Islam and Gender Issues

[SAVAGE]

Islam is Islam.....were the christians any less the terrorists when they went to claim the holy land...does no one else race or religion kill there wife for dishounouring them.....does no other race or religion have wife beaters....I fail to see what this has to do with anything...Jesus says to take the log from your own eye befor elooking at the speck in your brothers, so if women in your own society are being abused adress this isuue before adressing anyone elses!

Islam holds mothers and wives dear...it is not the religion, it is the custom. In this day and age of sensitivity you should choose your words more carefully!

*bows respectfully*

[AAAhmed46]

about your sig:
No one in the comics even notices that!

[-Metablade-]

The reason the world is in the way it is today with respect to religion.

http://tinyurl.com/9b94c

[IJ]

Stryke: Is it the fault of christianity if a homophobe cites God as a reason for killing a gay person? Yes and no, just like it is with Islam. There appears to a be a FORM of islam that gets cited as a motivation for some current nasty events, and yes, it is responsible, but that does not make all islamic people or branches culpable. The same applies to christianity. There are many flavors of each. And a single event means nothing. My question is whether there is a pattern of inequality or abuse, and in this case, in Saudi Arabia, women get whisked if any part of their body is exposed in public, and they can't drive. Not once, or one, but all, and always. That's something. But is it Islam's fault? That's the question ...

And you and Aaahmed believe it is not--but rather an overlap with a certain culture. Super! Healthy, justified and not at all offensive-to-Islam opinions populating the posts... wonderful.

Savage: No one is or was perfect (tho the crusades are a touch old for super-relevance now). That does NOT mean that we cannot comment on cultures different from our own and it does NOT mean that cultures with well developed principles and practice for honor killings can be compared with others because they all contain faults. Sounds much like an anthropology course with a healthy dollop of cultural relativism. I agree all actions have contexts, but that doesn't mean a more violent, sexist (or wasteful, divided, bullying) society gets a pass, islamic, christian or otherwise.

"So if women in your own society are being abused adress this isuue before adressing anyone elses!"

This of course means we can't EVER criticize another culture or HELP anyone because we'll never be perfect ourselves. It's like saying we couldn't intervene in rwanda because more than zero blacks are being killed in the states. Absurd.

Anyway, let's assume ISLAM has no causative role in the sexism found in Islamic countries. We'd have to admit it's been twisted in some circumstances into a justification or at least into a marraige with the responsible culture. But say there is NO causative role. How can we use the general messages of peace, nonviolence, and so on that it shares with other religions to SOLVE part of that problem? Can we get major islamic figures to slam gender inequality and support equality for women? Or have they already, and the US media didn't tell us?

[AAAhmed46]

Stryke: Is it the fault of christianity if a homophobe cites God as a reason for killing a gay person? Yes and no, just like it is with Islam. There appears to a be a FORM of islam that gets cited as a motivation for some current nasty events, and yes, it is responsible, but that does not make all islamic people or branches culpable. The same applies to christianity. There are many flavors of each. And a single event means nothing. My question is whether there is a pattern of inequality or abuse, and in this case, in Saudi Arabia, women get whisked if any part of their body is exposed in public, and they can't drive. Not once, or one, but all, and always. That's something. But is it Islam's fault? That's the question ...

And you and Aaahmed believe it is not--but rather an overlap with a certain culture. Super! Healthy, justified and not at all offensive-to-Islam opinions populating the posts... wonderful.

Savage: No one is or was perfect (tho the crusades are a touch old for super-relevance now). That does NOT mean that we cannot comment on cultures different from our own and it does NOT mean that cultures with well developed principles and practice for honor killings can be compared with others because they all contain faults. Sounds much like an anthropology course with a healthy dollop of cultural relativism. I agree all actions have contexts, but that doesn't mean a more violent, sexist (or wasteful, divided, bullying) society gets a pass, islamic, christian or otherwise.

"So if women in your own society are being abused adress this isuue before adressing anyone elses!"

This of course means we can't EVER criticize another culture or HELP anyone because we'll never be perfect ourselves. It's like saying we couldn't intervene in rwanda because more than zero blacks are being killed in the states. Absurd.

Anyway, let's assume ISLAM has no causative role in the sexism found in Islamic countries. We'd have to admit it's been twisted in some circumstances into a justification or at least into a marraige with the responsible culture. But say there is NO causative role. How can we use the general messages of peace, nonviolence, and so on that it shares with other religions to SOLVE part of that problem? Can we get major islamic figures to slam gender inequality and support equality for women? Or have they already, and the US media didn't tell us?

All religions get messed up with by fanatics.

And wahabism...man that is just messed up.(though this sect of 'islam' was created by the saudi kings and....*Gasp* the british) and essentially caused lots of trouble.

And yeah, there have been major condemnations in the islamic world. We just dont hear about them.

For ismealism, the Aga-khan is the equivalent of the pope. More then once he has denounced terrorism.

Many major shiites clerics in iraq and around the world condem terrorism. WIth only a few morons who dont.

In sunnism, all over there have been condemnations of terrorism, although wahabism is a ''sect'' of sunnism. So the guys who is always talking about beating woman, killing americans and gays and stuff is often in pakistan , Iran, and other countries who recruit for Mr.Binny are well.....a ##### up type of wahabi.


Remember when the catholic priests molested those kids? Did anyone ask for a formal condemnation? No, because everyone already understood that the catholic church doesnt teach this.

So...why doesn't anyone realize the same thing with islam? Essentially it teaches the same morals as christianity. So why does there ALWAYS have to be a formal statement of condemnation?

When 9/11 happened, mosques across north america and europe condemmed the bombings. When madrid happened, people wanted muslims to make another formal statement. When it happened in britian, they wanted another statement(which they gave).

Isnt one often enough?

[AAAhmed46]

damn i started ranting again.

Damn!

[IJ]

"Remember when the catholic priests molested those kids? Did anyone ask for a formal condemnation? No, because everyone already understood that the catholic church doesnt teach this."

Actually, there was a pretty strong outcry for the church to explain its actions / inactions, and to apologize. I recall disappointment there wasn't stronger language from the top. They are still reacting today (see recent Vatican proposals to ban all gay clergy, although their clergy have abused girls and pedophiles tend to prey on little kids because they lack secondary male sex characteristics, but that's another story). And if the priests had RAPED these kids publicly, claimed responsibility, and cited their religion as a justification, there would have been a thunderous response.

[Bruise* Lee]

The reason the world is in the way it is today with respect to religion.

Both good and bad. So many great changes due to religion - Moses, unable to ban slavery at least established laws for their humane treatment. Mother Theresa and her selfless service cited religion as a large source of her love to serve others. The Salvation army and others that provide great assistance to others have a religious base. However there are those that use religion to their twisted means.

In martial arts we have a wonderful opportunity to see the way religion takes twists - so many methods of killing that rationalize and base instruction on some sort of religion. Followers of Kali would smoke concentrated marijuana (Hashish) and then go and strangle people - the hashish is the root for the word assassin. However its arguable the drugs had as much influence as religion in causing their behavior.

Religion is not an evil - but people with a nature for greed and ambition use religion in twisted ways.

[AAAhmed46]

Actually, there was a pretty strong outcry for the church to explain its actions / inactions, and to apologize. I recall disappointment there wasn't stronger language from the top. They are still reacting today (see recent Vatican proposals to ban all gay clergy, although their clergy have abused girls and pedophiles tend to prey on little kids because they lack secondary male sex characteristics, but that's another story). And if the priests had RAPED these kids publicly, claimed responsibility, and cited their religion as a justification, there would have been a thunderous response.

Oh there was outcry, but nobody demanded a formal statement.

And even if they did use justification with thier religion, there would have been more outcry, but no one would really put pressure on public condemnation because they already know what the church teaches.

[Akil Todd Harvey]

Ian,

Hopefully, my absence hasnt gotten you too excited.....I have been quite busy trying to get my wife into UCLA or FSU grad school in interacticve design, among other life maintaining rituals..........

I have been thinking about this thread and its rules for some time.......most of the rules I still find amusing and annoying........stultifying might be a better word.......

no long posts........makes sense, but doesnt define what is considered long...........is one page long or is only 99 pages a long post.......and what effect does eliminating long posts from this important thread possibly have?????? I would argue that NOT allowing long posts is tantamount to saying we dont want to discuss this important issue in any great detail.......kind of like our lame media that pretends to inform us, but rarely does so, cuz they dumb it all down into five second sound bites.........

My wife teachs online graduate school (for example) and there are some students who like to post very short responses.....someone will make an interactive media presentation and your job is to critique it as effectively as possible........some of the students just write, "yup", "I liked it", without declaring what they liked about it........there is no detail, just empty sound bite.......

so, I want to know, Ian, is that how we want to make this important disucssion? just another sound bite opportunity to leave people ill-informed........and I expect more than a "yup" or a "yeah" as an answer cuz otherwise I would have to conclude that you do not want any real discussion, but rather merely a chance to discredit Islam without really looking at the issues in any real depth..........

As another example, we were asked to make no long posts and yet the chapter in the Quran named "woman" is over 70 pages long (that includes English and Arabic and some notations that explain some things)........an issue as important as this cannot be discussed in any serious manner without the freedom to make in depth analysis.........of course, I doubt that that is what Ian wanted, but I imagine he was just looking for a place where we could all throw out some one liners and there would no opportunity to discuss important issues in depth, not merely superficially........

As well, another rule that diapoints is the one regarding sarcasm........as if this method of rhetoric had no long history and tradition in this culture.........

Sarcasm has a rich and ancient history. From the time when cavemen said "unk" when they meant "eeunk", it has been part of human tradition. The earliest recorded sarcastic comments date from the time of the Ancient Greeks, when philosophers would say really quite biting things about triangle theorums and the like.

However, it was the Romans who really made sarcasm into an art form. Horace, to name but one of the great authors, wrote innumerable satires and epistles which were as filled with sarcasm as a football match is with surpressed violence.

Sadly, with the fall of the Romans, sarcasm laid fallow for some considerable time, reappearing Europe-wide with the Rennaissance. Its renewed popularity led to the writing of many a sarcastic play, some so witty that the actors in them developed puckered mouths after only 10 minutes on stage.

In Britain, in particular, sarcasm flourished, and has continued to do so ever since, except for the brief period between the reigns of Charles I and II. During these years Oliver Cromwell the "protector", a staunch Puritan, all he could to outlaw dancing, games, sarcasm, and all the other evil forms of fun, which he saw as the tool of Satan. However, sarcasm survived in full health, and has continued unabated.

This could be seen as odd, since the Royal family of England are incapable of understanding sarcasm or what it does. This has been the case since Georgian times. It is said that when George I discovered he must learn English to rule England, a genetic mutation occurred that led to this phenomenon. It was subsiquently passed on and continues today. It is interesting to note that our present Queen Mother is the only member of the Windsor family that does not possess this genetic defect, and therefore is able to use and understand sarcasm as well as you or I. This singular fact was used to try and declare her illegitemate at one time, but the ignorence of sarcasm of our present Queen and her siblings soon quashed that, and it is now presumed to be simply a fluke.

Sarcasm exists in many forms, almost all of them in some way adulterated. The most prevelant of these impure forms is American Sarcasm, called after its place of origin.

Probably the purest form of sarcasm that ever existed was confined to Chinese monastry for much of the 18th and early 19th century, before becoming more widely known around China in the late 19th. Tragically, this exquisite form was completely obliterated in the Cultural Revolution of the 20th century.

Little is known of the sarcasm of South America, but from what clues we can piece together, it seems that the Incas and one of the indigenous peoples of Peru developed astonishingly complex forms of sarcasm that baffle explanation today. All known peoples of the Amazonian jungle enjoyed sarcasm to a greater or lesser extent, notably those in the south-west of the continent.

We can only hypothesize about the lyrical sarcastis dream-stories of the Aborigany people, as they mysteriously disappeared at the end of the 18th century. At this time, Britain had been using the island as a dumping ground for its criminals for a number of years. After the crocodile dundee movies of the 1970s and 80s, it is impossible that sarcasm will ever resurge anywhere in Australasia.

Russia is an interesting case as far as sarcasm is concerned. The Russian language does not have a word for "sarcasm", so instead they employ an odd form of stating the obvious to acheive the same effect. This is very difficult to translate into English.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A642917

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4384734.stm

Note first of all that we are all sarcastic, often without noticing it. "Oh, very funny," we say, without cracking a smile. When the cat suffers an upset tummy on the lounge carpet: "That's all I need."

Some phrases are only ever used sarcastically: My heart bleeds. Wise guy. My hero. Big deal. Our beloved leader (in Britain, anyway). And any phrase at all that begins "oh so..." ("He's oh so smart").

Some phrases have been used sarcastically for so long they now mean the opposite of what they once did: "Too bad," was once an expression of sympathy, till the sarcastic crowd got their hands on it.

But if you're willing to move on from everyday sarcasm to something bigger and better, you will find it an art, with a noble tradition. Learn from the masters.

It goes back as far as the Biblical prophets. When the prophets of Baal fail to call down fire from heaven in a contest with Elijah, he cries: "Pray louder! He is a god! Maybe he is daydreaming or relieving himself, or perhaps he's gone on a journey! Or maybe he's sleeping, and you've got to wake him up!" (Good News version)

Some of the great figures of comedy, from Beatrice and Benedick to Chandler Bing, have endeared themselves to discerning audiences with sarcasm. "Why, that's spoken like an honest drover" says Benedick, in Much Ado About Nothing, when Claudio lies to him: "so they sell bullocks."

And the king of sarcasm, Basil Fawlty, when Mrs Richards complains about the view of Torquay: "What did you expect to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically...?"

So there is no reason why sarcasm has to be dumb. Just as there are corny puns and inspired ones, and funny and feeble versions of three men going into a pub, so the glories of sarcasm are only limited by your wit. Learn from the examples above: apply a flair for words, wit, a pinch of attitude, and maybe a toilet reference, and the world will marvel. How hard can it be?


Last Updated: Friday, 28 October 2005, 10:23 GMT 11:23 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
The rules of sarcasm

By Steve Tomkins

Sarcasm is so ubiquitous these days, it almost goes unnoticed. But, as David Beckham proved, when he was sent off this week for seemingly clapping a referee who had just booked him, not everyone is a fan. The trick is to use sarcasm intelligently, and sparingly.

They say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Yeah, right. Assuming "they" are the same experts who tell us "Look before you leap" and "He who hesitates is lost", then I think we all know how incisive and invaluable their advice is. What would we do without it?

What have these geniuses got against sarcasm? Well, it's rude. It is a put-down, and often unkind. If someone says to you, "That was really clever", you would prefer them not to be sarcastic.

Also, it's crude. It's about as clever as pointing and laughing. Compared to the incisive brilliance of Oscar Wilde or Dorothy Parker, simply saying the opposite of what you mean does not impress anyone with your razor-sharp repartee.

When David Beckham got himself sent off for clapping the referee who had booked him, that so boosted his standing in the nation, didn't it? (Incidentally, the England captain had the last laugh, when it was later judged he hadn't meant to insult the ref.)

Beckham and Rooney
Beckham and Wayne Rooney - both red-carded for sarcastic clapping
But "they" aren't so big and clever themselves, putting down sarcasm. For a start, surely the lowest form of wit is loud flatulence, not sarcasm. It can be a beautiful and impressive thing (sarcasm, not the other, though each to their own).

So may I offer, in all due sincerity, my tips on how to love sarcasm and make it work for you.

Note first of all that we are all sarcastic, often without noticing it. "Oh, very funny," we say, without cracking a smile. When the cat suffers an upset tummy on the lounge carpet: "That's all I need."

Some phrases are only ever used sarcastically: My heart bleeds. Wise guy. My hero. Big deal. Our beloved leader (in Britain, anyway). And any phrase at all that begins "oh so..." ("He's oh so smart").

Some phrases have been used sarcastically for so long they now mean the opposite of what they once did: "Too bad," was once an expression of sympathy, till the sarcastic crowd got their hands on it.

But if you're willing to move on from everyday sarcasm to something bigger and better, you will find it an art, with a noble tradition. Learn from the masters.

Follow the bard

It goes back as far as the Biblical prophets. When the prophets of Baal fail to call down fire from heaven in a contest with Elijah, he cries: "Pray louder! He is a god! Maybe he is daydreaming or relieving himself, or perhaps he's gone on a journey! Or maybe he's sleeping, and you've got to wake him up!" (Good News version)

Robert Reynolds as Claudio, Robert Lindsay as Benedick
Benedick, right, makes light of the cattle drover's reputation for dishonesty
Some of the great figures of comedy, from Beatrice and Benedick to Chandler Bing, have endeared themselves to discerning audiences with sarcasm. "Why, that's spoken like an honest drover" says Benedick, in Much Ado About Nothing, when Claudio lies to him: "so they sell bullocks."

"Ooh," says Chandler as Ross attaches his nicotine patch, "I'm alive with pleasure now".

Then there's Eddie Izzard, recounting how he saw a London Underground guard checking an unattended bag by shaking it: "Oh, Captain Clever! Rattle it, if it doesn't go off it can't be a bomb!"

And the king of sarcasm, Basil Fawlty, when Mrs Richards complains about the view of Torquay: "What did you expect to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically...?"

So there is no reason why sarcasm has to be dumb. Just as there are corny puns and inspired ones, and funny and feeble versions of three men going into a pub, so the glories of sarcasm are only limited by your wit. Learn from the examples above: apply a flair for words, wit, a pinch of attitude, and maybe a toilet reference, and the world will marvel. How hard can it be?

People repellent

Could "they" be equally wrong about sarcasm being especially rude and unkind? As if. Almost all jokes are at someone's expense after all, apart from puns. And if sarcasm is particularly apt for putting the fools in their places, it can equally be self-deprecating, or just a complaint about the outrageous trials of life that beset good people like us.

That said, it can be a powerful anti-personnel device, when the personnel around you really deserve it. But a couple of caveats.

Firstly, make sure you're right. Like all powerful weapons, you don't want sarcasm to blow up in your face.

Secondly, don't overuse it. It's like chilli. A little here and there spices things up and shows them who's boss, but you don't make many friends by sprinkling it in everything.

What annoys me about sarcasm is people's general inability to distinguish it from irony. Irony and sarcasm are two separate and distinct subjects, although they do overlap at times.

I find in these politically correct days sarcasm is the only tool you have against the PC Nazi's, they simply don't understand it, so they can not ban it.

The problem with the written word is that with no verbal clues it can sometimes be difficult to tell whether a comment is sincere or sarcastic. Great article, by the way.

Sarcasm is to the British, what Sincerity is to the Americans. and it's easily proved. Just say "Have a nice day!"

If you have been sarcastic, and the victim retorts by saying, "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit", simply ask them to name higher forms of wit. They will respond, rather sharply, by saying, "...erm, er".

It all reminds me of that character on the "Mary Whitehouse Experience" (played, I think, by Rob Newman) who had the unfortunate affliction of sounding sarcastic when he was being sincere, and only sounding sincere when he was trying to be sarcastic. Got him into all sorts of trouble. I still use his catchphrase "Oh what a personal disaster" (said in sarcastic tones).

The people who regard sarcasm as the lowest form of wit are the dullards who (a) think up a witty riposte some eight hours after it would be useful and (b) are most often its victims. Since sarcasm of the non-footballer variety requires intelligence, it's only natural that it should be resented by them.

Anyone who thinks that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit has obviously never seen a custard pie thrown in someone's face. Or heard of "happy slapping".

[Panther]

Yes, I'm watching...

Staying out, but watching... however, had to make one quick comment...

... shouldnt all intolerance and persecution be treated equally .....

Good question. I assume it was rhetorical since it wasn't really responded to or addressed. So, I'll respond/comment on it:

Absolutely! Changing Stryke's question into a comment, it becomes, IMNSHO, the best thing that has been said in this entire thread. To wit:

"ALL intolerance and persecution should be treated equally... with extreme prejudice and disgust!

[IJ]

Re: the Vatican: and the child abuse scandal: I myself (not having reviewed all the news for either Catholicism or Islam) saw requests for both institutions to condem the actions of the few, and that included cries for the Vatican to address the problem, and disappointment when the response was less than thunderous. Maybe I caught more of it because I was in Boston at the time, and Cardinal Law was one of the local / criticized figures. I also suspect (and here we're both speculating) that if a catholic prominently cited the faith in a totally abhorrent and well publicized way, the church would slam the individual and maybe excommunicate him/her. Perhaps a Catholic could better address this question, but here in san diego a person that worked in the porn industry was denied a Catholic burial.

Again, diversions at the end:

"And I expect more than a "yup" or a "yeah" as an answer cuz otherwise I would have to conclude that you do not want any real discussion, but rather merely a chance to discredit Islam without really looking at the issues in any real depth.......... "

Get serious. If you READ the thread, you'll see I do nothing of the sort. In fact we just swung away from Islam to questioning the culture it shares the middle east with. Then I asked how Islam might be able to help. Miss that, or are you deliberately distorting my statements?

What I was asking for in my requests was to avoid long, rambling posts, or shouting posts (written from anger, full of caps and so on) that dissaude viewers from reading: these posts discourage discussion (IMHO) unlike the ones I would prefer: those presenting full, well reasoned and developed points, that have been edited and presented efficiently. You'll notice my posts try to forward the threads and present an idea, and may be meaty, but are not written in haste, in a fervor, and are almost never brief comments or snippets. In fact, did any of the posts in this thread come across to you as undeveloped sound bites?

My request remains: link to long passages, rather than quoting them verbatim, or, carefully extract the key points. Takes more time but worth it.

[SAVAGE]

Savage: No one is or was perfect (tho the crusades are a touch old for super-relevance now). That does NOT mean that we cannot comment on cultures different from our own and it does NOT mean that cultures with well developed principles and practice for honor killings can be compared with others because they all contain faults. Sounds much like an anthropology course with a healthy dollop of cultural relativism.

I agree! We all have the right to our COMMENTS!

I agree all actions have contexts, but that doesn't mean a more violent, sexist (or wasteful, divided, bullying) society gets a pass, islamic, christian or otherwise.

I agree!

"So if women in your own society are being abused adress this isuue before adressing anyone elses!"

This of course means we can't EVER criticize another culture or HELP anyone because we'll never be perfect ourselves. It's like saying we couldn't intervene in rwanda because more than zero blacks are being killed in the states. Absurd.

Absurd as it may be to you....it is a christian principle...why travel half way around the world to help a black community...when all you need do is walk down the street!

Anyway, let's assume ISLAM has no causative role in the sexism found in Islamic countries. We'd have to admit it's been twisted in some circumstances into a justification or at least into a marraige with the responsible culture. But say there is NO causative role. How can we use the general messages of peace, nonviolence, and so on that it shares with other religions to SOLVE part of that problem? Can we get major islamic figures to slam gender inequality and support equality for women? Or have they already, and the US media didn't tell us?

It is up to the islamics to ind there own solutions! English is not my first language and your mode of speech is at a bit of a higher level than I can accept...please dumb down your posts to me!

[IJ]

"Absurd as it may be to you....it is a christian principle...why travel half way around the world to help a black community...when all you need do is walk down the street!"

Because you shouldn't abandon people in need?

"It is up to the islamics to ind there own solutions!"

Actually it is not. We are creating a democracy in Iraq at this very moment. And we need to figure out how to prod the culture in the right direction (or at least not pi$$ them off even more) so that some of the positive themes from islam and its culture take center stage, and the caveman era nonsense and extremism is less of a threat to us. Defending against that threat is costing us the lives of brave soldiers, billions of dollars, some civil liberties, and diverting attention from other worthy projects.

[SAVAGE]

Yes....helping out the Iraqis......help they did not want! Democracy at the point of a gun.....sort of a double standard!