Quoting: Alex Mac Kinnon To: Faraz Rabbani On: 03-11-93 05:25 FR> we do not view women as sex-objects and toys (like in the FR> "liberated" West). I accept that we have much to learn FR> about the FR> "status of women", but we [Muslims] have a lot of positives FR> in our FR> societies with regards to women. AMK> I think your barking up the wrong tree bring the issue of women out as AMK> a defence for your faith. AMK> We have all seen the women of your "Holy land" not being able to drive AMK> cars, vote, or go out without a veil. In some cases women are beaten AMK> up, and in extreme cases killed. Sorry... Saudi Arabia is *not* our "Holy Land" !!! The cities of Mecca and Medina (and Jerusalem!!!!) are "holy", but not the oppressive regime of the House of Saud... AMK> Not to mention what happens to a daughter if she "dates" without AMK> permission. Beatings, murder, etc. Who told you this??? Our culture does not accept the idea of dating and so forth before marriage. You can get to know the girl, but not hate, have sex, etc. And it applies both ways: boys AND girls are not allowed to date... And this is accepted: we have so many people (such as myself) who are exposed to the Western idea of "liberal" pre-marital sex attitudes and of dating and we chose not to excercise it. Like Farheen Hasan [Features Editor of THE VARSITY] says, "Since when did *different* have to be bad?" This concept of "the West is the best" is another form of cultural imperialism, if you think about it. AMK> I really do think that your fath is one of the most oppressive faiths AMK> towards women and their rights towards being equal. Have you heard of the concept of "assymetricism" of rights? It cropped up in the debate about Quebec sovereignty. It applies to the "role of women" in Islam. Sure, the rights of women are and have been abused in Muslim countries, but not because of Islam, but due to the system of patriarchy, which caused it. This is true of Western countries too. You can't say that democracy or the liberal ideals are "oppressive" because for 150 years since the French Revolution, with its ideal of liberty, women (and minorities such as blacks) were oppressed in these democratic countries. Similarly, you cannot say that Islam is "oppressive" because it requests that women (*and men*) be modestly attired. Covering one's head is one way, but what Islam asks for is that humans be treated and viewed as humans, not as sexual objects or toys. This applies to both men and women. Immodest dress has been proven to be not an expression of women's "freedom" or "liberation" only, but also of the will of men to view women as sexual objects only. This is very degrading to women, since they are much more than that. It also applies to men. Women in Islam are fully, but assymetrically equal to men. This assymetricism is due to some undeniable facts: women tend to be physically weaker than men, so who will defend whom (physically)??? Only women can mother babies, so who will have children? Naturally, who takes care of them beyond the mother-only things is dependent on the division of chores one has, but Islam recognises that, while fully equal, women can do somethings better (physically) than men, and vice versa. This is not a symbol of either's inferiority, but of their uniqueness. If Islam is so "oppressive" then why do the women of Algeria, who have been exposed (in more ways than one) to the Western ways due French colonialism and its lingerings, decide that they want to embrace Islam? In the (now annulled) elections, women voted as overwhelmingly for the FIS (the Islamic party) as did men, despite the fact that Algeria is a very "open" society... Or maybe we Muslims have a few screws loose... that would explain *everything*, I guess... ... Faraz Rabbani Nuttywallah ... Power corrupts, but we need the electricity.