Can Islam liberate womem?
![[ OT ]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjX_eMAnK-slLHXts1ldTzD5X-lGGjzW4thz5wCWcnhZyHuA=s40-c)
[ OT ]
thought I was repressing myself; I felt I had achieved liberation." -
Jasmin,
CAN ISLAM LIBERATE WOMEN?
By Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian, Saturday December 8, 2001
http://www.zhikr.org/readroom/library/articles_can_islam_liberate_women.htm
The Sanity Inspector
The "liberation" those women are enjoying are probably more the result
of living in Britain, rather than of being Muslim. The whole ritual
of "a spiritual quest" is a product of Western civilization, not
Islam. A Western society gives women liberty to choose or not to
choose Islam or any other religious identity. If a typical young
Egyptian woman decided that she didn't want to be Muslim anymore,
she'd be lucky to escape into hiding with her life. There would be no
place for her in her family, her clan, or her society other than as a
short-lived pariah. Honor killing isn't just for fornicators...
asimm...@yahoo.com
> int...@hotmail.com ([ OT ]) wrote in message news:<9v2gpd$401$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> > "One moment you were a sex kitten, the next you're all wrapped up. She
> > thought I was repressing myself; I felt I had achieved liberation." -
> > Jasmin,
> >
> > CAN ISLAM LIBERATE WOMEN?
> > By Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian, Saturday December 8, 2001
> >
> > http://www.zhikr.org/readroom/library/articles_can_islam_liberate_women.htm
>
> The "liberation" those women are enjoying are probably more the result
> of living in Britain, rather than of being Muslim. The whole ritual
> of "a spiritual quest" is a product of Western civilization, not
> Islam.
Peace be upon you,
This is absolutely absurd considering the countless verses in the
Quran which point to universal phenomenon to awaken the conscience in
man. One only has to open up a biography of Imam Ghazali or
Jalaluddin Rumi to shatter such an obviously ridiculous assertion.
Sufi literature is full of the ritual of 'spiritual quest'. As far as
the spiritual quest, it is essentially human and all the great leaders
of religion went through the 'rituals'.
As far as the women are concerned, the liberation of women is
undoubtedly because of the freedom of thought prevalent in Britain,
but this freedom of thought was given impetus when Christian Europe
came into contact with the civilization of Al-Andalus where
intellectuals, Muslims, Christians, and Jews debated all the time.
A Western society gives women liberty to choose or not to
> choose Islam or any other religious identity. If a typical young
> Egyptian woman decided that she didn't want to be Muslim anymore,
> she'd be lucky to escape into hiding with her life. There would be no
> place for her in her family, her clan, or her society other than as a
> short-lived pariah. Honor killing isn't just for fornicators...
This is the result of an oppressed society, not of an Islamic one.
This is typical of all degenerated societies which fall well short of
the moral guidelines of their respective religions. If one looks at
the overall historical movement of Islam, since its beginnings one
will find very rare cases of any punishment for apostasy, if any.
And by the way, there is no such thing as honor killing in Islam. As
far as the religion is concerned, it is murder or anarchy. And the
punishment for acts such as this are severe.
Peace be upon you
The Sanity Inspector
> Peace be upon you,
>
> This is absolutely absurd considering the countless verses in the
> Quran which point to universal phenomenon to awaken the conscience
in
> man.
[message resubmitted with additional snippage, to comply with sri
guidelines, per mod.]
In practice, though, the permitted pathways of spiritual exploration
remain firmly within Islam. Colorado Buddhists and South Korean
Presbyterians don't really have any visible analogues in the Islamic
world. Maybe Yaqub Ibn Ishaq al-Kindi and Abu al-Ala al-Maarri are
counter-examples. Anyway, I'm speaking of the rank-and-file of the
faith--elites in any society always just do whatever the hell they
want to do.
> As far as the women are concerned, the liberation of women is
> undoubtedly because of the freedom of thought prevalent in Britain,
> but this freedom of thought was given impetus when Christian Europe
> came into contact with the civilization of Al-Andalus where
> intellectuals, Muslims, Christians, and Jews debated all the time.
That might have been a contributing factor, but it certainly doesn't
account for the rise of the entire West. The Spaniards, firsthand
participants in all this cross-cultural intellectual ferment,
remained
as backwards and combustible as the Arabs right down into modern
times.
> This [honor killing and religious bigotry] is the result of an
oppressed >society, not of an Islamic one.
> This is typical of all degenerated societies which fall well short
of
> the moral guidelines of their respective religions. If one looks
at
> the overall historical movement of Islam, since its beginnings one
> will find very rare cases of any punishment for apostasy, if any.
Sorry, I don't believe the "it's not Islam's fault" argument anymore.
These people are positively marinated in the Koran their whole lives.
Fanaticism giving a license to bigotry, not religious sloth, is what
triggers these crimes.
> And by the way, there is no such thing as honor killing in Islam.
As
> far as the religion is concerned, it is murder or anarchy. And the
> punishment for acts such as this are severe.
See above. Where's the condemnation and *effective* countermeasures?
> Peace be upon you
asimm...@yahoo.com
> That might have been a contributing factor, but it certainly doesn't
> account for the rise of the entire West. The Spaniards, firsthand
> participants in all this cross-cultural intellectual ferment,
> remained
> as backwards and combustible as the Arabs right down into modern
> times.
>
First, this is absurd, for modern knowledge tells us that there were
few Arabs that even went into Spain in the first place. The majority
of Arabs and Africans that entered into the country intermarried. The
legacy of al-Andalus can be just as easily attributed to the Spanish
as well as Arabs.
Second, I do not know what you mean by backwards and combustible,
because the legacy lefy by al-Andalus, from their irrigation systems
that is still used to this day and gardens, to their monuments such as
Cordoba prove a very sophisticated and modern culture and
civilization. The value system lead to the modern explosion and it
was not just the Spanish peoplee, but Europe's leading intellectual
giants that were influenced by the new value system.
> Sorry, I don't believe the "it's not Islam's fault" argument anymore.
> These people are positively marinated in the Koran their whole lives.
> Fanaticism giving a license to bigotry, not religious sloth, is what
> triggers these crimes.
>
You have absolutely no idea of these people being marinated in the
Quran. The majority of these people are illiterate clans, who are
more tribal than Islamic. They are wholly ignorant of the Islamic
culture and their attitude is roote in pride and arrogance. I do not
know how you can even claim such arguments, when you have no diea.
Yes, 'honor killing' happens, but it has nothing to do with Islam. If
you say it is rooted in Islam, bring your proof, otherwise consider
yourself and outsider who is absolutely clueless to the TRIBAL
mentality of the majority of these people who commit such wrongs.
> > And by the way, there is no such thing as honor killing in Islam.
> As
> > far as the religion is concerned, it is murder or anarchy. And the
> > punishment for acts such as this are severe.
>
> See above. Where's the condemnation and *effective* countermeasures?
>
The Quran says that whoever commits anarchy in the land, they are to
be exiled, crucified or killed in a befitting manner. Taking law into
one's own hands as opposed to the state is considered as a necessary
step towards anarchy, and it is intolerable, just as its intolerable
over here.
Moataz Emam
> legacy of al-Andalus can be just as easily attributed to the Spanish
> as well as Arabs.
I am sorry but that is simply not true. Refer to, for example:
http://users.erols.com/zenithco/andalusia.html
It is well established that Spain became a minaret of civilization at the time the
rest of Europe was totally barbaric (cf. DARK Ages). That only happened under Islamic
rule. Whether or not the majority of the people in Andalusia were Spanish or Arabic
(Moorish, as they were called), this flourishing was a direct consequence of the
presence of the Arabs in Spain. Personally, I believe these were indeed the best of
times. Look at the number of philosophers and thinkers this period produced. Not the
least of which was Ibn Rushd. As soon as the Arabs were beaten and thrown out of
Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella, the country was tossed back into the Dark Ages. It
was Inquisition time!! The jews, for example, who lived in great prosperity under the
Muslim rule, were thrown into the fire under the Spanish Inquisition.
--
Moataz H. Emam
asimm...@yahoo.com
> asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > legacy of al-Andalus can be just as easily attributed to the Spanish
> > as well as Arabs.
>
> I am sorry but that is simply not true. Refer to, for example:
>
> http://users.erols.com/zenithco/andalusia.html
>
> It is well established that Spain became a minaret of civilization at the time the
> rest of Europe was totally barbaric (cf. DARK Ages). That only happened under Islamic
> rule. Whether or not the majority of the people in Andalusia were Spanish or Arabic
> (Moorish, as they were called), this flourishing was a direct consequence of the
> presence of the Arabs in Spain.
Assalamualaikum
I did not mean to imply that the flourishing of Spain was not the
rsult of the Muslim conquests in Spain. I meant to imply that Islam
influenced not only the Arabs who migrated but the Spanish that lived
there as well. That is why I said that the majority of Arabs that
settled in Spain intermarried with the Spanish. It was the impulse of
Islam which created Spain which in turn led to the birth of the modern
age.
Assalamualaikum
The Sanity Inspector
asimm...@yahoo.com shared with usenet this thought:
>First, this is absurd, for modern knowledge tells us that there were
>few Arabs that even went into Spain in the first place.
That's debatable, but yes, the Berber army sent by Musa bin Nusayr contained few
Arabs at first. I didn't mean to imply that it did.
>The majority
>of Arabs and Africans that entered into the country intermarried. The
>legacy of al-Andalus can be just as easily attributed to the Spanish
>as well as Arabs.
Well, that can be said about most caliphates or kingdoms anywhere in the Islamic
world throughout history. Sharing credit due to intermarriage, I mean. But who
usually really gets the credit?
>Second, I do not know what you mean by backwards and combustible,
>because the legacy lefy by al-Andalus, from their irrigation systems
>that is still used to this day and gardens, to their monuments such as
>Cordoba prove a very sophisticated and modern culture and
>civilization. The value system lead to the modern explosion and it
>was not just the Spanish people, but Europe's leading intellectual
>giants that were influenced by the new value system.
My earlier reference to "as backward and combustible as the Arabs" referred to
Arabs in Arabia. Sir Richard Francis Burton, in his account of his clandestine
hajj, even encountered a village where the men all carried big staves, to clout
each other in their frequent quarrels. The Spaniards' similar mentality was
much remarked upon by observers up until the present era, when such typecasting
became verboten. Have a quotation:
It is said that the Spaniards, being a mixed people,
descending from the Goths, Moors, Jews, and ancient Spaniards,
borrowed their superstition from the Jews; melancholy from the Moors;
pride from the Goths; and from the original Spaniards, a desire and
thirst after the first of all earthly blessings-- LIBERTY.
-- Philip Thicknesse, _A Year's Journey through France and
Spain_, 1789
As for al-Andalus, its achievements are not in question, though the Latin
heritage the Muslims assimilated was probably their taproot. But it's a real
overreach to credit Muslim Spain with the rise of the West. The greco-roman
inheritance flowered anew elsewhere.
[...]
>You have absolutely no idea of these people [committing honor killings of female family members] being marinated in the
>Quran.
Err... yes I do. I won't be so pedantic as to hold myself out as any kind of
expert, but I do have eyes and ears.
>The majority of these people are illiterate clans, who are
>more tribal than Islamic.
"The majority"? Okay, that's fair enough, to dispose of the urban
counter-examples one finds from time to time.
>They are wholly ignorant of the Islamic
>culture and their attitude is rooted in pride and arrogance.
But the courts aren't, are they? Why do they let the murderers off easy? The
courts in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan from time to time see fit to jail
Christians for blasphemy. So, if honor killing is so un-Islamic, why don't they
try harder to wipe it out?
http://www.ishipress.com/pakhonor.htm
It is a standing shame to Catholicism and Orthodoxy that atavistic practices
like vendetta persist in Italy and the Balkans. How much more of a shame for
Islam is this much worse crime--the murder of one's own flesh and blood for the
sake of honor, and of keeping the women subjugated.
>The Quran says that whoever commits anarchy in the land, they are to
>be exiled, crucified or killed in a befitting manner. Taking law into
>one's own hands as opposed to the state is considered as a necessary
>step towards anarchy, and it is intolerable, just as its intolerable
>over here.
Vigorous enforcement of humane laws isn't "anarchy". The British didn't have
any qualms about abolishing the tribal Hindu practice of sati, what's the
problem with the courts in the lands of the Faith?
--
bruce
The dignified don't even enter in the game.
-- The Jam
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Well, that can be said about most caliphates or kingdoms anywhere in the Islamic
> world throughout history. Sharing credit due to intermarriage, I mean. But who
> usually really gets the credit?
>
Peace be upon you,
The point is that the change in Spanish civilization was the result
not of nationality but a life giving impulse. Where did they get this
impulse from?
>
> My earlier reference to "as backward and combustible as the Arabs" referred to
> Arabs in Arabia. Sir Richard Francis Burton, in his account of his clandestine
> hajj, even encountered a village where the men all carried big staves, to clout
> each other in their frequent quarrels.
The Spanish civilization was originally ruled by the Arabs of Arabia.
The first of its leaders, Abdur Rahman I, wea among the Umayyad clan,
who escaped from the Abbasid rule that persecuted him and his family.
What you mean by Arabs of Arabia, I have no clue? Maybe you are
refrring to beduoins, but obviously they do not make up part and
parcel of Arabia. The same king imported numerous flowers from the
East and began the construction of the Cordaoba mosque. His followers
transformed Al-Andalus into a garden. Al-Andalus good became a source
of profitable foreign commerce. Al-Hakam, the successor originated the
first university in Al-Andalus. T. Irving in the Falcon of Spain says
"Thus when the first truly modern universities would grow up in the
rest of Europe, even though they might not be aware of their
intellectual heritage, it is none the lewss certain that they had
their forerunners in the Nizamiyyah University and the Baytul Hikmah
of Baghdad and in the Academy of Cordoba and the Qarawiyan of Fez."
So I cannot comprehend what you mean by Arabs of Arabia? In Hume's
Spanish People, he brings attention to the enormity of tolerance and
prosperity of the Jews and Christians under the Muslim rule, such that
the people of Europe never witnessed before. The reprimaning of the
ruler by the people in public gatherings was not unknown.
>
> As for al-Andalus, its achievements are not in question, though the Latin
> heritage the Muslims assimilated was probably their taproot. But it's a real
> overreach to credit Muslim Spain with the rise of the West. The greco-roman
> inheritance flowered anew elsewhere.
>
Strange that one says so? The greco-roman culture was silent in
Europe for hundreds of years. The rise of Europe occurred well after
the disappearance of Greece and Rome from the 'world-stage', and
Europe was in a state of feaudalism. Why would Europe gradually
attain liberation once it came into contact with the Muslim world?
The Greco-Roman culture was known for theory. The Arab world was
acknowledged as an empirical marvel, a scientists dream. Modern
civilization is the result of the empirical attitude. Take for
example ibn Hazm. His work on Comparative religion preceded modern day
comparative studies by well over hundreds of years. Ghazali preceded
Kant, the saviour of Germany, by hundreds of years. According to HAR
Gibb, "... in its foundations we have seen that islam belongs to and
is an integral part of the larger Western society. It is the
complement and counterbalance of European civilization, nourished at
the same springs, breathing the same air."
With revolutions in the field of mathematics, optics, chemistry,
philosophy, and on and on, the explosion led to a world-view that
purged European elements from superstition and dogma. Cotton was
first cultivated in Europe by the Arabs. It is noteworthy according
to Will Durant that "Where Hellenism after a thousand years of
mastery, HA FAILED TO TAKE ROOT, and Roman arms had left the native
gods unoconquered, and Byzantine orthodoxy had raised rebellious
heresies, Muhammadanism had secured, almost without proselytism, not
only belief and worship, but a tenacious fidelity that quite forgot
the superseded gods. Even H.G. Wells, the critic of Islam syas that
Islam "created a society more free from widespread cruelty and social
oppression THAN ANY SOCIETY HAD BEEN IN THE WORLD BEFORE." This
included the Roman And Greek civilizations where the biased American
school systems proclaim so heavily that they received their notions of
freedom from civilizations other than Islam.
>
> But the courts aren't, are they? Why do they let the murderers off easy? The
> courts in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan from time to time see fit to jail
> Christians for blasphemy.
This is mere Christian propaganda. Christianity has freedom of
expression just as any other faith, according to STATE law.
Sectarianism in Pakistan is not just excluded to Christianity, but is
common between Muslims themselves. The sunni-shia violence is just as
bad. Muslims themselves are charged with blasphemy when a man makes a
statement that the Prophet's (S) parents were not Muslims. Religious
crimes are rarely, if ever perpetuated through state means.
People get off easily because of bribery, and other reasons devoid of
any religious backing. Honour killings usually happen in tribal
societies where a tribe's 'honour' is placed well above the law of the
land.
So, if honor killing is so un-Islamic, why don't they
> try harder to wipe it out?
> http://www.ishipress.com/pakhonor.htm
> It is a standing shame to Catholicism and Orthodoxy that atavistic practices
> like vendetta persist in Italy and the Balkans. How much more of a shame for
> Islam is this much worse crime--the murder of one's own flesh and blood for the
> sake of honor, and of keeping the women subjugated.
>
Islam teaches the four witnesses have to actually witness the
penetration for an accusation to be brought against anybody. If a
witness has lied before, his testimony is not accepted. If the
witness brings forth accusations unsubstantiated, he is than publicly
lashed for accusing a women. Like I said, this is more tribal, and
has nothing to do with Islam or its views on women. There was an
instance when a Companion of the Prophet said that if he ever
witnessed his wife commiting adultery with another man, he would kill
them both. The Prophet replied to the effect of the people, who were
astonisahed at this man's frankness, God and His Prophet have more
honour than this man. This points out a very significant fact. The
laws ordained by God and His Prophet, even if a man witnesses the act
with his own eyes and cannot bring forth the proper number of
witnesses, are to be implemented. If he does not have four witnesses
than his claim will not stand. God and His Prophet have such honour
but the law stands as revealed, and it is not to be compromised.
> Vigorous enforcement of humane laws isn't "anarchy". The British didn't have
> any qualms about abolishing the tribal Hindu practice of sati, what's the
> problem with the courts in the lands of the Faith?
I meant to imply that those that take laws into their own hands, such
as killing their own family members because they accuse them of
adultery are punished very severely. What is witnessed today is not
the presence of faith, but the presence of other interests.
Peace be upon you