Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Is Islam Really Stuck in the 12th Century on Women's Rights?

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted March 8, 2008.


Apparently, they're a couple of decades behind the "liberal" West, and not so stuck after all.
Advertisement

Before 9/11/01, the media relegated stories about women in Islamic societies to page B27, below the fold. Ever since 9/12/01, those same stories have screamed from the front pages in 100-point type. The shift in discourse coincided with the launch of Bush's global "War on Terror," when various hawks began using the plight of women in Islam to illustrate the supposed perfidy of our "enemies," and to justify a series of military "interventions" -- invasions -- by Western powers.

In the United States, there's now an almost universally held belief that most women in Islamic societies face wretched persecution and that Islam itself is wholly to blame. But there's scant empirical evidence to support the claim -- mostly, we're treated to detailed reports of horrific abuses in theocratic states like Saudi Arabia and Iran, despite the fact that just six percent of the Muslim world live in those two countries. If you ask average Americans how they came to their beliefs about how badly women suffer in Islamic societies, most will reply that "everyone knows it."

But I've seen no empirical data to suggest that an Islamic majority itself correlates with the subordination of women better than other co-variables like economic development, women's ability to serve in government, a political culture that values the rule of law or access to higher education. In other words, you can use a comparison of women's status in Saudi Arabia and Sweden to make an intellectually weak argument for Western superiority, but there's little support for the notion that women living in "traditional" Islamic cultures enjoy a lower social status than those in orthodox Christian, Jewish or Hindu communities, to name a few examples. Think of the perfectly backwards Eastern Orthodox Church, the largest Christian communion in the world. Or consider the country where women may be brutalized more terribly than in any other, the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is 70 percent Christian and 10 percent Muslim. Or go to Utah, where tens of thousands of Mormon fundamentalists believe that women are literally the property of their fathers or husbands. Of course, Mormon fundamentalists are the exception that proves the endless benevolence and equality of the West, while whatever despicable caricature of justice perpetrated on a woman by the House of Saud is breathlessly recounted as emblematic of Islamic culture as a whole.

Comparing the “Muslim world” to the rest of the world poses an intellectual problem — how does one even look at the role of Islam in a society, specifically, rather than dozens of other variables that might influence women's outcomes?

I'd expect, for example, the structure of a country's economy to play a far greater role in determining women's status than the religion of its people. There's quite a bit of research showing that in service and manufacturing economies -- those of wealthier states -- women enjoy a great deal of personal freedom and autonomy, civil and political rights and access to higher education. That's because of the high value of their labor outside the home, in the workforce. Women earning their own bread out in the working world demand, and require, full political rights and legal protections. In poorer economies, most of which have large agricultural sectors and many of which rely on extractive enterprises -- oil, mining, etc. -- women tend to suffer a much lower social status, because their labor is more valuable coerced and sequestered close to home. That's a structural, rather than a "Clash of Civilizations" explanation of women's varying outcomes in different countries. It's the latter view that I find little evidence to support.

None of this is a defense of Islam, or women's place within it -- I have little love for religion, any religion, and certainly no desire to defend any religious rites or customs. It's about our loose definitions of the problem and tendency to idealize the "liberal" West.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: propaganda, pax americana, women in islam, islam

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Islam is stuck in the 7th century wrt "Women's Rights"
Posted by: aouie01 on Mar 8, 2008 2:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ignoring variants of Islam (Bahai faith, etc.), Islam is stuck in the 7th century with respect to "Women's Rights", as the last prophet died in the 7th century and the "Quran" was compiled in the 7th century. If the Hadith is taken into account, then one could say the 9th century.

Christianity is stuck in the 17th century or earlier (discounting some newer variants).

Whatever position Islam has on "Women's Rights" was mentioned in the Quran (I think with more detailed rules and expectations specified in the Hadith). How Islamic scholars interpret it, and to what extent Islamic countries follow it will vary over time.

The portion's of "Women's Rights" that are not in conflict with the Quran (or the Hadith) have no restrictions from Islam.

Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Selling Out Muslims Women for Political Gain
Posted by: Jasmina on Mar 8, 2008 3:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, of all the articles I've seen using Muslims — who are already used enough — this is the most egregious.

You haven't seen any empirical data? Well, OK:

5,000 honor killings a year

FGM mandatory for Sunni women of the Shafi'i, translating in Africa to nearly 130,000,000 women who had their clitorises cut out with a rusty razor blade to satisfy some imam, some as early as age 4.

Women don't get a vote in polygamy, now do they?

In Malaysia, Lina Joy did 12 months in a "re-education camp" when she converted to Christianity, and then was sentenced to death for apostasy by a screaming horde of imams.

It is illegal for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man.

Taslima Nasreen is under death fatwa for suggesting equality for women.

Under shari'a law, which you apparently think is just peachy-keen, the life of a woman is worth that of a man's leg; her inheritance is 1/2 to a 1/4 of a man's, and a man will control it; her testimony in court is with 1/2 to 1/4 of that of a man, so she cannot prove a rape in which there were no witnesses even if she's beaten to a pulp in the process; a raped woman is accused of adultery and stoned for being raped.

And the other ultimate insult is that under shari'a law, the children a woman bears belong to her husband and in a divorce she has NO RIGHTS to them. That's called being a brood care, Baby.

And you don't have any empirical evidence. Well, one reason that you don't is that you're not going to be ALLOWED to get it in Iran, and if you manage it, the woman who gave it to you is dead.

So, you think women in NW Pakistan are free? Is forced veiling in Iran free? Is

And your implication that this is somehow a result of other than internally-generated mores at the behest of men is ridiculous.

Unfortunately for Muslim women, however, there are people like you only too willing to play politics and use them in the process.

And your implication that we Western women should abandon our Muslim sisters until we get that 22% straightened out is just MORE LECTURING BY SOME MAN WHO DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

The anthropological ethnographics are perfectly clear; the statistics are also clear enough, but you didn't bother to read them.

Next lifetime for you: Muslim woman in Somalia, until you learn some respect for what women go through. After they cut out your clitoris and slap you into a veil and tell you that you're not allowed an education and tell you who to marry, then we'll see how eager you are to fill out that Pew quesionnaire from a Western world that either wants to help you or can't wait to shove your problems under a rug to try to make some ridiculous case that it's oil or it's some Western figure whose rules are laughed at on the streets of Indonesia and Pakistan and Iran and Bangladesh where imams and husbands, not politicians, rule a woman's life.

And your bullshit article will be thrown in the faces of women in the Middle East to prove to them that they should shut and drink their mint tea, that they've really got it good because some American writer said so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ignorance is bliss Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Ignorance is bliss Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Ignorance is bliss Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» RE: Ignorance is bliss Posted by: particle
» RE: Ignorance is bliss Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Ignorance is bliss Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Ignorance is bliss Posted by: YogiBear
» bliss is ignorance Posted by: o
» Lemme hit you with some knowledge Posted by: warriornation
» RE: Lemme hit you with some knowledge Posted by: warriornation
» RE: You miss the Point Posted by: Pirate1
» RE: You miss the Point Posted by: YogiBear
Aussie4891
Posted by: Aussie4891 on Mar 8, 2008 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Refreshing article.

Actually FGM is forbidden in Islam, some ignorant imam or other may have supported it for whatever cultural reasons, but FGM is practiced in Africa by Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Those who support it use a hadith as evidence where the Prophet said that circumcision for the male is compulsory and the female is honorable, he went on further to state that for the female it is the tiniest snip off the clitoris. Not what occurs in Africa today. Maybe this is the Shafie opinion mentioned earlier, but no Scholar in their right mind would support FGM.

As for polygamy, actually the woman does have a choice, and can stipulate in her marriage contract that the husband cannot marry another woman, and if he does then she has the right of divorce.

In Islam the life of a woman is not worth that of a mans leg.

The inheritance issue has its reasons and considering the financial obligations Islam puts on the male as head of his household compared to the female, it is understandable. Some may argue that in a developed society where both may work this inheritance ruling is no longer needed, but the point is that the man is still obligated within the Religion to work and spend on the household, whilst the woman is not and can choose to work or not.

The children are the responsibility of both parents and all 4 major schools of thought within Sunni Islam state that in a divorce the children are to be raised by the mother and the father must still provide for his children. I think it was the Hanbali school that stipulates they are to go to the father upon reaching puberty.

The rape issue is a non-issue, rape in Islam is punishable by death, like any other crime witnesses and evidence is required for such a punishment to be administered, it is not legal in the Islamic Religion to punish a woman for being raped.

Much of the Islamic world is still developing, as the article suggested, it is unfair to judge 1.3bn Muslims by the actions of the Saudi and Iranian governments, let alone the NWFP of Pakistan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Goal not the level of non-achievement
Posted by: fdgsr on Mar 8, 2008 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The goal in all matters of human rights and individual dignity is progress as rapidly as culture and ignorance will tolerate. It took a long time to evolve cultural assumptions and practice. It takes a long time to moderate them. We who have lived 8 decades or longer can remember our own encounters with status. Women reached their present status much as men of various life conditions reached theirs. It is a march of human rights driven by the process of education. Logic and science help, but politics do more and achieve less.

Democracy has done more for women than all the mythical gods in the human pantheon. The modern use of money to regulate exchange of labor and to sequester capital assets has freed more women than all the fundamentalist religion adjustments. The growth of the concept of equality, justice, and individual rights has freed more men and women than the weapons of modern warfare. Democracy and rights cannot be enforced by threats to kill if one does not comply. The threat of terror by war or other human violence does deter some activity. Birth control pills have saved more Muslim and Catholic women than all the priests, honor judges, or courts of democracy.

It is good to have this kind of writing to expose the hypocrisy of ones own myths and to free women, and men, to pursue their own potential in the market place of commercial production and the bedroom of their own home. Doth the pot call the kettle black?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who Knows?
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Mar 8, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hell, maybe women do fare a lot worse in Islamic culture than they do in other faiths. I've just never seen any hard evidence to support that claim.

Consider the difficulty you’d have studying the question empirically. First, you have to operationalize the question. How do you quantify women’s social status in a way that can be compared across cultures and national borders? How, for example, would you deal with the wildly different reporting rates among rape victims in different cultures? Those rape statistics that are kept by national police forces and independent researchers are very unreliable. And surely women’s status can’t be reduced to just political or economic participation, or just domestic legal rights, or just the violence they might encounter, but all of those things and many others. That doesn’t make a study impossible to set up, but it makes it very tough.

And I think it’s self-evident that women’s experiences are quite rich and varied. Do women in different countries and cultures face the same obstacles and hardships? How do you account for that? How many women victimized in date-rapes in Minneapolis do you equate with one woman being lashed for some ludicrous offense in Al Jubayl?

Say you figured all that out somehow. Now you have problems isolating religious faith as the primary cause of whatever differences you might find.

As I wrote above:

“Comparing the “Muslim world” to the rest of the world poses an intellectual problem — how does one even look at the role of Islam in a society, specifically, rather than dozens of other variables that might influence women's outcomes?”

You'd have to compare states with similar economies, types of government, adherence to the rule of law, education levels, etc., but with different religious majorities. Another approach would be to study different religious communities co-existing in the same country. The problem with the first approach is that it would be difficult to find countries that are similar in every really significant way but the religion of its majority population. The problem with the latter is that in states with more than one religious faith, there are majority and minority faiths, and they generally do not share the same legal, political and economic status, which would be necessary to draw any conclusions. Take Lebanon, which is 60% Muslim and 40% Christian. I have no idea if women do better or worse on one side of that fence or another. But if, say, Muslim women had a lower status, you’d still have other factors to deal with. It happens that the Lebanese Maronite Catholic community (Lebanon has about a zillion religious sects) has traditionally dominated the country's elite, and enjoyed greater wealth, education, etc. as a result. So, concluding the difference was one of religious faith would be problematic.

I can see a lot of indirect ways of digging into the issue. For example, I think it’s a safe bet — safe enough that I’ve never bothered researching it — that women among fundamentalist or orthodox adherents of all religions have a far lower status than those in more liberal “reformed” faiths. So we could extrapolate, and say that all things being equal, religions with larger percentages of “traditionalists” of various stripes among them should accord women a lower status. But here, again, we run into a problem — while it’s an article of faith among many in the West that Islam is rife with fundies and extremists and whatnot, I’m not aware of a data set on religion that includes all of the planet’s 1.3 billion Muslims and 5.3 billion others. In order to eliminate our prejudices and stereotypes, we’d need that data.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who Knows? Posted by: Richard House
» RE: Who Knows? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Who Knows? Posted by: badkitty68
Thanks, Josh
Posted by: particle on Mar 8, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, the picture needs filling out. We get a lot of Muslim-bashing masquerading as concern for women that's really just crafted war propaganda. Getting a more detailed and proportional view is not to deny the real problems, as the hysterical haters would have you believe. Some people will hyperventilate at anything that interrupts their drum beating rhythm, though.

Also from AlterNet's own archives:
Betty Crocker, Not Bin Laden
"I immigrated to the United States from Lebanon in the mid 1960s. Over the years I have noticed an increase in the media of casual references to "the oppressed women of the Arab world." Many of these well-meaning reports are also infused with free-floating assumptions that do little to educate people about the realities of life for women in the Arab or Islamic world -- which vary wildly...."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thanks, Josh Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Thanks, Josh Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Thanks, Josh Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Thanks, Josh Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Thanks, Josh Posted by: particle
What a relief!
Posted by: hagwind on Mar 8, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, Joshua Holland! Pop pontificating about Islam, and especially about the role of women therein, has been driving me bonkers for years. I'm no fan of any of the patriarchal monotheistic religions, but I'm even less a fan of sloppy thinking, especially when it has political implications. What amazes me about the pontificators isn't so much their ignorance of Islam -- though it's boundless, willful, and no deterrent to their pontificating -- as their ignorance of Christianity, which so many of them have been exposed to since early childhood and which many of them adhere to now. All too often their evidence consists only of the Qur'an, and maybe a Classics Comics version of hadith and sharia. Sheesh, have they read the Bible lately? Do they have any clue about how the Bible is still being interpreted in some quarters, like the Vatican for instance?

Texts are only part of the story, and considered in isolation from day-to-day practice, they yield a incomplete and distorted picture. As late as 1960 in the U.S. of A., there were plenty of Protestants who seriously believed that Catholics shouldn't be president because they'd be puppets of the pope. On the secular side, consider the U.S. Constitution. Someone who pored over the text in, say, 1850, without considering what was happening outside his musty attic might understandably have concluded that women would never vote and slaves would never be free.

When it comes to women's rights, Islamic fundamentalism has at least as much in common with Christian fundamentalism and Jewish fundamentalism as it does with Islam as a whole. They're all patriarchal to the core and not especially interested in becoming otherwise. And if the Bush administration had ever really wanted to prove its commitment to women's equality, reversing its misogynistic position on reproductive rights would have been much more persuasive than taking down the Taliban.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What a relief! Posted by: o
When God Was A Woman
Posted by: daw13 on Mar 8, 2008 7:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by Merlin Stone tells us that Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have one thing in common: as religions of war based cultures they stratify society in ways that include the denigration of women. All of them.

The idea that Islam is stuck in primitivism was abandoned not only by scholars but by our own government years ago. Since Owen Lattmore wrote The Situation in Asia at the Government's request in the late '40s, the official view of Arabs was alarm at how rapidly they were modernizing. In The Grand Chessboard, zbigniew brshesinski warned that if the U.S. didn't find some way to block their Westernization, Arabs would catalyse capitalist movements in China and India and all of Asia resulting in the end of Western control of much of the world

In short, there is no doubt that Islam denigrates women, as do we in both meanings of that term.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When God Was A Woman Posted by: Richard House
» RE: When God Was A Woman Posted by: harryf200
» RE: When God Was A Woman Posted by: Richard House
» RE: When God Was A Woman Posted by: Basenjis
Iraqi women told me post-invasion laws are worse for women
Posted by: scribbler on Mar 8, 2008 7:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We claimed we would bring democracy, but 6 Iraqi women who came to the US in 2006 said the laws of the new US supported govt undermine women's rights more than anything under Saddam.

One woman was a pharmacologist and Shi'ia with a Sunni husband, and two daughters in med school in Baghdad until her brother was killed and they had to flee Iraq. She said the new laws undermine many crucial rights of women. That the situation makes it impossible to continue higher education. That women and men stay home waiting for the few, unpredictable hours of electricity so they can cook meals for their children - who often cannot go to school because of danger in the street - still. That it's unsafe to walk to a market - they can be killed by any one on any side, including US military troops chasing presumed insurgents. The water supply was bombed in 2003 and merged with sewage but has not been repaired so brown spots float in drinking water. Still in 2006. That women fear giving birth in hospitals that still cannot get needed medicines... or, if their husbands rush them to a hospital when giving birth, US military patrols may shoot them for speeding too fast past checkpoints that the husband, in his panic, may not see.

One woman was not given a visa for the trip to the US on the grounds that she did not have enough family in Iraq to encourage her to return... Reason for not having enough family? US troops had shot her husband and children to death in front of her eyes as they drove to a hospital.

The 6 women were all professionals - 2 doctors, pharmacologist, civil engineer, journalist, university professor. Shi'a, Sunni, Kurd, Christian. All Iraqis from Baghdad. All saying that Iraqis could deal with any resulting violence or civil war and that would be better than the violence that results from the US invasion.

They brought a request for the US to leave signed by thousands of Iraqi women. Some of the women with advanced university degrees were covered - because they think that is a beautiful way to honor the specialness of a woman and mother. Others were in jeans and not covered. Some both. All hated Saddam as a tyrant but said conditions have become much worse - before the invasion, if you stayed out of politics, you could stay alive. Afterwards, anyone could get shot in the street or in their home, almost randomly by religious groups, insurgents, US military or gangs of thieves. They were outspoken and brave to come here, (on plane tickets paid for by Code Pink and Women Say No to War) to give the petition to the US government and to say "thank you, now please go home."

Yes, some countries in the Middle East treat their women abominably, particularly our buddies and enablers of 9-11 in Saudi Arabia. Iraq had laws to give women education, marital rights, property rights, etc... But we've bombed that country back to the Middle Ages without repairing the damage we have caused directly and indirectly. Are we so self-centered or incompetent or uncaring or oil-fixated that we can't create a new version of the Marshall Plan that worked with conquered enemies as determined as Nazis and Kamakazis?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well-reasoned excuse for misogyny
Posted by: ninaburleigh on Mar 8, 2008 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just because Islam is a prominent religion in the developing world, and because we are engaged in a foolish, terrible war with SOME practitioners, and just because they are also often "brown people" doesn't mean Islam doesn't have a BIG problem with misogyny, a problem that no one on the left can excuse without exposing his or her own blind spot on the subject.
Misogyny, manifested in the obsession with "purity" that deems females unclean, is a defining hallmark of their system.
It's a measure of how far women have to go on this planet that men like Josh Holland will engage in contortionist thinking to excuse or overlook the outrageous treatment of women pervasive in the Islamic world.
Jasmina is absolutely right about how this essay will be used: I only noticed it lthanks to an email blast sent this morning by a pro-Islam organization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Show me the money Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Show me the money Posted by: ninaburleigh
» RE: Show me the money Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Snake Charmers and Jesuits Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Well-reasoned excuse for misogyny Posted by: Joshua Holland
The short end of it
Posted by: grn1 on Mar 8, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"None of this is a defense of Islam, or women's place within it -- I have little love for religion, any religion, and certainly no desire to defend any religious rites or customs. It's about our loose definitions of the problem and tendency to idealize the "liberal" West." If you are circumsized, you have already participated in customs. Why are people so freaked out by female circumcision, yet this violence against males is acceptable. BTW, I believe this practice on males is one more way of punishing women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The short end of it Posted by: hagwind
» irony Posted by: o
» RE: The short end of it Posted by: bornxeyed
It's not funny, is it?
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 8, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As soon as we no longer had the wicked Communists as the boogeyman, Islam came along to fill in the gap, providing us with an enemy to continue as always.

It ought to be clear by now that the Balance of Terror may prevents us from eliminating each other but it sure doesn't prevent us from invading each other.

The Bush II nightmare is coming to an end, maybe. I am not convinced that we have learned our lesson. When we elect oil barons to run the nation is it any surprise that the price of oil goes from under $20 to over $100 a barrel?

I wish I could laugh because America for the last 30+ years has been a joke, but a bad one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Scapegoating Posted by: Cathyc
Eastern Orthodox Church?!
Posted by: Hexer on Mar 8, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Perfectly backwards Eastern Orthodox Church"?!! WHF? Saint Helena of Constantinople and Saint Olga of Kiev were the founders of our church (in Roman Empire and Rus). Russia was always into matriarchy. Catherine the Great was the best Russian ruler in centuries. Catherine Dashkova was a director of Russian Academy of Science in XVIII century. In old Novgorod 700 years ago rich women were literate and in possesion of business. And so on.

And in modern Russia we don't have anything like abortion debate or contraception debate. We don't have a lot of housewifes either (except for Ludmila Putin and her ilk). Working women are the backbone of our society. 8 of March is our national holyday.

Well, obviously we are not perfect, but we are not backwards. No, sir.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yabbut . . . Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Yabbut . . . Posted by: Hexer
» RE: Yabbut . . . Posted by: Shey
I Disagree
Posted by: dumdumboy on Mar 8, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Holland.

Perhaps the media that he reads relegated stories about the plight of Muslim women to the back pages, but writers such as Katha Pollitt in The Nation made me aware of the issue(s) years before 9/11.

I also don't seem to recall that Mormon women in Utah are denied the vote, not allowed to drive and have to cover themselves entirely in public, lest they drive men wild with desire from seeing a stray strand of hair.

While I have little doubt that Christian conservatives would love to have as much control over their women as Muslims do, it seems evident that they are a long way away from such. Hell, Roe v. Wade hasn't been struck down. Yet.

I am of the impression that the reason this article was written has to do with the unfair attack Mr. Holland made on Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently. In his opinion she is being pimped by the right-wing in this country. Two observations: politics make for some strange bedfellows, and vindictiveness is not a good journalistic practice. (One may overlook obvious facts in seeking to prove their theory, and what the public needs is unbiased reporting, not the Fox-ification of the left.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I Disagree Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: I Disagree Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: I Disagree Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: I Disagree Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: I Disagree Posted by: particle
» RE: I Disagree Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: I Disagree Posted by: particle
» RE: I Disagree Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: I Disagree Posted by: particle
» RE: I Disagree Posted by: Blue Heron
It still doesn't let Islam off the hook
Posted by: snedunuri on Mar 8, 2008 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that the status of women in societies correlates better with the structure of the economy in that country still doesn't excuse the religion. Agreed all the 3 religions of the "the book" like to tell you what to do, but Islam is the worst of them. As Salman Rushdie pointed out in Satanic Verses, it's really a product of its time. At the time, the status of women was not very high. Islam codified and froze that into its doctrine. The fact that women in Muslim countries advance at all is despite not because of the religion. Look, any religion that allows a man to divorce his wife by saying "piss off bitch" 3 times is not really going to win any awards for equality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fascination? Try Apathy!
Posted by: stellabloo on Mar 8, 2008 9:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw a youtube comment the other day, prefaced by the words " I am definitely not a feminist BUT ... " Now apparently I'M the confrontational one - women's issues being all resolved in this day and age, right?
Those of us still whining about equal pay and violence against women are really just man-hating underachievers in frumpy clothes.....
No doubt there are millions of bubbly little twits like her out there who have never heard of the wage gap. Sad but true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry Joshua, not buying it
Posted by: Libsrule on Mar 8, 2008 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I am as anti Bush, Neo Clowns, and the sort. Hate this war of choice and agression, and believe it has done more damage to women in Iraq and the Mid East in general, I'm just not buying your article.

BUT your article comes across as more of Bush propaganda to excuse the way things are going by declaring them just peachy keen there.

Not buying it and all your attempts to say otherwise are falling on deaf ears to most of us and NOT because we are suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance, far from it. Far too many people have suffered as a result of all religions but in particular women in Islam in modern time have suffered more than any.

Unfortunately we in the West only hear about a few stories that manage to make it out, but if you expect anyone to believe that Islam in modern times is just a few decades behind us "libruls" in the west, you need to really start looking around and stay away from dry reports by people who probably have their own agendas anyway.

Real life is different.

And your article comes across as some sort of Rovian whitewash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sorry Joshua, not buying it Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Sorry Joshua, not buying it Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Sorry Joshua, not buying it Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Sorry Joshua, not buying it Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Sorry Joshua, not buying it Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Sorry Joshua, not buying it Posted by: Blue Heron
» they only report the bad stuff? Posted by: war_on_tara
syed salamah ali mahdi
Posted by: salamah on Mar 8, 2008 11:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a Pakistani husband to a Saudi spouse of 45 years and my 'harem' includes 3 daughters and 6 grand daughters. My wife was educated by the Al Saud family's Kingdom for 16 years, FREE. She taught school for 30 long years and is now receiving a substantial 'pension'. Two of my daughters studied up to their Doctorate degrees at Imperial College, London and Stirling University at the cost of the Saudi Govt including a gift scholarship for the husband of one of my daughters to finish his own Masters & Ph.D degrees at Stirling University. My third daughter is doing her M.Sc paid for by the Al Saud Kingdom. My grand daughters aged 5 to 16 are also being educated similarly. When my father-in-law died, his property, business and cash were distributed to each of his 3 daughters and sons, as per Shariah Law. When I die my wife and my daughters will also inherit my worldly belongings as per the same Shariah Law AND I CAN NOT will my belongings to anyone as I wish, not even to my pet cats! If my wife's brothers had no wives and children, my wife and her sisters would inherit them. Because, I am not a Saudi national, I can not open a business venture in my name in Saudi Arabia but my wife, a female, established a businees enterprise in her name which I ran for 30 long years up until 2007, when I called it quits, because of age and health. Yes, she a female OWNED her own business, a female in Saudi Arabia. My daughters have their own properties which their husbands can not touch, sell or dispose. It is I who has been paying our family expenses from my male pockets. It is my sons in laws who do the same. Neither my sons in law nor I could or can touch our spouses bank accounts or sell their belongings. One of my sisters-in-law is a retired Drmatologist and another is a Professor and Head of the Dept of History at Jeddah University. It's the same with these 'persecuted' ladies in the 7th or 12th Century Saudi Arabia.Had I gone to Pat Robertson's USA or to Ian Paisley's UK and married an American or a Brit and had the same number of daughters and grand daughters would they have been supported or looked after by the Gippers and the Bushes or even the Clintons in like manner? How many of them would have ended up as drug addicts, single mothers and hookers? Would my American or British wife have inherited when their fathers died? Would, would and would! East is East and West is West and the twain should never meet. We, including my daughters, my grand daughters and my sisters in law are happier where we are and how we are. So, please don't preach to us!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One comment
Posted by: Triffel on Mar 8, 2008 11:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FEMALE ---- GENITAL -- MUTILATION --- Any takers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One comment Posted by: CJC
» RE: One comment Posted by: bomec
Islam Only A "Few Decades" Behind The West
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Mar 8, 2008 12:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's take more than a few decades ... let's take five of them, and go back to the chauvinistic old 1950's that paleocons are always dreaming about with such nostalgia, and compare that to modern day Saudi Arabia or Iran.

As a woman, I know I'd prefer the American 50s to the conditions that exist in the Muslim world today. Actually, I'd rather live in the West during ANY time in history than in any Islamic country in any era. Sorry Josh, there's just no comparison, and many previous posters have listed the reasons why in great detail, so I won't repeat them.

Of course, neocons are not attacking Islamic countries to liberate the women living there, and women's rights are worse now in Iraq than they were under Saddam. It's just an excuse to drum up public support for another resource war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

re voting and other rights
Posted by: CJC on Mar 8, 2008 1:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a troubling amount of prejudice and ignorance here masquerading, however sincerely, as concern for the lives of women in Muslim countries.

It's true that the majority of countries with majority Muslim populations are poor and so many women and men suffer from various kinds of oppression. A few majority Muslim countries are completely repressive and no one outside the elite has any rights.
Here are some data from "Arab and Muslim Countries:Profiles in Contrast, 2004" Cyber Century Forum and World Affairs Council, published by the Brookings Institution.
General facts can be confirmed or corrected at the cia.gov website that has basic data on all the countries in the world.

Countries with limited or no suffrage.
Brunei, no suffrage
Kuwait, "Adult males who have been naturalized for 30 years or more or have resided in Kuwait before 1920 and their male descendants 21 and over. Note: only 14% of all citizens are eligible to vote."
Lebanon, "21 years of age; compulsory for all males; authorized for women 21 and older with elementary education."
Sultanate of Oman, "In 2000, limited to approx 175,000 Omanis chosen by government to vote."
West Bank and Gaza, no details. Too unstable.
Saudi Arabia, None allowed.
United Arab Emirates, none.

Every other country had unlimited suffrage from 18 or 21.

Countries with greater than 50% difference in male/female literacy, with overall population literacy percentage.
Afghanistan 31%
Algeria 57.6%
Bangladesh 41%
Burkina Faso 16%
Ivory Coast 51%
Egypt 57%
Guinea 24%
Iraq 40% (How can we bring "democracy" to a country with such a low level of education?)
Mali 27%
Mauritania 41%
Morocco 50.5%
Niger 17%
Pakistan 44.5%
Senegal 39.5%
Sierra Leone 31.8%
Somalia 25%
Yemen 49%
Where education levels are high there's not much difference between male and female literacy. Where it's low, overall illiteracy is high with women even more disadvantaged.

Majority Muslim countries with overall literacy above 80%
Albania
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Brunei
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Maldives
West Bank and Gaza
Qatar
Tajikistan
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Both Iran and Saudi Arabia have 78% literacy.

Someone wrote above that it's "illegal" for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man. Depends on local laws, for sure. Jews both in Israel and outside alsso place a high premium on marriage within the religion.

Final point. This from Women eNews
"People in 14 of 16 nations favored a stronger role for the United Nations in preventing discrimination. In Turkey, 91 percent of respondents support equal rights for women; in both Mexico and the United Kingdom, 89 percent; in Indonesia, 81 percent; and in the United States, 77 percent."
Turkey and Indonesia showing higher support than US.
This is NOT necessarily the promised land.
Thanks to Joshua Holland for provoking this discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Detailed reports" are anecdotal, but suffrage dates are in the almanac
Posted by: war_on_tara on Mar 8, 2008 4:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mostly, we're treated to detailed reports of horrific abuses in theocratic states like Saudi Arabia and Iran, despite the fact that just six percent of the Muslim world live in those two countries.

Along with you, Joshua, we can all lament the late arrival of female suffrage in Portugal (pop. 10,566,212), Switzerland (7,489,370) and Liechtenstein (! - all of 33,717) when of course an insignificant fraction of one percent of the Christian population is in those countries.

It seems that your only objection to "detailed reports of horrific abuse" is that there are just not enough "detailed reports." Well, how could anybody possibly get enough of those for you?

You mention Utah. Fair enough. Your readers here agree with you about abuses of women among the Mormon fringe - I read Jon Krakauer's scary book - but you don't seem to have considered how difficult it is even in our own country to find the "empirical" data on something like that. Utah & Arizona state officials, & mainstream LDS, who usually very much want to find out what's happening, have a great deal of trouble finding out what's happening. And mere reporters have trouble staying alive.

Think of all this empirical data you (supposedly) want collected in Muslim countries with much less infrastructure and order than the wilds of rural Utah and Arizona (but usually, with much more population). How do you propose data be collected in many of those places without the help of the government and the mainstream religious authorities? Or worse, with their active interference? Or even with their help, with a hostile (male) population?

Seems to me you're just giving your critics a convenient brush-off, rather like the Wizard of Oz when he told Dorothy to go get the witch's broomstick. Maybe some enterprising reporters can somehow manage to acquire all those hundreds or thousands or millions of broomsticks before "a few decades" more have passed.

Meanwhile, it's easy enough to look up the women's suffrage page in an almanac.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not exactly Islam
Posted by: estelevistaban on Mar 8, 2008 5:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would have to say -- considering the wide range of Islamic societies across the globe -- that Islam in and of itself is really not the key. The problem I believe lies in the underlying societies from whence the various religions arose. 7th Century Arabia was not exactly up there with woman's rights -- but then neither was the 7th century mess they now call Europe -- nor China, nor, etc.etc. What happened, I believe is that inherent cultural mores and biases became entangled with the explosively pervasive rising religions, and reflected back and forth like a hall of mirrors. It may take the patience of a saint and geologic time to disentangle that knot, and remake deeply held beliefs -- but I agree that it is not any given religion qua religion that is at the root of problem. (Just witness those lovely Christian ladies in the southern US who think 27 children and a life in the kitchen is just what the Lord intended... I doubt if they're reading the Quran...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women's Rights are a function of Secularization
Posted by: sofla100 on Mar 8, 2008 5:29 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is all about secularization, the separation between Church and State. Because the USA has historically had this type of separation (going back to its Constitutional formation) it has developed strong laws, perhaps even the strongest in the world that protect women and children. I don't think you will find another country in the world where if the police respond to say, a domestic violence complaint, the mere presence of even a small mark on a women will result in the arrest (by state law) of the man (or vice-versa, depending on who has evidence of injury). Now, I think these advanced laws owe their development to secularization. Of course, America has always had, and increasingly so, it's own fundamental religious adherents. But thus far, a genuine fear seems to exist in the populace of what would happen if these sectarians really gained control of the apparatus of government. Oh, they have tried and had some limited success. Usually, what you see then is ridiculous things like prohibiting the teaching of evolution or not giving information on contraception to teenagers in the schools. But, their influence has been limited and Roe v Wade still stands. Unfortunately, sectarians still have too much control in at least a few Arab countries (and Jewish sectarians control Israel). And, when the religious types, it seems no matter what the creed can have their way, then they start to make law and policy by what was written down thousands of years ago, that is when the society stagnates and women's right go by the wayside.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» These progressive States Posted by: YogiBear
Female Genital Mutilation - Islamic pratice
Posted by: PakiBoy on Mar 8, 2008 5:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FGM has long been used as a hammer with which to beat Muslims, and especially the nasty wasty fundamentalists. The practice is confined largely to Sub-Saharan Africa, but as it is no longer acceptable to denigrate black people, they must be recast as Muslims so as to be collectively vilified. The small matter of the procedure being practiced by African Christians as well as Animists is conveniently ignored.

Here a comprehensive study by UNICEF on FGM proves that it is a cultural practice in certain parts of Africa and certain other regions, and it is practice by only a small minority of muslims.

Some excerpts:

1. FGM is not tied to Islam:
While religion can help explain FGM/C distribution in many countries, the relationship is not consistent. In six of the countries where data on religion are available – Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya and Senegal – Muslim population groups are more likely to practise FGM/C than Christian groups (see Figure 10, page 11). In five countries there seems to be no significant differences, while in Niger, Nigeria and the United Republic of Tanzania the prevalence is greater among Christian groups.
Looking at religion independently, it is not possible to establish a general association with FGM/C status. The most marked differences can be observed in Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Senegal. In Côte d’Ivoire, for example, 79 per cent of Muslim women have undergone FGM/C, compared with 16 per cent of Christian women.
This trend is reinforced in the analysis of FGM/C status of daughters (see Table 2C, page 37). In four countries, Muslim women are m