Islamic attitude towards women is very difficult to understand. Recently an Iranian cleric had the audacity to blame women for the potential earthquakes on Iranian soil. It is interesting that it never occurred to a man of religion that the earth might be reacting to an unjust environment. No! It has to be because women were spotted showing some hair.
*“Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes,”
So a woman’s very existence when seen by a man is a threat to him. This must be the mind set behind the Burka and all. A man shall not see a woman because the moment he sees her, he will have sexual desires, and it will be her fault that her very existence, triggers sexual desires in him. Somehow this only happens to Muslim men. Men of other faiths manage to co-exist in spite the presence of female bodies around them. Muslim men in western countries also somehow manage to survive being around females that they can actually see. They are still putting up a fight to keep ‘their’ women covered when residing in western countries.
It is a matter of ownership. As long as she belongs to him, why should others see her? The same way he expects to acquire her brand new, not used. This must be the logic behind many Arabic women getting surgery to get their virginity restored.
A young woman, who is sexually active, chooses to go under surgery to deceive her husband because it is important that she is considered brand new.
**“Young Arab women wait in an upmarket medical clinic for an operation that will not only change their lives, but quite possibly save it. Yet the operation is a matter of choice and not necessity. It costs about 2,000 euros (£1,700) and carries very little risk.”
A lot of social trouble can be expected in a society; when instead of accepting that for a woman sex is a humanly natural act too, deceit seems like the only way out of trouble.
So in the end the simplest moral values seem to be totally eroded, in order to abide with the rest of the rules. Lying becomes OK, even taking it as far as undergoing surgery because a certain fiancé cannot live with the idea that she has a reference point and will be able to judge him. Clerics see no harm in blaming women, simply for being women, as God created them and not hiding it.
After all men cannot be around a woman’s figure, it is not their fault; it is her fault for existing..!
Yeah right, the earth must be acting out because of women not because of all this twisted mindset used to oppress God’s female creatures…..
Belgian Law makers passed the Burka ban law. There is a huge debate whether it is taking away a woman’s right to follow her faith or liberating her from her husband’s oppression. Judging from a cleric’s views, who is supposedly a higher authority on Islamic religious views, it sounds like women are oppressed. He sees no harm in singling out a gender and blaming them for natural disasters which is discrimination against women, right then and there with absolutely no ground, yet no hesitation.
So it is OK for a society to ambush a woman to make a choice between suicide and surgery to restore virginity but it is not fair to make her uncover her face and take a step towards giving her an identity?
By the way, she is still allowed to cover her hair and her body; the ban is against the Burka which is an attire that covers the face thereby makes the person anonymous.
I am surprised that there is even a debate!
Follow me on Twitter@banugokyar
Sources:
*http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/19/women-blame-earthquakes-iran-cleric
**http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8641099.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8652861.stm
This is a good point well made. The astonishing thing about the burka ban is that it has taken so long for the first European country to enact one.
Many western liberals hypocritically choose not to see the burka and what it represents as a threat. Not many of them would swap places with a woman in Karachi or Tehran who doesn’t have much of a say in the matter.
Dear Londoner
Thank you for the comment..I am glad we agree on something;)
I have read several of your articles and they are very articulate and informative. One thing you seem to do though is combine moral or religious law with secular law. In one article you mentioned O.J. Simpson and his not being found guilty and getting away with a crime. I agree with you but in the U.S. secular law said O.J. was innocent because a jury of his peers said so. Let me repeat this because some people have trouble with it, O.J. was innocent because a jury of his peers found him so.
You seem to also have a problem with underage girls having sex with older men. I’m not as good at research as you but from a purely observational view, I would say most men marry women who are younger and sometimes quite a bit younger. There is some evidence that women are more advanced at an earlier age than men. I would suggest to you a girl of 13 is probably equivalent to a boy of about 17. This is certainly not universal but I think on average this would bear out. This in no way supports sexual abuse of underage girls but each case should be judged on its own merits.
One interesting example, in a high school close to my home girls entering high school, age 14, had a pact to see which girls could become pregnant first and have a single parent baby, there was little interest in the boys they used. Three girls got pregnant before their junior year of high school and none married the father of the baby. I would be interested in hearing your opinion about who was the abuser in this case because one of the boys was very upset when he was not allowed to claim his child.
I understand your anger and I feel your passion but rigid morality through history has had bad results. That is why in the U.S. secular law supersedes religious law. I agree the Muslim World should lighten up on women but in the west women have not used their freedoms wisely. If smoking, drinking sluttishness is what freedom is about then maybe the Muslims have it right.
Dear SpringCreek
Thank you for the comment. It is not only in the US that secular law supersedes religious law. I am a strong believer in Secularism. I totally agree with your point on “rigid morality through history has had bad results.”
I also believe that we shall all remember to act out of love, not narrow minded ideas to force upon eachother…here is another article that you might find interesting….
http://shakti108.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/stripping-on-the-altar/
I do not have a problem with age differences among couples. However, sexual advances with a thirteen year old is not legal in th US either. I see it as a problem when a child is forced into the situation against her will.