Lucas, I think that you haven't already received answers for 10 days because this subject is really difficult and delicate. We can't react to your question with just a sentence from the Genesis. We have to know more about religions to give an objective answer, without contradiction with the Genesis. I'm not able to talk about religion but you seems to be interesting in this, so give your opinion Lucas and maybe some of us will react about that.
I don't know if the religion are sexist but there are some problem actually with it. For exemple SOME ( not all ) muslims women wear a veil, it's not equal to force the women to wear a veil and hide their face BUT I can say if it's written into the Koran. To answer to your quote from the genesis : it's difficult to react about it because how can we say if the fact that god made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man is sexist or not ? If the women are from the ribs of the men should that make them lower than men ? Not sure about it.
There is just something that's a little ambiguous here. You wrote : "I can'T say if it's written in the Quran". Well, the most surprising part is that if you read it and search this "so-called" obligation of wearing any kind of veil, you won't find it. It only has a mention about covering your breasts and your genital parts (that's present with other religions) , but nothing about the face, hair and any other part of your body. A lot of people assume the veil is linked with the religion but it's definitely not. It's something much older that existed before this religion was even created, so it has nothing to do with it.
As far as I am concerned, I think this is a perfect example of how the religion is not sexist but rather the people are. That's how you end up with self-righteous extremists mixing old traditions with religion and pretending to be « good religious people ». They're only deforming religion while using a pretext to assert their dominance on women.
Hum, I think we can not totally be sure that their is nothing in the Quran saying that they must wear a veil. Actually, there are two verses that might say that, but it greatly depends on the interpretation and the translation.
Verse 31 of Surat 24 would say: “And tell the believing women to [...] not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests” (not an “official” translation, found on quran.com), but according to a (non-official, found on islamfrance.free) french translation, it would be “leur voile” instead of “their headcover”, so it could just mean a small piece of fabric, not necessarily on the head...
Same for 33:59 : “O Prophet, tell [...] the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments” where “part of their outer garments” is “leurs grands voiles” in the other translation I found (and it would still not be clear). I also think women were already veiled before that, although I'd need to check.
But what's really funny is that Saint Paul's epistle to Corinthians (christian text), in chapter 11, is much more clear, as it says: “any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil”
He then adds: “A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; [...] for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.” (translation from USCCB, 100% reliable)
Anyways, just because the veil would not be an obligation, is there nothing else sexist in Islam?
So, I've made some more advanced research and it seems that the confusion about this veil comes from the word itself in Arab "hijab" (veil). The word "hijab" has two "meaning" : - the first one is a veil, a simple garment (obviously) - the second one is where it gets interesting, it's referring to a specific veil, a traditional "garment" that was deeply implemented in the Arab society.
So, that's why it has several interpretations and people confused a tradition with a religion. I know it's still pretty unclear, so if you want any further explanations, you can check this link : http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/women_dress_code_%28P1150%29.html
"The traditional Arabs, of all religions, Jews, Christians and Muslims used to wear 'hijab' not because of Islam, but because of tradition. In Saudi Arabia for example, all men cover their heads, not because of Islam but because of tradition."
Now Lucas, you showed me another example of how Saint Paul says something sexist. That's pretty clear, and the origin of this sexism comes from those backward traditions.That's why we shouldn't confuse them with religions.
To conclude, I honestly don't see any other thing that may be sexist in Islam (but again, I'm not an expert). If you find any, please feel free to tell me.
Just because the religions are using things that existed before does not mean it is not sexist : ) But anyways, to continue about Islam, how about surah 4:34? It says that if your wife is not obedient, you may beat her. of course, the translations waver a lot, but we can be 99% sure thanks to the analysis at http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Beat_your_Wives_or_Separate_from_Them_-_Quran_4-34 (it's kinda long so you may just trust my word, but if you want to check it out...)
I read your article and i guess the issue again, is all about interpretation sadly. So, I searched and found this : http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/beating_women_(P1179).html (It's pretty long, so if you don't want to read, I took a little note)
Here is what's written (by people who have more knowledge and made more research about this matter)
"It must also be added that those who interpret the word “iddribuhhunna” in 4:34 to mean "physically beat" are in fact violating three Quranic principles, and they are:
1- God prohibits all aggression. To physically beat another person is an act of aggression no matter what justification anyone may have:
“do not transgress, God does not like the aggressors” 2:190
2- God commands husbands and wives to treat each other with love and mercy, once again beating up the wife is not a merciful act: “And from His signs is that He created for you mates from yourselves that you may reside with them, and He placed between you affection and mercy. In that are signs for a people who reflect.” 30:21
3- In Sura 4 which is given the title "Women" and in verse 19 men are told specifically to treat their wives "bil-ma'ruf" which means with kindness. Needless to say, physically beating women does not exactly qualify for anyone's definition of kindness. ""
I believe that the religion are quite sexist simply because religions monotheist had been begun to be practice before the creation of the first Human Rights Declarations, and even these don’t give a complete freedom or affirmation for the women. So I think that in the society where they were creating, this was normal that some texts or rules, seeing as sexist today but totally normal at that time, sounds denigrating for the women. I especially think to the fact that the priest can’t be women.
Ok, I had promised you an answer tonight, so here it is : )
Agnès and Armand, you seemed not to be satisfied with my quote, so here is another one, more... easy (I'll tell you what I think about the first one if you want), still from the Genesis (because, you know... it's the fundamentals of all revealed religions): "To the woman [the Lord God] said, Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” "
I hope it will help you...
Nicolas, I agree with what you said! As you became looking at it from a historical point of view, I'll try to have infos about religions before Neolithic, as I think they mostly worshippep women at that time, I'm not sure thought. I'll let you know when I have more.
This is a delicate subject, so please remember to be respectful of everybody's beliefs.
ReplyDeleteLucas, I think that you haven't already received answers for 10 days because this subject is really difficult and delicate. We can't react to your question with just a sentence from the Genesis. We have to know more about religions to give an objective answer, without contradiction with the Genesis. I'm not able to talk about religion but you seems to be interesting in this, so give your opinion Lucas and maybe some of us will react about that.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if the religion are sexist but there are some problem actually with it.
ReplyDeleteFor exemple SOME ( not all ) muslims women wear a veil, it's not equal to force the women to wear a veil and hide their face BUT I can say if it's written into the Koran.
To answer to your quote from the genesis : it's difficult to react about it because how can we say if the fact that god made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man is sexist or not ? If the women are from the ribs of the men should that make them lower than men ? Not sure about it.
There is just something that's a little ambiguous here. You wrote : "I can'T say if it's written in the Quran". Well, the most surprising part is that if you read it and search this "so-called" obligation of wearing any kind of veil, you won't find it. It only has a mention about covering your breasts and your genital parts (that's present with other religions) , but nothing about the face, hair and any other part of your body. A lot of people assume the veil is linked with the religion but it's definitely not. It's something much older that existed before this religion was even created, so it has nothing to do with it.
DeleteAs far as I am concerned, I think this is a perfect example of how the religion is not sexist but rather the people are. That's how you end up with self-righteous extremists mixing old traditions with religion and pretending to be « good religious people ». They're only deforming religion while using a pretext to assert their dominance on women.
Hum, I think we can not totally be sure that their is nothing in the Quran saying that they must wear a veil.
DeleteActually, there are two verses that might say that, but it greatly depends on the interpretation and the translation.
Verse 31 of Surat 24 would say: “And tell the believing women to [...] not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests” (not an “official” translation, found on quran.com), but according to a (non-official, found on islamfrance.free) french translation, it would be “leur voile” instead of “their headcover”, so it could just mean a small piece of fabric, not necessarily on the head...
Same for 33:59 : “O Prophet, tell [...] the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments” where “part of their outer garments” is “leurs grands voiles” in the other translation I found (and it would still not be clear).
I also think women were already veiled before that, although I'd need to check.
But what's really funny is that Saint Paul's epistle to Corinthians (christian text), in chapter 11, is much more clear, as it says:
“any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved.
For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil”
He then adds: “A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
nor was man created for woman, but woman for man;
[...]
for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.”
(translation from USCCB, 100% reliable)
Anyways, just because the veil would not be an obligation, is there nothing else sexist in Islam?
So, I've made some more advanced research and it seems that the confusion about this veil comes from the word itself in Arab "hijab" (veil).
DeleteThe word "hijab" has two "meaning" :
- the first one is a veil, a simple garment (obviously)
- the second one is where it gets interesting, it's referring to a specific veil, a traditional "garment" that was deeply implemented in the Arab society.
So, that's why it has several interpretations and people confused a tradition with a religion. I know it's still pretty unclear, so if you want any further explanations, you can check this link :
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/women_dress_code_%28P1150%29.html
"The traditional Arabs, of all religions, Jews, Christians and Muslims used to wear 'hijab' not because of Islam, but because of tradition. In Saudi Arabia for example, all men cover their heads, not because of Islam but because of tradition."
Now Lucas, you showed me another example of how Saint Paul says something sexist. That's pretty clear, and the origin of this sexism comes from those backward traditions.That's why we shouldn't confuse them with religions.
To conclude, I honestly don't see any other thing that may be sexist in Islam (but again, I'm not an expert). If you find any, please feel free to tell me.
Just because the religions are using things that existed before does not mean it is not sexist : )
DeleteBut anyways, to continue about Islam, how about surah 4:34? It says that if your wife is not obedient, you may beat her. of course, the translations waver a lot, but we can be 99% sure thanks to the analysis at
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Beat_your_Wives_or_Separate_from_Them_-_Quran_4-34
(it's kinda long so you may just trust my word, but if you want to check it out...)
I read your article and i guess the issue again, is all about interpretation sadly. So, I searched and found this : http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/beating_women_(P1179).html
Delete(It's pretty long, so if you don't want to read, I took a little note)
Here is what's written (by people who have more knowledge and made more research about this matter)
"It must also be added that those who interpret the word “iddribuhhunna” in 4:34 to mean "physically beat" are in fact violating three Quranic principles, and they are:
1- God prohibits all aggression. To physically beat another person is an act of aggression no matter what justification anyone may have:
“do not transgress, God does not like the aggressors” 2:190
2- God commands husbands and wives to treat each other with love and mercy, once again beating up the wife is not a merciful act:
“And from His signs is that He created for you mates from yourselves that you may reside with them, and He placed between you affection and mercy. In that are signs for a people who reflect.” 30:21
3- In Sura 4 which is given the title "Women" and in verse 19 men are told specifically to treat their wives "bil-ma'ruf" which means with kindness. Needless to say, physically beating women does not exactly qualify for anyone's definition of kindness. ""
I believe that the religion are quite sexist simply because religions monotheist had been begun to be practice before the creation of the first Human Rights Declarations, and even these don’t give a complete freedom or affirmation for the women. So I think that in the society where they were creating, this was normal that some texts or rules, seeing as sexist today but totally normal at that time, sounds denigrating for the women. I especially think to the fact that the priest can’t be women.
ReplyDeleteOk, I had promised you an answer tonight, so here it is : )
ReplyDeleteAgnès and Armand, you seemed not to be satisfied with my quote, so here is another one, more... easy (I'll tell you what I think about the first one if you want), still from the Genesis (because, you know... it's the fundamentals of all revealed religions):
"To the woman [the Lord God] said,
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.” "
I hope it will help you...
Nicolas, I agree with what you said! As you became looking at it from a historical point of view, I'll try to have infos about religions before Neolithic, as I think they mostly worshippep women at that time, I'm not sure thought.
I'll let you know when I have more.
*began
Delete"as you began looking at it...."
Could someone look at hinduism? We have not mentionned it yet, and it might be interesting.
ReplyDelete