**It’s been a while, huh? No worries, I’m still alive. I’ll post privately in a bit for those that are curious to what the hell is up with my disappearance.**
It’s no secret that women in the Arab world are killed legally by their male relatives when the women have "dishonored" the family. Regardless of what people think, this isn’t an Islam doctrine, it’s a cultural doctrine. What’s the difference, you ask? It means that there’s nothing in the Qur’an that calls on a woman to be killed if she was raped or a strange man on the street looked on her bare ankle. Because of this, American born and raised Muslims don’t have a tendency to kill their sisters and mothers for some perceived slight on the family. It’s against the Muslim doctrine to kill wives and sisters, but it’s fully acceptable by cultural standards- which have caused clerics and leaders to translate the laws of Islam to fit within their societal standards. Let’s break it down a little more with a small comparison.
In the U.S. divorce is a cultural norm. It’s legal despite the religion of the couple being divorced. But Christian doctrine decries divorce and calls a man who divorces and remarries an "adulterer" (same for the woman). Because the Bible doesn’t recognize divorce as culturally acceptable, the Bible considers the man to have two wives- which in itself didn’t used to be wrong until the New Testament, but that’s not the point. Adulterers should be killed, according to that particular religious doctrine, but our cultural mores say divorce is legal and right and not a stoning offense and so translation of said book has changed according to what the law allows. Consider that Mormonism allowed for multiple wives, but cultural norms of the majority abhorred (and still do) that practice. Polygamy was outlawed and Mormons changed to suit the laws of the society in which they live.
Still confused? Still can’t quite separate cultural doctrine from religious doctrine when related to those who we hate because they don’t like us (or whatever reason we hate them, I’m a little lost right now because it changes so much)?
Let’s pretend that Jesus and Mohammad haven’t been born yet. Hell, let’s make Buddha join them in the great abyss- just to be fair. Without them we are left simply with societies ruled by cultural norms. What must it have been like in the Middle East prior to them and/or without them? According to what is known, women were treated as cattle, husbands took multiple wives, foreigners were regularly enslaved, female children were killed at birth, etc etc etc. Even in what became primarily Christian strongholds, women were less than dirt and treated as such. In the desert, culturally accepted practices varied from tribe to tribe, of course. In some places the honor of the family was the most important thing, above all else. And women, the jewels of the herd, were guardians of that honor. If they weren’t strong enough to protect themselves, then WHAP! That was culturally accepted. This was accepted even in societies that adopted Christianity. Women often received death penalties while the punishment for men who offended the women was a monetary fine (or he had to give so many heads of cattle, whichever he could afford).
But the view that women were crap wasn’t just an Arab thing. This view was held in most societies throughout the world. Look at any nation’s history and you’ll see a cultural of abhorrent behavior toward women. Until very recently it was acceptable for a man to beat his wife and children. Women in the United States weren’t allowed to vote or file for divorce (What? Really? Of course, divorce was relatively rare and seriously frowned upon). And if a woman in the U.S. was raped? She didn’t get stoned (not anymore) but she was shunned and the blame was put on her shoulders (and sometimes still is).
Then, of course, there was genocide which was common among Christian nations. Killing with small pox ridden blankets? That was ok because they weren’t Christian. Did the Bible- or Jesus – say to annihilate entire cultures because they weren’t believers? No, but someone translated something therein to fit their purposes and gone are ancient societies such as the Mayan. Pre-Christian European societies accepted the practice of killing off entire cities of their enemies. Look at their history of castles, enslavement, rebellion and just basic savagery. That became part of their translation of what the Bible called on them to do. Crusades anyone?
What the hell is my point?
My point is that there are ignorant, power-hungry people strewn throughout history that have used their religious text to excuse abhorrent behavior that has always been a part of their culture. When their culture changes (or when a member of that religion enters a society where certain behavior is not acceptable) their translation of religious text changes. The meaning of the doctrine of that text changes. And so…
It’s not Islam, you fools. It’s the culture. The only way the culture will change is if the people within are educated. By "the people within" I mean the women so that they can educate their sons and daughters. The sons grow up to be different and their society changes. And the leaders will then translate their religious text differently. Middle Eastern women need more exposure to strong feminists to show them that change can happen and it is good.
Religion can be blamed for many of history’s woes. But that’s a little unfair, because the only way people can use religion against other people is if the underlying culture allows it. The Bible was used to excuse many of Christianity’s genocidal tendencies, but our culture has almost completely eradicated that. The Bible is now translated in a completely different way. The same way that the Qur’an is translated completely different in the U.S. than it is in the Middle East. Change the culture and the religious translation of doctrine changes.
It always amazes me that certain people fail to come to this same type of conclusion. These same people deride all feminists and then say shit like "Women in the U.S. are more equal than before but still not completely equal" and "Look how they treat women over there!" and can’t see the fucking correlation. Women in this country would be a lot worse off if it wasn’t for those damned feminists demanding rights and burning bras. Then those women had children and raised them differently than they were raised, which in effect changed our own culture for the better (discounting, of course, McDonald’s). That’s exactly the kind of change that the women in the Middle East need with direction from feminists.
A war to "save them" isn’t going to do it. Joe was right when he said "Change needs to happen from within". It has nothing to do with their religious text. But then to see that you have to remember history, which is difficult for people that can’t even remember why we went to "war" in the first place (and/or remember that they hate feminists while they’re praising them…Ha!).
Women Change The World
**It’s been a while, huh? No worries, I’m still alive. I’ll post privately in a bit for those that are curious to what the hell is up with my disappearance.**
It’s no secret that women in the Arab world are killed legally by their male relatives when the women have "dishonored" the family. Regardless of what people think, this isn’t an Islam doctrine, it’s a cultural doctrine. What’s the difference, you ask? It means that there’s nothing in the Qur’an that calls on a woman to be killed if she was raped or a strange man on the street looked on her bare ankle. Because of this, American born and raised Muslims don’t have a tendency to kill their sisters and mothers for some perceived slight on the family. It’s against the Muslim doctrine to kill wives and sisters, but it’s fully acceptable by cultural standards- which have caused clerics and leaders to translate the laws of Islam to fit within their societal standards. Let’s break it down a little more with a small comparison.
In the U.S. divorce is a cultural norm. It’s legal despite the religion of the couple being divorced. But Christian doctrine decries divorce and calls a man who divorces and remarries an "adulterer" (same for the woman). Because the Bible doesn’t recognize divorce as culturally acceptable, the Bible considers the man to have two wives- which in itself didn’t used to be wrong until the New Testament, but that’s not the point. Adulterers should be killed, according to that particular religious doctrine, but our cultural mores say divorce is legal and right and not a stoning offense and so translation of said book has changed according to what the law allows. Consider that Mormonism allowed for multiple wives, but cultural norms of the majority abhorred (and still do) that practice. Polygamy was outlawed and Mormons changed to suit the laws of the society in which they live.
Still confused? Still can’t quite separate cultural doctrine from religious doctrine when related to those who we hate because they don’t like us (or whatever reason we hate them, I’m a little lost right now because it changes so much)?
Let’s pretend that Jesus and Mohammad haven’t been born yet. Hell, let’s make Buddha join them in the great abyss- just to be fair. Without them we are left simply with societies ruled by cultural norms. What must it have been like in the Middle East prior to them and/or without them? According to what is known, women were treated as cattle, husbands took multiple wives, foreigners were regularly enslaved, female children were killed at birth, etc etc etc. Even in what became primarily Christian strongholds, women were less than dirt and treated as such. In the desert, culturally accepted practices varied from tribe to tribe, of course. In some places the honor of the family was the most important thing, above all else. And women, the jewels of the herd, were guardians of that honor. If they weren’t strong enough to protect themselves, then WHAP! That was culturally accepted. This was accepted even in societies that adopted Christianity. Women often received death penalties while the punishment for men who offended the women was a monetary fine (or he had to give so many heads of cattle, whichever he could afford).
But the view that women were crap wasn’t just an Arab thing. This view was held in most societies throughout the world. Look at any nation’s history and you’ll see a cultural of abhorrent behavior toward women. Until very recently it was acceptable for a man to beat his wife and children. Women in the United States weren’t allowed to vote or file for divorce (What? Really? Of course, divorce was relatively rare and seriously frowned upon). And if a woman in the U.S. was raped? She didn’t get stoned (not anymore) but she was shunned and the blame was put on her shoulders (and sometimes still is).
Then, of course, there was genocide which was common among Christian nations. Killing with small pox ridden blankets? That was ok because they weren’t Christian. Did the Bible- or Jesus – say to annihilate entire cultures because they weren’t believers? No, but someone translated something therein to fit their purposes and gone are ancient societies such as the Mayan. Pre-Christian European societies accepted the practice of killing off entire cities of their enemies. Look at their history of castles, enslavement, rebellion and just basic savagery. That became part of their translation of what the Bible called on them to do. Crusades anyone?
What the hell is my point?
My point is that there are ignorant, power-hungry people strewn throughout history that have used their religious text to excuse abhorrent behavior that has always been a part of their culture. When their culture changes (or when a member of that religion enters a society where certain behavior is not acceptable) their translation of religious text changes. The meaning of the doctrine of that text changes. And so…
It’s not Islam, you fools. It’s the culture. The only way the culture will change is if the people within are educated. By "the people within" I mean the women so that they can educate their sons and daughters. The sons grow up to be different and their society changes. And the leaders will then translate their religious text differently. Middle Eastern women need more exposure to strong feminists to show them that change can happen and it is good.
Religion can be blamed for many of history’s woes. But that’s a little unfair, because the only way people can use religion against other people is if the underlying culture allows it. The Bible was used to excuse many of Christianity’s genocidal tendencies, but our culture has almost completely eradicated that. The Bible is now translated in a completely different way. The same way that the Qur’an is translated completely different in the U.S. than it is in the Middle East. Change the culture and the religious translation of doctrine changes.
It always amazes me that certain people fail to come to this same type of conclusion. These same people deride all feminists and then say shit like "Women in the U.S. are more equal than before but still not completely equal" and "Look how they treat women over there!" and can’t see the fucking correlation. Women in this country would be a lot worse off if it wasn’t for those damned feminists demanding rights and burning bras. Then those women had children and raised them differently than they were raised, which in effect changed our own culture for the better (discounting, of course, McDonald’s). That’s exactly the kind of change that the women in the Middle East need with direction from feminists.
A war to "save them" isn’t going to do it. Joe was right when he said "Change needs to happen from within". It has nothing to do with their religious text. But then to see that you have to remember history, which is difficult for people that can’t even remember why we went to "war" in the first place (and/or remember that they hate feminists while they’re praising them…Ha!).
Related posts: