🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <62078165.0304182058.410512a5@posting.google.com>,
 Mir_Saheb@hotmail.com (Mir) wrote:

> Jonathon Williams, The Morning News, 4/18/03
> http://www.nwaonline.net/283702058639901.bsp
> 
> FAYETTEVILLE -- The religion of Islam granted social and property rights to 
> women centuries before non-Islamic Western nations and is undeserving of 
> its stereotype as the world religion least friendly to women, speakers at 
> the University of Arkansas said Thursday.
> 
> Aicha Elshabini, a Muslim and the chair of the department of electrical 
> engineering at the university, said women who are oppressed in some Islamic 
> nations suffer because of politics or culture, not because of religion.

The problem with this argument is, "religion" and "politics" are not 
mutually exclusive in most Islamic nations. It strikes me as 
simple-minded to say that women are oppressed as they are in places like 
Iran and Taliban-era Afghanistan all because of "politics and culture," 
when those making the rules, no matter the country, are citing the Koran 
as their justification for their actions. How these speakers can deny 
that Islam isn't a factor is beyond me.

Also noteworthy is that anytime a woman actually rises to become a 
leader in an Islamic country, it's a HUGE DEAL. Why? Because many, if 
not most, Muslims object to a woman's having such authority. Politics is 
only a secondary concern. Quick quiz: When Megawati Sukarnoputri became 
leader of Indonesia several years ago, were objections being raised over 
her politics, or her gender? How many guesses do you need?

This whole presentation smacks of politically correct revisionism. All 
Muslims may not be chauvinistic, but don't pretend that chauvinistic 
Islamic states aren't using religion to hold women down. That just flies 
in the face of facts.