Is Islam oppressive for women???

[Kuchana]

This thread is directed towards rasheed specificully but all are welcome to contribute input. I will post more on my thoughts further after work. My head feels faint at the moment since I've had a long day :P

[Mr.Lum]

it can be. it wasnt to my mom(my dads Muslim (Sunni)). but she wasnt Muslim and he was rather "chill" with it. he made me go to mosque and when I was younger I wore my little cap. my mom is Lutheran, and he didnt force her to anything. it depends on the way they follow I guess. it can be oppressive I know. there are places in the Qur'an and Hediths where it uh, isnt too nice to women.

[thaite]

i think it would depend on the particular brand of islam. The Taliban sure wasn't very accommodating toward women's rights.

[ShortNBitter]

it can be. it wasnt to my mom(my dads Muslim (Sunni)). but she wasnt Muslim and he was rather "chill" with it. he made me go to mosque and when I was younger I wore my little cap. my mom is Lutheran, and he didnt force her to anything. it depends on the way they follow I guess. it can be oppressive I know. there are places in the Qur'an and Hediths where it uh, isnt too nice to women.
Same thing with the Bible and other religious texts. It's those angry fundamentalists that make it oppressive.

[yoMAMA]

I would say:

Yes.

Islam needs a martin luther IMO.....it's like it's still stuck in the middle ages.....

[Mr.Lum]

Same thing with the Bible and other religious texts. It's those angry fundamentalists that make it oppressive.

well, the Qur'an is pretty clear, and you can say "Allah wishes this!" realy easy and itd be hard to argue. Islam is a form of government as well, and its not always by UN standards if you know what Im saying. there are alot of male/female double standards in it. example under Islamic law, a woman can be killed for marring a non-muslim. but a man (like my dad) can marry a non-muslim and she can keep her religion. there are others like that too. but in practice, it depends on the man.

[Kuchana]

i think it would depend on the particular brand of islam. The Taliban sure wasn't very accommodating toward women's rights.

But cannot the mainstream version of Islam be oppressive as well? Will post more later. Getting off work in a few.

[Mr.Lum]

i think it would depend on the particular brand of islam. The Taliban sure wasn't very accommodating toward women's rights.


not realy. its whos practicing it. Sunni, Shia, w/e can all be oppressive. but if you are a secular muslim like my dad, you prolly wouldnt be. or moderate, not so much. fundamentalist, hell yes.

But cannot the mainstream version of Islam be oppressive as well?

no, because the "mainstream" westernized Islam is fixed up nice so westerners will like it. in "mainstream" Islam, all of the "bad" things are ignored. its made so it fits the UN's human rights declaration and will not make ignorant/uninformed non-muslim westerners mad. fact is, Islam can be taken violently and it can be oppresive to women. very much so in fact. but it varies from Muslim to Muslim.

[ShortNBitter]

well, the Qur'an is pretty clear, and you can say "Allah wishes this!" realy easy and itd be hard to argue. Islam is a form of government as well, and its not always by UN standards if you know what Im saying. there are alot of male/female double standards in it. example under Islamic law, a woman can be killed for marring a non-muslim. but a man (like my dad) can marry a non-muslim and she can keep her religion. there are others like that too. but in practice, it depends on the man.

aka - they're all fundamentalists and its gonna be hard as hell to change anything at all.

[Mr.Lum]

aka theyer all not.

[ShortNBitter]

Well you said the Qur'an tells them exactly what to do. So by default wouldnt they be following it literally in the first place?

[Mr.Lum]

uh, no. I did not say it tells them "exactly what to do". most do not take the Qur'an fully literal. you can say 'the Qur'an says this" and you cant say he didnt cause its in the book. BUT most of my family and the Muslims I know take the Qur'an as mostly figurative. dont infer ignorant things.

[AngryABCGirl]

I think all Judeo-Christian religions can be if people follow teachings directly. Fortunately most people dont.

[Faithless]

i think it would depend on the particular brand of islam. The Taliban sure wasn't very accommodating toward women's rights.
Right. It can be. Depends on whose preaching what.

But you have to wonder. Certainly, the imagery, with the woman made to wear the homogenized conservative clothes and at times have to cover the face, makes you wonder if there are elements designed to hold woman back from expression. But that may just, like evangelical Christians, be a conservative take on how Islam should be practiced.

From this article, there are Muslims, American Muslims in particular, who take a different approach on how it should be practiced.

American Muslims: The New Generation (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/78/story_7833_1.html)
...
(Asma) Hasan is the author of "American Muslims: The New Generation" (Continuum Publishing/December 2000/$19.95 hardcover/180 pages). Informed more by Gloria Steinem and the MTV culture than by anything emanating from Tehran or the Taliban, Hasan valiantly tries to paint a contemporary and personal portrait of growing up Muslim in America.

Hasan--a self-described “American Muslim feminist cowgirl”--is the 25-year-old Colorado-raised daughter of immigrant physician parents from Pakistan. Hasan’s is an American Muslim upbringing that may not be familiar to most readers: elite private schools and colleges, homes in affluent suburban neighborhoods, access to country clubs, Euro-vacations, and...Sundays at the Islamic center.

“Our fellow citizens think all Muslims are terrorists and women-oppressors,” Hasan says, “yet Muslims know we are actually much better people than the stereotypes make us out to be."

Colored by the ivy-clad feminism she absorbed at Groton and Wellesley and the brash individualism she gleaned during her childhood in small-town Colorado, Hasan’s portrait of Muslim America will surprise non-Muslim readers and may make some Muslim readers balk; for example, she doesn’t believe in hijab (the veil) or segregation in prayer. Hers is definitely a liberal Islam--an Islam imbued with a feminist, freedom-seeking consciousness determined to integrate the allure of secular American pop culture with the rigor and demands of the ancient Abrahamic faith.
...
Though Hasan claims that she speaks for the “silent majority” of Muslims--raising issues like dating and marriage in a frank and open way--she is at times seemingly out of touch with the Muslim community at large. Absent from her scan of the American Muslim landscape is the growing traditionalist theological trend and those in the new generation who exceed their parents in conservatism or observance.
...
The book would make a needed addition to middle, high school, and public libraries. It might also make an interesting gift for a friend who knows zilch or learned everything they know about Islam from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer or the abysmal Sally Field flick "Not Without My Daughter." The book definitely gives voice to a feisty, effervescent Muslim perspective seldom heard or seen in the mainstream media. And it could spur some interesting discussions at Muslim family kitchen tables--especially between moms, dads, and a new generation raised with the carnal knowledge of Britney and Monica.
But the question remains whether they are really in touch with the real Islam or even a growing trend to change it.

[robotic]

in the sense it can, but religious fundamendalism and extremism has successfully been able to portray a wrong image. i personally feel it doesn't, but if it were to fit into today's world, it would feel that muslim women don't get enough freedom.

[Kuchana]

Right. It can be. Depends on whose preaching what.

But you have to wonder. Certainly, the imagery, with the woman made to wear the homogenized conservative clothes and at times have to cover the face, makes you wonder if there are elements designed to hold woman back from expression. But that may just, like evangelical Christians, be a conservative take on how Islam should be practiced.

One of the issues I have with Islam is the usage of the veil for the women. I know that not all Muslim countries wear it or may not believe in it but whereas I once thought it wasn't oppressive, now I think it's the opposite. The purpose of the veil it seems is for the woman to wear it to of course cover her face but it is also used to not tempt the man (men) from looking upon her. Now see, I don't see the sense in that. Well let me rephrase that. I see it as a one-sided thing because if the woman's excuse to wear the veil is to not tempt the man, then why shouldn't the man be covered as well to not tempt the woman???? And it seems by this action that the man blames the woman for such a temptation whereas the man isn't held accountable for his own actions. A reminiscence of "Blame Eve for tempting Adam to eat the fruit."

Adding to that, I have another issue with the concept of honor killings. Again this is used to preserve the man's honor; rather to avenge a man's honor and to hold the woman accountable for her actions, most of the time a death sentence. True that this is hardly heard of in the Western world nor much in the Muslim but in the latter, it seems more to be of a hush-hush matter because most people don't seem to like to talk about it and to stop it from happening. The fact that so few are reported is what disturbs me as well.

[Mr.Lum]

One of the issues I have with Islam is the usage of the veil for the women. I know that not all Muslim countries wear it or may not believe in it but whereas I once thought it wasn't oppressive, now I think it's the opposite. The purpose of the veil it seems is for the woman to wear it to of course cover her face but it is also used to not tempt the man (men) from looking upon her. Now see, I don't see the sense in that. Well let me rephrase that. I see it as a one-sided thing because if the woman's excuse to wear the veil is to not tempt the man, then why shouldn't the man be covered as well to not tempt the woman???? And it seems by this action that the man blames the woman for such a temptation whereas the man isn't held accountable for his own actions. A reminiscence of "Blame Eve for tempting Adam to eat the fruit."

its for modesty. also, it deters rape (to some extent) as whats the motivation? you realy dont have any. unless its in war where just about anything can happen. I know my grandma wore it when she lived in Algeria, but I only saw her in it one time. men are not covered up because nobody's looking at them and are not going to rape them (most likely).

[Kuchana]

its for modesty. also, it deters rape (to some extent) as whats the motivation? you realy dont have any. unless its in war where just about anything can happen. I know my grandma wore it when she lived in Algeria, but I only saw her in it one time. men are not covered up because nobody's looking at them and are not going to rape them (most likely).

Ok true that women have to wear it for modesty's sake or some of them choose to.
And I know that most likely men are more prone to rape more than women but it's just the whole principle of the matter I'm concerned about. Why isn't the man's modesty called into question if the woman's is? It seems that the woman's modesty must be upheld automatically where they're not given the choice if they want to or not, which I'm not arguing against but just the fact that they're not given a choice is what bothers me the most. For example, I had a Filipina friend who was born in the Phillipines but raised in Saudi Arabia. There, it is mandatory for the woman the wear the veil, even if you're not Muslim.

[Mr.Lum]

I know about SA, I have a Catholic friend who's dad worked for lucent there and he lived there for a year. his mom had to wear it. I think its more about respect than it is about trying to hold women down. SA is a rather oppressive country if you arent muslim. cant worship in public, all that other stuff. but itis an Islamic nation. and their brand of Islam is not a "love peace and hair grease" kind. its from the Whaabi sect, which is very militant, even tho the government is not so much the offical religion is. any other kind of religion (nonIslamic) or Islamic sect is allowed.

[Faithless]

If people are seeking this from Islam, is this any indication of where women might stand with it, currently?
Muslim wives’ rights boost (http://www.theasiannews.co.uk/news/index/1064.html)
DETAILS of a new Islamic marriage contract that will protect women's rights have been unveiled for the first time in the North West.
At a meeting of top mullahs and Islamic scholars in Bury it was predicted that mosques throughout the UK will use the new contract and revolutionise Islamic marriages.
Called the nikah namah provisions in the contract include:

l A wife's right not to have children
l Equal rights in divorce
l A wife's right to work and control over her own pay
l From front page
l Outlawing all verbal, physical and sexual abuse by the husband
l The right of a wife to visit relatives in the UK or abroad

The draft contract is the work of the UK Shariah Council and the Muslim Parliament of Britain - organisations that have voiced their concern that Muslim women can get a raw deal from existing Islamic marriage custom.
One man who has been particularly active in drawing up the contract plan is Molana Mufti Barkatullah from the Islamic Cultural Centre in Finchley, a judge on the Shariah Council.
He said changes were long overdue.
"I have a helpline and I get daily calls from unhappy couples. Many young people get married and do not really know what they are getting themselves into and this causes problems later on. This contract sets out exactly what the couples are entering into.
"Everything in the contract is within Islam and once the draft has been approved by the Muslim community throughout England we will urge mosques to use it. "
Women attending the Bury meeting at the Jinnah Centre on Alfred Street said they welcomed the contract.
Social worker Samia Rehman said: "Too often women are blamed for the marriage breakdown. This nikah namah states in black and white what is expected from the couple. The wife can refer back to the agreement and tell her husband what he has failed to do.
"It will be an eye opener for many women."
The response from men was less welcoming and some were shocked over its clauses.
One man, who did not want to give his name, said he was amazed at some of the women's rights proposed.
He said: "The purpose of an Islamic marriage is to have a family but the contact is saying that a woman cannot get pregnant unless she wants to. How can that be increasing the Muslim line in the family?"
Molana Barkatullah said he knew that some men would be unhappy about it.
He added: "During the time of the Prophet, women were given rights for the first time and some of the men found that hard to deal with, but they eventually accepted these rights. That was 1400 years ago and it will happen again."

[Kuchana]

If people are seeking this from Islam, is this any indication of where women might stand with it, currently?
Muslim wives’ rights boost (http://www.theasiannews.co.uk/news/index/1064.html)

That sounds all good and well but I notice that it doesn't say anything about instilling this in the Islamic countries but focused in GB only. I highly doubt that the conservative leaders would welcome this into their own countries.

[Mr.Lum]

^oh hell no. thatswhy they are conservatives. keep the faith like Muhammed practiced it.

[Faithless]

That sounds all good and well but I notice that it doesn't say anything about instilling this in the Islamic countries but focused in GB only. I highly doubt that the conservative leaders would welcome this into their own countries.
Yeah.

What is interesting about it is how "the West" is trying to redefine it (or possibly better define it) with western influences in mind.

[rasheedgonzales]

wow, 2 pages of posts already... it’s going to take me a while to read through everything before i post something of substance to address the initial post.

there are a couple things i want to mention off the bat though... the first being what i mentioned in my intro thread in introductions forum:
actually, there’s literally a ton of different views out there. and its something Prophet Muhammad predicted saying that his nation would split into 73 sects – i haven’t really counted them, but i’m sure that it’s upwards to about that number, if not close to it. there are too main classifications that people generally hear of, sunnee and shee’ah. but even within these two, there are a large number of off-shoots. and even within some of the off-shoots, you’ll find people from the same sect, but some of them lax, some of them conservative, some of them extreme in their understanding/application of things.

the second thing i want to mention is this whole misconception regarding the term “fundamentalist”. it’s been portrayed as a “bad word” when in reality it’s not. every religion has its fundamental beliefs and tenets. they’re the foundations upon which the religion is built upon. being that islam is a complete way of life, one that has been perfected, as God says in the Quran, “today, I have perfected your religion for you, completed my favour upon you, and am pleased with islam as a religion for you,” (Quran, 5:3) one cannot really introduce anything new to it, nor can they really take anything away from it saying that it doesn’t apply anymore. it’s a religion that is applicable for all times... contrary to what some people believe – that it’s stuck in the middle ages.

so with that said, i don’t think it’s appropriate to label groups like the taliban – who have beliefs and an understanding that oppose and contradict islam in its pure form, and who apply islamic teachings incorrectly – as “fundamentalists” for the simple fact that they don’t adhere to the religion’s fundamentals.

and as i said at the beginning of this post, i’ll try to go through all the posts put up thus far and try to address the question in the initial post, so i ask everyone to have some patience with me as i sort through all the stuff and comment accordingly... :smile:


-------------
edit: just to comment on something mr. lum mentioned in one of his first posts to this thread:

example under Islamic law, a woman can be killed for marring a non-muslim. but a man (like my dad) can marry a non-muslim and she can keep her religion.
this isn’t exactly accurate. a muslim woman is not permitted to marry a non-muslim man, this is true. if a muslim woman were to marry a non-muslim man, her marriage to him would not be valid according to islamic sharee’ah (divine islamic law) and she would be considered a fornicator. if she lived in an islamic country where islamic law was enforced, her punishment would depend according to her status – meaning if she was what is called in arabic, a “muhsanah” (someone who has never been married before) her punishment would be that of the fornicator who was a muhsanah, i.e., 100 lashes (this punishment also applies to male fornicators who’ve never been married before). if she wasn’t a muhsanah and had previously been married, then her punishment would be death by stoning (and this would be the same punishment for the male fornicator who’s previously been married).

as for the muslim man marrying non-muslim women, then muslim men aren’t allowed to just marry any non-muslim women as God says in the Quran, “and do not marry the polytheistic women until they believe.” (2:221). they’re only permitted to marry women from the people of the Book – meaning the jews and the christians, as God says, “the chaste women from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the book (i.e., jews and christians) (have been made lawful for you to marry).” (5:5). so similar to the muslim woman who marries a non-muslim man, the muslim man who marries a non-muslim woman who is neither jewish or christian is seen as a fornicator according to islamic law, and the appropriate punishments as mentioned above would apply to him as well.

all of this is to help ensure that the family’s children are raised as muslims. and of course, God knows best. i’m off to bed as it’s really late and i need to wake up at dawn...

[Faithless]

...the second thing i want to mention is this whole misconception regarding the term “fundamentalist”. it’s been portrayed as a “bad word” when in reality it’s not. every religion has its fundamental beliefs and tenets. they’re the foundations upon which the religion is built upon. being that islam is a complete way of life, one that has been perfected, as God says in the Quran, “today, I have perfected your religion for you, completed my favour upon you, and am pleased with islam as a religion for you,” (Quran, 5:3) one cannot really introduce anything new to it, nor can they really take anything away from it saying that it doesn’t apply anymore. it’s a religion that is applicable for all times... contrary to what some people believe – that it’s stuck in the middle ages.
...
Well, I think the thing that gets me about "fundementalism", especially in regards to Christianity, is that it might actually be a conservative misinterpretation of the Bible that is used to generally argue for a set of strict conservative beliefs -- like homosexuality and what not.

The question about the Quran is could it be as mis-interpreted as the Bible? Just wondering out loud, objectively. :smile:

[rasheedgonzales]

well, i decided not to sleep just yet after all... i guess i’m either going to stay up until dawn, or sleep after posting this in hopes that i’ll wake up in time for the dawn prayer... :confused:

The question about the Quran is could it be as mis-interpreted as the Bible? Just wondering out loud, objectively. :smile:
yeah, sure it can. the Quran is a book that could be misinterpreted – and has been misinterpreted by many, hence all the different sects and groups that exists around the world. however, there is one thing about the Quran that sets it apart from many other books. that is the fact that its correct interpretation and application – as given and taught by prophet Muhammad, has been preserved. in order to interpret it correctly, one must always refer to the teachings of prophet Muhammad and the statements of his companions. of course, there are narrations attributed to both prophet Muhammad and his companions that are forged or not authentic, but the scholars of islam, from the earliest of days, have formulated certain principles and methods to determining a narration’s authenticity (which as i mention below is kinda complex, so i won’t be going into it right now). so like mr. lum mentioned earlier, “keep the faith like Muhammed practiced it,” and you should be following islam according to its correct understanding.

as for the reply i said i’d write up to address the initial post (as well as comment on some of the other stuff that’s been said here)...

One of the issues I have with Islam is the usage of the veil for the women. I know that not all Muslim countries wear it or may not believe in it but whereas I once thought it wasn't oppressive, now I think it's the opposite. The purpose of the veil it seems is for the woman to wear it to of course cover her face but it is also used to not tempt the man (men) from looking upon her. Now see, I don't see the sense in that. Well let me rephrase that. I see it as a one-sided thing because if the woman's excuse to wear the veil is to not tempt the man, then why shouldn't the man be covered as well to not tempt the woman???? And it seems by this action that the man blames the woman for such a temptation whereas the man isn't held accountable for his own actions. A reminiscence of "Blame Eve for tempting Adam to eat the fruit."
actually, this whole notion of women veiling in order to not tempt men isn’t entirely accurate. God says in the Quran, “o prophet! tell your wives, your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks over them. that would be more appropriate that they be known (as free believing women) so that they are not annoyed.” (33:59). so what is more correct to say is that God ordained muslim women to veil themselves as a means of protection for themselves, so they are not harrassed by others and so that they are recognised as free believing women.

as for the veil (the hijab) itself, then a few things need to be mentioned here.

firstly, among the scholars of islam (meaning those who adhere to the correct understanding & application of it – taliban not included), there is a difference of opinion regarding what exactly constitutes the hijab. what the scholars are in complete agreement upon is that the hijab must meet certain criteria, and they list around 8 or so of these conditions (some of these conditions, if not most, also apply to muslim men). among them is that it must not reveal the woman’s shape or body. so it cannot be transparent, nor can it be tight fitting. it must not attract attention – meaning, no flashy colours or fancy designs, etc. it must cover the awrah of the woman – the word awrah in arabic literally means “genitals”, however in islamic law, it refers to the area of the body that is prohibited to be seen by others (with the obvious exception of spouses). for men, this area ranges from navel to knee. whereas the woman’s awrah differs depending on who the “others” are. in front of immediate family and other women, the woman’s awrah ranges from her shoulders, to her knees. her arms, neck, lower legs, head/hair are not included as awrah in front of these people.

now, this leads to the second thing i wanted to mention regarding the hijab... with regards to a woman’s awrah in front of strange men (meaning men she’s not immediately related to), the scholars of islam differ. some say that the woman’s awrah is her entire body (these are the scholars who say that veiling the face is obligatory). others say that it is only the woman’s body, with exclusion of the hands (up to the wrists) and her face. this difference of opinion is due to some ambiguity in the islamic texts (meaning Quran and hadeeth – oral “traditions” of prophet Muhammad), as well as some differing with regards to the authenticity of some of the hadeeths used as proofs (this gets pretty complicated so i won’t get into it here).

anyhow, from the researches that my wife and i have done into this topic regarding the face veil and its obligation, we’ve found that it’s not obligatory for the muslim woman to veil her face, although it is strongly recommended – my wife choses to wear the face veil most of the time though. most of the scholars in saudi hold the opinion that it is obligatory and if i’m not mistaken, the saudi government has made it part of the law there that women must wear the face veil, although, it’s not exactly enforced by the police or anything. in most cities you’ll find women wearing the face veil, but if you go to the port city of jeddah, you’ll see a lot of women not wearing it – most of them foreigners or immigrants.

Adding to that, I have another issue with the concept of honor killings. Again this is used to preserve the man's honor; rather to avenge a man's honor and to hold the woman accountable for her actions, most of the time a death sentence. True that this is hardly heard of in the Western world nor much in the Muslim but in the latter, it seems more to be of a hush-hush matter because most people don't seem to like to talk about it and to stop it from happening. The fact that so few are reported is what disturbs me as well.
regarding this issue of honour killings, i can tell you that it has no place in islam, nor is it permitted... most people who partake in these things do so out of ignorance, or do so due to custom. according to islamic law, there’s only three occasions where killing someone is justified (excluding situations of war/battle) and honour killing is not one of them.

ok, now i think it’s time for bed... night folks - or should i say morning?

[robotic]

One of the issues I have with Islam is the usage of the veil for the women. I know that not all Muslim countries wear it or may not believe in it but whereas I once thought it wasn't oppressive, now I think it's the opposite. The purpose of the veil it seems is for the woman to wear it to of course cover her face but it is also used to not tempt the man (men) from looking upon her. Now see, I don't see the sense in that. Well let me rephrase that. I see it as a one-sided thing because if the woman's excuse to wear the veil is to not tempt the man, then why shouldn't the man be covered as well to not tempt the woman????

it is, of course, commanded in islam for the man, and the woman, to prevent looking at the opposite sex - muslims are also not allowed to kiss/have any relationships with the opposite sex until marriage, only for the purpose of not commiting anything immoral, which is not allowed, like in many religions, because it corrupts society, and has been succesfully been able to do so. there are a lot of reasons to define any sort of command put forward to the man/woman; but a more detailed insight is recommended to "really understand"

[Faithless]

in order to interpret it correctly, one must always refer to the teachings of prophet Muhammad and the statements of his companions. of course, there are narrations attributed to both prophet Muhammad and his companions that are forged or not authentic, but the scholars of islam, from the earliest of days, have formulated certain principles and methods to determining a narration’s authenticity (which as i mention below is kinda complex, so i won’t be going into it right now). so like mr. lum mentioned earlier, “keep the faith like Muhammed practiced it,” and you should be following islam according to its correct understanding.
Well, I'm thinking that in order to interpret any of these religious documents correctly, you have to go back to their original texts, like Christian theologins do with the Aramaic text from whence cam the Bible.

I'm guessing the Quran was written in English. I'm guessing it was written in a language that is somewhat archiac like the language of the Bible. Being so, I'm thinking that Quran translation/study must take a knowledge of history, culture, etc., to understand why Quran was written the way it was.

That being the case, I'd be wary as an ever-questioning Muslim of what people would attribute to Muhammed. Sure, keep the faith like Muhammed practiced it, if that's one's thing, but pay attention to whose telling you what Muhammed supposedly said.

[kuilong]

Well, I'm thinking that in order to interpret any of these religious documents correctly, you have to go back to their original texts, like Christian theologins do with the Aramaic text from whence cam the Bible.

The OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in Koine Greek.

I'm guessing the Quran was written in English. I'm guessing it was written in a language that is somewhat archiac like the language of the Bible. Being so, I'm thinking that Quran translation/study must take a knowledge of history, culture, etc., to understand why Quran was written the way it was.

I think you meant "I'm guessing the Quran was[n't] written in English." It was written in classical Arabic, and most Muslims believe that to understand it properly, it has to be read in the original. (Check out the disclaimer Marmaduke Pickthall put at the beginning of his translation)

[rasheedgonzales]

I'm guessing the Quran was written in English. I'm guessing it was written in a language that is somewhat archiac like the language of the Bible. Being so, I'm thinking that Quran translation/study must take a knowledge of history, culture, etc., to understand why Quran was written the way it was.

I think you meant "I'm guessing the Quran was[n't] written in English." It was written in classical Arabic, and most Muslims believe that to understand it properly, it has to be read in the original. (Check out the disclaimer Marmaduke Pickthall put at the beginning of his translation)

i think you meant “wasn’t written in english” also, just as kuilong mentioned. he’s right too, the Quran was revealed in the purest form of arabic you can find. classical arabic is still largely used today, although most common people amongst the arabs don’t understand it fully – i mean, there are quite a few arabs (as well as non-arabs) who understand it just fine and use it daily... but the common arab probably would have trouble understanding certain things. (classical arabic is also the form of arabic i’m currently learning).

That being the case, I'd be wary as an ever-questioning Muslim of what people would attribute to Muhammed. Sure, keep the faith like Muhammed practiced it, if that's one's thing, but pay attention to whose telling you what Muhammed supposedly said.
no doubt. that’s why i mentioned in my previous posts that muslim scholars, as early as those from the inception of islam, developed principles and methods for authenticating hadeeths.

a hadeeth is defined as: whatever is attributed to prophet Muhammad, whether it be a statement, an action that he did, an account of some event, or a description of his characteristics.

in judging the authenticity of a hadeeth, two parts are examined. the first is the chain of narrators. the second is the actual text of the narration.

an authentic hadeeth is one that is defined as: whatever is narrated by an upright person possessing complete accuracy/precision with a connected chain (i.e., narrated by that upright person known for precision/accuracy in what he narrates from another upright person known for precision/accuracy, from another upright person... etc.) all the way back to prophet Muhammad, safe from irregularities (this includes contradicting verses in the Quran or other more authentic hadeeths) and blameworthy defects (and there are a list of these types of defects, which would take a long time to explain at the moment).

if a narrator in the chain was unknown, or was weak in memory, or made mistakes in his narrations, the hadeeth would be graded as being weak and it would not be permissible to use it as proof for anything, unless there were other acceptable narrations that supported it.

if a narrator in the chain was accused of fabricating narrations or lying or something similar to that, then the hadeeth would be graded as fabricated and disregarded altogether.

there’s a whole lot more, but this is a brief summary of it... like i said, it gets kinda complex, heh. :biggrin:

[rasheedgonzales]

i just thought i’d post this link. it’s to a collection of different articles regarding women and their status in islam.

women in islam (http://thetruereligion.org/islam.htm#women)

from one of the articles:
If women in the Muslim World today don't have their rights, it is not because Islam did not give them to them. The problem is that in many places alien traditions have come to overshadow the teachings of Islam, either through ignorance or the impact of Colonialization.

from: Myth: Islam degrades women (http://thetruereligion.org/m4.htm)

and also:
The Qur'an and Sunnah repeat over and over again that Allah only favors one person over another based on that person's awareness, consciousness, fear, love, and hope of Allah (the Arabic word is difficult to translate: Taqwa). All other criteria are excluded: gender, ethnic group, country, ancestry, etc.

from: Myth: In Islam, women are inferior to men (http://thetruereligion.org/m11.htm)

[Kuchana]

i just thought i’d post this link. it’s to a collection of different articles regarding women and their status in islam.

women in islam (http://thetruereligion.org/islam.htm#women)

from one of the articles:


and also:


Dang. I really wish I had my presentation of Islam with me. Ah well. Waiting for it:)

[Kuchana]

"The notion of family honor and shame is extremely important in most communities of the Muslim world" [MWL] but how does that compare with honor killings?

Some good quotes from MWL:
Due to recent media attention, the problem of “honor killings” has come under increasing global scrutiny. In various countries throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East and parts of South Asia, women who bring dishonor to their families because of sexual indiscretions are forced to pay a terrible price at the hands of male family members. Attempted murder and other forms of corporal punishment have been reported. The most severe manifestations of punishment affect only a small percentage of women, even though the notion of family honor and shame is extremely important in most communities of the Muslim world. Women from other faith groups may also be subject to similar attitudes from within their own communities in those countries. Clearly, the prevailing view that devalues and belittles women is derived from sociocultural factors that are justified by a distorted and erroneous interpretation of religion, especially of Islam.

The problem of “honor killings” is not a problem of morality or of ensuring that women maintain their own personal virtue; rather, it is a problem of domination, power and hatred of women who, in these instances, are viewed as nothing more than servants to the family, both physically and symbolically.

Islam is clear on its prohibition of sexual relationships outside of marriage. This prohibition does not distinguish between men and women, even though, in some countries, women are uniformly singled out for punishment of sexual crimes while the men, even rapists, may be treated with impunity. In order for a case to even be brought before a Muslim court, several strict criteria must be met. The most important is that any accusation of illicit sexual behavior must have been seen by four witnesses; and they must have been witness to the act of sexual intercourse itself. Other forms of intimacy do not constitute zina and therefore are not subject to any legal consequences even though they are not appropriate and are considered sinful.

On the other hand, a woman falsely accused of zina has in her support the Qur’an, which spells out harsh consequences for those accusers who are unable to support their allegations with four witnesses. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was known for his clemency, even if the accusations met the criteria, for he recognized the seriousness of the matter. In addition, there is no evidence whatsoever that he condoned any form of retribution that singled out women and he was swift to ensure that those accused of any crime received due process to guarantee justice.

Indeed, the legal system and law enforcement agencies including police officers and prison guards, have been implicated in the perpetuation of the problem by their willful lenience towards men who have carried out an assault in the name of “honor” and by their abuse and denigration of women who stand accused.

Unwillingness on the part of the Muslim community to address these issues in a forthright and unapologetic manner is borne out of an inherent distrust of perceived “Western” attempts to taint the image of Islam in the interest of global politics.


The rest of the article is below:

The Muslim Women's League's stance:
http://www.mwlusa.org/publications/positionpapers/hk.html


The dark side of honor killings:

"Sirhan, a 35-year-old murderer, is cheerful and relaxed and happy to tell his story. He's especially proud to describe the efficiency with which he shot his young sister Suzanne in the head four times last March. "She came to the house at 8:15," he relates, "and by 8:20 she was dead." Three days before, the 16-year-old girl had reported to police that she had been raped. "She committed a mistake, even if it was against her will," says Sirhan. "Anyway, it's better to have one person die than to have the whole family die from shame."

"His is not a logic rare in the Arab world. For centuries, men of the region have engaged in "honor killing," the intrafamily slaughter of allegedly errant females. Women have endured the custom, while legal establishments have tolerated or even condoned it."

Women are regularly shot, strangled, and stabbed. These are hideous murders all committed by fathers, brothers or uncles and women who are of being sexually _impure_. This is one of the greatest human rights abuses carried on by individuals against other human beings with full legality and approval of Islamic governments.

On average in Jordan, a man who murders women in his family for an "honor killing" spends NO time in jail to only on average three months to a year in jail. Steal however and have your hand chopped off. Murder and "Allah be praised."

This is an actual case: Sarhan kills his sister. "He was sentenced to one year, but after just six months, the judge set him free. Here at his cousin's bachelor's party, he's a celebrated member of the family. In releasing him, the judge said Sarhan's "great anger when he learned that his sister was no longer a virgin" was justification for a short sentence." (2)

http://pnews.org/art/1art/HONORkillings.shtml

The Jordanian Penal Code:

Article 340 of the Jordanian Penal Code stipulates: "He who discovers his wife or one of his female relatives committing adultery (with a man) and kills, wounds or injures one or both of them, is exempt from any penalty." Another clause states: "He who discovers his wife or one of his female relatives with another in an adulterous situation, and kills, wounds or injures one or both of them benefits from a reduction in penalty." While there have been attempts at eliminating that provision, The Jordan Times discovered that 62% of the Jordanians oppose amending article 340. Most respondents claimed that it would lead to "moral corruption." (3)

"As is common in the Arab world, the law in Jordan winks at honor killers. If a man catches his wife or a close female relative in the act of adultery and kills her, he is exempt from punishment. If the situation only suggests illicit sex, he's entitled to a reduced sentence. In such cases, jail terms range from a few months to a few years. Sirhan served six months." (1)

"For women under threat, there is little recourse. Running away is next to impossible since Arab societies are close-knit and few women have the means to live alone. Jordanian authorities have a bizarre remedy: they jail endangered women. "Rafa," 20, was locked up in an Amman prison after her uncles and brothers vowed to murder her for having a three-day affair with a co-worker. At any one time, Jordan's prisons may house 70 such women. Sometimes they are released after their families promise not to harm them, though that is no guarantee. Suzanne's male relatives signed such a pledge before Sirhan killed her." (1)

In the Middle-East, it is not unusual for Arabs who murder for honor to be hailed as heroes? Can you imagine a custom anywhere else that rewards families for killing their own daughters and where fathers and brothers stalk the women in their own family, who they claim to love, and then they kill them? It is a strange world where there is honor in hurting and killing daughters and wives.

This morality based on a particular culture originates with the fact that men in those certain cultures feel that everything a woman in their family does reflects on their manhood. "Honor Killings" occur everywhere in the Muslim world, not just in Jordan.

Women's liberation has not yet fully reached the Middle-East, or more correctly, it has not yet spread beyond the boundaries of Israel to the Arab world.

In many Muslim communities a woman's purity reflects on a family's reputation. A family is shamed if there's even a rumor that a daughter is not a virgin, or if she refuses an arranged marriage, or has an extramarital affair or is disobedient. There have even been cases where a woman was murdered because she smoked a cigarette in public.

A Muslim (Rana Husseini) put it this way: "In many families, they believe that once she tarnishes the image, it's just like breaking glass. It can't be fixed. And the only way to fix it is to kill her. (2)

"For Arab women, virginity before marriage and fidelity afterward are considered musts. Men are expected to control their female relatives. If a woman strays, it is widely thought, the dignity of the men can be restored only by killing her." (1)

"In Jordan the 25 or so cases of honor killing documented every year constitute a quarter of all homicides." (1)

"The slightest sniff of scandal can be a death warrant. The director of Jordan's National Institute of Forensic Medicine, Dr. Mu'men Hadidi, says that in 80% of the cases in which he conducts a hymenal exam, which is routine in Jordan when a girl has gone missing, the same girl will be returned to him soon after as a corpse, even if she proved to be a virgin. "Once the story is out in the community," says Asma Khader, a lawyer and feminist, "they have to kill." Forbidden sex isn't always the issue. Marrying or divorcing against the family's wishes can also provoke murder." (1)

Women have borne the blunt of oppressive worldwide during economic upheavals, during wars, and during times of peace by popular and repressive cultural practices.

And, it seems, no matter how much attention we and others give to this problem, there has been little to no progress made in ending this heinous crime against humanity.

http://pnews.org/art/1art/HONORkillings.shtml


Some notable quotes:

"In sharia there are theoretical and practical rules related to women. Theoretically, all the rules concerning women derive from the slavery system . . . a man can buy a woman with his money [dower], and she becomes a thing, not a human. With his money he can do anything with this thing. Islam knows two sorts of male/female relationships (1) buying her--as a slave--and he can do anything with her he likes--violate her in any way . . . he also owns his own children and can sell them . . . and (2) marriage: in Islam the relationship is based solely on buying and selling . . . he owns her . . . he owns her sexual parts . . . to such an extent that, if she is ill and cannot give him what he wants at any time he wants, she cannot collect alimony. So, with the dower (mahr) he buys her sexuality."

From Interview, (10 July 1988) Khartoum North
Referenced in "Gender Politics in Sudan: Islamism,
Socialism, and the State" by Sondra Hale; Westview Press, 1996


"I see religion as a potent and very dangerous weapon, a double-edged sword. It is true that the backwardness of the Arab person whether male or female has many roots, but the fundamental root is religion. From it come the conventions, customs, and practices that dominate the Arab person. It has strong chains that pull backward, especially the Arab woman. . . . She finds herself at times considered to possess half a brain and [half the] religion. At other times she is a rib from the ribs of man. In whatever she does she is evil, obsessed with that which is forbidden. . . . Unless we find a new modern interpretation for religion, and a way to distance religion from forming the Arab person, we will not be successful in changing the social structures."

Amira al-Durra, Director of Family Planning in Damascus,
in response to a lecture, as quoted in al-Marah wa-Dawruha
fi Harakat al-Wahdah al-Ambiyah, ed. Ali Shalaq et al.
(Beirut: Markaz Dimsat al-Wahdah al-'Ambiyah, 1982), p. 82)
Referenced in "Islam, Gender and Social Change" by Yvonne
Yazbeck Haddad; Oxford University Press, 1998


"The Egyptian Ministry of the Interior reported that of the 775 cases of homicide in 1988, 49 of them were to "wipe out shame," a euphemism for honor killing. Honor killing may occur when a family has been "shamed" by the premarital or extramarital relations (even if they are only rumored) of a female member of the family. Typically, the girl/woman who has committed the illicit act, and especially if she has become pregnant as a result, is killed by her father, brother, uncle, or male cousin. If the man who has dishonored her is known, he may be killed by her relatives, also. Although honor killings are relatively rare, they still occur today in culturally conservative areas of Egypt, including Said and the rural Nile Delta. When they occur, they are reported, often sensationally, by the news media. Thus, most poor urban Egyptian women have heard heinous stories about honor killings, which probably serve to dissuade them from pre- and extramarital sex, as well as other forms of immoderate behavior."
"Infertility and Patriarchy: The Cultural Politics
of Gender and Family Life in Egypt" by Marcia C. Inhorn;
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996

[rasheedgonzales]

the first quote sounds very reminiscent of what i said in post #26 of this thread...


regarding this issue of honour killings, i can tell you that it has no place in islam, nor is it permitted... most people who partake in these things do so out of ignorance, or do so due to custom. according to islamic law, there’s only three occasions where killing someone is justified (excluding situations of war/battle) and honour killing is not one of them.

“honour” killings stem from social and cultural “ideals” that have no place in islam. God says in the Quran, “for that reason We prescribed for the children of Israel that whoever killed a soul without a soul (i.e., without a reason for reprisal) or corruption in the earth, then it would be as if he killed all of mankind. And whoever let it live then it would be as if he let mankind live.” (5:32). as i mentioned in that same post, there are only three instances where taking a life is justified (with the exception of war). these three are:

- life for a life. meaning, the life of the killer is to be taken – if the family of the murder victim chooses it over blood money. and islamically, a trial is required to determine whether the person accused is actually guilty of killing the person, as well as if the killing was done intentionally (i.e., it was really murder and not accidental). in the case of an accidental killing, blood money is given to the family of the victim (a lesser amount than if it was murder).

- apostacy. when a muslim renounces islam, or is proven to have committed an act so heinous that it nullifies his islam, then his life is to be taken – unless he repents and seeks forgiveness from God.

- fornication. if an individual commits illegal sexual intercourse, and is either married at the time of the offense or had previously been married, then his/her penalty if found guilty is death by stoning. a trial is required to determine the guilt of the accused. and like it mentions in one of the above quotes, four truthful and just witnesses must testify to have seen the actual act being committed (meaning, the must have seen penetration).

the last thing i wanted to comment on in this post is this:

"In sharia there are theoretical and practical rules related to women. Theoretically, all the rules concerning women derive from the slavery system . . . a man can buy a woman with his money [dower], and she becomes a thing, not a human. With his money he can do anything with this thing. Islam knows two sorts of male/female relationships (1) buying her--as a slave--and he can do anything with her he likes--violate her in any way . . . he also owns his own children and can sell them . . . and (2) marriage: in Islam the relationship is based solely on buying and selling . . . he owns her . . . he owns her sexual parts . . . to such an extent that, if she is ill and cannot give him what he wants at any time he wants, she cannot collect alimony. So, with the dower (mahr) he buys her sexuality."

first of all, whoever said this needs to bring proof to back up his/her claim that the rules concerning women derive from the slavery system – as well as proof to back up all the other garbage he/she said.

secondly, no man “buys” a wife with his money. contrary to many cultures where the woman or her family is supposed to give the dowry to the husband, in islam, the dowry is to be given by the husband to the wife, but this under no circumstances means that he’s “buying” her, that’s just ridiculous. and in islam, every individual is treated as such – even those who would fall under the category of “slaves” have to be treated justly and fairly. they are not “things” they’re people.

a marriage is a relationship between a man and woman and it’s considered sacred in islam – which is why the punishment for fornication is so severe. God says in the Quran, “and from His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates in order that you rely on them. and He placed between you love and mercy. indeed, in that are certainly signs for a people who reflect. (30:21) (note: the word here translated as “rely on” also means to have “trust in” and to be “reassured by” it also carries the meaning of finding tranquility between each other). a woman is free to ask for a divorce or an annulment of her marriage whenever she wants, provided there are legitimate reasons for such. keeping a wife in a marriage she is unhappy with is seen as oppression and oppression is one of the greatest sins in islam.

[amietron]

i watched a film in my anthro class, i'm not sure what it was called, but it gave me a whole new perspective on the religion and way of life. some of the muslim women see veiling as more liberating than not wearing it. it's like a cultural standard so if you don't wear it you're almost like ostracized. people stare and you get unwanted male attention drawn to you. in the 90s there was a period when a lot of women were unveiling and it brought a surge in violence.

some argue that we, as westerners, are oppressed. not veiling is oppressive because then, you're exposed and vulnerable to the world. their intimate body parts aren't simultaneous with ours. with veiling you're covering all of your body and saving your intimate parts for your husband. it's more mysterious.

[kuilong]

[font=trebuchet ms]
“honour” killings stem from social and cultural “ideals” that have no place in islam. God says in the Quran, “for that reason We prescribed for the children of Israel that whoever killed a soul without a soul (i.e., without a reason for reprisal) or corruption in the earth, then it would be as if he killed all of mankind. And whoever let it live then it would be as if he let mankind live.” (5:32). as i mentioned in that same post, there are only three instances where taking a life is justified [...]

I've read that these also mandate capital punishment, please correct me if I'm wrong:

- Third conviction for drinking alcohol
- Fifth conviction for theft

Plus dhimmis can receive capital punishment for other crimes?

I should note about the Children of Israel being told that murder is a capital crime -- it is (among many others in the Tanakh), but it's virtually impossible to use. In Judaism, the written Torah has to be interpreted through oral tradition (first compiled into the Mishnah, then the Tanakh), and the oral Torah demands a huge number of restrictions on the death penalty -- two separate witnesses had to warn the accused before they commited the crime, the accused had to acknowledge the crime and still go through with it, and the accused wasn't allowed to testify against themselves. So the death penalty was effectively legislated out of existence.

[mr. x]

alright ill sum it up in a few words

Islam is no more sexist then the men who practice it. same as xtianity

[Kuchana]

i watched a film in my anthro class, i'm not sure what it was called, but it gave me a whole new perspective on the religion and way of life. some of the muslim women see veiling as more liberating than not wearing it. it's like a cultural standard so if you don't wear it you're almost like ostracized. people stare and you get unwanted male attention drawn to you. in the 90s there was a period when a lot of women were unveiling and it brought a surge in violence.

some argue that we, as westerners, are oppressed. not veiling is oppressive because then, you're exposed and vulnerable to the world. their intimate body parts aren't simultaneous with ours. with veiling you're covering all of your body and saving your intimate parts for your husband. it's more mysterious.

I used to think that as well; not seeing the veiling as oppresive but after researching further, I've come to the conclusion that I think the veil is oppressive if and only if others force you to wear it. If you choose to wear it of your own accord, then that is acceptable. But when no free agency is allowed where the woman isn't allowed to choose but the man chooses for her, then that is very much wrong.

- apostacy. when a muslim renounces islam, or is proven to have committed an act so heinous that it nullifies his islam, then his life is to be taken – unless he repents and seeks forgiveness from God.

- fornication. if an individual commits illegal sexual intercourse, and is either married at the time of the offense or had previously been married, then his/her penalty if found guilty is death by stoning. a trial is required to determine the guilt of the accused. and like it mentions in one of the above quotes, four truthful and just witnesses must testify to have seen the actual act being committed (meaning, the must have seen penetration).

And who gives a person a right or a system for that matter to condemn someone who was a Muslim but converted to another religion?? How can that crime warrent that punishment? I certainly don't agree with that concept.
Define how the act can be heinous. Merely by converting or more?

And is stoning even practiced for an individual who commits fornication? I believe that most likely, the woman would be punished for it more harshly than the man.

As for the four truthful and just witnesses, I regard that with some cynicism. Most likely it would seem again that the men would be the ones who would put the blame on the woman instead of the man for such a crime.


This is from Dr. Riffat Hassan's Network (INRFVVP). "Dr. Riffat Hassan" wrote:

HONOR KILLINGS: Arab States Seek Shared Solution

Representatives of six Arab countries gathered in Amman, Jordan, this week to discuss ways to prevent "honor crimes" -- acts of violence committed against women by family members, generally for what is considered "immoral behavior." It is the first meeting of its kind in the region, the Jordan Times reports.

Participants from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria and Yemen "agreed that the causes of honor crimes were similar [in their countries] because of the patriarchal and tribal social structures in each society."

They criticized laws in each of their countries that exempt those who commit honor killings from punishment or reduce their penalty, noting that each of their countries "has similar legislation that protects such criminals."

Data On Number Of Crimes Likely Incomplete

According to figures presented by participants, Palestine appears to have one of the most significant problems. In the Gaza Strip, 239 violent crimes were reported against women between 1996 and 1998. Aida Toumeh of the Women Against Violence Organization said that 177 women who were listed as having died by natural causes are believed to have been victims of honor killings. Sixty-four honor crimes were reported between 1990 and 1999 in the Palestinian region (defined by its 1948 borders).

Egypt, which has the largest population in the Arab world, reported 52 honor crimes in 1997. According to Azza Suleiman of the Egyptian Women's Legal Assistance, the problem is connected to the belief that women are the property of their male guardians. In many cases, she added, the murderer has been the woman's mother or sister.

Thirty-six honor crimes were reported in Lebanon between 1996 and 1998. "It is most widely spread in the small cities and villages, where the killers, mostly under 18 years of age, are treated as heroes," explained Seta Kerechekian, of the Lebanese Council to Resist Violence Against Women.

Lebanon was the first Arab country to amend its legislation by canceling the exemption from punishment for perpetrators of honor killings. It also stipulated that both men and women who commit honor crimes be subject to the same punishment.

Human rights and women's activists in Jordan have been calling for amendments to article 340 of the penal code, which exempts from punishment or reduces the penalty against those who kill female relatives for "immoral behavior." Last year, 20 honor killings were reported in Jordan.

Many honor crimes are unreported, or may be recorded as accidental deaths or suicides, noted lawyer Muna Zoughbaba of the Jordanian Women's Union. In some instances, she said, "the family would kill and bury their daughters and then report them missing."

Yemeni professor Mohammad Ba Obeid of Sana'a University said that these unreported crimes in his country are referred to as "dark figures," and explained that Yemen's tribal structure encourages men to commit such crimes and to keep the matters private. "If anyone reveals any information about a certain crime he could end up losing his life," he said.

Sheikh Izzedin Al Khatib Al Tamimi, who advises Jordanian King Abdullah on Islamic affairs, said Islam forbids individuals from committing vigilante acts to punish adulterers.

"Many men and women have been killed because of their relatives' ignorance, their moods and their passions that are in no way related to Islam," he said. "Killers think their victims' blood is a medal representing their act of heroism or honor. They do not know that God's anger and curse will remain with them" (Rana Husseini, Jordan Times, 2 Jun).


"Honor Killings" of Women Said on Rise Worldwide
Reuters
April 7, 2000

Geneva - More and more women and girls are being slain in "honor killings" around the world, a U.N. human rights investigator said Friday. Asma Jahangir, a prominent Pakistani lawyer and activist who serves as U.N. rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, called for governments to prosecute the killers, usually relative of their victims.

Honor killings, in which women are slain for perceived violations of a family's moral code, have been reported in Bangladesh, Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey and Uganda, according to her annual report presented to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. "The perpetrators of these crimes are mostly male family members of the murdered women who go unpunished or receive reduced sentences on the justification of having murdered to defend their misconceived notion of 'family honor,' " Jahangir said. "The practice of 'honor killings' is more prevalent although not limited to countries where the majority of the population is Muslim," she said in a 37-page report.

But renowned Islamic leaders and scholars have condemned the practice and said that it has no religious basis, she said. On the order of clerics, an 18-year-old woman was flogged to death in Batsail, Bangladesh for "immoral" behavior, according to her report. In Egypt, a father paraded his daughter's severed head through the streets shouting: "I avenged my honor."

"It is reported that in Pakistan around 300 women are killed every year for crimes of 'honor'," said Jahangir, who is also chairwoman of Pakistan's national human rights commission. "Only a handful of the perpetrators are arrested and most of these criminals receive only token punishment. Jahangir said she was working closely with U.N. special investigators on violence against women and on the independence of judges and lawyers to address incidents of honor killings.


Thousands of Women Killed for Family "Honor"

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
February 12, 2002

Hundreds, if not thousands, of women are murdered by their families each year in the name of family "honor." It's difficult to get precise numbers on the phenomenon of honor killing; the murders frequently go unreported, the perpetrators unpunished, and the concept of family honor justifies the act in the eyes of some societies.

Most honor killings occur in countries where the concept of women as a vessel of the family reputation predominates, said Marsha Freemen, director of International Women's Rights Action Watch at the Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.

Reports submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights show that honor killings have occurred in Bangladesh, Great Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, and Uganda. In countries not submitting reports to the UN, the practice was condoned under the rule of the fundamentalist Taliban government in Afghanistan, and has been reported in Iraq and Iran.


Woman recovering in a Pakistani hospital from an attack where acid was thrown in her face. This type of violence coupled with other violations of women's rights worldwide has caused the UN, Amnesty International and UNICEF to become actively involved.

But while honor killings have elicited considerable attention and outrage, human rights activists argue that they should be regarded as part of a much larger problem of violence against women.

In India, for example, more than 5,000 brides die annually because their dowries are considered insufficient, according to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). Crimes of passion, which are treated extremely leniently in Latin America, are the same thing with a different name, some rights advocates say.

"In countries where Islam is practiced, they're called honor killings, but dowry deaths and so-called crimes of passion have a similar dynamic in that the women are killed by male family members and the crimes are perceived as excusable or understandable," said Widney Brown, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.

The practice, she said, "goes across cultures and across religions."

Complicity by other women in the family and the community strengthens the concept of women as property and the perception that violence against family members is a family and not a judicial issue.

"Females in the family—mothers, mothers-in-law, sisters, and cousins—frequently support the attacks. It's a community mentality," said Zaynab Nawaz, a program assistant for women's human rights at Amnesty International.

Women as Property

There is nothing in the Koran, the book of basic Islamic teachings, that permits or sanctions honor killings. However, the view of women as property with no rights of their own is deeply rooted in Islamic culture, Tahira Shahid Khan, a professor specializing in women's issues at the Aga Khan University in Pakistan, wrote in Chained to Custom, a review of honor killings published in 1999.

"Women are considered the property of the males in their family irrespective of their class, ethnic, or religious group. The owner of the property has the right to decide its fate. The concept of ownership has turned women into a commodity which can be exchanged, bought and sold."

Honor killings are perpetrated for a wide range of offenses. Marital infidelity, pre-marital sex, flirting, or even failing to serve a meal on time can all be perceived as impugning the family honor.

Amnesty International has reported on one case in which a husband murdered his wife based on a dream that she had betrayed him. In Turkey, a young woman's throat was slit in the town square because a love ballad had been dedicated to her over the radio.

In a society where most marriages are arranged by fathers and money is often exchanged, a woman's desire to choose her own husband—or to seek a divorce—can be viewed as a major act of defiance that damages the honor of the man who negotiated the deal.

Even victims of rape are vulnerable. In a widely reported case in March of 1999, a 16-year-old mentally retarded girl who was raped in the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan was turned over to her tribe's judicial council. Even though the crime was reported to the police and the perpetrator was arrested, the Pathan tribesmen decided that she had brought shame to her tribe and she was killed in front of a tribal gathering.

The teenage brothers of victims are frequently directed to commit the murder because, as minors, they would be subject to considerably lighter sentencing if there is legal action. Typically, they would serve only three months to a year.

In the Name of Family Honor

Officials often claim that nothing can be done to halt the practice because the concept of women's rights is not culturally relevant to deeply patriarchal societies.

"Politicians frequently argue that these things are occurring among uneducated, illiterate people whose attitudes can't be changed," said Brown. "We see it more as a matter of political will."

The story of Samia Imran is one of the most widely cited cases used to illustrate the vulnerability of women in a culture that turns a blind eye to such practices. The case's high profile no doubt arises from the fact that the murder took place in broad daylight, was abetted by the victim's mother, who was a doctor, and occurred in the office of Asma Jahangir, a prominent Pakistani lawyer and the UN reporter on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions.

In April 1999 Imran, a 28-year-old married woman seeking a divorce from her violent husband after 10 years of marriage, reluctantly agreed to meet her mother in a lawyers' office in Lahore, Pakistan. Imran's family opposed the divorce and considered her seeking a divorce to be shaming to the family's honor. Her mother arrived at the lawyer's office with a male companion, who immediately shot and killed Imran.

Imran's father, who was president of the Chamber of Commerce in Peshawar, filed a complaint with the police accusing the lawyers of the abduction and murder of Imran. The local clergy issued fatwas (religious rulings) against both women and money was promised to anyone who killed them.

The Peshawar High Court eventually threw out the father's suit. No one was ever arrested for Imran's death.

Imran's case received a great deal of publicity, but frequently honor killings are virtually ignored by community members. "In many cases, the women are buried in unmarked graves and all records of their existence are wiped out," said Brown.

Women accused by family members of bringing dishonor to their families are rarely given the opportunity to prove their innocence. In many countries where the practice is condoned or at least ignored, there are few shelters and very little legal protection.

"In Jordan, if a woman is afraid that her family wants to kill her, she can check herself into the local prison, but she can't check herself out, and the only person who can get her out is a male relative, who is frequently the person who poses the threat," said Brown.

"That this is their idea of how to protect women," Brown said, "is mind boggling."

Ending Violence Against Women

Violence against women is being tackled at the international level as a human rights issue. In 1994 the UN's Commission on Human Rights appointed a special rapporteur on violence against women, and both UNICEF and the UN Development Fund for Women have programs in place to address the issue.

But the politics of women's rights can be complex. Last year the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions was criticized by a coalition of member countries for including honor killings in her report, and a resolution condemning honor killings failed to pass.

Amnesty International is preparing to launch a worldwide campaign to halt violence against women in 2003.

But a lot of the work needs to be done at the local level.

"Police officers and prosecutors need to be convinced to treat these crimes seriously, and countries need to review their criminal codes for discrimination against women—where murder of a wife is treated more leniently than murder of a husband, for instance," said Brown.

Countries that don't recognize domestic violence as a crime at all need to bring their penal codes up to international standards, she said, adding that increased public awareness and greater education about human rights would also help.

Some progress has been made.

In a National Geographic documentary (which airs beginning Wednesday, February 13), Michael Davie investigated honor killings in Pakistan, where it is estimated that every day at least three women—including victims of rape—are victims of the practice.

The case of one of the victims Davie examined is heartbreaking but also hopeful. Zahida Perveen, a 29-year-old mother of three, was brutally disfigured and underwent extensive facial reconstruction in the United States. She is one of the only survivors in Pakistan to successfully prosecute the attacker—her husband.

"The reason honor killings have emerged as a human rights issue is that it's the only way ultimately that it can be addressed," said Freeman. "Naming the problem and bringing international attention to it highlights the refusal of some of these governments to shine any kind of light on their failure to protect their own citizens.

"Change can't happen if it's just people working inside the system; they're overwhelmed. International campaigns and media attention give them some ballast and the ability to say 'Look, the world is watching what is going on here,' and provides support for making change in their own countries."

World Diary: Honor Killings premiered in the United States February 13, 2002, on the National Geographic Channel.


Gendercide:

http://www.gendercide.org/case_honour.html

WHERE IS THE HONOR???

[rasheedgonzales]

I've read that these also mandate capital punishment, please correct me if I'm wrong:

- Third conviction for drinking alcohol
- Fifth conviction for theft

Plus dhimmis can receive capital punishment for other crimes?

I should note about the Children of Israel being told that murder is a capital crime -- it is (among many others in the Tanakh), but it's virtually impossible to use. In Judaism, the written Torah has to be interpreted through oral tradition (first compiled into the Mishnah, then the Tanakh), and the oral Torah demands a huge number of restrictions on the death penalty -- two separate witnesses had to warn the accused before they commited the crime, the accused had to acknowledge the crime and still go through with it, and the accused wasn't allowed to testify against themselves. So the death penalty was effectively legislated out of existence.
personally, i’ve never read or heard anything about these extra things that mandate capital punishment. as far as i know, the three i listed are the only ones stipulated within the Quran and Sunnah.

as for the dhimmis (i.e., jews and christians living under islamic rule), i’m not exactly sure about how they’re dealt with according to islamic law. i’d have to look into it.

about the restrictions pertaining to murder, the same goes for islam... many things in islam require certain conditions to be met and certain barriers to be removed. with regards to declaring a muslim to be a disbeliever or a heretic/innovator, for example, there are three conditions that have to be met, and along with these conditions there are four barriers that have to be removed. these conditions with their respective barriers are:

- knowledge / ignorance
- intent / error & faulty interpretation
- choice / compulsion

so the accused must have all of these conditions met and have all of the barriers removed. so, he has to have had knowledge of what he was doing. he had to have intended to do what he did and he had to have done it out of free will. if he did it out of ignorance or if he made a mistake or interpreted a text wrong or if he was forced to commit the crime, then he is not declared a disbeliever or a heretic/innovator. keep in mind also that the only ones can pass judgement in these matters are qualified scholars or judges in islamic courts.



If you choose to wear it of your own accord, then that is acceptable. But when no free agency is allowed where the woman isn't allowed to choose but the man chooses for her, then that is very much wrong.
as i mentioned regarding the face veil, there is a large difference of opinion amongst the scholars of the religion with regards to its obligation. both sides have strong proofs for their arguments that originate within the legislated texts of islam. so to portray the issue as a “she chooses” or “he chooses for her” type situation isn’t just or fair. for those who hold face veil obligatory, they have sufficient evidence to back their belief and if it were the case that it was obligatory it wouldn’t be the man “forcing” her to wear the face veil, it would be a command from God that obligates her to wear it.



And who gives a person a right or a system for that matter to condemn someone who was a Muslim but converted to another religion?? How can that crime warrent that punishment? I certainly don't agree with that concept. Define how the act can be heinous. Merely by converting or more?
well, for one, God has the right to condemn a muslim who apostates from islam, as does His Prophet. you also have to keep in mind that in the Quran, God says, “o you who believe! fear God as He deserves to be feared and do not die, except as muslims.” (3:102). He also says, “and whoever seeks a religion other than islam, it will never be accepted from him and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers.” (3:85). there are other proofs from the legislated texts that indicate that the apostate from islam is to be killed. so it’s divine legislation, not just made up by any man or man-made system or law.



And is stoning even practiced for an individual who commits fornication? I believe that most likely, the woman would be punished for it more harshly than the man.
well, regardless, islamically the “deflowered” individual, male or female, if found guilty of fornication is to be killed via stoning. i’m not talking about certain countries’ practices, i’m talking about what is legislated in the religion.



As for the four truthful and just witnesses, I regard that with some cynicism. Most likely it would seem again that the men would be the ones who would put the blame on the woman instead of the man for such a crime.
again, i’m not talking about how things are practiced in certain countries or the different misinterpetations and misapplications of islamic law, i’m talking about what’s legislated in the religion itself. and being that honesty and truthfulness is greatly stressed in islam (lying is one of the major sins in islam), four truthful and just witnesses should be those who are upright and pious, who practice islam the way it ought to be practiced. not just some joe blow off the street who drinks and eats pork, gambles and endulges in sin and debauchery...



There is nothing in the Koran, the book of basic Islamic teachings, that permits or sanctions honor killings. However, the view of women as property with no rights of their own is deeply rooted in Islamic culture, Tahira Shahid Khan, a professor specializing in women's issues at the Aga Khan University in Pakistan, wrote in Chained to Custom, a review of honor killings published in 1999.

"Women are considered the property of the males in their family irrespective of their class, ethnic, or religious group. The owner of the property has the right to decide its fate. The concept of ownership has turned women into a commodity which can be exchanged, bought and sold."
this is b.s. and again, the person who said this needs to bring their proofs from the legislated texts to show this. God says in the Quran that men are the maintainers of women due to certain reasons. no where does it say that men are the owners of women, nor are there any verses or hadeeths that give this impression. and whoever claims otherwise, i challenge them to bring their proofs.

and with regards to divorce, it is permitted in islam and there is nothing that forbids it. islamically, there is no dishonour in divorce so this practice of “honour” killings for this reason have no basis in the religion. i should also mention that islamically, women have the right to turn down a marriage proposal as well as have the right to propose to or accept the proposal of the man she wishes to marry. this idea that these things are signs of defiance and bring dishonour to the family are culture based and have no place in islam.

[nola]

Arab countries are deeply patriarchal but the Q'aran isn't necessarily oppressive to women.

Thanks for the info about honor killings, Kuchana.

From your link:

"Honour" Killings of Women

"Honour" killings of women can be defined as acts of murder in which "a woman is killed for her actual or perceived immoral behavior." (Yasmeen Hassan, "The Fate of Pakistani Women," International Herald Tribune, May 25, 1999.) Such "immoral behavior" may take the form of marital infidelity, refusing to submit to an arranged marriage, demanding a divorce, flirting with or receiving phone calls from men, failing to serve a meal on time, or -- grotesquely -- "allowing herself" to be raped. In the Turkish province of Sanliurfa, one young woman's "throat was slit in the town square because a love ballad was dedicated to her over the radio." (Pelin Turgut, "'Honour' Killings Still Plague Turkish Province," The Toronto Star, May 14, 1998.)

Most "honour" killings of women occur in Muslim countries, the focus of this case study; but it is worth noting that no sanction for such murders is granted in Islamic religion or law. And the phenomenon is in any case a global one. According to Stephanie Nebehay, such killings "have been reported in Bangladesh, Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey and Uganda." Afghanistan, where the practice is condoned under the rule of the fundamentalist Taliban movement, can be added to the list, along with Iraq and Iran. (Nebehay, "'Honor Killings' of Women Said on Rise Worldwide," Reuters dispatch, April 7, 2000.)

[Mr.Lum]

those killinfs are likely the result of pagan influences, like many Catholic traditions. stuff isnt realy Christian. those killings arent realy Islamic.

And who gives a person a right or a system for that matter to condemn someone who was a Muslim but converted to another religion?? How can that crime warrent that punishment? I certainly don't agree with that concept.


um, GOD does. we see why you are not Muslim.

no where does it say that men are the owners of women

THANK YOU. Ive had to tell this to people for God knows how long. we had a class debate about human rights, and they tred to say that. I was like "quote it to me" and they couldnt. know why? because its not there.

people confuse pagan with Qur'an. BIG differance. they keep their old and added it to the new. everyone has done that.

personaly, I think Islam was a big step up for women in that region because it gave them MANY rights that they would not have had before. women were not shit before Islam in that part of the world realy.

[kuilong]

personally, i’ve never read or heard anything about these extra things that mandate capital punishment. as far as i know, the three i listed are the only ones stipulated within the Quran and Sunnah.

I remember it was in Abu Dawud... ah, here we are:

[Book of] Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html):

Book 38, Number 4467:
Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn AbuSufyan:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If they (the people) drink wine, flog them, again if they drink it, flog them. Again if they drink it, kill them.

Book 38, Number 4396:
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:

A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off. He was brought a second time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his foot.

So his (left) foot was cut off.

He was brought a third time and he said: Kill him.

The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!

So he said: Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.)

He was brought a fourth time and he said: Kill him.

The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!

So he said: Cut off his foot. So his (right) foot was cut off.

He was brought a fifth time and he said: Kill him.

So we took him away and killed him. We then dragged him and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.

I can't recall where it stipulates the punishments for dhimmis (doesn't this include Druze, Zoroastrians, and some others as well as Jews and Christians?), but Wikipedia has this to say:

A Muslim may be sentenced to death under Shariah, Islamic law, for the murder of a Muslim, adultery, apostasy (deserting Islam), a third conviction for drinking alcohol and a fifth conviction for theft. A dhimmi (zimmi, non-Muslim living in an Islamic state) can be executed for sex with a Muslim woman, and "persecution" of Islam, for example blasphemy against Allah or Prophet Muhammad, or attempting to proselytise, i.e. convert a Muslim from his religion.

Shariah is not in force in many Muslim countries with a Muslim majority, especially those which still have laws on their statute books which date from their colonial pasts. One of the aims of Islamic fundamentalists is to re-introduce Shariah.

[rasheedgonzales]

i’m on my way out, so i can’t really write anything too long. but i wanted to mention that all the hadeeth compilations, including the two most authentic: bukhaaree and muslim, contain narrations whose authenticity are debated over. in the other compilations (aside from bukhaaree and muslim) some of the narrations found within them have been graded weak or fabricated by a number of hadeeth scholars, so i’ll try to check on these narrations from sunan abee daawud that you’ve given and verify their authenticity.

as for the dhimmis, they’re supposed to be those from the people of the book living under islamic rule. and according to the correct islamic opinion the “people of the book” only consist of the jews and the christians. there is an authentic narration from Prophet Muhammad, however, which states that the magians (i’m not sure what they’re called nowadays) fall under the same ruling with regards to taking the jizyah tax from them – so they although they’re not from the people of the book, they’re included under the term dhimmi. all others aren’t included though.

[rasheedgonzales]

ok, i did some asking around about these two hadeeths.

regarding the hadeeth concerning stealing, i first had a friend who has an edition of sunan abee daawud that includes the gradings done by one of the top hadeeth scholars of our era. my friend told me it was graded by him as being hasan (good) – which means the hadeeth has some weakness, but this particular scholar feels it’s good enough to use as proof.

i asked another friend who’s more knowledgeable in the field of hadeeth and he found some pretty interesting quotes from other scholars. he also mentioned that the chain of narrators for the hadeeth is probably what he (the above mentioned scholar who graded it as hasan) graded the hadeeth by, and not necessarily the text. from the quotes this friend mentioned were: an-nasaa’ee said, “i do not know of an authentic (saheeh) hadeeth in this chapter.” he also mentioned a quote from al-mundhiree who said, “the concensus of the scholars is that he is not killed.”

he also gave me this link to an explanation of this particular hadeeth:
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=4&Rec=5527

regarding the hadeeth about drinking, i skimmed through the explanation of this hadeeth found here:
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=4&Rec=5600

i haven’t read it all yet, but i read a couple of quotes from the hadeeth scholars of the past that say this hadeeth has been abrogated. again, i’ll try to look further into it.

as for the dhimmis, i’ll try to ask around and see what the deal is with them and how they’re to be treated under islamic law.

[nola]

Are you still talking about women and Islam?

[rasheedgonzales]

Ive had to tell this to people for God knows how long. we had a class debate about human rights, and they tred to say that. I was like "quote it to me" and they couldnt. know why? because its not there.
i’ve noticed that one thing a lot of people don’t do when looking at a religion is seperate between the teachings of a religion and the actions of its adherents – this is with respect to all religions, not just islam. but with islam in particular, i see it a lot. my dad for example, me and my brother (i have one brother who converted to islam before i did) have told him numerous times that we don’t celebrate christmas. but then, along comes the non-practicing muslim guy who works at such-and-such coffee shop who always wishes my dad “merry christmas” when that time of year comes around. so, naturally, my dad then goes to me and my brother, “so-and-so wishes me merry christmas, he’s muslim...” judge the religion by its teachings, not by the actions of those who claim to follow it.



personaly, I think Islam was a big step up for women in that region because it gave them MANY rights that they would not have had before. women were not shit before Islam in that part of the world realy.
one thing people either don’t know or choose not to acknowledge is the fact that when islam, as brought by Prophet Muhammad, began it gave women many rights they never had before. one has to look at the history of pre-islamic arabia to understand the kind of rights they had before islam.

[Mr.Lum]

^exactly. even some of the old practices are in there now today. alot of it isnt Islamic nessicarily, more Arab/Bedoin. every people has done that, Christians (Catholics being the best example, its largely European paganism), even the Protestant churches which I prefer, still have influence from times of old. even Copts. Muslims everywhere do it as well. the Africans, the Arabs, the Berbers, the Indonesians, the Filipinos, the Indians, the Iranians, the Kerds;everyone. there is no "pure" religion. I know Jews who celebrate Christmas! I know muslims who do as well. and not even because they are Christian, but for cultural reasons.

[rasheedgonzales]

sorry to bring up this old thread, but i felt that this post i found on another forum was very relevant to this particular topic (i.e., women in islam, oppression, etc) in light of the fiasco that went on in nyc with amina wadud leading the first woman-led friday prayer.

Question and Answer Details
Name: Sarah - United States
Topic: Culture & Society
Title: Female-Led Prayers: A Step Forward for Women?

Question: On March 18, 2005 Amina Wadud led the first female-led Jumu`ah Prayer. On that day, women took a huge step towards being more like men. But, did we come closer to actualizing our God-given liberation?

Date: 2005/3/28

Name of Consultant AAI Editorial Staff

Content of Reply

This answer was kindly provided by Sister Yasmin Mogahed, a member of Ask About Islam Editorial Staff. Yasmin is an Egyptian-American journalist based in Wisconsin, USA. She is currently studying for a Master's degree in Journalism.


Salam, Sarah.

Thank you for your inspiring question!

Well, answering your question, I can say that I don't think so.

What we so often forget is that God has honored women by giving them value in relation to God—not in relation to men. But as Western feminism erases God from the scene, there is no standard left but men. As a result, the Western feminist is forced to find her value in relation to a man. And in so doing, she has accepted a faulty assumption. She has accepted that man is the standard, and thus a woman can never be a full human being until she becomes just like a man—the standard.

When a man cut his hair short, she wanted to cut her hair short. When a man joined the army, she wanted to join the army, and so on. She wanted these things for no other reason than because the "standard" had it.

What she didn't recognize was that God dignifies both men and women in their distinctiveness, not their sameness. And on March 18, Muslim women made the very same mistake.

For 1,400 years, there has been a consensus of scholars that men are to lead Prayer. As a Muslim woman, why does this matter? The one who leads Prayer is not spiritually superior in any way. Something is not better just because a man does it. And leading Prayer is not better just because it is leading. Had it been the role of women or had it been more divine, why wouldn't the Prophet have asked Lady `A'ishah or Lady Khadijah, or Lady Fatimah—the greatest women of all time—to lead? These women were promised heaven and yet they never led Prayer.

But now, for the first time in 1,400 years, we look at a man leading Prayer and we think, "That's not fair." We think so, although God has given no special privilege to the one who leads. The imam is no higher in the eyes of God than the one who prays behind. On the other hand, only a woman can be a mother. And the Creator has given special privilege to a mother. The Prophet taught us that heaven lies at the feet of mothers. But no matter what a man does, he can never be a mother. So why is that not unfair?

When asked who is most deserving of our kind treatment? The Prophet replied "your mother" three times before saying "your father" only once. Isn't that sexist? No matter what a man does, he will never be able to have the status of a mother.

And yet even when God honors us with something uniquely feminine, we are too busy trying to find our worth in reference to men, to value it or even notice it. We too have accepted men as the standard; so anything uniquely feminine is, by definition, inferior. Being sensitive is an insult, becoming a mother is a degradation. In the battle between stoic rationality (considered masculine) and selfless compassion (considered feminine), rationality reigns supreme.

As soon as we accept that everything a man has and does is better, all that follows is just a knee jerk reaction: if men have it, we want it too. If men pray in the front rows, we assume this is better, so we want to pray in the front rows too. If men lead Prayer, we assume the imam is closer to God, so we want to lead Prayer too. Somewhere along the line, we've accepted the notion that having a position of worldly leadership is some indication of one's position with God.

A Muslim woman does not need to degrade herself in this way. She has God as a standard. She has God to give her value; she doesn't need a man here.

In fact, in our crusade to follow men, we, as women, never even stopped to examine the possibility that what we have is better for us. In some cases, we even gave up what was higher only to be like men.

Fifty years ago, we saw men leaving the home to work in factories. We were mothers. And yet, we saw men doing it, so we wanted to do it too. Somehow, we considered it women's liberation to abandon the raising of another human being in order to work on a machine. We accepted that working in a factory was superior to raising the foundation of society—just because a man did it.

Then after working, we were expected to be superhuman—the perfect mother, the perfect wife, the perfect homemaker, and have the perfect career. And while there is nothing wrong, by definition, with a woman having a career, we soon came to realize what we had sacrificed by blindly mimicking men. We watched as our children became strangers, and soon recognized the privilege we'd given up.

And so only now—given the choice—women in the West are choosing to stay home to raise their children. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, only 31 percent of mothers with babies, and 18 percent of mothers with two or more children, are working fulltime. And of those working mothers, a survey conducted by Parenting Magazine in 2000, found that 93 percent of them say they would rather be home with their kids, but are compelled to work due to "financial obligations." These "obligations" are imposed on women by the gender sameness of the modern West and removed from women by the gender distinctiveness of Islam.

It took women in the West almost a century of experimentation to realize a privilege given to Muslim women 1,400 years ago. Given my privilege as a woman, I only degrade myself by trying to be something I'm not, and in all honesty, don't want to be—a man. As women, we will never reach true liberation until we stop trying to mimic men and value the beauty in our own God given distinctiveness.

If given a choice between stoic justice and compassion, I choose compassion. And if given a choice between worldly leadership and heaven at my feet, I choose heaven.

I hope my words answer your question. In case you have any comment or you need more about the topic, please don't hesitate to contact us again. Thank you and please keep in touch.

Salam

[BigLew]

Very interesting point of view but then again, part of the "standard" is to not be considered property soley based on being female.

To the original subject. If the practice of Christianity followed the same path as the bible instructs, then Christianity is no less oppressive to women than is Islam. There were specific laws in the old testament that were supposedly specific laws handed down by God which were very demeaning and oppressive towards women. But since we are here that's widely ignored since the latest trend is to villify Islam. And no I am not a Muslim. I am a free thinker.

[rasheedgonzales]

Very interesting point of view but then again, part of the "standard" is to not be considered property soley based on being female.
in islam, females are not considered anyone's property unless they're slaves (i.e., prisoners of war) - and slaves aren't limited to females. they can be male also.

a free believing woman in islam is just that - a free believing woman. granted, she has certain obligations to her husband (if she's married) and to her parents (if she's not), but nobody "owns" her.

[hooligan]

Christianity says women are dirty because they menstrate. Dirty, dirty women.

[BigLew]

in islam, females are not considered anyone's property unless they're slaves (i.e., prisoners of war) - and slaves aren't limited to females. they can be male also.

a free believing woman in islam is just that - a free believing woman. granted, she has certain obligations to her husband (if she's married) and to her parents (if she's not), but nobody "owns" her.


So what exactly are her "obligations"? Like not being able to show her face in public and covering her whole body?

[hooligan]

So what exactly are her "obligations"? Like not being able to show her face in public and covering her whole body?

pffft nuns.

[VV o n g B a]

the article rasheed posted is pretty interesting, but i think it overemphasizes the "men standard." what women fought for was not necessarily to be just like a man, but to have the freedom of choice to do things that were then forbidden to them. being denied the right to higher education or the right to drive is not necessarily all about being equal w/ men. it's about achieving a higher level of self determination. if all men were erased from the earth so that these women didn't have a measuring stick to compare against, would they still want these restrictions? if a person (any person) has the innate ability and drive to accomplish something that he/she has been barred from for no other reason than their sex, then why should anyone deny him or her the opportunity to accomplish it?

[rasheedgonzales]

hi.

So what exactly are her "obligations"? Like not being able to show her face in public and covering her whole body?in one of the posts to this forum (not sure if it was in this thread since it was so long ago), i mentioned that among religious scholars, there is a difference of opinion regarding the obligation of covering the face and hands. the most correct opinion is that it's not obligatory to do so. however, for the sake of arguement, lets say that it was obligatory for muslim women to cover their entire bodies - face and hands included. these are obligations a muslim woman has to fulfill for her Lord (God), not for her husband.

as for a muslim woman's obligations to her husband, there are a number of them, one of them being obedience to him in things that do not entail disobedience to God. another is to guard his property while he is out earning wealth to provide for her and their children. in islam, as is stated by prophet muhammad, each individual - male and female - is a shepherd over those under their care and authority. and the woman is the shepherd over her children and her home.


what women fought for was not necessarily to be just like a man, but to have the freedom of choice to do things that were then forbidden to them. being denied the right to higher education or the right to drive is not necessarily all about being equal w/ men. it's about achieving a higher level of self determination. if all men were erased from the earth so that these women didn't have a measuring stick to compare against, would they still want these restrictions? if a person (any person) has the innate ability and drive to accomplish something that he/she has been barred from for no other reason than their sex, then why should anyone deny him or her the opportunity to accomplish it?
for the record, in islam, seeking beneficial knowledge is obligatory on every individual - male or female. and in islam, a woman is permitted to own businesses and seek education provided that she can do so without her other duties being negatively affected.

[BigLew]

face and hands included. these are obligations a muslim woman has to fulfill for her Lord (God), not for her husband.So you are saying this is or isn't oppresive? As for the rest, does this have a point to this thread or are you just spittin' your personal knowledge of the faith?

Every major religion is supposed to have its ideals, and they look great on paper, it's the practice you have to look at.

[rasheedgonzales]

hi.

So you are saying this is or isn't oppresive? As for the rest, does this have a point to this thread or are you just spittin' your personal knowledge of the faith?
with the statement you quoted from me, i'm not saying either. you asked what a woman's obligations to her husband were and if "not being able to show her face in public and covering her whole body" was from them. i simply answered your question. nothing more, nothing less. if you want to read further into that, that's your choice.

as for the rest, then no, that's not what i was doing. if you want a breakdown of my post, then the first two paragraphs i wrote was in reply to your question about a woman's obligations to her husband. the last paragraph was a comment with regards to what VVongBa posted.

Every major religion is supposed to have its ideals, and they look great on paper, it's the practice you have to look at.
yes, that's true. but the threads title is asking if "is islam oppressive for women" not "are muslims oppressive to women." like you pointed out, what the religion says is one thing, and what its adherents today do is another... people need to make that distinction.

and lastly, i wonder if you've read the previous 3 pages of this thread before posting...

[BigLew]

So I still don't see which side you are coming from, are your statements going with or against the statement? You state women have to cover themselves. Is that oppressive or not? It just looks like you are popping off facts about the religion without actually adding if those statements support or go against the statement, but good for you for knowing your shit.

Also who gives a flying fuck if I read all three pages? What does that have to do with anything.

Side note: just realized this is in the womens forum so I'll shut up now.

[applehead]

i have to agree with biglew here.
what is your stance on this issue?
is islam oppressive for women?
yes or no.

we don't need a religion class in this thread.
yeah. millions of years ago, islam gave women rights
that they never had before.
but that was millions of years ago.
it's not like that now is it?

[rasheedgonzales]

hi.

So I still don't see which side you are coming from, are your statements going with or against the statement? You state women have to cover themselves. Is that oppressive or not? It just looks like you are popping off facts about the religion without actually adding if those statements support or go against the statement, but good for you for knowing your s---.

Also who gives a flying f--- if I read all three pages? What does that have to do with anything.

Side note: just realized this is in the womens forum so I'll shut up now.
attitudes aside - both mine and yours - like i said, you asked what a woman's obligations to her husband were and if covering her face and body were from them. i answered your question regarding that. you never asked whether i thought islam was oppressive to women or not.

as for you reading the previous pages in this thread, then like i said, i was just wondering. in the end it doesn't really matter if you did or not. i was just curious. the person who started this thread, kuchana, is the one who invited me to this forum in order to discuss this very issue, women in islam. she direct this thread specifically at me, and also invited others to contribute if they wanted. reading the previous pages would have given you an idea of where this thread started and where it was going. reading them might have also answered some of your questions regarding the oppression thing. i think it's pretty clear from what i've posted to this thread since it was first started that i don't believe islam is oppressive to women.


as for this:
we don't need a religion class in this thread.
yeah. millions of years ago, islam gave women rights
that they never had before.
but that was millions of years ago.
it's not like that now is it?
actually, this thread is about islam and whether or not it is oppressive towards women. in order to determine that, a distinction between what was mentioned as being oppressive (which happened to be actions of those claiming to follow the religion while being completely ignorant of its teachings) and between the religion's teachings itself needed to be made. and in order to do that, a bit of a "religion class" was/is needed to show how the actions of many muslims today contradict what the religion teaches and calls for.

as for how it is now, just over 1400 years ago, islam came and gave women rights they hadn't enjoyed before. just over 1400 years later, it's arguable that some of those rights have now been taken away from them - whether by muslims who are ignorant of their religion or whether by non-muslims who think that their way of life and their philosophies are more just than what islam brought all those years ago.

[Faithless]

I would say:

Yes.

Islam needs a martin luther IMO.....it's like it's still stuck in the middle ages.....
Maybe that person is Irshad Manji (http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21705/)
Irshad Manji, author of 'The Trouble with Islam Today,' discusses the closemindedness and literalism of present-day Islam and her path to free thinking.

This interview originally aired on Free Forum with Terrence McNally on Los Angeles' KPFK radio.

At a moment when America is at war in a Muslim country due in part to the electoral muscle of the Christian Right, I agree with those who speak of a clash of civilizations. But I don't see Jews and Christians versus Muslims. I see fundamentalist, pre-scientific, pre-enlightenment Jews, Christians and Muslims versus Jews, Christians, Muslims and non-believers who, in their search for meaning, ask questions and question answers.

In her controversial best-seller, The Trouble with Islam Today, Irshad Manji, a spike-haired, lesbian Canadian who looks younger than her 36 years, challenges fellow Muslims to revive a lost tradition of free inquiry within Islam. The book has been published internationally, including in Pakistan, and Urdu and Arabic translations can be downloaded free of charge from her web site (www.muslim-refusenik.com.

Her earlier book, Risking Utopia: On the Edge of a New Democracy, called on young people to re-define democracy through new technologies and social networks. Manji produced and hosted "Queer Television" on Toronto's Citytv, the first program on commercial airwaves to explore the lives of gay and lesbian people. She currently hosts "Big Ideas" in Toronto, featuring innovative thinkers from around the world.

Oprah Winfrey recently honored Irshad with the first annual Chutzpah Award for "audacity, nerve, boldness and conviction." Ms. magazine has selected her as a "Feminist for the 21st Century." Maclean's, Canada's national news magazine, named her one of ten "Canadians Who Make a Difference," and in June, she received the Simon Wiesenthal Award of Valor.

Terrence McNally: The Trouble with Islam Today grows out of your own life experience, doesn't it?

Irshad Manji: I think it's vital that I convey what my lived experiences are, because that's where the authenticity is, that's where the sincerity resides. My family and I are refugees from Idi Amin's Uganda. We settled just outside of Vancouver in 1972. I grew up attending two types of schools -- the public, secular school of most North American kids, and then on top of that, every Saturday for several hours at a stretch, the Islamic religious school, the madressa. That's where I regularly imbibed two major messages--that women are inferior, and that the Jews are treacherous, not to be trusted. Now Terry, I have never said, nor would I ever say, that every madressa teaches these things. How the hell would I know what every madressa teaches? I haven't been to every one of them, thank god for them as well as for me. But, even back then, at the age of eight, nine, ten, I had enough faith to ask questions, lots of them, and that's what got me in trouble.

As someone who went to Catholic school and did the same thing, I know what you mean (laughs).

(laughs) I can see the twinkle in your eye right now.

What kinds of questions did I ask? Questions like "Why can't girls lead prayer?" A question I know many Jewish and Christian women have wanted to ask of their own ayatollahs, and some have. I graduated, entirely metaphorically, to asking more sophisticated questions, like "If the Koran came to prophet Mohammed as a message of peace, then why, even after receiving that message, did he command his army to slay an entire Jewish tribe?"

Now you can appreciate that such questions irritated the hell out of my madressa teacher, who felt quite entitled to put down women and slog the Jews. So it's not surprising that he and I reached our ultimate impasse over yet another one of my annoying, ignorant questions.

At about what age?

At 14 I got booted out of the madressa, permanently. As I often have to remind my beleaguered mother, just because I left the madressa, mom, doesn't mean I left Allah. As a matter of fact, I had a crucial choice to make at this point. Sure, I could have walked away from Islam and got on with becoming a secular, materially-oriented North American, as many Muslims quietly do, or I could have given Islam another chance, and more importantly, asked Islam to give me another chance. Out of fairness to my faith ... I say "fairness" because maybe my madressa teacher was just a lousy educator. Why should my faith be punished for his shortcomings as a teacher? Out of fairness, I took time over the next 20 years to study Islam on my own when there were no interviews like this one, no spotlights, no journalists clamoring for commentary, no publishers approaching me, and no money to be made from the sale of books. In other words, I studied Islam with total and utter sincerity. I'm so pleased to say that as a result of all of