" You only see them as false analogies because you don't like them..."

No, I see them as false analogies because there are (rather obvious) morally relevant differences between them. I'm sorry you feel that "tolerance"--or whatever bastardization of it you are peddling--requires you to overlook them.

"The only difference is we do it one way, And they do it another way, So it's natural that people whos cultural influences have forced him/her in to dressing a certain way will see what others do as being "incorrect"."

No, that is not the only difference, and to say so indicates a profound misunderstanding of the way cultures view both themselves and their interactions with other cultures.

Moreover, you know very little about what it is "natural" for me to do. I was raised a Muslim. My father is Pakistani. My mother (a convert to Islam) wore a hijab every time we left the house for most of my childhood. In other words, I speak from a place on the border between 2 cultures. I have experience with what might be considered a broader Islamic culture, but also with the current "American" culture.

It's reasoning and research rooted in that dual perspective which has lead me to the conclusion that many Muslim countries treat their women poorly. So, don't condescend to tell me how I'm thinking. You simply don't know enough about me, or the cultures you are attempting to defend, for that matter.

"I'm sure the cultures that walk around naked would see us as being as oppressed and repressed as most westerners seem to think arabs are."

Maybe. But that's irrelevant. The question is whether or not that opinion could be supported by the evidence.

"it seems the only alternative to being a cultural relativist is to be intolerant to the fact that some times some people may do things a little different than we do. . .We can't assume that we are correct and they are incorrect just because they are different."

That's a false dichotomy, unless you think toleration is synonomous with "agreement" or "endorsement." What's more, even a cultural relativist cannot be completely "tolerant" in that sense, since they are committed to the idea that THEIR culture is entitled to its own practices and beliefs, and these will--given the amount of diversity in the world--inevitably conflict with the cultural mandates of another group. And, for the last time, I'm not assuming that others are incorrect "just because" they are different. You can keep repeating that all you like, but I won't be duped by your sophistry.

I suggest you read the chapter on cultural relativism from "The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 4th Ed," by James Rachels. It might help you think more clearly on this matter.

You only see them as false analogies because you don't like them. One culture prefers being naked, One prefers it if women keep thier shirts on and one prefers it if women cover thier hair.

What IS the difference? The only difference is we do it one way, And they do it another way, So it's natural that people whos cultural influences have forced him/her in to dressing a certain way will see what others do as being "incorrect".

I'm sure the cultures that walk around naked would see us as being as oppressed and repressed as most westerners seem to think arabs are.

it seems the only alternative to being a cultural relativist is to be intolerant to the fact that some times some people may do things a little different than we do, Whether that be to walk around naked or to wear a hijab or veil. We can't assume that we are correct and they are incorrect just because they are different.

That some moderate Muslim states have modified their religious laws to suit new ideas about morality does not prove anything about the intent of those who originally created the system of laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab lays out the scriptural 'evidence' for and against forcing women to wear a veil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
According to Human Rights Watch:
"Honor crimes are acts of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members, who are perceived to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman can be targeted by (individuals within) her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce — even from an abusive husband — or (allegedly) committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a specific way to "dishonor" her family, is sufficient to trigger an attack."

Where do you think such traditions of harsh punishment for inappropriate sex come from?

Six translations of Qur'an 4:34:

1. "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" (Rodwell's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
2. "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (Dawood's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
3. "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great." (Pickthall's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
4. "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great." (Arberry's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
5. "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Shakir's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
6. "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Ali's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)


How can you honestly claim to believe that Islam has nothing to do with the domination of women by men?

http://www.apostatesofislam.com has several well-cited and well reasoned arguments for why people should abandon Islam.

In reply to your comment:
“"Ban the Burkah, or any such coverings for the women of Islam.....a symbol of species decay, subjugation, and demeaning inhumane treatment."

I agree with banning the Burka - there is nothing in the Qur'an or the hadith which says that women should be covered, and the burka is a barbaric and cruel institution. As for the hijab, women should be able to make their own mind up whether they wear it or not. One of the key principles in Islam is that 'there is no compulsion in religion' لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّين (Qur'an 2:256). Unfortunately this is a principle which many reactionary elements choose to forget! ”



What of the women who choose to wear the Burkah, as seen numerous times in your recent post http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Women-of-Islam-Veiling-Seclusion-Great-Documentary . Wanting to wear the veil/hijab/burqa/niqaab is, according to those women, a personal choice. But it hints at how much trust they have in their society, a grave conclusion to be made there.

Besides being a personal choice, what about the direct mention and demand of such things in numerous religious documents? (setting aside the 'no compulsion in religion' issue we've talked about briefly)

Gwaan, honestly I'm not so sure you can say that "nothing in the Qur'an or the hadith which says that women should be covered" is true... Depending on the translation of these verses, you could justify that the best women of Islam (the role models for other Muslim women, the wives of the Prophet) were commanded to veil up (to what extent? depends on translation)

In the Quran - 33:59 and 24:31
In the Hadith - Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282 (Sahih Al-Bukhari), Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368 (Sahih Al-Bukhari), Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148 (Sahih Al-Bukhari), and a number of others in Abu Dawood books...

It just seems like a battle over semantics to me over how much clothing = modesty...

"Ban the Burkah, or any such coverings for the women of Islam.....a symbol of species decay, subjugation, and demeaning inhumane treatment."

I agree with banning the Burka - there is nothing in the Qur'an or the hadith which says that women should be completely covered, and the burka is a barbaric and cruel institution. As for the hijab, women should be able to make their own mind up whether they wear it or not. One of the key principles in Islam is that 'there is no compulsion in religion' لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّين (Qur'an 2:256). Unfortunately this is a principle which many reactionary elements choose to forget!

"What is it like for a muslim woman in Afghanistan, as it compares to any country in the western world, that took part in a reformation, and democratic governments, etc? Are they treated equally, with dignity? Are they able to avail themselves of rights and privelidges granted to the men of that country?"

I agree - life for women in Afganistan can be terrible. Since the American invasion they have constitutionally been granted equality - as they should be - but the reality is often a life as oppressed second class citizens. There are some female politicians, and things were improving for women, but the illegal American/British invasion of Iraq, and the continued oppression of the Palestinians and Lebanese has created new support for the hardliners.

I had a conversation with an Afghani refugee in September - a former member of the Taliban - about the situation of women in Afghanistan. I told him that women had been treated barbarically under the Taliban and that there was no excuse for such treatment. His response (and I'm not saying I agree with it - but it's interesting) was this: After years of war Afganistan was a complete mess - the poorest country in the world, ruled by warlords and rival tribal factions. The Taliban brought order to this mess. The number of executions/amputations was exagerated by the Western press and it quickly brought order. As far as women were concerned he said that before the Taliban his sister couldn't go out of the house at all for fear of being raped. After the Taliban came she was safe in a Burka. Now I'm not saying that I support the Taliban - I certainly don't. But I'm saying that the situation is Afganistan is very complex.

"more female Imamas might do the freekin' trick!"

I couldn't agree more and I, and many others in the Islamic community have been pushing for this for years. There is an Islamic female pressure group here in Britain which is attempting to ensure that women have complete equality of access to Britain's mosques. Furthermore, men have traditionally had a monopoly over the interpretation of religious texts in many Islamic countries and this monopoly must be broken.

As far as the link you have posted - this is my initial reaction. The clip is from Memri TV - a site which specialises in painting the Islamic world in the worst possible light - it only shows clips of extremists, and those criticising the Islamic world. I agree with the woman that there are problems in the Islamic world and that there needs to be major reform and rethinking in many countries. I agree with the woman that the medieval legal divisions between Muslims and non-Muslims are outdated and innapropriate. Islam teaches لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِين - "To you be your Religion/Way, and to me mine." (Qur'an 109:6). The constitution of Medina - written by the Prophet - guaranteed freedom of religion and worship to Muslims, Jews, Christians and polytheists.

But what I don't agree with is the implication that all Muslims - or indeed a majority of Muslims - hold these beliefs. Nor do I believe that the state of Israel was founded peacefully, or that the Israeli government hasn't continually persecuted the Palestinian people for over fifty years. Unfortunately elements in Islam do attack Christians and other non-Muslims - which I utterly condemn. But if you look at the race riots in India you will see that Hindu militants have attacked mosques and lynched Muslims, much like militant Jewish settlers have attacked Muslims in Palestine.

I condemn all religious extremism and intolerance.

I do believe in God - but have no problem with those who don't, and I don't think any less of them. My problem with Dawkins is that I think he thinks less of those people who do believe in God. I agree, that simply because a person goes to church/mosque/synagogue/temple that doesn't make them any better morally. In fact, many people who do are very immoral people! Many Muslims in my country seem to think that religion is a checklist - Beard? Yes! Islamic clothing? Yes! Hijab? Yes! Well you must be a Muslim - without ever concentrating on the spiritual or moral teachings of the religion. I suppose it all leads back to that age old philosophy of religion paradox:

Is something good because God proscribes it, or does God proscribe it because it is good?

Go on gorgeous George!!!

I feel sorry for the Muslim teacher/teaching assistant who was fired for refusing not to wear a veil. This is not because I support the veil (niqab) - orthodox Islamic law does not require Muslim women to wear a veil - only to cover their heads with a scarf (hijab). I feel sorry for her because she has clearly been influenced by the teachings of reactionary Islamic political groups like Hizb at-Tahrir (حزب التحرير), who preach complete separation rather than integration. Hizb at-Tahrir have been behind a number of the high profile cases regarding Muslim dress in the UK. They have lost all of these cases - but have benefited from the publicity given to them and their cause. Unfortunately the women involved in these cases have suffered the most - from loss of job or expulsion from school.

She better put her hijab on.