This just seems like good business sense to me. A resort is catering to the desires of its clientele.

Mm. I dislike this. I'm not saying the resort didn't use good business sense, but it's dangerous to cater to a patriarchial system and to allow their oppression of women to continue in a "nicer", more social acceptable way.

Now too many people will think, "At least the muslim women can go to the beach now", and they will overlook the fact that these women have no rights whatsoever so a beach trip is fucking insulting.

"Here, darling. You can't have medical care, property rights, or basic human dignity, but I got you a lollipop to make up for it."

I'm not a Muslim woman, and I'd go to a beach like this... if only to avoid obnoxious frat boy types.

And I object to EJ's comment... many muslim women choose to obey cultural dress codes while living in more liberal societies where they can have leadership roles and own property. It always bothers me when people judge a woman because she's wearing a headscarf, assuming she must be powerless and opressed--I mean, you could judge a girl in a mini skirt the same way, even if she is a feminist.

I didn't say that ALL Muslim women are oppressed, did I?

Some prostitutes claim to love their work. Some trophy wives say they are happy. Some 16 year old sex slaves are in love with their 40 year old husbands.

That doesn't mean that a system that allows oppression is a good one. It's a F.A.C.T. that many women in Muslim countries cannot receive any kind of health care at all because a man can't see their flesh if he's not their husband and a woman isn't allowed to become a doctor. So if you think it's H.E.A.L.T.H.Y. or some kind of C.H.O.I.C.E. to live in a country where medical care is denied to half of the residents based on gender, then good on you, but excuse me while I disagree.

But EJ, how are any of those thing remedied by not having a women-only beach? I agree that there are many injustices, all of which should be addressed. I think that women (and men) should be able to CHOOSE whether or not they would like to observe religious law.

The beach in question provides a service to women obeying Muslim law. It does not address the source of the obediance.

BTW, it's not just Muslims who benefit. I can think of plenty of religious Jews in the same boat, as well as people like the previous poster who want to avoid fratboys.

DT, they aren't remedied by not having a women-only beach.

My point is that the beach has the danger of appearing as a nice "treat" that obscures the very real plight these women are in. Too many people will think, "Oh that's nice. The Muslim culture really DOES value women - look, they are working within the system to make life bearable!" when, in reality, no such thing has occurred.

Aren't we generally against a "gender/race/whatever" ONLY area, anyway?

Wouldn't a news article about the resort opening a Men-Only Bar make us all very upset?

I feel bad for Europe. Many do not know how the Muslim culture is eroding that country. Italy has a long history of being proud of the nude form, and this should not be disrespected by a culture that considers women vile. As an Italian woman I would hate to go their 30 years from now and have to see that! The west ought to see what that religion really is, and the threat it could pose if left unmonitored. It is revolting-it seems that there is no limit to how far this misogyny can evolve within that religion. What's worse is these muslim women support it!

Sorry for the double post, but another thought:

How many of you thinking that this is a good thing would have approved in the 1950's of "negros only" ice cream parlors?

At least it was a nice thing to do. Finally the negroes could get ice creams. It was really awfully nice of the white people, now that you think about it.

And lots of colored people didn't mind being segregated.

Sorry, but that's what this feels like to me.

(Note: The use of "colored" and "negroes" in the above post do not mean that the author approves of these words.)

I think it's just good business for the resort too.

And EJ, I think your opinion is judgemental. By assuming that everyone who follows a religious law, or marries someone for money, is actually unhappy despite her claims to the contrary, is presuming that you know what should make them happy. Happiness is in the heart of the beholder; it's just our duty to provide the choices.

Of course, we need to figure out health care for Muslim women who are denied by gender. But let's look closer to home- what about people denied emergency care because they have no health insurance, even if they work two jobs to make ends meet. Is it fair to deny critical care due to financial constraints?

I'm not comparing women's rights in certain Middle Eastern areas to oppression in America, but before we make the leap from a women-only resort beach to societal oppression and health care reform, I think we need to take a step back. One who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.

In the book I am reading by Oriana Fallaci titled The Rage and The Pride she discusses much of the disgust she as well as much of Europe have observed as far as witnessing much of the erosion of their own culture from this unchecked muslim immigration. Many muslim men have petitioned to be governed by sharia law seperately from the rest of European law. In Rotterdam, Netherland they have begun building the largest mosque with minarets that reach above their beloved soccer stadium. It really is becoming out of hand. Like I said in an earlier post as far as feminism is concerned; America and Europe are like the conquered victories for feminism in the world.If you have erosion of these values it could unravel it. The vast majority in the world are not female friendly. Do you think Europe ought to stop immigration of muslims in order to preserve their equal gender social structure and laws? It does not look like the muslim world is going to confront these contradictions anytime soon.

I think that this is pretty awesome. My college, which is a women's college, has pool hours that are women-only (male faculty and guests sometimes swim the rest of the time). It works pretty well, and lets women who aren't comfortable for whatever reason being around men in bathing suits or wearing a bathing suit in front of men go swimming. If we were a coed college, we'd probably have men's hours, women's hours, and coed hours.

Oh, and EJ? Your assumptions are pretty offensive. There are plenty of Muslim women who freely choose to cover their hair for religious reasons, even if they live in a western country in a liberal family. There are even plenty of feminist Muslim women who cover their hair.

Also, way to assume that all Muslim women come from countries that are exactly the same in terms of women's rights. Iran is different from Qatar is different from Indonesia.

Jesus Christ.

Can I say this AGAIN? I'm not saying all Muslim women are oppressed or feel oppressed or whatever. I am saying that AS IT APPLIES TO WOMEN IN GENERAL the Muslim religious rules are oppressive.

Are their women who are Muslims by choice and are happy? No doubt. Does that mean that the Muslim rule of "women cannot be seen by men WHETHER THEY WANT TO OR NOT" is okay? NO!

To the women who have chosen Islam: Good on you. But there are a LOT of women who haven't chosen Islam and who, in fact, die every day because of those religious rules. In fact, in many Muslim countries, one can be put to death for converting to a non-Islamic religion.

So, yes, I do have a problem with a segregated beach offered as a "treat" to women who cannot access medical care PERIOD whether they chose to be Muslims or not.

Nor am I in favor of "Negro Only" Ice Cream Parlors - Even if you can dredge up some blacks who don't mind segregation, that doesn't make it right.

If that makes me ignorant/bigoted/an asshat, then I guess I am. But I, for one, don't think that many religions line up with feminism. So shoot me.

By the way, has it come down to Christian = Bad, Muslim = Good?

I mean, it's "bad" for the Mormon guy in the other thread to marry a 16 year old girl. She swears she loves him and is happy, but it's just Stockhom Syndrome, we say.

But it's "good" for women to have to have a special beach just so they can get out of those swelteringly hot burkas without a (gasp!) MAN seeing their wrists and elbows and flesh? They did choose that, after all.

I'm saddened by the fact that anytime someone has the slightest problem with Islam, they are labeled an ignorant racist.

Is religious law a problem for those who are forced to follow it? Absolutely, and those problems need to be addressed. However, there are people who choose to follow religious law and their beliefs deserve respect. Offering a beach like this is no different, in my opinion, than offering a time and space for Muslims to pray.

Obviously the resort is just catering to the needs of their customers, so I don't really think it is a statement on either plurality or supporting oppression. It's just economics.

When I was in college, a young woman I sat next to on the bus wore traditional dress. The subject of womens' rights came up and she said she was regularly offended by well-meaning campus feminists who assumed that she was forced to dress as she did. As it turned out, she chose the religious dress though her mother and sister (both Muslim as well) did not. A beach like this would be perfect for her - she could enjoy herself while at the same time not be violating her faith.

You are assuming that the majority of the clients using the beach are Muslims-by-choice.

I am assuming that the majority are NOT Muslims-by-choice.

I'm afraid that without hard data, we're at an impasse.

Still, I still have a problem with Islam, by choice or otherwise. I also have a problem with Christianity. I have a problem with both because they are demeaning to women: historically, currently, and within the religios texts themselves.

Just because a woman "chooses" to be treated badly doesn't make it right.

That's my Opinion and I really don't want to be flamed for it so I'll shut up now.

EJ - I totally agree, especially with your second to last post (4:58pm).

I don't care what religion you are. You don't go to another country and expect them to rearrange things for you. I don't think there should be any catering to Sharia or any other religious law, and I'm tired of people crying "tolerance!" for their very intolerant ways.

Besides, I feel like it spreads the idea that if a woman is in the mixed section of the beach she's there to be approached/groped/bothered, otherwise, she would have gone to the ladies' section.

Don't get me wrong - nothing wrong with approaching someone in a respectful manner, but I just feel this will start a notion that a woman not in the woman's section is *there* to be hit-on.

When I was a kid (homeschooled), my main social outlet was the downtown YWCA. Very ethnically diverse.

I remember there was a Muslim woman there who would swim in front of men, or let her little girls swim in front of men. Swimming in the presence of little boys were fine up to a certain age.

I don't remember exactly how this was accommodated (I was 7 or 8 years old at the time), but it was.

There's not really a story here. Just that this was long before the Taliban, long before 9/11, and it was just something that another family from another culture did, and that was fine. Maybe it's a patriarchal practice. Maybe it should be abolished. But if it were me running the beach and a group of Muslim women asked for a secluded area so that they could go swimming, because they didn't feel comfortable swimming around men, and if it were easy to accommodate them without inconveniencing other swimmers too badly, I think I'd say yes.

I don't think I'd set it up as an official "women's only" section of the beach, though. It should be sold very specifically as a part of the beach for those whose religious convictions, or body image issues, make them uncomfortable swimming around men. Otherwise the beach very quickly divides into "men's sections" and "women's sections," where women can go into the "men's sections" but can expect to be hit on if they do.

Of course the real problem here is not with beach policy itself, but with the predatory horndogs on the coed beach.

Cheers,

TH

That second paragraph doesn't work. Pretend it reads like this:

I remember there was a Muslim woman there who would not swim in front of men, or let her little girls swim in front of men. Swimming in the presence of little boys was fine, provided that they were under a certain age.

Cheers,

TH

I'm not a fan of catering to patriarchal belief systems, but I wonder where we locate the difference between segregation and safe space. I was a big fan of the Women's Bathing Pond in Hampstead Heath when I lived in London. Not only was it beautiful, but I could go swimming and sunbathe topless without feeling like I was being ogled, and it didn't feel like the 1950s Jim Crow era at all. It felt freeing. On that basis, my gut reaction to this piece of news that was that I didn't see much of a problem. But on the other hand, I was not bound by any religious system; I could easily have gone to the mixed-sex pool if I'd felt like it. Does that mean I was colluding in my own oppression? That doesn't ring true to me. It felt more like going to a lesbian bar. To my mind, the problem is that the women whom this beach benefits are not able to enjoy mixed-sex beaches if they want to.

See, noname? That's the third thing we agree on thus far. There's still hope for us to be BFF before too long. ;)

I've apparently been to the wrong beaches. Male jerks are pretty easy to deal with. I find a chilling "look" and a concise, cutting remark usually send them scampering for someone more "fun" to play with.

Re: Religion. I maintain that just because someone chooses something oppressive doesn't make it right. It actually angers me that we're taking this "tolerance for intolerance" tact just because Islam is special. If this was a question of Africans and female circumcision, no one here would be saying, "Well, a lot of women choose it." DO a lot of girls/women choose female circumcision? Yes. There are many reasons to choose something - not the least of which include parental and societal pressures. We also, rightfully, have a problem with Christians and hymen reconstruction surgeries - regardless of whether or not anyone chooses the surgery! The issue is not one of force but that it's wrong and hurtful to women.

I guess what I'm saying is that if something hurts women, like denial to medical care, an assumption that they are property, or brutal, painful surgery to make them "desirable" - It Doesn't Matter If They "Want" It. It's still wrong.

It's frustrating to me that Islam is off-limits to critisism, but Christianity and pretty much every other religion or way of thinking is fair game. Maybe it just seems to me that way because I'm on crazy pills, but it feels that way sometimes.

EG, excellent post.

Cheers,

TH

EG, it wasn't Jim Crow-ish because, as you pointed out, you were totally equal to men. In fact, you were "BETTER": You had your own special pool that they couldn't go to.

These women don't have a choice. Not unlike the negroes of the 50's.

Also not unlike the negroes of the 50's, many of them would face death if them went to the co-ed beach. Honor killings, yay.

Exactly the conclusion I arrived at too, EJ!

Thanks, Tom.

Yeah, I know, but how could I resist a chance to mention honor killings?

I'd use a smiley here, but it doesn't seem appropriate.

The only thing I'd throw in as even a minor asterisk is that I'm not sure how much of this is, strictly speaking, sharia law. I just keep thinking of my friends' mother back at the YWCA, who was certainly conservative, who was certainly a devout Muslim, but struck me as someone who was more adhering to the standards of her culture than actively concerned about sharia law, or about honor killings.

Maybe I'm just filtering in my childhood naivete, but I remember thinking of it at the time as a cultural thing, sort of like how my own mother didn't let my niece wear a bikini at the Y. If there were any concerns about sharia law, or honor killings, they were lost on my little boy mind, where my only real concern was that there were some little girls who didn't get to go to rec swim with the rest of us and how that didn't seem fair.

Cheers,

TH

Does anyone else get signed out of Type Key every five minutes? I mean that literally. I was signed in, wrote a long post, forgot to copy it, and it said I was NOT signed in and erased it. And that happens a lot and I don't know why.

I don't have cookie problems anywhere else. Just here and it's strange. :(

There's definitely a certain double standard here (and it goes both ways; excessive liberal tolerance for Islam is nothing compared to conservative/neocon discrimination). But you don't need that double standard at all in order to think there's nothing wrong with a city council having a women's-only beach.

The Christian equivalent of this is the Utah-based company, whose name escapes me, which edits violence, sex, and profanities out of movies and markets the PGized versions to conservatives. While I don't know what most liberals think, I know they don't uniformly side with the big movie studios, which want to crack down on that practice for copyright reasons; hardcore atheist and independent filmmaker Brian Flemming supports the Utah-based company.

I really didn't want to comment, because so much of this thread made me feel like how nubian must have felt when she read her interview thread. I guess I'm the resident Muslim, even though I'm not religious in any way.

TH - It is mostly cultural. Honour killings aren't condoned by Islam, but by culture.

Women not having access to healthcare because of "Islamic law" is cultural. The rules do not apply in medical circumstances, eg. Muslims can't drink alcohol, but cough syrup containing alcohol is ok because it's a medicine.

Women aren't supposed to cover themselves because they're vile. I think you all need to understand that. There's this theory that men are "tempted" by women, and that's why they need to cover themselves. Basically, they're a threat. And that gets ballooned up into amazing proportions, and you see all the problems in the most fundamental Islamic societies. They are people interpreting Islam in order to oppress women, and even inventing things in order to do it. (See the Hudood Ordinance for Pakistan. A rule made by Zia, who drank.)

That said, when women who don't want to abide by the rules of Islam go to more liberal countries, they don't. I was on a flight from Doha to New York once, and a group of Arab women boarded dressed in burkas. They got off the plane in short skirts and tight jeans. Even the ones who are forced to dress a certain way by their families find ways to flout the rules.

What I'm saying is that most of the women who requested the beach are likely Muslims-by-choice. I don't think it's comparable to your ice cream parlour example, EJ, because these women are allowed on the other beach. It's more like coloured feminists asking for their own space. They are welcome in "non-coloured" feminist space, but wish to have their own, because that makes them comfortable in expressing themselves.

EJ, I always respect your convictions, and I almost always agree with you, but I guess having been raised with Islam, often in Muslim countries, makes me see this differently. I was certainly never oppressed, and in the part of Pakistan my family is from, almost no one wears a burka. All my father's college friends have daughters, and they're all determined to have their daughters highly educated (medicine, dentistry, and engineering.) When I lived in the Middle East, I was struck by how light the fabric for a burka really is. I discussed it with a girl in my class, and she told me that it actually did more to protect her from the sun than make her hot.

Islam is in a period of upheaval and backlash. It is my fond hope that the more liberal interpretations will win out, and the extremists will be further relegated to the fringes. (Obviously, there will always be crazies.)

freewmn, your comments have struck me as inflammatory in a number of threads. I can see where everyone in this thread was coming from and engage with them with my perspective except you. Culture is not static. It evolves with time, and Muslim influence is already part of Italian culture through trade.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but courts in Italy have ruled that women wearing tight jeans can't be raped, and that patting a woman's ass does not constitute sexual harassment. You're really going to point fingers at another culture for misogyny?

Lastly, this is just a business decision. "Come to Italy, and hang out at our Muslim-friendly beaches! Buy a few bikinis to wear on them. And we have many high-quality restaurants nearby with plenty of pork-free options. PS. Spend lots of money. As much as you can. Because we have Muslim-friendly beaches!"

And the cookie thing just happened to me, but I was warned about it by EJ and copied my post before submitting it, just in case.

Gah. It happened again. My long post, gone. Stupid EJ to forget to copy.

I'll try to reproduce, but it won't be as good.

...

Thank you for your compliments, PL. They mean a great deal to me.

I have never been Muslim and I don't know as much about it as I should, so I will bow to authority here.

That said, I have been presented, in the past, with verses from the Quran which lay the basis for wife-beating and honor killings.

My question is this:

Do those verses exist?

If they don't, then I have been misinformed and have been laboring under a false stereotype of Islam.

If they do exist, then you are wrong to say, "Honor killings aren't a part of Islam." The best you can say is that "Honor killings aren't a part of MY Islam."

That said, many people believe that a Holy Book is just that - the holy, unerring word of God. Just because you choose not to believe a part of your holy book doesn't mean that it's not there - and it doesn't mean that a lot of other people don't believe it.

I'm not trying to be harsh. I know there are many moderate Muslims and moderate Christians out there who don't take literally the blood thirsty passages that I *know* are in the Bible and have been told are in the Quran. My problem is that the moderates generally deny the verses exist, rather than admit they do and say that the Bible/Quran is wrong/not applicable for certain modern situations.

I struggled with being a moderate Christian for years before abandoning it entirely because of the verses I had problems with. I'm not saying my choice was the "right" one - just that it was right for me.

So if the Quran DOESN'T say it's okay to beat/kill women, then I deeply apologize for my ignorance and this entire post is, in fact, ignorant to the point of insulting.

But, if the Quran DOES say it's okay to beat/kill women, then I really want the moderate Muslims to own up to it. Quit saying "that's cultural - not Islam". Admit your holy book has blemishes and that it's not perfect. Admit that this isn't some terrible cultural problem, but a problem with people taking religion too seriously. Until you admit the Real problem, a "fix" isn't possible. If the problem is "religious fundamentalism", then pretending it's cultural isn't going to solve anything, because you'll say "Fix your culture" and they'll say "We don't need to, we're following the Quran to the letter".

And, to answer my own question, I googled this quickly. I know I've seen others:

"Men stand superior to women in that God hath preferred some of them over others, and in that they expend of their wealth: and the virtuous women, devoted, careful (in their husbands) absence, as God has cared for them. But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bedchambers and beat them."

And, I have seen others (but can't find them in a quick google) that go even further than beating.

If I'm wrong about all this, I'm really sorry. I would never presume to tell someone what they believe or what their holy book is telling them! I just don't understand how people can say the Quran doesn't condone abusing women when there are verses, right there, in the Quran, that, well, condone abusing women. It's a puzzle to me. :(

I will add that it's very strange to me that there are many Eastern and Middle Eastern cultures, but as far as I can tell *only* the Islamic communities have honor killings - indeed, ONLY Islamic communities. My ex-husband was from Indonesia (MK brat) and they had tons of honor killings - and they are far more of an "eastern" culture than a "middle eastern" one. Yet they *are* prodominantly Muslim.

On the other hand, the Hindu areas of Indonesia have few to no reported honor killings, as I recall.

I realize this is circumstantial evidence. It just seems odd that honor killings and Islam should be so inextricably linked if the two have nothing to do with the other.

Maybe I'm just a stupid Westerner. That's actually a good bet - it's after midnight and I'm barely awake. If I've been an ass in the last two posts, I'm sorry. I really respect you, PL, and I'd hate to piss you off by being an idiot. Good night all.

PL, I agree with a lot of what you said. And yes, many muslim women choose the lifestyle they lead. And muslims in general should not be demonized. But as you said earlier, fundamentalism is a problem. And I feel that way whether it's christian fundamentalism or muslim fundamentalism. The muslim faith needs to go through a reformation, as other the christian and jewish religion did. Because honestly, we can't all live under Sharia law. Our values and laws and respect for women's rights do not coexist with that concept.

I am sorry, by the way that you felt like nubian. I assume you mean disrespected. But in truth, nubian disrespected all of us.

In regards to this Italian beach, I first thought there's nothing much to it, for a few reasons. One was tourism. Another reason was that people are entitled to have any private area they want. A third reason I thought, is that hey it might not be bad having a beach where the guys can't go.

But then I realized it was all wrong. Sure, I'd like it, but how fair is it? Can the Hindus and the Jews and the Fundamentalist Christians have their own beach too? What about the Mormons? How much public access should we cut off at the exclusion of others? Because that is what we're talking about here, a beach. It's fine to have private businesses which cater to a particular group, but when you have a public access area, it's not really fair. It's not fair because it's excusionary, and it's not fair because those other groups have no such options too. The Italians pride themselves on open beaches for all. But what happened is money. Rich Sauds (that's where Osama came from by the way, Saudia Arabia not Iraq) have laid down a lot of cash at the hotel. They want private swimming pools for their rich wives and girlfriends, which the hotel accommodated. But now they want to close off a whole beach. They want to put partitians INTO THE OCEAN so that you'd have to stop at their part of the beach. They want ocean craft in the water to keep people away.

All that is ridiculous. I think about myself, and what my options are, and I don't have any. I'm a lesbian, and I'd like to be in a gay bar sometimes where men are not allowed. I'd like to lay on the beach with friends without curious guys walking past. But guess what? I can't. Because these are public areas. I just don't see why other people should have that right when I don't. And I could use a word that nubian and others have used...privilege. It's about money and wealth and the ability of the Sauds to arrange for their pleasure whatever they wish.

MsJane, that was a really excellent post.

Rereading the article, I notice it says that they have some "women-only" beaches already but that they can be "seen" from the mixed areas.

Presumably, therefore, will this new beach not only exclude men, but also have a huge buffer of restricted space so that no one can walk by and see the women? Or are they building a big wall around it? I couldn't tell.

Other concern I have is that the Westerners who don't know any better will take this as a sign that the Sharia law really isn't all that bad and that its proponents are very progressive - they "let" their women cavort around in bikinis on beaches, just as long as men can't see them. It reminds me of Ellison's Invisible Man where the white society took a black man and sent him (and him only) to college and with a fancy briefcase. They used him as a herring to point out how good and kind they were to blacks - when in reality, all the other blacks still lived terrible lives because of the oppression they labored under.

As you pointed out, MsJane, only the very wealthy are going to enjoy the new freedom under Sharia law that this beach supposedly represents. I'm just concerned that it will be hailed as some kind of milestone in the fight for women's equality under fundamentalist Islamic rule when it is, in fact, nothing more than a gimmick.

P.S. Religion is terribly frustrating to try to debate. I've heard that before, prairielily, that women are made to cover themselves not because they are dirty but because men just can't control themselves at the merest sight of women's flesh. But if God is right in that regard, shouldn't the European nude beaches have rape statistics approaching 100%? I mean every woman there would be raped, for goodness sakes. The fact of the matter is, Western women enjoy far more freedoms than middle eastern women do and our rape incidents are no higher. This would seem to indicate that the burka laws are a bunch of crock - and I don't care how "light" the material is, it's still a terrible form of segregation when forced on another! I just get frustrated that the most oppressive things are justified by the (IMHO) silliest arguments and science/logic/reason be damned. Now I'm being offensive again, so I'll shut up. :(

Can the Hindus and the Jews and the Fundamentalist Christians have their own beach too?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a general women-only beach, regardless of gender?

At any rate, I think that the general standard should be one of need. If it were a business, it would do what maximizes profits; for example, in the Southeastern US it would cater to Christian fundamentalists. I think a similar logic should underlie such public areas, with one exception, namely when it excessively burdens people.

So, enforcing gender segregation is not acceptable, because it burdens people who don't want it. If the beach is too small to have a large coed area and a women-only section, then Muslim women will just have to deal with it. In addition, if there is a real problem in question, such as groping, then closing off a section can be problematic because it can be used to imply that women who stay in coed areas invite groping (the Tokyo subway comes to mind here). Finally, maybe you can empirically demonstrate that closing off the beach will endanger gender equality in some way, for example by showing a case study of a locality that did that and consequently registered a higher level of gender segregation; then closing off the beach will be a bad idea, again.

Women aren't supposed to cover themselves because they're vile. I think you all need to understand that. There's this theory that men are "tempted" by women, and that's why they need to cover themselves. Basically, they're a threat.

That's very similar to modern Western sexist practices, which basically tell women that it's their responsibility not to get raped and that if men do rape them it's never the men's fault.

Some pragmatic caution is natural, and I will be the last person to fault a woman who decides to put on a burqa to avoid getting sexually assaulted. At times it even makes sense for a father to tell his daughter to dress modestly to avoid rape. But religion is an institution where full-scale social engineering can take place. If Islam took the men-are-beasts theory seriously, it'd command men to control their urges no matter how women are dressed, and leave women alone.

EJ, have you read "The Bound Man?" The man was bound by rope and his movements restricted, but he was able to go on happily living his live under these conditions. Like the burka being "light" and "protection" from the sun, the rope around the man was eventually seen as something positive and necessary. No one removed the rope.

The human mind is very moldable. For centuries people have gotten others to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do on their own, in forms of social engineering, religion, or other means. Then when you do the thing long enough, it becomes culture.

Independent thought, difference, individuality, freedom, liberty, tolerance and so on, are the exception in the human condition, not the rule. It has to be taught. It has to be seen and experience to be replicated. All of the cruel things we see involving government, religion, culture and so on, are not temporary constructs that annoyingly get in the way of freedom. They are the set point of man. It is where we will continue to go, centuries from now even, if a different path is not carved out and consciously, painfully, taken.

So I understand where you are coming from in a way, EJ, when you talk about Europe achieving certain things and those ideals being a risk. They are always at risk.

EJ - I have a few things to say, let me organize them. This might not be very coherent. I'm also going out of town in about half an hour.

First of all, I know things about the way the world works in that part of the world that aren't even really on the radar. A lot of people make a big thing out of the fact that women only inherit half as much property as men, forgetting that for many centuries, women in the West couldn't inherit anything. (See Pride and Prejudice.) Actually, they can't even deal with giving their daughters that much, and often transfer their property to their sons before they die to make sure they don't have to give their daughters anything. I think that pretty much encapsulates the attitude there, and the way Islam is selectively interpreted to oppress women as much as possible.

I don't agree with a lot of this stuff. I think there's a lot of good in Islam, but the bad is accentuated. I think Sharia has become a tool of oppression. I think the Islamic idea that women need to be protected and cared for is antiquated. I think the days when women belonged to you so you could cause a ruckus if someone tried to kidnap your wife and sell her into slavery are long gone, and the rules should go with it.

I think Muslim women are bright, intelligent, and in many countries, are making the same strides as women here. I know that on the arranged marriage "market" in the middle-class, education and success are valued in women in ways they are not in the West, in both Muslim and non-Muslim societies. I know that class plays a huge role in Muslim societies, even though charity is one of the fundamental tenets of Islam, and "everyone is equal in the eyes of God."

I know that when it's so different to live in the eastern part of Pakistan than to live in Afghanistan, and they both subscribe to the same religion, culture has to be involved. Things need to improve in both countries, though.

I'm pointing out honour killings and oppression of women as bad things. It's terrible that they can apparently be justified with Islam, but keep in mind that people are looking for ways to justify it, and they are not being questioned. Remember, the women often can't read. They can't check the Quran for themselves, and the parts of it they have memorized are in an archaic form of Arabic.

I guess honour killings are part of THEIR Islam... and completely appalling. The idea of your family's honour being held by the women isn't just limited to the Islamic world, of course, but this is just on its own level. I think it's cultural because in countries like Turkey, it also happens in non-Muslim families. Honestly, I'd never heard of it before I was 11 or 12, in documentaries. I have still never heard of a case personally.

Most countries don't have burka laws, and the burka is subject to different interpretations. In some places, it's important that the hair be covered, and a scarf is often worn with a knee-length skirt. In others, it's the body that is important, and the hair is flimsily covered. In some places, where the men hate and terrorize the women, they force them to cover up completely, and no one says, "But wait. Even in the strictest interpretation of burka, women don't have to cover their face and hands!"

A lot of the same bloodthirsty stuff in the Bible is also in the Quran. However, Muslims are also supposed to follow the example of the Prophet, and he was generally pretty peaceful. His first wife was a businesswoman, and he only had daughters. I find people do pick and choose what they follow, especially men. They're in control, right?

For instance, you're not supposed to hit your wife with anything heavier than a hankerchief. I have a problem with that, because there's still the principle of thinking it's ok to hit your wife (even with a tiny bit of cloth) but it's more of a problem that men don't do it. They beat their wives horribly.

Ms Jane - Thank you for noting this is about money. I don't this has much to do with Sharia or the place of women in Islam. Just money, and the Saudis who can spend money in Italy. I have been to Saudi Arabia. They have an extremely unequal distribution of wealth among their citizens. What this says to me is you can make the rules accommodate you if you're rich enough.

I guess fundamentally, what I'm saying is to not look at the whole Muslim world as one world. It has just as many variations based on class, culture, and race as the Western world. And yes, there are problems, but I don't think Western ideals are necessarily the answer. We have our own problems, and things are improving there... slowly. I try to keep in mind that it's the developing world, and therefore, needs time to develop and get out of the Middle Ages of Islam.

Once again, saved by copying my post before submitting.

Alon, no the beach was not created because the residents in that particular area wanted to carve up prime beach area for a women-only beach. They want open beaches, for the most part. This new beach was created by a wealthy, religious group of people originating from another country who want accommodations to their religion and culture. I believe the article said even the by-laws had to be changed for that area.

And since the beach will be walled off for muslims, even though non-muslims would be permitted to enter, they would be social outcasts if they engaged in any other non-muslim activity on the beach, like playing certain music (or perhaps music at all), eating pork products, drinking wine coolers, etc. The area is specifically and exclusively designed for muslim women, not just for all women.

Funny how you used the term social engineering too, as I did in my post.

prairielily, thank you for your post. I don't think you really answered my question, though, which is, "Do the verses which condone beatings/burkas/oppression of women exist in the Quran?" Yes or no?

As I said, if they do exist, then beatings/burkas/etc. ARE condoned by the Quran.

You mentioned the Bible being pretty bloodthirsty and you're spot-on. The Bible condones slavery, the murder of homosexuals, and the execution of anyone who follows a different religion.

Now, I'm NOT saying that a "good" Christian has to own slaves and kill homosexuals anymore than a "good" Muslim has to keep his wife in a burka and beat her in the bedroom (with or without a handkerchief, which I didn't see in the version I read). But I AM saying that I think it's (at best) intellectually dishonest and (at worst) extremely dangerous for moderates to refuse to acknowledge that those verses even exist!

I have had several gay friends and a couple of Wiccan friends who were very upset by the way the Christians they encountered always said that hate crimes weren't "condoned" by the Bible and that anyone who did them wasn't "really" a Christian. When my friends would point out the verses, the Christians would flatly refuse to acknowledge they even exist.

Then these same Christians would go home and tell their impressionable children that the Bible is the Holy Word of God and that it's never false and always applicable!!

My problem is that way too many religious people seem totally ignorant of their religious texts and the facts that there are huge portions that are savage and primitive. When confronted with the facts, they stick their heads in the sand and go "nah, nah, nah!" I've met too many Muslims who insist that the burka rule isn't REALLY in the Quran, when I myself have read the very verses that say women should be covered at all time!

Nothing gets me angrier than someone defending their religion without having an actual knowledge of what their religion actually promotes. So if you're going to tell me that honor killings are cultural and NOT based in Islam and I show you a verse that specifically allows for the beating and abuse of a dishonorable woman, I wish you'd explain why that verse is there instead of saying, "Well, honor killings are part of THEIR Islam." Okay, fine, but that's an extremely weak excuse. You're saying that "THEIR Islam" is one that interprets the Quran literally instead of figuratively, but perhaps your God could have not put those verses in? Being holy, loving, and all-knowing, I should think he'd realize those verses would be misunderstood?

I'm not sure how they are being misunderstood, anyway. They seem pretty clear to my Western eyes: If your wife is difficult or unfaithful, beat her. Period. What's to interpret?

If honor killings are in the Quran, they are a part of Islam, period. If you choose not to believe those verses, then you have your own special version of Islam, but that doesn't erase the ugly facts.

I still can't find the reference, but I've seen another verse that says that if someone is "spreading corruption", a citizen can kill them without being censured at all. This is another Honor killing/vigilantism verse that I've seen.

Anyway, I hope I haven't been offensive. I know I'm "passionate" (a very diplomatic way for you to put it, and I thank you for your tact) and I don't mean to be. I also hate to argue religion for the very reason that it's inescapably personal. But, please, before you say something is "culture, not Islam", be ready for someone like me to pull out a verse and go "huh?" Because those verses do exist, best I can tell.

MsJane, I haven't read the Bound Man, but that is a wonderful analogy.

As I said earlier, if this was a discussion about female circumcision, no one would care two cents' worth if the girl had "chosen" it. People choose things for many reasons and the fact that something is a choice doesn't make it humane or right.

Now, before anyone accuses me of a strawman, I realize that self-mutilation is not quite the same as wearing a shroud. BUT, many women who wear the burka are denied medical treatment of any kind so it is a form of delayed self-mutilation.

IMSO.

EJ, I think what PL is saying is that there is scripture, and then there is the defacto religion and how it is normally practiced. Islam can be viewed in this way, just as Christianity can be viewed in its entirety without having to identify it from just a verse or two. In fact, 300 years from now the verses will remain, but it is likely (or god, hopefully) the practices will be different.

PL, just an observation about Muhammad: I think that saying the Prophet was peaceful is a little misleading. He lead an army.

I hope and wish the best for muslim women around the world. I think about their struggles, and I hope that in the future their religion will embrace them even if they choose ideals which go against strict religious beliefs. I love the fact that there are muslim women who want to be muslim and want their culture but at the same time reject attempts to control them.

You are correct, EJ.

To continue my rambling,

pl, with regards to the Prophet, I do know a bit about him. Yes, his first wife was a widow and a business woman, but she turned her business over to him upon marriage. She wasn't the high-powered, modern executive you seem to be making her sound. The Prophet also married more women than the Quran allows - the Quran allows a maximum of 4 and the Prophet married 12 (or 13? One died early on). Several of his brides were prisoners of war or children. The fact that he had only daughters says more about his sperm than about his sexual politics - even a man with daughters can hate women.

You seem to be making the Prophet out to being a bastion of women's rights by saying the men pick-and-choose what to believe about his life and I'm not sure where you are getting that.

Alon, thank you for what you said earlier about women's "desirableness" being akin to the "their fault if raped" attitude we see so often. And for pointing out that if they were serious about it, they'd tell the men to shape up. Excellent points and I completely agree.

Exactly. Why should women's comfort and activities be restricted if, as the theory goes, men can't control themselves at the sight of a woman? If the problem is men's actions, let men shoulder the brunt of the solution: they can go around with blindfolds on.

I find the whole "men are tempted by women, and that's why women need to cover themselves" idea vile. It once again makes women responsible for men's feelings, thoughts, and actions. Men are adults. They should be able to control themselves; if they can't, their freedoms should be curtailed, not women's.

It's nonsense, anyway. A group of construction workers did not catcall and harrass my friend while she was trying to walk her dog because she is so unbearably beautiful. They did it because they're bigger and stronger and socialized to think that they can harrass women if they feel like it. It has nothing to do with desire--as one can tell, by the fact that one of them threatened to kill her dog if it tried to defend her.

Should sharia law be respected by another culture within their own country? This seems like an extension of the sexism from the middle east. Yes, christians used to beat their wives and that was considered part of the culture, as well as witch burnings. Eventually they stopped-it has not within the islamic culture. Secondly, wouldn't it be even worse to import this to Europe? I believe many italians have voiced their concerns about the islamic cultures spread in their country, and have wanted some restraint enforced so as to preserve their own culture. I think this is especially deplorable for Italian feminists as they are still dealing with much discrimination and underepresentaion in their government, as well as the workforce. The law is almost like instilling all Italians to respect sharia law by law. It is not fair to force people of another culture to recognize religious 'laws' (particularly sexist ones) of another culture within their own. That is taking it too far. Yes, both their culture and the Quran are misogynist, and both have barely begun to evolve. It is some of the worse mistreatment of women in the history of the world as far as I'm concerned, and what's worse is it is often supported by corporate money. I see much of the middle eastern cultures oppressed because of this religion. If they loosen the hold of their religion, they may start to evolve. That does not look likely anytime soon. Just like Christianity-if their were problems such as the ones witnessed in islamic culture would you want that to spread?Another culture should not have to be taken over, and have to wait for that culture to evolve just so they can go back to experiencing much of the liberation they already had had before.

EG, I LOVE your idea of blindfolds for men. It's the perfect solution to the supposed problem!

I have often felt that the "burqa verses" are meant to be very harem-y in nature. The whole idea is that you have this intensely desirable woman all to yourself. She never leaves the house and if she does ever need to leave the house, no other man can see what YOU alone get to see. It's the equivalent of owning a pet Siberian tiger, only with the added dimension that you get to have sex with your rare, beautiful pet.

I deeply resent the "women are ornaments and playthings" nature of these verses and the attitude that surrounds it. The fact that it puts women on a pedestal instead of them being "dirty" isn't the point. When you are a toy, an ornament, a plaything you are not a person. You are chattel - something to be owned. It's a very scary ideology.

There is absolutely no verse in the Qur'an that sanctions honor killings. prairielily is entirely correct to paint this as a cultural issue, dependent on which hadiths one regards as authoritative.

As for Muhammad as a feminist figure: He wasn't (no male religious leader of his era was), but he was no worse than St. Paul and was in some ways better.

Cheers,

TH

>> There is absolutely no verse in the Qur'an that sanctions honor killings.

Well, I already posted one that is in favor of beatings (stops short of killing). Would you like to tackle that one? And, as I said, I've seen another about a man being no at fault if he kills someone who is spreading corruption.

>> prairielily is entirely correct to paint this as a cultural issue

What's your take on cultures that are *completely* different from the Middle East, like Indonesia, who still condone honor killings? In other words, do you have any theories on my honor killings seem to occur wherever Islam is prominent, regardless of society or culture?

And I'll agree whole-heartedly that St. Paul wasn't really a feminist leader, but Paul never insisted that women remain covered at all times. The only burden that Paul put on women was that they had to keep their hair long and covered, and that they weren't allowed to talk or teach in church. Much better than a burqa. Still, I don't think anyone on here has cheerleaded for Christianity as opposed to Islam - I know I for one have problems with each.

And I'm not demanding you answer my questions; I'm just interested in your "take" on things.

I like how no one's willing to come out so far and say, "Yes, it does say you can beat your wife," when I posted that verse. Seriously, is it there or isn't it? It that accurate or a mistranslation? I'm really just trying to get a feel on this.

EJ, I considered myself reasonably well-informed about Islam but had never spotted the verse you referred to before. It comes from Surah al-Nisa (4), verse 34, and it does say exactly what you say it does. I had never read it before. That is problematic.

So yes, let me come out and say that yes, it does say you can beat your wife, and this is an unspeakably horrible thing, and I'm sorry I've never noticed it before but will bring it up the next time anyone says that the Qur'an presents an egalitarian vision of male:female relations, because they're wrong.

Of course, we could point out that Deuteronomy demands the execution of rape victims who don't scream loud enough, too.

The truth is that every major religion on Earth was invented primarily by men, primarily as a way to keep themselves in power over other people. If there is a God at all, it is not a God we have any way of comprehending, certainly not through these cruel and foolish old books.

My concern is that we live in a country where it has become socially acceptable to have strong biases against Muslims who are struggling with problems that are not substantially different from the problems that Christians and Jews are struggling with. It is a mistake to assume that one's Muslim neighbors condone honor killings just as it is a mistake to assume that one's Orthodox Jewish neighbors condone public stonings. So on the one hand, I think charity, and even to a certain degree accommodation, is warranted, certainly in this war-torn world.

On the other hand, I would be much happier, personally, if no one were religious in the sense that we understand the term. If everyone recognized these books as human products, stared down the implications of our own mortality and our own human limitations, and simply tried to love each other, to make the world a better place for present and future generations.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, exactly. I condemn any worldview that says that we should allow Muslim men to beat their wives because the Qur'an permits it, or that we should declare "sovereign" any nation that oppresses its women because our liberal sensibilities demand it. But I do think we should be charitable in our interpretations of what others really believe, and very aware of the fact that we live in a nation run by professing Christians who are, in many ways, living into a very old Crusades-era model of how Christianity and Islam should relate to one another.

We can do it all: Demand tolerance of Muslims without condoning the horrible behavior that is conducted in the name of Islam, with or without verses in the Qur'an technically permitting such. We would not say of a Christian who stones a gay man to death based on the Leviticus statute someone who represents the real Christianity, and say that those who disagree are describing only "their" Christianity. Christianity, and Islam, are lived religions. They are not a series of postulates, and even fundamentalists are invariably very selective about which verses they choose to believe in. They have to be, given that there is no major religious text on this planet that does not at some point contradict itself. The Qur'an does, on the matter of women as well as on many other topics. The Bible does, on the matter of women as well as on many other topics. Ancient books, written under the hot sun by deluded lunatics, are not known for their internal consistency. But those who regard these books as the work of God and can still find a way to behave as decent human beings should not be lumped together with those who can't.

Cheers,

TH

"Christianity, and Islam, are lived religions. They are not a series of postulates."
Cheers,TH

That is a really good observation. They ARE lived religions, and they can change in response to the society it serves. Religion and Culture are very, very closely woven together. It has taken the West a long time to dig out from the rule of religious doctrine, and claim the freedoms we have now. I have hope for Islam. I don't think it is the enemy. And pulling out scripture is not the point. However, I will continue to protest Sharia law because there must be a wall of separation between the faith of Islam and Society.

As PL said, and everyone is saying, there are things that are outdated and cannot be used in modern society where women's rights are to be respected.

Homosexuality is no longer a crime in western society. TH, you mentioned Leviticus. The part on homosexuality is part of the Holiness Code which the christian church has abandoned. It included eating shellfish, cross-breeding livestock, and wearing of certain clothing. It is no longer enforced because over the years the people rejected it. No such rejection is in Sharia law.

That is why a man can be openly gay in the West, hold public office, etc, and not be stoned. Under Sharia law, he must be put to death.

What next: burkahs for The David? Covering over the nude cherubs on the Cistine Chapel? Maybe they shouldn't come to Italy.

Whats next: burkahs for The David? Covering over the nude cherubs on the Cistine Chapel? Maybe they shouldn't come to Italy.

oops, posted twice with same message!

>> Of course, we could point out that Deuteronomy demands the execution of rape victims who don't scream loud enough, too.

You're absolutely 100%right about this and, as I said, it's one of the many "problem verses" that I used to grapple with when I was a Christian.

(Personal Experience) As Christians, we are taught by the church and by our parents that God laid down those laws to guide the Hebrews. We are also taught that God is also loving and all-knowing. Since that law (and many, many others) is NOT loving or progressive in any sense of the word, then either a) God is not loving or b) God didn't really give those laws to Moses. Since the problem crops up many times in many different ares of the Bible (including the New Testament), I eventually threw in the towel altogether and decided that Christianity was NOT for me. (/Personal Experience)

That said, I never said Islam was a problem because of those verses in the Quran. The Bible condones slavery, but I don't know too many Christians who own or want to own slaves. Obviously, a religion's Holy Book does not always shape the face of the religion. BUT. That said, my problem is that WAY too many Muslims insist that the Quran is peaceful and egalitarian and, if you say otherwise, you often get labeled an ignorant Western bigot. The Quran has many problem verses - so does the Bible, so does every other relgious text, I'll wager. Hell, even Darwin was racist, so not even the atheists are exempt from embarrasing texts. (I'll even grant that the Quran has fewer problem verses because that seems likely. HOWEVER, in order to solve a problem, we need to be honest with ourselves and others. Saying "the Quran doesn't allow men to beat their wives!" makes Muslims look ignorant or (worse!) like liars to people who know better.

And, believe me, the people most versed in a religious text are almost always the people who disagree with it. I know atheists who have every "problem verse" in the Bible memorized. In Christian school, we were taught the Quran problem verses in sixth grade, for goodness sake. So when someone disagrees with your religion, be braced for the fact that they probably are going to spot a lukewarm cover-up a mile away!

So, I guess the "lesson" in this thread is: before you say something isn't in your Holy Book, make sure you're correct. Nothing is more embarrasing than that rape victims verse being thrown in your face when you're a Christian, and I'm sure moderate Muslims feel the same way about the "beat your wife" verse.

...

So much for the Quran and honor killings.

Back to women's rights, I'm going to undo all my good work here and openly state that I believe the entirety of Islam to be degrading to women - not based on one-on-one problem verses this time, but rather on the entire religion's "take" on women.

Women are portrayed as desirable, yes, in Islam, but desirable in the same sense that a white man white once have desired a sexy black slave. Women are expected to be modest and covered and to conduct themselves in a virtuous manner at all times. Alon already made the excellent point that this attitude mirrors old Western ideas that if a woman wears a miniskirt she is "asking" to be raped. The onus for purity is on the woman, not the man.

Furthermore, the concept of multiple wives was introduced not because of a surplussage of women but because, frankly, the men liked it...

(And it doesn't matter that "all religions were formed by men". Yes, they were. So were most societies, too, and many of the laws we live under. Just because I live in America doesn't mean I don't want to be treated as equal to men, regardless of what the founding fathers wanted. If a system is sexist, it needs to be changed. Saying "it was made by men" is an explanation for the origins of sexism in a system, NOT a valid reason why things shouldn't be changed immediately.)

...Apologists claim that the Quran allows for a man to maintain several wives because their was a surplussage of women and it was the responsibility of the men to take care of these women finacially. However, many women in the area PRIOR to the forcible introduction of Islam were rich widows and could have easily been capable of taking care of multiple husbands who would have otherwise been destitute men. Obviously, the suggestion of a woman with a harem of 4 men is laughable - there's no way that would have or could have occured.

To continue, even within the most lax view of the Quran, it is clear that women are simply not supposed to associate with any men outside of their immediate family. Therefore, it is impossible for a woman to hold a job - to do so would be to expose her regularly to men. If a woman cannot hold a job, then she is forced into dependency on a male family member or husband. In such a way, women are held trapped in a self-perpetuating system.

Now. That's all my opinion. Feel free, anyone, to disagree or tell me where I'm wrong. Or tell me I'm a raving bitch. Whatever.

But, just to save time, I'll add two things. First, I won't continue to keep making comparisons to the Bible and the Quran. As I said, I'm not a Christian and, frankly, I think Christianity has almost as many problems with women as Islam does. Since this isn't a Christianity thread and I'm not speaking from a Christian viewpoint, I won't bore anyone with any more Holy Text Comparisons.

Second, before someone tells me that I'm overlooking the fact that women like Islam, I don't care whether some women choose to be Muslim or not. I'm talking about an ideology that I see as offensive to women. Bringing out one-by-one examples of women who like Islam is the same as bringing out one-by-one examples of people who like Bush. I've been told they exist, but that doesn't change how I feel about his policies.

(drumroll) LET THE FLAMING...BEGIN!!!!

:)

(YES!! I copied, I saved. Take THAT, Typekey!)

EJ writes:
Back to women's rights, I'm going to undo all my good work here and openly state that I believe the entirety of Islam to be degrading to women - not based on one-on-one problem verses this time, but rather on the entire religion's "take" on women.

The entire religion has no single "take" on women. There are Muslims who are feminists, Muslims who are violent troglodytes, and Muslims who are nonviolent troglodytes.

Likewise, there are Christians who are feminists, Christians who are violent troglodytes, and Christians who are nonviolent troglodytes.

I am by no means suggesting that the proportions are the same in both faiths, but I think we need to recognize that there is nothing special about Islam that makes it more anti-women than Christianity has historically been. Christianity and Islam could go neck-and-neck on the issues of allowing men to beat their wives (and kids), leaving rape unprosecuted, forcing women into restrictive gender roles, and on and on. The change within Christianity was that professing Christians became more secular, not that Christianity itself changed. Pure fundamentalist Christianity is still a misogynistic wash.

The fundamentalist:secular spectrum exists also in Islam. Women under the Taliban were victimized, and never allowed to be anything but victims. Saudi women have incrementally better circumstances, but are still very much "kept in their place." Iranian women, oppressed in many ways, can still vote, drive, and run for office. Lebanese and Turkish women can drive to work five days a week and then hang out over the weekend in tank tops and miniskirts. So there is a spectrum within Islam just as there is within Christianity.

And just as we would not lump together Pentecostal families where women will not be seen in bathing suits in front of men with cultish Christian communities where men are expected to beat all six of their wives, we should not make the same assumptions about individual Muslims or groups of Muslims.

You will not find me offering an apologia for any sexist texts or any sexist practices. You will find me refusing to lump together Muslims, and their concerns, under a single description. Islam is diverse.

Cheers,

TH

"The change within Christianity was that Christians became more secular, not that Christianity itself changed."

That's not accurate. Christianity went through a Reformation.

Fundamentalism is back like a bad dream of course, and Mel Gibson is huddling the corner mumbling archaic catholic verses in Latin, but this does not negate the huge change which occurred within the religion itself.

>> The entire religion has no single "take" on women. There are Muslims who are feminists, Muslims who are violent troglodytes, and Muslims who are nonviolent troglodytes.

You are begging the question, TH. :)

There are Muslims who are feminists, yes. My position is that Islam, as a whole, is anti-women.

If I make up a religion that's based around love, peace, and the idea that all black people should be killed, it doesn't matter one whit if you join for the love and peace part but choose not to be a racist bastard. YOU aren't racist; the religion is.

Am I making that up? A lot of folks down here in the south join the KKK so they can participate in the social events, but they'll tell you they aren't racist. Does that mean that the KKK wasn't founded on racist beliefs? No.

The Quran is the fundamental basis for Islam. The Quran is anti-women. Therefore, Islam is anti-women. That is my stance.

>> I think we need to recognize that there is nothing special about Islam that makes it more anti-women than Christianity has historically been.

I've already said this wholeheartedly.

Christianity is also anti-women, but historically and within the text itself.

Why does everyone keep bringing up that Christianity is "just as bad or worse"? Are we seriously going to start defending anti-women policies on the basis that someone, somewhere was more evil?

Seriously, the only "pro-Christian" comment I've heard is that Christianity at least had a reformation to rip out the anti-women parts and Islam is overdue for a similar one. Hardly a glowing endorsement.

Sorry, it's just that your last two posts, TH, have made a really big point of pointing out that Islam may be sucky, but Christianity is sucky-er and I don't think anyone's disagreeing so much as saying that that isn't the point.

IMO. :)

MsJane writes:
That's not accurate. Christianity went through a Reformation.

Christianity's Reformation--e.g., the Protestant one--merely gave us more fundamentalisms to choose from. It is not a coincidence that none of the leaders of the major Protestant movements were women.

The Quran is the fundamental basis for Islam. The Quran is anti-women. Therefore, Islam is anti-women. That is my stance.

The Bible is the fundamental basis for Christianity. The Bible is anti-women. Therefore, Judaism and Christianity are anti-women.

Or are they?

We're arguing semantics here. You're saying Islam is anti-women and anti-feminist. I would say that many, maybe even most, Muslims are anti-women and anti-feminist, but that many people who identify as Muslims aren't, and that if we're to value their experience, we should not say that Islam is anti-women.

Cheers,

TH

>> The Bible is the fundamental basis for Christianity. The Bible is anti-women. Therefore, Judaism and Christianity are anti-women.

Again, I've already said this. How many times do I have to say that the Bible is sexist and that Christianity has serious problems?

Even IF Christianity is the New Facism, how does that have any bearing on what I'm saying about Islam? Your stance that other religions are equally sucky is besides the point.

>> that many people who identify as Muslims aren't, and that if we're to value their experience, we should not say that Islam is anti-women.

Again, as I said. Many KK members believe they aren't racist. They join because their friends join and the clubhouses are cool places to drink beer and smoke.

Does that mean that the KKK foundation of beliefs isn't racist? The logical extension of your argument is: Yes.

EJ writes:
Even IF Christianity is the New Facism, how does that have any bearing on what I'm saying about Islam? Your stance that other religions are equally sucky is besides the point.

I'm not altogether sure that it is. Islam is targeted in the United States in a way that other religions are not, and that has as much to do in the larger culture with promoting fundamentalist Christianity--an equally sucky alternative--as it does with calling both fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist Islam to task.

Again, as I said. Many KK members believe they aren't racist. They join because their friends join and the clubhouses are cool places to drink beer and smoke.

The KKK's purpose is to be a racist organization. It has never been anything else. That has always been what has distinguished it, what has set it apart.

With Islam, the original purpose was the same as the original purpose of all religions: to relieve death anxiety by reassuring us all that life has a purpose and that there's a world to come, then setting parameters for those beliefs so that they feel intellectually honest. Everything else is gravy.

If the KKK were a 1,400-year-old tradition, and if over that time large segments of the KKK were less racist than the general population, and if a considerable chunk of contemporary KKK members specifically disavowed racism, then it would be hard to say that the KKK is racist. But the KKK is a 140-year-old tradition, not a 1,400-year-old tradition, and it has never been anything but a racist club.

Cheers,

TH

I think I was rude last night, so I want to start off by apologizing to you, TH. Sorry about that - I get carried away sometimes, though that's no excuse.

I don't, personally, feel like Islam is targetted in the U.S. In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, I feel that Islam is given special treatment. I've criticized Christianity many times to many different people without anyone so much as raising an eyebrow, but any time I criticize the Quran or Islam at all, I'm accused of being an ignorant, racist Arab-hater.

I don't hate Arabs or Islam. And while I surely am ignorant about many things, obviously I've had exposure to those verses that many people haven't read. You yourself have had, apparently, a great deal of exposure to Islam and Muslims yet hadn't seen the verse I brought up earlier. At least you are kind and polite and listened - many people assume that since I'm not Muslim, anything I say about Islam can be automatically discarded!

So, I realize this is all just one person's perspective, but I think Islam get special treatment - preferential special treatment. And I'd prefer to be allowed to criticize all religions equally.

I understand what you're saying about the KKK, but I disagree that the analogy is imperfect just because the KKK hasn't been around as long as Islam. My point had nothing to do with the KKK. Your thesis seemed to be that a religion's foundational writings have less to do with the defining of said religion than the personal beliefs of those who claim to be members of that religion.

Now, at this point, you and I are arguing semantics because, for the most part, it doesn't matter which one of us is right or wrong. However, I like arguing semantics, so I'll plunge ahead here.

The Bible is anti-homosexuals. I think we can all agree on that (if you disagree, pretend that it is for the sake of this argument!). If every Christian in the whole world - and I mean every single one - were in favor of gay marriages, gay rights, and gays in general, that wouldn't change the fact that the Bible is anti-gays.

My premise is that is the Bible is anti-gays, then Christianity is anti-gays as well because the Bible is the foundation for Christianity. The fact that every Christian in the world loves gays doesn't change the Bible (and therefore Christianity) to be pro-gay anymore than Christianity would be pro-cheese if all Christians loved Gouda.

Your thesis is (I think) that a religion is more than the sum of its Holy Books and that, if enough people feel differently from the Holy Book on an issue, then the religion changes, too. I can see your reasoning, I just personally disagree with it.

I still don't think we're at an impasse, though! In my example, every single Christian was pro-gay. That's pretty compelling evidence that a relgion can change. However, in our situation, you insisted that there are feminist Muslims. I maintain that those Muslims that are feminists are in the clear minority!

To return to my fictional example: The Bible is anti-gay. Of the millions of Christians on this earth, 100,000 are pro-gay. The rest are not. Can we still be expected to believe that Christianity as a philosophy is not anti-gay because a small percentage of people who call themselves Christians aren't? My personal belief: No.

I will therefore grant (and in fact never disputed) that Muslims are a diverse group of people. No doubt. But I still believe that Islam is anti-women based solely on its foundational writings, taken as a whole (as opposed to individual verses which don't always paint the true picture). My caveat to all that is that, perhaps, a religion can change from its foundational writings if enough of the followers demand it. But it is my personal belief that feminist Muslims do not make up a large enough percentage of Muslims to state this has happened, anymore than I believe that pro-gay Christians make up enough of a percentage to call Christitanity a non-anti-gay relgion.

Thank you for always being polite and so very smart and for reading my inexcusably long posts. Once again, I'm sorry that I was rude last night.

Europe is starting to shed much of their religious loyalty. I think that is a good thing, as well as innovative especially for the culture that invented Christianity (I say the less religion the better). As Europe undergoes these changes it would not make sense to start accomadating another's religion. I believe religion (all of them; hindu, christianity, Buddhist, especially Islam) are violent and perpetuate more problems then they'll solve. It is especially unnerving as there is no common view of what Islam is. Having no common agreement on what this religion is about allows for evading much of their shortcomings by saying 'oh he does that, but we don't believe that is the way Islam is to be interpreted.' I think it would be safer if the followers of islam were to become more contemplative of what their religion really constitutes in order to honestly assess where changes need to be made. In short-get your head together before you start spreading it around. I see it as one of the worst treatments by humankind torwards women in this world. Another question that has to be broached is why did the Christians evolve so quicky and the muslims appear to have devolved. People who call themselves Christians no longer burn witches. It seems the mistreatment started with the creation of islam itself.Islam and christianity started around the same time. Perhaps it is no spiritual enlightment, but merely a manual on how to demonize women?I don't understand how you can even begin to change the misogyny in islam without first taking exscruciating baby steps. To prairielily who found my comments offensive I offer no apology, as I care more about the blatant mistreatment of women in this 'religion' than dancing around religious sensitivities.

EJ, speaking of gays and christianity, I just got a call a few minutes ago from a good friend who has no where to live right now and is going through some emotional stuff. She was referred to the church for support and comfort. The woman at the church told her she is going to hell because she's not straight.

So this is the kind of stuff we are fighting. Can you say that christianity is anti-gay? Yes. Can someone else maintain that you can't call the whole religion anti-gay? Maybe, yeah. Or anti-women? The bible and Quran and everything else from ancient times is generally anti-woman. Religions themselves (as we already determined) are living, breathing things. They can change, and how we interprete the verses can change. There are many sections which no longer apply to modern people and should be set aside. I disagree with Tom when he said the primary fuction of religion was to relieve death anxiety. It is not. Is was a guidebook on how to live your life. Many of the rules which seemed like a good idea at the time THEN do not apply NOW.

As far as Islam is concerned, it CAN change and the people can interpret the Quran however they want.

Unfortunately an extension of the Quran is sharia law, (which was the original topic in the context of separate beaches). And muslims should not have to live under that repressive law. Here is a link to an interesting essay about Sharia law:

Sharia Law/ 5 Pillars of Islam

I think that TH is correct is saying that Islam is no worse than Christianity was then, and it is not all about the verses. BUT, I think it sounds a bit downplayed when Tom rattled off the list of rights women have in muslim countries. Yes, while Iranian women can vote, there are women even today scheduled to be stoned to death for adultery. You dig a hole, put a woman in it, and torture her to death. We've read right on this blog about muslim girls in jail for being raped because according to religious law, they need 4 male witnesses.

So, while Islam is diverse, and yes, very diverse, they are ALL fighting the SAME demon - theocracy in the form of Sharia law, fatwah's, etc.

The best we can do is support liberal organizations which resist it in these countries. Criticism is often seen as anti-muslim. I was so happy that Iran was progressing so rapidly, until of course Bush's war, and then the hardliners were voted into power.

We need to support muslim women who believe in equality and a life not ruled over by religious authority. In Iraq we're not doing it, we're suppressing them. We're going to end up with an Islamic republic in that country.

I also still love the idea of french muslims who feel penned in by both sides, by the relgious patriarchy and by non-muslims. I want the "Ni Putes Ni Soumises" t-shirt. :)

To prairielily,
I understand Italy has problems with sexism-no new insight there- but seriously, it is not even comparable to the mass majority of the mistreatment of women in the middle east. At least there are Italian feminists, as well as a history of feminism there. Many women who abide by the muslim religion are most certainly no feminists. I read the same article on this site some time ago of how the Italian court ruled rape as less of a crime if the women was not a virgin. But, at least there was anger among the Italians, and particularly by their feminists. Clearly that is not where that culture wants to be headed. We must keep in mind, even though Europe is very successful, and powerful in this world they are still a small continent and cannot afford a giant influx of misogynist men, and their entourages of supportive misogynistic women clearing the way within another's culture to be accommadated.

to give a better analogy-
Italian feminism is like climbing up a wet slope; hard and frustrating, now add more water and it makes it even more impossible. Would the rich Arabs do the same for the Italians? Would they integrate some of their beaches so the Italian women can sunbathe topless or even nude? I have read alot about the muslims in this debate, but have not heard much about the Italians, or what effect this may have on their culture. I would think many Italians would begin to resent these kinds of special considerations, especially when the same people condemn their culture for their blatant show of the nude form (statues, ect), and undermine their very culture as they vacation there.

i wonder what we would all think if there were muslim women asking the resort for a private space (in large numbers) and the resort just simply said "nope. too bad."

i have many problems with most religions but i don't think that this private beach space should turn into such a debate about the religion itself. if the owners of the italian resort were in a place to make changes about the oppression of women, that would be one thing. but they are a business. and money talks. and if their clientele are demanding something, wouldn't any smart business owner give that something???

there are cases the world over where certain "allowances" are made for religious beliefs. and while we may not always agree with the belief itself, does that mean we should just cross our arms over our chests and say "no"??

i imagine it must be a bit liberating for these women to have a bit of private space to swim and tan as they wish without having any worries... that's what a vacation is about, right???

freewmn, you said Muslims were destroying your culture. It was racist, discriminatory, and you can't justify it. Plus, you just cheapened efforts by Muslim feminists in the Middle East and Asia.

Thank you, TH, for encapsulating much of what I meant. I think that religion was a way for people to live their lives as opposed to comforting death anxiety, but I agreed with almost everything else you said.

EJ, I see what you're saying about disliking all religions. It's just that when you single out Islam in a post, it sounds like you're only talking about Islam. And when people in the West start criticising Islam's issues with women (and there are many) it's like they completely forget that they are not perfect. That's why I got defensive.

And what would I say besides passionate? I never thought you were being truly hateful. I pointed out the person I thought was being hateful. I didn't even think you would change your opinion. I just thought I'd offer mine. Oh, and I'm glad you picked up the copy/paste solution. ;)

Everything I wrote sounded sensible and intelligent. So I eroded feminist efforts in the middle east and asia? How? I thought the koran did that?! It is sad many muslim 'feminists' find themselves at odds with where their true loyalty lies; with feminism-or the Koran.

I really don't want to dig back into this thread, but I just wanted to say that it's never constructive to throw the race card out unless it truly fits the situation. I've heard the word racist on this site over and over, and obviously it's being used as a weapon.

When we're talking about different cultures and religions, it's very easy to be offended. But a person is not racist if they simply disagree (on other threads), or they don't like what a culture is bringing to their shores in regards to the treatment of women (in this thread).

If someone is wrong, say it. If you think it even sounds hateful, say it. If someone is cheapening your experiences, say it. Find another way to communicate.

The bible and the quran are disrespectful of women. But in order for modern culture to survive it must recognize the basic human rights of women, and even accept feminism. However, since you can't take religion out of a people, they must coexist. With the correct interpretations and proper role of faith in society, this can happen.

But when religion takes over, things get weird. Right now, in Iraq, the fundamentalists are enforcing strict sexual prohibitions on its people. Not about dancing or drinking, but about veggies and livestock. They have passed out the new rules: No arranging your tomatoes and lettuce in a suggestive manner. No letting your goats run around without diapers on. Yes, that's right, they are putting clothes on goats. This is not the kind of mentality ANY country would welcome.

There is validity to many people's arguments here, even while they fight with each other. It's our choice how we go about it. And I'm not talking about replacing race-bating with veiled racial comments or veiled accusatory or exclusionary comments from either side, that's just hypocritical. I'm talking about just being honest and respectful of each other. Being real without being downright unfair.

I've begun to understand the layout of this website. When I go to liberal political sites like Digby, there are long thoughtful articles of commentary by the bloggers. Then readers can add to it. It seems to work. On Huffpo, when actual news sites are linked to, there is no commentary. It is simply the news article itself without a preface to it. Which means, the facts of the article are discussed without first being exposed to coloring by the editor, who can hand-pick passages to suit her own particular view. And I'm talking in general here, not this specific thread. So, when the "any thoughts?" inevitably shows up, that's translated to me as duck! Another unusual feature here is the participaton in the commentary by a guest interviewee. That kind of back and forth is incredulous to me.

So if we're all going to survive this, and continue discussions, we'd better figure out better ways to communicate. Because I'm not pleased with a lot of what's been thrown my way either.