie! The Koranic verse previously quoted explicitly says that disobedient women should be beaten.
Moreover, this is the general practice in all Islamic countries. The "stricter" their Islamic code, the greater the violence against women.
quote:
Also red, with your assessment of how Islam has grown in the African American community, you needn't speak on that; I am a woman of African ancestry that accepted Islam, and I am well aware of my history and legacy. What are you going to do, berate our experience as well?
You are one woman of African ancestry and there are, of course, many millions of such women...most of whom have never "accepted" Islam.
I think it's a damn shame that you personally have been suckered by such a transparent fraud...but that's how it goes.
quote:
Clearly, you have a problem with Islam. and as someone posted, "...throughout the UK there is a huge problem with prejudice towards Islam..." Ironically the UK isn't the only place in which Muslims encounter prejudice. That seems to be one of red's problems as well.
Is that the best you can do?
Prejudice would consist of making a judgment in the complete absence of evidence. That's not the case here. The Koran has been quoted. So has the BBC. I even quoted from the site that you recommended.
Instead of replying to the specific points I raised, you offer a vague and unsubstantiated accusation of "prejudice".
And, by the way, I do not "have a problem" (such a weaseling phrase) "with Islam".
I am an intransigent enemy of all superstitious beliefs because they are an enormous obstacle to the liberation of the human species!
quote:
Many psychological illnesses exist because of the fragile economic systems; many customs remain unchanged because of the poor educational level of these same individuals; many women are abused in a cycle of violence because the law doesn't represent their best interest. These same phenomena occur all throughout the third world, no matter the religious affiliations of the victims and the perpetrators. War, famine, poverty, and inadequate education forces millions of people to live in not only subhuman conditions, but subhuman mindsets, not just Muslim women and men.
Quite so. There are always material conditions that lie beneath all social phenomenon.
But that is nevertheless an evasion. Where are the Muslims that forthrightly oppose those "sub-human mind-sets"? Having dinner with the war-criminal Condoleezza Rice???
As far as I can tell, in every country where Islam has "clout", its "holy men" fall all over themselves to justify the oppression of women. And the more "clout" the holy men have (Iran, "Saudi" Arabia, Afghanistan, etc.), the worse things are for women in every respect.
A final note: yes, I noticed that little jab about "western hedonism".
Haven't you noticed how all religions just hate the idea that human life should be one of pleasure and not pain and suffering?
Why do you suppose that is?
You think it could have something to do with the fact that if ordinary people demanded pleasure and refused to accept pain as "the will of the gods"...the implications could be...er, um, revolutionary?
Maybe...?
-----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 16, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------
From the posted links...
quote:
Though many of the opponents of hijab are of Arab Muslim origin, their ideology is no different than their Christian colonialist counter-parts-----to subjugate Islam and Muslims to the secular ideology of the day.
http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_veil_polmet.htm
Yes indeed, superstition must give way to rationality. The secular view must defeat the religious view.
No planet can exist half-slave (women) and half-free (men).
quote:
"I think that for many young women, it's a symbol they are attached to their culture, they're proud of their religion, and they see it as part of their identity as separate from this globalized McDonald's world," said Michelmore, associate professor of history at Chatham College.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/2001...womennat3p3.asp
Wow! The veil as a symbol of anti-globalization!
Next thing you know, the Hindus will start claiming that widow-burning is "anti-imperialist".
quote:
In 1981, Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, announced that "scientific research had shown that women's hair emitted rays that drove men insane." To protect the public, the new Islamist regime passed a law in 1982 making the hijab mandatory for females aged above six, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code was made punishable by 100 lashes of the cane and six months imprisonment.
http://www.maryams.net/dervish/archives/000014.html
Women's hair drives men "insane"? For some guys, it was clearly a short trip.
quote:
The profound cultural changes brought about by women's increasing access to education and positions of power, Mernissi contends, are still being worked through.
"To understand the fanatic rejection of women's liberation in the Muslim world," Mernissi writes, "one has to take into account the time factor. Most of us educated women have illiterate mothers.
"The conservative wave against women in the Muslim world," she continues, is "a defense mechanism against profound changes in both sex roles and the touchy subject of sexual identity."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nati...ting_veils.html
I don't disagree with this analysis; I just think it's a question of which side are you on.
-----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 17, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------
Earlier this month, I wrote this...
quote:
If Iraq or any other Muslim country invaded and conquered the U.S., do you imagine that their armies would not rape?
As it turns out, Muslim soldiers are just as happy to rape as any American soldier.
quote:
Rape 'a weapon' in Sudan war
Sudan's pro-government militias are using mass rape as a weapon in their conflict against non-Arab groups in Darfur, says Amnesty International.
"I was sleeping when the attack on Disa [village] started. I was taken away by the attackers, they were all in uniforms," said a female refugee from Disa.
"They took dozens of other girls and made us walk for three hours. During the day we were beaten and they were telling us: 'You, the black women, we will exterminate you, you have no god.' At night we were raped several times. The Arabs guarded us with arms and we were not given food for three days."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/africa/3906039.stm
Obviously women who are "black" and who have not accepted Islam ("have no god") "deserve" rape and even "extermination".
Conversely, you may conclude (as I do) that Islam is just as contemptible as any other religion and deserves extermination just as much as any other violent and pathological superstition.
Which side are you on?
-----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 20, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------
quote:
But Islam for these people is a cultural adornment that justifies un-Islamic tribal values and not an ethical system that promotes justice and mercy.
A "cultural adornment"? What of the enormous political clout of their imams and mullahs and ayatollahs?
If the oppression of women were truly alien to Islamic morality, these guys could put a stop to it at once, right?
They have no problems, after all, in preaching fiery sermons every Friday against U.S. imperialism, do they?
Where are their sermons against the oppression of women?
quote:
Islam created man and woman as equals...
That is plainly false to the text of the infamous Surah 4 - Women (Al Nisa) verse 34:
"Men have authority over women because God has made /the/ one superior to the other..."
How much clearer does it have to be?
quote:
You are just posting article[s] written by western media sources...
Well, are they lying? About the oppression of women in Islam, I mean? Sure, they lie about lots of things, but are they lying about this?
-----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 22, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------
And here's more...
quote:
2:228...And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.
quote:
4:15 As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).
quote:
24:6 As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth...
quote:
24:31 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.
quote:
33:59 O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 23, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------
quote:
Here, we are given the revolutionary instruction to protect ourselves and guard ourselves through modest dress, attitude, and behavior.
"Protect and guard"? What is "revolutionary" about living in fear?
Why should a woman be compelled to adopt a "modest attitude" or "modest behavior"?
For that matter, why does "Allah" care so much about female public dress or behavior? What's the point?
Why didn't the prophet deliver a few well-chosen words on the garb of men?
quote:
The most debased women in those days, and in that specific location [Mecca] were the equivalent of today's strippers!
What's the matter with "strippers"?
As it happens, I've been friends with several women who've danced for a living...I did not find anything particularly "debased" about them. If anything, they tended to be more critical of the present order than other women I've known.
One of the members of this board used to be a "stripper"...and I rather like her attitude even though we disagree about some things.
quote:
It [hijab] simply commands respect from our male counterparts. Imagine going from inhumane treatment to piety and thus receiving respect from those of the opposite sex.
Respect? When in Iran, for example, you can be flogged for wearing hijab "incorrectly"?
quote:
When a women covers herself, she allows the inner self to take center stage, and for this form of beauty, men will initiate wars, kingdoms will be abandoned, lives will be lost.
Sounds really great! *laughs*
Whoever uttered this nonsense should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle under any circumstances.
quote:
There are few things as powerful, and magnificent, as a virtuous women.
You know what this kind of thing sounds like? It reminds me of the crap that used to be written back in the early days of feminism in the "west"...e.g., "giving women the right to vote will tumble her off that magnificent pedestal on which she presently stands, blah, blah, blah."
Those men (and even, sad to say, some women) who oppose women's liberation are "rich in praise" for "traditional womanhood".
"Traditional" meaning, of course, obedient to male authority under all circumstances.
quote:
Sometimes I feel like I am the only man who is actually getting sick of seeing these half naked women trying to show off their bodies like its some kind of contest...
Here's a tip: he's lying. *laughs*
quote:
"It is an act of faith and establishes a Muslim's life with honor, respect and dignity. The Hijab is viewed as a liberation for women, in that the covering brings about "an aura of respect" (Takim, 22) and women are recognized as individuals who are admired for their mind and personality, "not for their beauty or lack of it" (Mustafa) and not as sex objects.
Why should not women be respected regardless of what they wear or don't wear?
Is a "half-naked" woman any less a human being than a fully-cloaked one?
Do female humans only "deserve" respect based on their attire?
quote:
Contrary to popular belief, the covering of the Muslim woman is not oppression but a liberation from the shackles of male scrutiny and the standards of attractiveness.
It might be so argued if it were truly voluntary. But as noted in 24:31 and 33:59 above, it's compulsory.
If women have no actual choice in the matter -- which is generally the case in predominantly Muslim countries -- then to speak of "liberation" in such a context is simply to mock the meaning of the word.
quote:
In Islam, a woman is free to be who she is inside, and immune from being portrayed as sex symbol and lusted after.
You have something against lust? Why?
quote:
Islam exalts the status of a woman by commanding that she "enjoys equal rights to those of man in everything, she stands on an equal footing with man (Nadvi, 11) and both share mutual rights and obligations in all aspects of life."
Since this clearly contradicts the chapters of the Koran that I quoted from, I wanted to check this one...but I was unable to locate a Koranic chapter called "Nadvi".
This was the source I consulted...
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/
On the other hand, if you are quoting from the Sunnah, you know that "doesn't count".
quote:
What makes the Qur'an different from the Sunnah is primarily its form. Unlike the Sunnah, the Qur'an is quite literally the Word of Allah, whereas the Sunnah was inspired by Allah but the wording and actions are the Prophet's.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
quote:
So, as you can see, we don't need white supremacists dictating what women's liberation is.
If the phrase "white supremacist" is directed against me, I reject the label. As it happens, I was picketing "whites only" lunch counters in some fairly dangerous places before you were born.
To be sure, there are different currents in the women's movement...and some are considerably more radical than others. But to suggest, as you appear to be doing, that embracing a patriarchal superstition contributes to women's liberation in any way is simply ludicrous.
quote:
We don't need eurocentrism and its ideals for beauty penetrating the fabric of our societies, which are international and and whose circumstances require much more sensitivity than the constraints of your fashion world.
I'm afraid that you will find that, in the age of the internet, no "fortress" will stand.
Sorry about that.
quote:
Womanhood reflects our roles and responsibilities as nurturers and educators of our families, communities, and ultimately the world.
If that's all you want, sure. But many women want a lot more. Who is "Allah" to say they shouldn't aspire to any achievement they wish?
quote:
So what if we cover ourselves (with the exception of our face and hands) while outside of our homes? Is this a threat to you and your society? And why is it that you feel so threatened by Hijab?
Any public display of superstition is a threat to the secular basis of proletarian revolution.
Thus, as a communist, I oppose such displays as a matter of principle.
quote:
Muslims welcome Zurich's refusal to ban hijab
You win some; you lose some.
-----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 24, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------
======================================= |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| ...the traditional family is very good at creating new generations of "good Germans" who will "carry out their orders".
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 2 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
