Middle Eastern Culture
Burncycle
Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9759Members, NS1 Playtester
Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9759Members, NS1 Playtester
in Discussions
I don't want to start a flame thread, but I have a few questions:
Is it true that all these restrictions placed on women was not actually in their religious teachings (koran, etc), rather rules created by the men?
Also, what do you think of what happened in 2002:
Saudi Police stopped a rescue attempt and let 15 girls burn when a schoolhouse caught fire, because they were not wearing their headscarves and robes that women are required to wear when in public?
Is there something fundementally wrong about a culture that lets that happen? Or should I just let them live how they "choose" to live (although I'm not sure the women/girls chose that.....)
Here's a link to the news article.
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm</a>
Is it true that all these restrictions placed on women was not actually in their religious teachings (koran, etc), rather rules created by the men?
Also, what do you think of what happened in 2002:
Saudi Police stopped a rescue attempt and let 15 girls burn when a schoolhouse caught fire, because they were not wearing their headscarves and robes that women are required to wear when in public?
Is there something fundementally wrong about a culture that lets that happen? Or should I just let them live how they "choose" to live (although I'm not sure the women/girls chose that.....)
Here's a link to the news article.
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm</a>
Comments
Do that. It's not affecting you in any way, so don't meddle.
I do think they're present in the Qu'ran.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->33.59 . O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them ( when they go abroad ) . That will be better , that so they may be recognized and not annoyed . Allah is ever Forgiving , Merciful .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->24.31 . And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest , and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent , and to draw their veils over their bosoms , and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands fathers , or their sons or their husbands ' sons , or their brothers or their brothers ' sons or sisters sons , or their women , or their slaves , or male attendants who lack vigor , or children who know naught of women ' s nakedness . And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment . And turn unto Allah together , O believers , in order that ye may succeed .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or take 2:282, which states that a woman counts only as half a witness during a financial trial.
I believe it's fair to say that Islam sees men and women in entirely different social roles. The woman is not necessarily of lesser value, but she <i>is</i> expected to care for household and family. That is a kind of restriction.
Stuff like the Afghan burqa, however, or the tragedy in the school you mentioned seem to be over-zealous perversions of what the Qu'ran had in mind. The veil was supposed to protect women, not discriminate them or cause them to die.
I wouldn't say their culture is "fundamentally wrong", but Islam is an inherently political religion; furthering the "umma" is a matter of faith, and the superiority the western world has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate is bound to be dangerously frustrating for everyone who believes that a divine being favours the "umma".
now if you truly believed that, wouldnt you rather die in a fire than go to hell for stepping outside without your robes? i kno i would.
Do that. It's not affecting you in any way, so don't meddle. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But they don't really choose that way of life since most middle eastern countries aren't democratic. Do you think those women chose to be burned alive? They were forced to by the Saudi police, they wouldn't let them outside. Some people here in the western societies would rather see them as religious extremists instead of people who are oppressed by their governments.
Relative moralism is the believe that everything that other people believe is right. In other words, if middle eastern culture permits the killing of women and children who refuse to wear their scarves, is correct in middle east to do, yet if that was done here, it would be wrong. There is a fundamental flaw, which is that you can't assume something is right AND something is wrong at the same time. Location has nothing to do with morals, yet people who are relative moralists think that customs and moral codes in other countries are correct.
Global moralism on the other hand, is believing that everything is black and white. To say that killing is wrong, for instance, is globally correct, and under no circumstances or culture should this be allowed. Global moralists are the type of people that always insist they are correct and nobody else is if they don't believe what they believe.
It is good to be inbetween, but if you had to pick and choose, don't be a relative moralist. It is better to know what you believe than to think everybody should "do their own thing." I, leaning more on the global moralist scale of things, think that that was horribly wrong thing to do. No religion should allow such a thing, regardless of culture.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the men are restircted as well. They are expected to give all their earnings to the family and work to provide for them. So both sexes in Islam have "roles" so to say. This is a differant form of equality to what we have in Western society but that is the choice of these people. It does bear mentioning that if the woman of the house earns any money herself, such as from weaving or sewing etc she can keep all that money and do as she pleases with it. The man must give all his earnings to the family.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What is your take on their punishments? Things like, if a woman gets destroyed, it's her fault. If someone gets screwed up the ****, they get into trouble, not the guy doing it. Or are these just stereotypes? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More info on this? Haven't heard anything like that.
it all comes back to, are we so arrogant that we can only see our way of of thinking/ acting as correct and try to make others follow rather than accepting their ways as different.
on the subjects of our freedoms through democracy vs their apparent non-freedoms, I beleive if you compaired the two closely, there would be little practical differance, just the minor details would be different.
before you start comparing your culture to another you must have experience of other forms of culture, else your viewpoint might be horribly skewed without you even realising (not just holidaying in spain, probably living somewhere for a considerable time ).
wt-f?
Let them burn to death because they don´t wear clothes? That firemen should get slapped around the firetruck for letting this happen - and the *religious police*
That is soooooo heretic and blasphemic to let 15 kids die because of religious things. It´s not like we can just say that their culture is different and stuf..
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Saudi Gazette quoted witnesses as saying that the police - known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice - had stopped men who tried to help the girls and warned "it is a sinful to approach them".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WHAT THE <span style='color:white'>Don't dodge the swearword filter.</span> are they trying to protect?
Jehova's witness parents refusing the use of blood or blood products to save their childs life.
Similar?
The majority simply bullies the minority into doing what they want.
Sometimes this isn't even the case.
I see it like this:
All people are inherantly selfish, everything we do is done because we <b>believe</b> doing so benefits us, either directly or indirectly.
Morals are social programming designed to bend this selfish intent so that it benefits society on the whole. The idea being that in a society with moral laws, an individual whose actions benefit society as a whole, is personally rewarded. Such that performing actions that benefit other people ultimately benefit yourself, and people's own selfish motives end up helping society. Exactly the same as regular laws, where punishments make sure that actions which harm society as a whole do not end up benefitting the individual.
Now assuming your intention when creating a set of morals is to help society as a whole, as above, you can now <i>sort of</i> classify which morals are 'good' morals, and which are 'bad'. Simply by evaluating how well they achieve the task. It only gets sketchy when you throw in factors such as religion. It could well be that by covering their bare heads, a society can avoid all being damned to a hell-equivalent after their death, in which case wearing strange looking headwear is in the best interests of society. But we can't really verify that. At least my way of looking at things gives you something to argue over rather than "i think my moral values are better than yours because they just are".
It should be clear to anyone that we are not born with a moral code, and morals are not in any way 'just common sense'. They're programmed into us by friends, family and education services. However, assuming societies form and these societies are interested in continuing their existence, certain moral values are likely to arise naturally. Such as not going about randomly killing eachother.
Jehova's witness parents refusing the use of blood or blood products to save their childs life.
Similar? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well its not. The kids try to escape from a fire and the religious police prevents that. There is no moral justification for this in ANY religion. Anybody no matter what religion would want to help. *Even* atheists would try to save the kids. That policeman do that because of their fanatic beliefs.
First the bad news: I'm back.
Now the good news: I don't have much time, so it'll be short today.
An admins note:
The next person saying that "*even*" an atheist is capable of morallic thought will get a restricted membership. I've yet to see another statement as disrespectful towards members of this very board.
My opinion:
I can mostly agree with Twex' points. The Islam features strong role models, not only for genders, but also different ages and to some extent even professions. Seeing the early history of the Muslims, which lived in communities governed by religious leaders from the very start (Mohammed was not only a prophet, but also major and general), I doubt that they'll be able to achieve a complete seperation of church and state within the forseeable future. This cultural circle has always evolved independently from the western world, and there's no reason why it should stop doing so.
At the same time, we'll have to keep in mind that many sociologists describe the current period as the Islams 'Dark Age'. The womans clothing rules are a very good example for this:
The first Sure Twex quoted has an easily understandeable reason: During Mohammends time, women faced the danger of rape on a daily basis. Clothing them in a way revealing as little body as possible and at the same time similiar to the men was of course a good way of reducing this risk.
As Twex said, this rule was implemented to the womens defense. But like with medieval Christianity, we face today a grown, strictly hierarchic and patriarchalic system behind the religion that turns such rules into the exact opposite. Thus, it's not the religion, nor the culture at fault here, it's a system using both to retain its own status of power; such a system will inevitably clash with whatever acceptable morallic framework you may put up, no matter whether it labels itself monarchistic, fundamentalistic, communist, or democratic.
We should however realize that there's strong reformatoric movements within the Islam, partitially due to contacts with western or far eastern culture (my sisters boyfriend, for example, practices what is usually described as 'Euro-Islam', a more secular form of the belief that reduces the religions influence to a position comparable with Christian churches), but also due to domestic reinterpretations of the Koran. It's well possible that the years to come will later be described as 'the Islams Renaissance'.
Jehova's witness parents refusing the use of blood or blood products to save their childs life.
Similar? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well its not. The kids try to escape from a fire and the religious police prevents that. There is no moral justification for this in ANY religion. Anybody no matter what religion would want to help. *Even* atheists would try to save the kids. That policeman do that because of their fanatic beliefs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Surely it is. The child most likely doesn't want to die. But because of the power the government allows the parents in this case they can prevent the medical staff from saving him or her. It's almost the same situation, but as people before have pointed ou,t the state and religion are so close that thisis on the scale of a country instead of a single family.
As for moral justification, morals are based on the religious laws on the whole. So depending on the sway that religion hold over the populence many things can be justified.
so
* = "
I wanted to say "atheist" ironically to show that it is not religion or culture that should do things like that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Surely it is. The child most likely doesn't want to die. But because of the power the government allows the parents in this case they can prevent the medical staff from saving him or her. It's almost the same situation, but as people before have pointed ou,t the state and religion are so close that thisis on the scale of a country instead of a single family.
As for moral justification, morals are based on the religious laws on the whole. So depending on the sway that religion hold over the populence many things can be justified. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was no religious or cultural moral thing for the people that saw the fire. They reacted with the reflex to save the kids. There was not things like
"****! I have to save the kids.... no wait I should consider if my religion allows that.."
Sure you want to hear the opinion of the arab themselves..........
Will here's your chance,,,, I'm Arab and I live in Bahrain in Arabian Gulf (Of course you remember Asia Cup in China, yes that's my country and I'm proud of it).
will let's start,,,,,,,,, first of all did you heared about the rebels of "Mohammed Bin Abdulwahab", this one who started all this mess, he lived in the in the Middle East long time ago like everyone, but he was very strict an fanatic, so he created his orgenaisation of "Salafayen" those are who did all the terrorism (or whtever you call it) in the middle east.
Saudia Arabia were the country that adopted these rebels.
Did you knew that they made women who gone out in a demonstration freeze in a cold day in the stadium <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
So what happened in the school wasn't the first one of it's kind.
AND FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Islam DOESN'T APPROVE THESE ACTS.
Our prophet mohammed didn't killed any of the women and children in his GAZWAT (Wars to circulate Islam), I'm (who isn't from those terrorists) a follower of our SHEKH (Like AL Koae) who fought the US Marines when they saw at them the evil and the bad determination they started to fought for defending their country, their home, the burial of Emam Hussain who died in the desert with his family, they were about 90 people, and the enemy was about 200000 soldier, he cried for them because they all are gonna go to hell because of him, he is the grandson of prophet mohammed.
Finaly you see that the ones who kill and kiddnape civils aren't taking the way of Islam , their taking the way of their leader "Bin Laden"
BTW about the head gear of the girls we name it Hejab it's necessery for a female above 11, it's like a guard to a woman.
in all religions there is HELL and PARDISE,
so when a kid die, he'll go to paradise no matter how much was his sins.
I want to say to the to you all "I don't hate you for being amercans or whetever your country is, and I don't balme you for what's happening in Iraq right now unless you are with it".
How many times have you heard about a devoted Christian refusing their kids surgical operations because the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit?
Whoa, for a second there I thought twex and his infinite wisdom was back!
Genesis 3:16
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Care to explain why that little passage has so much effect upon people in modern society? Seems like its trying to explain some basic biology - ie childbirth = teh painfull.
Basically, all the Koran really implies on this matter is too dress moderately - I agree this is taken to an extreme, but in no way is to blame of Islam, just the interperation the certain Saudis/saudi gov't has of it.
edit- nem phrased it better. Kudos!
Which is <i>excactly</i> why I have trouble believing it. It would be like me one day sitting down to write alot of rules and make it all poetic. And in one milleniums time, what I wrote would be the basis of a religion.
I can't believe in a religion based on a book.
I can't believe in a religion based on a book. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What would you propose we should base religion on? Where will you go when you die? Is there an afterlife? What security do you have that what you believe is correct? How does God choose to talk to you? Is there a god, and if not, what sort of belief system does that intail? What other assumptions must one make to say that there is no god?
I have answers for all these questions, and they are found in a book written a long time ago. Where do you get your answers?
Care to explain why that little passage has so much effect upon people in modern society? Seems like its trying to explain some basic biology - ie childbirth = teh painfull. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Count the number of female presidents. Count the number of females in top jobs. Go and read about the sufferagets.
Pagan religions worsiped the sacred feminen, as the great child bearing gift of life, where as early christians demonised women for the commiting original sin, therefore leading the there second class role in modern society.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Modern sociological studies show the majority of active church members are women, thus women are constantly subjected to the message that they have a duty to atone for Eve's original sin and redeem themselves as "the devil's gateway," as an early church Father kindly noted. The informal and social norms of any civilization are so closely tied to religious teachings that the church must be considered a major influence on human values and role expectations. Even after the advent of women's liberation and biblical criticism, women are plagued by behavioural expectations that have their origin in the Bible. <i>taken from a RS undergraduate paper</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*edit* oh, and please dont lauch an attack personal attack upon me, when you clearly know nothing about the subject.