Muslim Apartheid: Sexism

[Oleg Bach]

In nations where abusing a young boy is considered more of a thrill than making love to a woman - small wonder that woman are put aside in favour of perversity.

[Argus]

You could have said the same thing about Italians back when I was young, or the Irish and the French a few generations back. Most children of immigrants adopt most of the common culture and try to fit their traditions in the gaps.

Decades ago, illiterate Italians also immigrated to Canada, bringing with them a harsh, patriarchal culture where religion dominated all. But they didn’t marry cousins imported fresh from the old country. And so they began to raise their children differently.

Globe and Mail

[Argus]

Even if we were to say that the " Muslim faith " was sexist, what exactly would that prove? Under a similar burden of proof, we could also say the " Christian faith " is sexist.

Let's put it this way. The culture of female submission and subservience in the Muslim nations which are sending tens of thousands of immigrants to Canada every year is, as far as I'm aware, unequaled in western history. You cannot pretend the kind of sexism rampant in places like Iran and Pakistan has any equivalent in Canada today except for the occasional cult.

No one owns sexism; it is a singular phenomenon. And, by the way, you are also flat wrong. A more apt comparison for the way women are treated is not property, but as permanent children.

If you consider it acceptable to beat your children for every slight transgression then I suppose. You could also compare them to slaves.

This sense of honor and male entitlement drastically restricts women’s choices. A whole culture and its religion weigh down every Muslim, but the heaviest weight falls disproportionately on women’s shoulders. We are bound to obey and bound to chastity and shame by Allah and the Prophet and by the fathers and husbands who are our guardians.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

While repeatedly denying that Islamic teachings or tradition had any role to play in the murder, the imams at the press conference betrayed their true feelings when grilled by reporters. Imam Iqbal Nadvi of Oakville's Al-Falah Islamic Centre mosque said that "parents fail and bring shame upon themselves if a child chooses to abandon holy writings and not wear the hijab. It is their duty to convince their kids that this is part of their culture."

Canadian Imams Make Excuses for Murder

Edited June 17, 2010 by Argus

[Remiel]

Let's put it this way. The culture of female submission and subservience in the Muslim nations which are sending tens of thousands of immigrants to Canada every year is, as far as I'm aware, unequaled in western history. You cannot pretend the kind of sexism rampant in places like Iran and Pakistan has any equivalent in Canada today except for the occasional cult.

Not as a society, no, but it does no good to pretend that our society is not still sexist as well. Furthermore, when someone argues that sexism is the " Muslim Apartheid " , they are almost always not making just a present day descriptive claim. They are making a historical claim. Thus, it would be dishonest to claim that our practices in the current day are the only comparison by which to judge whether it is the " Muslim Apartheid " or the " Apartheid by people who happen to be Muslim " if you get what I mean. It is not as if crimes of passion and being able to legally beat your wife in children have been illegal for that long. And considering that famous quote of our former Prime Minister, as Canadians we are likely to over value an amount of time in our considerations, where Europeans over value the amount of land in theirs.

If you consider it acceptable to beat your children for every slight transgression then I suppose. You could also compare them to slaves.

Sure you can compare them. You can also compare how we treat our children to slaves (and philosophers have). But, you can also contrast. Honestly, we both know that real slavery is alive in the world, particular in the sex trade. Do you honestly think a Muslim woman, in a frame of mind in which she could judge rationally, would choose the life of a modern day slave over her current lot?

This sense of honor and male entitlement drastically restricts women’s choices. A whole culture and its religion weigh down every Muslim, but the heaviest weight falls disproportionately on women’s shoulders. We are bound to obey and bound to chastity and shame by Allah and the Prophet and by the fathers and husbands who are our guardians.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

While repeatedly denying that Islamic teachings or tradition had any role to play in the murder, the imams at the press conference betrayed their true feelings when grilled by reporters. Imam Iqbal Nadvi of Oakville's Al-Falah Islamic Centre mosque said that "parents fail and bring shame upon themselves if a child chooses to abandon holy writings and not wear the hijab. It is their duty to convince their kids that this is part of their culture."

Canadian Imams Make Excuses for Murder

I wonder what parents of children who were sent to Jesus camp say in their defence of making little " soliders of God " .

But that is not really an argument against what you quoted. I have read arguments that point out that, in fact, a disproportional amount of ALL cultural practices fall on women. What goes on in many Muslim countries is notable for its severity, not its proportion, in that regard. But I have a great deal of faith that in time the practices of people who call themselves Muslims will come in line with what we believe acceptable, regardless of what the Qu'ran says, yet without Islam being abandoned. After all, what is " blindingly obvious " is that the Bible says " X " and Christians do Y. This dissonance is made possible by being human, and is not a quality of the religion itself. So to can others change.

[sharkman]

Not as a society, no, but it does no good to pretend that our society is not still sexist as well. Furthermore, when someone argues that sexism is the " Muslim Apartheid " , they are almost always not making just a present day descriptive claim. They are making a historical claim. Thus, it would be dishonest to claim that our practices in the current day are the only comparison by which to judge whether it is the " Muslim Apartheid " or the " Apartheid by people who happen to be Muslim " if you get what I mean. It is not as if crimes of passion and being able to legally beat your wife in children have been illegal for that long. And considering that famous quote of our former Prime Minister, as Canadians we are likely to over value an amount of time in our considerations, where Europeans over value the amount of land in theirs.

Argus, this is what I mean when I refer to some posters having such an upside down world view or lack of absolutes in their make up that a simple truth, that the Muslim faith treats women badly, can not be recognized though a blind man could see it. You must have more patience than I because I no longer suffer fools gladly.

[JB Globe]

Your points are not legitimate. No one here is calling for military action, just saying the Muslim faith has it wrong WRT women. August is not trying to fool anyone. He doesn't do that. He's simply calling a spade a spade, and the left on this forum won't because it's an idea that came from the unclean right.

He's not simply stating facts, he's generalizing and simplifying to the degree that it becomes hateful.

His argument is that Islam itself oppresses women, and seems to imply that the only solution is less/no Islam, meaning that he believes that Muslim societies cannot and cannot change to include equal rights for women.

He also implies that the imagined entity he refers to as "the left" is silent on this, and that only the entity of "the right" is speaking out against this.

This is utter bullocks - feminists are "left" and have been speaking out against the treatment of women in some Muslim countries for decades. Never mind the many Muslim feminists who push for equality and cite the Qu'ran as evidence (ie - the fact that Mohammed placed a women in one of Meccan societies' most prestigious and influential positions - The Arbiter of the Market). But for the most part they've managed to do it without maligning Islam as a whole, because they understand that Islam is not a stoic monolith and that it can and has been reformed on various issues in the past, and this is one issue that it can move forward on.

But folks like August don't really care about improving the lot of women in Muslim countries, because they don't really care about women's rights. You'll notice their complete silence on other women's rights issues is pretty telling - they are feminists of convenience - when the opportunity presents itself to bash Islam through a women's rights perspective, out comes their inner feminist. But when we start talking things like Affirmative Action - they fall silent or take up the opposite position.

In fact not a soul on this board who you and others malign as being part of "the left" has ever denied that there are serious issues regarding women's rights in Islam. The main difference is that we also acknowledge that there are some Muslim countries that have good records on women's rights - and that tells us that it's possible to be both Muslim and egalitarian towards women - it just takes effort and solidarity.

And when you brand all of Islam as oppressive towards women, you essentially remove any chance for improvement, and you also send a message to Muslim women reformers that you're not going to help them, because you think that it's not possible to be a liberated Muslim woman. They should just become athiests, I suppose.

[JB Globe]

I'll say it flat out; if you have any interest in the welfare of women or the equal treatment of women and gays in Canada you should not be supporting the kind of immigration system we currently operate.

If it were up to people like yourself, there would be no Italian Canadians today - domestic violence was a problem in Italian households up until the 60's and 70's. But after the first generation of children were born and raised in Canada, there was a huge shift towards more equal rights, and by the second generation, you'd be hard pressed to find any difference between Italian Canadians and Anglo Canadians on the issue of women's equality. Keep in mind that honour killings were legal in parts of Italy until 1981.

It appears that the same thing is happening with the various ethnicities that are part of the Muslim community.

If we followed your advice and restricted immigration to countries that are on-par with Canada concerning human rights, we'd have virtually no immigration because there are few nations which are up to our standard.

Also - I think that those communities which adapt and reform themselves while in Canada serve a great purpose by inspiring reformers in their countries of origin that change is possible.

Edited June 17, 2010 by JB Globe

[BubberMiley]

Really, why don't you come up with some examples? Or are you just doing more of those empty one liners again?

Sure. Here's one.

On the subject of pot, I will not debate you. Just like on the subject of religion I will not discuss with certain people.

Sounds to me like someone is getting tired of being pwned.

[Oleg Bach]

Sure. Here's one.

Sounds to me like someone is getting tired of being pwned.

Maybe some cookies and milk and a nap would be good for him.

[WIP]

But for the most part they've managed to do it without maligning Islam as a whole, because they understand that Islam is not a stoic monolith and that it can and has been reformed on various issues in the past, and this is one issue that it can move forward on.

I would also say that Islam is not a monolithic religion with a central authority, and that is part of the reason why there is so much trouble with sheikhs and imams acting like rightwing radio hosts in their efforts to get attention. The more extreme and outrageous they are, the more they get noticed, especially during troubled times.

And just as Islam is not monolithic, neither is Christianity! I wouldn't judge all Christians by the hateful, rightwing warmongering fundamentalist preachers that claim to speak on behalf of Christians.

But folks like August don't really care about improving the lot of women in Muslim countries, because they don't really care about women's rights. You'll notice their complete silence on other women's rights issues is pretty telling - they are feminists of convenience - when the opportunity presents itself to bash Islam through a women's rights perspective, out comes their inner feminist. But when we start talking things like Affirmative Action - they fall silent or take up the opposite position.

I don't pay attention to what August writes, but past experience indicates that conservatives are only concerned about how women are doing in Muslim countries. They don't seem to be averse to telling women that they have no authority to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy, or cutting funding for women's shelters over here.

And when you brand all of Islam as oppressive towards women, you essentially remove any chance for improvement, and you also send a message to Muslim women reformers that you're not going to help them, because you think that it's not possible to be a liberated Muslim woman. They should just become athiests, I suppose.

That's what makes me sick of having Ayaan Hirsi Ali held up by the right as an example for Muslim women to follow. I don't criticize her for becoming an atheist and despising the religion of her birth; but only a minority of people abandon their religions and their cultures. Most seek to reform them. Look at all of the long-suffering liberal Catholics who keep soldiering on year after year for Christ's sakes! A Catholic who becomes an atheist has removed themselves from playing an influential role in their former community, same thing with a Muslim atheist.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Let's put it this way. The culture of female submission and subservience in the Muslim nations which are sending tens of thousands of immigrants to Canada every year is, as far as I'm aware, unequaled in western history. You cannot pretend the kind of sexism rampant in places like Iran and Pakistan has any equivalent in Canada today except for the occasional cult.

Then you don't know much about western history, which rather explains a lot.

[Argus]

Then you don't know much about western history, which rather explains a lot.

Perhaps you will recite to me the time and place in western history when schoolgirls were chased back into a burning building because they weren't considered to be decently clad by the authorities.

[August1991]

This is utter bullocks - feminists are "left" and have been speaking out against the treatment of women in some Muslim countries for decades. Never mind the many Muslim feminists who push for equality and cite the Qu'ran as evidence (ie - the fact that Mohammed placed a women in one of Meccan societies' most prestigious and influential positions - The Arbiter of the Market).

You are apologizing for Islamists, and your faint praise for Leftist feminists is no more conviincing.

But for the most part they've managed to do it without maligning Islam as a whole, because they understand that Islam is not a stoic monolith and that it can and has been reformed on various issues in the past, and this is one issue that it can move forward on.

I would argue your point about Islam. The Arabic Koran is considered the absolute, exact word of God. Even the New Testament does not have such an imprimeur among fundamentalist Christians.

But folks like August don't really care about improving the lot of women in Muslim countries, because they don't really care about women's rights. You'll notice their complete silence on other women's rights issues is pretty telling - they are feminists of convenience - when the opportunity presents itself to bash Islam through a women's rights perspective, out comes their inner feminist. But when we start talking things like Affirmative Action - they fall silent or take up the opposite position.

My approach to feminism is my belief in individual freedom. It seems to me that the "freedom to choose" is an individual ideal that applies as much to men as it does to women.

And when you brand all of Islam as oppressive towards women, you essentially remove any chance for improvement, and you also send a message to Muslim women reformers that you're not going to help them, because you think that it's not possible to be a liberated Muslim woman. They should just become athiests, I suppose.

So, we should appease them? Did appeasement change the apartheid laws of South Africa? Did appeasement change the slavery laws of the US south?

You could have said the same thing about Italians back when I was young, or the Irish and the French a few generations back. Most children of immigrants adopt most of the common culture and try to fit their traditions in the gaps. No doubt many Muslims who have emigrated here are concerned about having their religion diluted by Western values, but this is not London or Paris, most Muslims here are not as insular as conservative opinion tries to convey.

Years ago, in Syria, I remember having a conversation with a Belgian about all of this. He made the prescient remark that Muslims would pose a chellenge to the Western world. I scoffed at the time and made much the same argument as you, WIP. I said something like: "Western culture has withstood greater threats and the attraction of individual freedom is too great. Once Muslims live in the West, they will quickly change as all other immigrants have."

A decade or so further on, I'm not so sure. First, we take for granted too easily this Western march of history (several centuries old). We just assume that it will continue. Or as Humphrey Bogart's character said to the Nazi in Casablanca, "Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade." IOW, we in North America are impervious to the loss of freedom.

Second, we are failing this assimilation. A few years ago, I was astonished when an acquaintance originally from Pakistan, very well integrated into Canadian life, very westernized, suddenly dropped every thing to return "home" to get married because his father ordered him to do so.

-----

My OP meant to point out the ambivalence of many Leftists and the threat of Islamic sexism. I find this ambivalence surprising and I'm curious about it.

I wonder whether (North American) Leftists have raised victimhood to an ideology and somehow, opressed Muslims are placed higher on the list than women. Or may be some Leftists simply hate America so much that any opponent of America is a good ally. Dunno.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Perhaps you will recite to me the time and place in western history when schoolgirls were chased back into a burning building because they weren't considered to be decently clad by the authorities.

What you want exact mirrors of what people in the current Islamic countries did? Not exactly a fair standard.

[sharkman]

Really, why don't you come up with some examples? Or are you just doing more of those empty one liners again?

Sure. Here's one.

View Postsharkman, on 06 May 2009 - 01:57 AM, said:

On the subject of pot, I will not debate you. Just like on the subject of religion I will not discuss with certain people.

Sounds to me like someone is getting tired of being pwned.

At the risk of starting yet another silly he said/she said with you, this example you dug up only illustrates my reluctance to debate drug issues with you, and nothing else. That is because you are a pot zealot.

Edited June 22, 2010 by sharkman

[Argus]

What you want exact mirrors of what people in the current Islamic countries did? Not exactly a fair standard.

Well, hell, I'm giving you all of western history!

Anyone who says, well, there used to be nasty sexism in Italy or England or wherever is just making excuses. There never was the level of violent, dehumanizing sexism in the West as there is TODAY in Muslim nations. And even making the comparison idiotic. Compare our current secular attitudes to their current religious attitudes, not what our ancestors believed centuries ago.

[Argus]

That's what makes me sick of having Ayaan Hirsi Ali held up by the right as an example for Muslim women to follow. I don't criticize her for becoming an atheist and despising the religion of her birth; but only a minority of people abandon their religions and their cultures. Most seek to reform them. Look at all of the long-suffering liberal Catholics who keep soldiering on year after year for Christ's sakes! A Catholic who becomes an atheist has removed themselves from playing an influential role in their former community, same thing with a Muslim atheist.

Gee, could that have anything to do with the fact that in our western societies those Catholics are free to argue, debate and put forth their own views of God's desires with relative impunity? Meanwhile, questioning the accepted teachings of GOD'S WORD is punishable by death in many Muslim countries - sometimes official - often extra-judicially.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Well, hell, I'm giving you all of western history!

Anyone who says, well, there used to be nasty sexism in Italy or England or wherever is just making excuses. There never was the level of violent, dehumanizing sexism in the West as there is TODAY in Muslim nations. And even making the comparison idiotic. Compare our current secular attitudes to their current religious attitudes, not what our ancestors believed centuries ago.

Oh bullshit. People in Europe used to be killed if they were called witches. (Usualy women) People were arrested if what they said went against the bible. Medieval Europe was exactly like the Islamic world today, the only difference is they have access to guns and bomb now, but history shows us that a culture like that can become a culture like ours and vice-versa.

And as for this bit.

Compare our current secular attitudes to their current religious attitudes, not what our ancestors believed centuries ago.

You said.

The culture of female submission and subservience in the Muslim nations which are sending tens of thousands of immigrants to Canada every year is, as far as I'm aware, unequaled in western history.

You don't get to say that then say no we've got to keep it contemperary. Especially because if you look at the Islamic world at the same time all this horrid stuff was going on in Europe you get to see the countries where a lot of our freedoms developed. Freedom of expression, religion, speech, thought, etc.

[Argus]

Oh bullshit. People in Europe used to be killed if they were called witches. (Usualy women) People were arrested if what they said went against the bible.

They are STILL arrested in Muslim countries if what they say or write goes against the Koran. But that is religious idiocy and quite aside from the virulent misogynistic attitudes prevailing in Muslim nations.

You don't get to say that then say no we've got to keep it contemperary. Especially because if you look at the Islamic world at the same time all this horrid stuff was going on in Europe you get to see the countries where a lot of our freedoms developed. Freedom of expression, religion, speech, thought, etc.

While they might have had more freedom in Muslim nations six hundred years ago, they've been going downhill ever since. This probably has a lot to do with why Europe overtook them in scientific and industrial development - because no one over there dared to bring up something new that wasn't sanctioned by Allah and the Koran. This may be why the world's 12 million Jews have received 175 Nobel prizes (excluding peace prizes) while the world's 1.2 BILLION Muslims have gotten just 4 - and one of those recipients was stabbed by a Muslim Fundamentalist because he apparently supported the peace process.

[dre]

Oh bullshit. People in Europe used to be killed if they were called witches. (Usualy women) People were arrested if what they said went against the bible. Medieval Europe was exactly like the Islamic world today, the only difference is they have access to guns and bomb now, but history shows us that a culture like that can become a culture like ours and vice-versa.

And as for this bit.

You said.

You don't get to say that then say no we've got to keep it contemperary. Especially because if you look at the Islamic world at the same time all this horrid stuff was going on in Europe you get to see the countries where a lot of our freedoms developed. Freedom of expression, religion, speech, thought, etc.

Thats the thing... picking a single snapshot in time does not offer a just comparison. And much of the moderation of western religion came through no deeds of their own, but as a result of being dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era, often opposing every change along the way, and the Church being unceremoniously BOOTED out as an instrument of civil authority.

[dre]

They are STILL arrested in Muslim countries if what they say or write goes against the Koran. But that is religious idiocy and quite aside from the virulent misogynistic attitudes prevailing in Muslim nations.

While they might have had more freedom in Muslim nations six hundred years ago, they've been going downhill ever since. This probably has a lot to do with why Europe overtook them in scientific and industrial development - because no one over there dared to bring up something new that wasn't sanctioned by Allah and the Koran. This may be why the world's 12 million Jews have received 175 Nobel prizes (excluding peace prizes) while the world's 1.2 BILLION Muslims have gotten just 4 - and one of those recipients was stabbed by a Muslim Fundamentalist because he apparently supported the peace process.

While they might have had more freedom in Muslim nations six hundred years ago, they've been going downhill ever since. This probably has a lot to do with why Europe overtook them in scientific and industrial development - because no one over there dared to bring up something new that wasn't sanctioned by Allah and the Koran. This may be why the world's 12 million Jews have received 175 Nobel prizes (excluding peace prizes) while the world's 1.2 BILLION Muslims have gotten just 4 - and one of those recipients was stabbed by a Muslim Fundamentalist because he apparently supported the peace process.

The real problem is that most western nations booted the church out as a civil authority. We marginalized religion to a private club. Most muslim nations havent been able to do this... the government is still an extension of the church, and actually makes the problem worse.

Religious people in secular societies are FORCED to behave. In theocratic societies they arent.

[Jack Weber]

Thats the thing... picking a single snapshot in time does not offer a just comparison. And much of the moderation of western religion came through no deeds of their own, but as a result of being dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era, often opposing every change along the way, and the Church being unceremoniously BOOTED out as an instrument of civil authority.

You can lay that at the historical feet of Martin Luther and Jean Cauvin,and the Protestant Reformation.It's that Reformation,and the moderating effect it had on the Catholic Church,that allowed for more individualism and autonomy.

Islam has yet to go through this sort of massive shift in thought.By the way,this cannot come from us in the West.It has to come from within Islam...

Edited June 22, 2010 by Jack Weber

[dre]

You can lay that at the historical feet of Martin Luther and Jean Cauvin,and the Protestant Reformation.It's that Reformation,and the moderating effect it had on the Catholic Church,that allowed for more individualism and autonomy.

Islam has yet to go through this sort of massive shift in thought.By the way,this cannot come from us in the West.It has to come from within Islam...

I disagree. The thing the spread of secularism, and the ouster of the church as a civil authority is rooted in western science and technology. Its only in the last two hundred years the disconnect of extreme religious views from government has been wide spread.

Diagoras, Prodicus, Euhemerus were some of the early pioneers of free thought and secularism - people born well before Christ. But there were others... much of their work destroyed by the church. Bentham and Kant would be some more recent figures.

I would credit these people... the foot soldiers of free thought, and the eventual dominance of science for todays secular society, and not any voluntary reformation of religion.

Edited June 22, 2010 by dre

[WIP]

You can lay that at the historical feet of Martin Luther and Jean Cauvin,and the Protestant Reformation.It's that Reformation,and the moderating effect it had on the Catholic Church,that allowed for more individualism and autonomy.

Islam has yet to go through this sort of massive shift in thought.By the way,this cannot come from us in the West.It has to come from within Islam...

But, what we do will have an effect on whether the Muslim World moderates or becomes even more entrenched in Islamism. The hardliners here who are protesting the building of mosques, support anything and everything that Israel does, and support regime change wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are not helping the situation but merely throwing gasoline on the fire. Suspicion, contempt and hostility is not likely to encourage whatever moderation in the Muslim World that the anti-Muslim conservatives say they expect.

[sharkman]

You can lay that at the historical feet of Martin Luther and Jean Cauvin,and the Protestant Reformation.It's that Reformation,and the moderating effect it had on the Catholic Church,that allowed for more individualism and autonomy.

Islam has yet to go through this sort of massive shift in thought.By the way,this cannot come from us in the West.It has to come from within Islam...

Islam will never allow freedom of thought like that, or even separation of mosque and state. And until that happens, moderate Islam will never carry the day. WIP suggesting that we can have an effect on whether militant Islam becomes more entrenched misses the whole picture.

Firstly, opposing the building of mosques in, say, American cities is hardly the trigger that will aid militant muslims.(Or support of Israel and opposing Sharia Law, etc) Muslims understand this opposition quite well, as it's in their very own faith to oppose Christian churches in Muslim countries!! I don't hear about christians reaching for the bomb vests in retaliation, do you? It's only the bleeding heart liberal apologists who see mere opposition aiding Muslim extremists, at least in Christian countries we normally allow other faiths to build.

Second, the brutal persecution by the state church in history did not cause extremism christianity to explode and it was a thousand times worse than anything you see today in regards to opposition in the West to muslim mosques. How again is this polite disagreement going to push militant Islam over the edge?

And this whole argument conveniently ignores the point of the thread. Islam, whether it be hard line or moderate, treats women like animals. I might add it also treats gays like criminals and yet the liberal left who champion women's rights and gay rights is fine with this. This hypocrisy hurts their cause more than anything the right could do.

Edited July 5, 2010 by sharkman