Posted on 12/05/2001 5:58:16 AM PST by Prodigal Daughter
Her many reminiscenses of what goes on in that country were blood-curdling to me.
Leni
Actually, from what we've been reading lately, that mightn't be such a bad idea.
Dan
We on Free Republic, as opposed to Free Democracy always stress that we are a Republic and not a Democracy. This quote from Dr. Sauad M. Al-Sabah is a perfect illustration of the difference.
The good Doctor is wrong. In a pure Democracy, there is nothing to stop a woman from being legally killed by her family, her community or her Government for speaking about her lover. All that is needed to make such murders legal is an election and one "Yes" vote over 50% to make it so.
In a Republic, however, the Constitution and not the whims of the democratic mob determines the Law of the Land.
Thank you for posting this article - it has given me many insights to events that I could not understand when I was in the Sinai. And thank you for explaining to everyone how Islamic law works. The next time I hear an American woman whining about how tough life is here I'm going to make her read this post.
Peaceful religion. Sounds like they made up the rules as they went along to me.
Were we to compare the treatment of women and non-believers under Christian rule some 1200 years after the start of Christianity, we would find a lot of similarities.
I believe it is entirely possible that many religions go through these types of phases as they evolve. Initially, women were essentially equal under Christian doctrine, but by the dark ages women were little more than the property of their father or husband.
While not making this attitude right, we should also recognize that the past of our own religion includes some fairly unsavory facts. I'm not a sociologist, but I do find the similarities of behavior relative to time of existance for a religion interesting.
I believe it is entirely possible that many religions go through these types of phases as they evolve. Initially, women were essentially equal under Christian doctrine, but by the dark ages women were little more than the property of their father or husband.
And I suppose we are to believe that chivalry was Patricia Ireland's invention? Get real.
The extent to which women became property in the middle ages had little to do with Christianity and a lot to do with the prevailing political concept being "might makes right."
In addition, you simply do not find the kind of oppression commanded in the Koran in the bible. Yes, a distinction was made, and no, women were not as free or empowered as men.
Christianity, however, raised the status of women. No longer could a wife simply be discarded, and a husband who mistreated his wife is told that his prayers are ignored. The limitations placed on women are only in the context of worship and marriage.
While the Bible may not mention much of what was done to women during the Dark Ages, it was done under the umbrella of religion. There is not a European power that did not claim that their rulers, and laws, were ordained by God. The church itself was a political power and was involved in much of the same behavior I mentioned.
Prior to her burning at the stake, Joan of Arc was raped by her guards. This was not viewed as improper because, as a criminal and a heretic, she had no rights.
A woman who was accused of adultry could be thrown out of the house by her husband and was left to starve.
Upon the death of her husband, it was the man's children, and not his wife, that inherited the estate.
Women could not refuse sex with their husband, and a spousal rape was not a crime. This was enforced by the church.
While female castration was not practiced, it was not at all uncommon for women to be forced to wear a chastity belt, which, while less severe, would hardly be considered humane by our current standards.
It was not at all uncommon for girls as young as 12 to be married off by their fathers for financial or political gain. In fact, Lucretzia Borgia (the daughter of the Pope) was married at 12 to cement a political alliance for the Vatican. The church then issued annulments to her on the false grounds of impotance of her spouse, so she would be free to marry a more politically useful husband.
The fact is that a superficial sociological review shows a great deal of similarilty if one compares behaviors relative to the date of founding of these religions.
Wrong is wrong, but I am amazed that Christians like myself are calling for the destruction of a religion based on beliefs and actions that, quite frankly, are not too dissimilar to our own history.
What if Christians practiced everything that was mentioned in the old testament?
Christians don't base their practice on the Old Testament (ex. "an eye for an eye"). That was for the Hebrews before the coming of Christ. Christians base their practice on the teachings of Christ in the New Testament (ex. "turn the other cheek").
Wrong is wrong, but I am amazed that Christians like myself are calling for the destruction of a religion based on beliefs and actions that, quite frankly, are not too dissimilar to our own history.
There is a huge difference here that you simply ignore. The Jewish Torah and Christian bible simply do not authorize the same kind of opression that the Koran does.
Sure, those calling themselves Jews and Christians have done it, but they did it in rebellion to God, not in His service no matter how ardently they claim it.
Moslems, on the other hand, are authorized by the Koran to oppress as much as they like.
And as far as those self-proclaimed Christians of the middle ages go, I hold them in no higher regard than the terrorist barbarians we now face. The color of their skin or the origin of their tribe is irrelevant. They were barbarians then, many Moslems are barbarians now.
Old Testament: Rahab a harlot wasn't killed for harlotry. Deborah was a judge. Gomer
And then we have the Koran, nine-year-old Aisha and her dolls, but wait, he starts dreaming of her when she's age five.
Gen. 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Deut 24:5 When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: [but] he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken. Proverbs 5:18: Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Malachi 2:14-15 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet [is] she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
Hadith: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 86, Number 98:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent; and the matron should not be married till she is asked whether she agrees to marry or not." It was asked, "O Allah's Apostle! How will she(the virgin) express her consent?" He said, "By keeping silent." Some people said, "If a virgin is not asked for her consent and she is not married, and then a man, by playing a trick presents two false witnesses that he has married her with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage as a true one, and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, then there is no harm for him to consummate his marriage with her and the marriage is regarded as valid."
(Ay yay yay!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.