Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!rrizzo
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: American women in Iran (abc's 20/20 12/13/84)
Message-ID: <1237@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 31-Dec-84 16:00:13 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.1237
Posted: Mon Dec 31 16:00:13 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Jan-85 06:17:35 EST
References: <182@usl.UUCP> <18437@lanl.ARPA> <6790@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 82


Re Joe Pistritto's posting :

To me it sounds more like islamic apologetics than historical fact.
I'm not denying the possibility Islam may have been relatively liberal
circa 600 ad, but there are too many objections to the picture Joe
paints....

>	 Islam did indeed improve the position of women in the society
> at the time of its founding.

Is this actually true, except for Arabia & its bedawins (& not for
the town dwellers of Mecca etc.)?  The many different societies
of the Levant, Egypt, North Africa, the Byzantine lands, etc. were
very different from the nomadic tribes of the desert wastes.

> Before the Koran was
> created, women in the Arab countries were commonly only used as
> property, and were most often purchased, not married.

"property" and "purchased" must be metaphorical, else the above
assertion is simply not true of the pre-islamic middle east.  If
the words are used figuratively, they apply with just as much force
to the middle east under Islam.

> Also the new
> religion protected women from being literally stolen off the streets by
> assigning to their brothers and fathers the responsibility for protecting
> them.  (This still happens in India, and the Arab countries, although to
> a much less degree than 500 years ago).

This sounds completely fanciful.  What's the source for this statement?
A few "primitive" cultures practice ritualized bride theft as a part of
marriage procedures and some (primarily Victorian) anthropologists spe-
culated it was the genesis of all marriage , but the middle east isn't
"primitive"; around 600 ad it was culturally one of the most advanced
areas on earth.

>	 Since that time, the Western countries have greatly improved the
> status of women, and Islam has remained fairly unchanged, hence the current
> impression of the Moslem religion as one that oppresses women.  

This is a myth, the changeless east, here employed to make excuses for
contemporary problems.  Both the religion & civilization of Islam changed
constantly from within Muhammad's own lifetime & teachings down to the
present.  Islam spans wildly differing societies, from Bulgaria to Nigeria,
Morocco to Mindanao in the Phillipines.  Islam CAN be faulted for imposing
a uniform subjugation of women (purdah, polygamy, etc.), which by the law
of averages would represent greater sexism for at least some of these
societies.

Islam has as much doctrinal & denominational variation as Christianity.
Its sects, schools, & laws developed & changed, often greatly, over time.
The political history of the middle east shows perhaps even more change
& volatility than that of Europe;  Islam closely identifies religion &
politics, & was thus intimately involved in much "secular" change.

> Before
> condemning it, consider the relative incidence of rape in Moslem and
> Christian countries, (particularly the US).

Are there reliable statistics on rape even in the US, nevermind Mediter-
ranean countries?  Given the rigidity of islamic sexism, how would it be
possible to even obtain such information?

Secondly, if women are permanently sequestered in their homes, there is
drastically less opportunity to commit rape.  A lower incidence of rape
in islamic societies wouldn't be meaningful per se.

>	 By the way, the original reason for women wearing the veil was
> to make it more risky to just 'pick up' (literally) a woman off the
> street, after all, she might be ugly!  [ )=; ? I'll assume it isn't. ]

Again, where does this information come from?  I haven't read the Koran
but I'd guess the original (& continuing) intention was to enforce 
"female modesty", an aim which presupposes a belief that males have
(to put it mildly) trouble controlling their sexual urges and "naturally"
are inclined to sexual aggression & assault; this is sexism at its most
pristine.

					Ron Rizzo