Wahabbinism is only about 150 years old, it is that which punishes women for being born. When we talk of "tradition" within a religion over a 1000 years old, can we at least expect something to be mentioned in their learned books ? This sect, which is younger than Mormonism, represents the outpourings of a desert madman whose ravings were used for political advantage by a Sheik whose tiny kingdom was threatened by stronger neighbours. keep to the Fen Causeway
So tradition here is "religious tradition". It can be nothing else.
Course it helps that they are a s generally ignorant of their religion as fundamentalist Christians are in the USA and so they believe what they're told by the mullah, even when it's been pulled out of his backside. keep to the Fen Causeway
The bigotry comes first, then the justification for it. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Could you elaborate on that?
AFAIK while the Koran indeed doesn't say anything about burquas and veils, or voting rights, it does specify a different weight of testimony at court, in inheritance, in divorcement disputes and parental rights, and of course the number of legal sexual partners. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
However, may of the hadiths are a wide scattering of sayings that reflect all manner of traditions, some of which have been shown to have been introduced up to 3 - 400 yrs after Mohammed's death. Which undermines their credibility somewhat. There have been several attempts to remove the more obviously bogus sayings, but they tend to persist or re-surface when convenient to the politics of the day.
Religion is about politics and control of people's lives in the end. Islam is just a very effective control mechanism. keep to the Fen Causeway
But at the time, the concept of women inheriting anything was unheard-of, so the Qur'anic instruction that daughters were to inherit half what their brothers did was a marked improvement over the status quo. At the time, Islam was downright progressive on women's rights.
The argument to be made now is that the spirit of progressiveness inherent in the original revalations has been lost and should be regained.
Irsahd Manji makes this the central point of her book "The trouble with Isalm", Reza Aslan makes similar points in "No God but God". Many in Europe are now reclaiming it and moving it forward.
However, my statement about most of this stuff coming from the hadiths is that, irrespective of the source, the interpretation is driven by a cultural suppression of women that is only expressed in the hadiths. keep to the Fen Causeway
It's one of the reasons why I resist religious interference in politics. Until religions cease to be authoritarian, misogynist, homophobic etc etc they have nothing to contribute to progressive, deomocratic societies keep to the Fen Causeway
No, I checked, they are in the Koran, though not necessarily as severe as treated by Wahhabis.
In Sura 2>, there is a line about different weight as witness (2:282) (but only for the case of financial transactions).
In Sura 4, I found the inheritance law (4:11, 4:12, 4:176) (though these are minimum requirements if no final will is left), women can't have multiple men (4:24) (though adultery is 'tolerated' with limitations), men are workers and women should accept staying home (4:32, 4:34) (though there is no outright prohibition, but it is only a privilege to be granted), disobedient women can be beaten if all else fails (4:34).
Read more here, where they try to put a favorable spin on it (well actually these laws were a progress in Muhhamad's time, but fall short of equality). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Wearing the headscarf is not a requirement of the religion, but a mere cultural belief. Indeed, wearing a headscarf was not tradiitonal in that area in Mohammed's time, but was acquired by conquest. Mohammed himself only reluctantly asked his wives to wear it because his followers felt it was an honour, befitting their exalted status as "beloved of Mohammed". He never intended it to become mandatory for all women. In fact, some say that a wooman wearing a headscarf is claiming to be "beloved of Mohammed" herself, which is practically blasphemy.
So girls who wish to express their piety, or at least their identification with relgion start off with a light scarf. They then move eastward with greater and greater covering, maybe even skipping via indonesia before they arrive at some Gulf state garb of full hijab in the belief that this will make them more fully muslim..
This purloining of various traditions as gradations in piety is ridiculous and mocks both the culture of islam as well as the religion itself. But the leaders don't protest as it is convenient to have the chattels imprison themsleves keep to the Fen Causeway
