Afghan Lawmaker refuses to look at HBO's Isobel Yeung during interview

I understand that men and women have responsibilities to eachother, and that the Quran doesn't given license to a husband to treat his wife however he pleases. But this does not mean it is not still heavily slanted towards men controlling the freedom of their wives.

http://www.clearquran.com/004.html

15. Those of your women who commit lewdness, you must have four witnesses against them, from among you. If they testify, confine them to the homes until death claims them, or God makes a way for them.

34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, as God has given some of them an advantage over others, and because they spend out of their wealth. The good women are obedient, guarding what God would have them guard. As for those from whom you fear disloyalty, admonish them, and abandon them in their beds, then strike them. But if they obey you, seek no way against them. God is Sublime, Great.

Men are the "maintainers" of women, and given license to punish them if they are disobedient. Why should a woman obey her husband, and not the other way around?

That sounds fine. But it looks to me like it goes further than simply saying married couples should abide by their marital responsibilities. Does it ever say that a man should be obedient to his wife, like it says a women should be obedient to her husband?

 

What do you mean by "just like"? If you look at polls from people who call themselves Muslim versus some other faith, is distribution of opinions on feminist issues about the same? I would be *very* surprised.

Other factors involved besides religion? Fair enough, though I am curious if there's been any effort to control for such factors.

Edit:

Found this. It focuses on positions of American Muslims:

http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/section-5-political-opinions-and-social-values/

They do tend to be somewhat more conservative than the general public on many social issues, but frankly not to the extent I expected.

39% say homosexuality should be accepted versus 58% from the broader public. I'd be curious what percentage of self-identifying Christians think -- I would suppose somewhere in-between.

92% completely or mostly agreed that women should be able to work outside the home. It was 98% for the general public.

68% think gender makes no difference in quality of a political leaders, versus 72% of general public.

 

"I don't think it's fair to say that the poor treatment of women is rooted in Islam"

sure it is

 

Funny, the Quran was written by men, and they write that women should obey....unreal that people fall for that stuff.

DD

 

Now this guy is denying that he ever did any interview with her.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Perhaps it was more memorable for me than it was for him. <a href="https://twitter.com/bsarwary">@bsarwary</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/RadioAzadi">@RadioAzadi</a> <a href="https://t.co/aUgAA5qabc">https://t.co/aUgAA5qabc</a></p>&mdash; Isobel Yeung (@IsobelYeung) <a href="https://twitter.com/IsobelYeung/status/719123260730929152">April 10, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the range is the same, not the distribution. If the distribution were the same given the socio-economic factors, you would actually have to praise the culture/religion for being so effective in combating rape.

As for distribution, I addressed it in my previous post. Christian Arabs are no less accepting of marital rape than Muslim Arabs from my experience. Muslim views on marital rape are heavily dependent on laws where they live, education and other socio economic factors.

Another great angle is that Islam was the most progressive women's rights ideology in the world when it was born. Almost no women in the world anywhere had the rights Muslim women had. So if Islam is this central entity which heavily influences misogyny, how could that single ideology be a champion of women's rights and oppressor of women's rights in different eras? Doesn't make sense.

Where I live, I know that if anything, misogyny has actually been reduced by Islam. Pre-Islam, women were barely considered human here and that continued up until the early 1900's when Islam finally took firm hold here. That cultural mindset has NOT died out totally. The people of this country have always placed their bedouin arab values above their islamic values. Islamic values are actively and specifically being wiped away because... Well, you can figure that out for yourself. The government - which the rest of the world calls an Islamic government enforcing sharia law - has promoted females so much that they are now outperforming men in school, college, work and political positions. We have proportionally more female millionaires, ceo's, ministers, ivy league graduates than most if not all countries in the world.

So which is Islam? What about the fact that most Arabs and Muslims look down on bedouin culture and don't consider the UAE to be Islamic? Why is Islam the version that one specific mega rich family popularized rather than the one practiced by most? or even the type popularized by other mega rich people? What does a Dubaian Muslim have in common with an Afghan Muslim ideologically? Literally nothing, they wouldn't agree on anything, except stuff that most humans agree on (murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc.).

When you spend your childhood in a place that's no different than Kabul, and then years later that country has become a modern metropolis, here is where you learn that the term Islam is meaningless. Honestly, no one can claim to have had that experience of being born in a country where there are no roads rapidly developing into one of the most economically modern places on earth. It's not Islam that made it Kabul, and it's not Islam that made it Dubai. Islam didn't change in those 30 years. Money happened, people changed. It's simply about money, education, laws, exposure to other cultures, etc. Once Emirati females in Dubai started consuming books and television and radio and newspapers which showed what's possible, they changed their Islam. They simply do not need the men that had control over them anymore, and they know what they can do to protect themselves.

That's why I reject the notion that Islam has any influence over marital rape. I have no doubt that misogynists will use to to validate themselves, but there are equally as many people who use Islam to validate the opposite. None of them are right. Both are meaningless. No matter what the religion was in these regions, marital rape would be this prevalent. Just like it is in non-Muslim parts of Africa. There simply hasn't been any meaningful access to changing laws and governance of these rights in these countries, there hasn't been enough access to information, there hasn't been enough national or regional discussions about this.

To be crystal clear: I'm not denying it's a heightened problem in the region. In fact, I advocate against it personally and am in the process of making a documentary about it. However, it has little/nothing to do with Islam.

 

Really never understood that narrative when before the creation of Islam Mo was banging his first wife, a wealthy traveling merchant. She wouldn't even be able to have that profession in many parts of the Islamic world today. I really don't see it as anything more than an apologist's narrative.

 

Again, for this to be meaningful, you would have to compare it to non Muslim immigrants from the same countries. The gap would be even narrower, if not non-existant or negative.

 

Always the same tired lie.

 

Not sure if you realize this doesn't make sense?

His wife was a rich travelling merchant in the most oppressive part of Arabia, and she was still doing that till she died. In fact, he practically worked for her at first. By choice.

During his lifetime, she could do that anywhere. Today, she could do that anywhere. Sorry fchowd you're again showing your really really uninformed opinion here.

Also again, diverting from the point to stomp your feet on the ground. Your post has nothing to do with the historical fact that Islamic law during Muhammad's time was the most progressive for women's rights on the planet, a point made to show that it is silly to claim that there is one Islam or one Shariah. This is like conflating common law of the middle ages with common law today. There is no such thing. Islam is what its followers are capable of, and people seem to forget what it has been at various points in the past. There is no single interpretation. No single set of laws. No single authority. Nothing.

Muslims will continue to be less stringent on marital rape until the laws and the education changes. And they will still be Muslim after that. Do you understand that or do you think Muslims are just mindless robots with a head full of one interpretation of life?

 

So explain the paradox of Khadeja being able to practice being a traveling merchant in the heart of Arabia before Islam when it would be pretty much impossible according the the Islamic apologist narrative that women had it far worse before Islam.

I mean, just think about being a traveling merchant. In order to obtain wealth, you must have a customer base that is socially comfortable doing business with you. I mean, it would be extremely difficult for her to gather the amount of wealth that she did if the Middle East was as bad as Islamic apologists stated before Islam in regards to the treatment of women... right? If it was as bad as many Islamic apologists stated, how could she have such a strong base of trading partners to deal with?

 

For a long the vast majority of the western world use Christian teaching to espouse that women had essentially no rights in society outside of those afforded to her by being her fathers daughter or her husbands wife.

I had dinner with someone just two weeks ago who told his college bound daughter that it would not be right for her to ever have authority over a man. There are plenty of churches in Houston who don't believe that a woman can pray in front of men or teach a class that has men in them.

Most religious texts from long ago are pretty harsh towards women. The west became more friendly toward women the more secular it became sadly.

 

Agree. So let's not make lies like the journalist in the original video who explicitly stated that women and men are perfectly equal according to the Quran.

 

Ugggghhh I'm very liberal and I don't agree with that one bit. Keep painting with that big brush though.

 

she was among the elite of her time , from Quraish tribe. her family was following the Abrahamic religion. on the top of her family and personal wealth , she inherited additional wealth (busniess) from her 2 previous marriages . the thing in pre-Islam, a powerful person can be privileged in many-ways (and in most places nowdays), but it doest means that her case was the standard, BTW ,she wast not technically a travelling merchant, she was more of a business owner who employed others for most of her logistic needs

 

Did she have to wear a veil?

 

first of all , thanks for the questions , very thoughtful indeed .

pre-Islam people of that time , had some very serious moral issues, despite having some exception , the norm in many cases was disturbing in regards to women:

1- it was common to bury a newly born girl. that due to some financial-social burdens, some parents did it in a fear for their daughters , some did it based on hate, or it did not feel convenient for the time-being (more like a late stage abortion of modern time)

2-women in most circumstance were excluded from inheriting their parent .

3-a wealthy powerful man could marry unlimited no. of wife.

4-it was common to marry even an infant by force.

5-orphans were lost, either become slaves , or someone capture their fate.

6-marriage definition was not clear by any-means, some marry their sister, or mothers , not based on sexual intention , but motivated more by money-wealth preservation.

7-relationship by a man and a women wast defined , was it slavery ! sex oriented etc.,

8- in Europe that time a debate among philosophers was based on this topic: is women human?! do they have soul ,if they do , is it similar to human or is it closer to animal!

http://nordicwomensliterature.net/article/women-are-not-human-beings

9- until 1805 in England, a husband can sell his wife for a fixed price of 5 pence!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_selling_(English_custom)

 

Isobel Yeung said her self this isn't about the religion. Are you saying she is an apologist as well? Why arent you attacking her?