0
   

That modern, understanding religion...

 
 
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2004 08:23 am
CENSORING THE OLYMPICS


August 14, 2004 -- THE Greek organizers of this summer's Olympics, which began in Athens yesterday, claim that more women athletes are competing than ever before. Women are also playing a high-profile role in making the whole enterprise, the biggest of its kind in Greek history, run as smoothly as possible. Seen from the Muslim world, however, the Athens game will look like a male-dominated spectacle in which women play an incidental part.

According to officials in Athens, the number of Muslim women participating in this year's game is the lowest since 1960. Several Muslim countries have sent no women athletes at all; others, such as Iran, are taking part with only one, in full hijab. And state-owned TV networks in many Muslim countries, including Iran and Egypt, have received instructions to limit coverage of events featuring women athletes at Athens to a minimum.

A circular from the Ministry of Islamic Guidance and Culture in Tehran asks TV editors to make sure that women's games are not televised live: "Images of women engaged in contests [sic] must be carefully vetted," says the letter, leaked in Tehran. "Editors must take care to prevent viewers from being confronted [sic] with uncovered parts of the female anatomy in contests."

Women athletes in Athens are unlikely to wear the Islamic hijab or full-length manteaux that cover their legs to the ankle and their arms to the wrist. The ministry's order thus could mean a blanket ban on images of female athletics.

Fear of Muslim viewers seeing bare female legs and arms on television is also shared by theologians in several Arab states. Sheik Yussuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian theologian based in Qatar, claims that female sport is exploited as a means of undermining "divine morality."

Ayatollah Emami Kashani, one of Iran's ruling mullahs, goes further. In a recent sermon, he claimed that allowing women to compete in the Olympics was a "sign of voyeurism" on the part of the male organizers.

"The question how much of a woman's body could be seen in public is one of the two or three most important issues that have dominated theological debate in Islam for decades," says Mohsen Sahabi, a Muslim historian. "More time and energy is devoted to this issue than to economic development or scientific research. "

Click Here!

Islamist theologians are divided on how much of a woman's body can be exposed in public. The most radical, the Sitris, insist that women should be entirely covered from head to toe, including their faces and fingers. The less radical Hanbalis say a woman should be covered all over, but recommend a mask with apertures for the eyes and the mouth. (A version of this, known as the burqa, was imposed on Afghan women by the Taliban).

The Khomeinist version of the hijab, invented in the 1970s and now popular in many countries, including the United States, covers a woman's entire body but allows her face and hands to be exposed. Hijab theoreticians agree on one claim: a woman's hair emanates dangerous rays that could drive men wild with sexual lust and thus undermine social peace.

But the problem of women athletes goes deeper. Some theologians claim that any form of sporting activity by women produces "sinful consequences." In 2000, for example, the Khomeinist authorities in Tehran announced a ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles. The rationale? Riding bicycles or motorcycles would activate a woman's thighs and legs, thus arousing "uncontrollable lustful drives" in her. And men watching women on their bikes in the streets could be "led towards dangerous urges."

The problems don't end there. According to some theologians, a woman should not be allowed to venture out of her home without a "raqib" or male guardian. But that guardian must be either her husband or her father, brother, grandfather, uncle or son.

Even if a woman is accompanied by such a "raqib" at a sporting event, the problem isn't solved. One woman's "raqib" will be a stranger to the other women playing, say, a game of volleyball. Thus any sport involving more than one woman produces complex chaperonage problems.

Some countries, like Saudi Arabia, have tried to avoid these by imposing a blanket ban on physical education and sports for women. Some Saudi women resent this and have been trying to persuade the government to change its mind.

In June, the kingdom's appointed parliament passed a bill legalizing physical education for girls. But last week the Ministry of Education announced that it would take no notice of the act of parliament because there has been no decision by the Council of Ministers, which is headed by the king (who also acts as prime minister).

"Coming on the eve of the Athens Olympics, this is a big disappointment," says Fa'ezah Ahmad, a Saudi women's right campaigner.

There is also bad news from Iran.

Last year, the Tehran Municipality presented a plan to provide sports facilities for women. It proposed amendments to 37 laws and ordinances that discriminate against women. It also unveiled a plan to develop women-only sports grounds. A model stadium was set up with 12-foot-high walls to make sure that no one could see the women from the outside. The stadium was to operate with an all-female staff, including coaches and administrators.

The plan was scrapped last February, when critics claimed that the proposed stadium was located close enough to an airport that women in the stadium might be seen by men flying above them in jetliners and helicopters.

The municipality still hopes to find another plot of land to build an all-female facility. "Women account for a majority of the population in this city," says Esfandiar Mashaie, Tehran deputy mayor for social affairs. "We cannot ask them to pay municipal taxes but be denied the same facilities as men simply because we fear that some men may go wild by seeing women doing sport."

At times, fear of women doing sports causes major headaches for Islamic governments. The Islamic Republic in Iran, for example, has agreed to host the Muslim Women's International badminton games next year. Although all the participating athletes have agreed to wear uniforms that cover them from head to toe, the organizers are still worried that men might sneak in to have a look at what is going on.

To solve the problem, the authorities have decided to hold the games in a remote mountain resort. The only road leading to the resort will be sealed by an all-female unit of the paramilitary Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The games will be organized and supervised by exclusively female staff and recorded by an all-female TV crew.

"The place would look like a lepers' colony," says Soheila Karimi, a women-rights campaigner. "These people live on another planet and in a different epoch."

link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,477 • Replies: 35
No top replies

 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2004 08:47 am
I'm not a fan of any religion shunning women for being women, even my own. Your thread title is indeed evocative though, clearly expressing your opinion that all liberals think Islam is a modern, understanding religion. Laughing It is sad that the extremists have the loudest voices, and the knack for getting press.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2004 08:49 am
What does the thread title have to do with liberals? I must have missed that.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2004 08:56 am
Okay, here's how I took it: "That modern, understanding religion...."

Then the article. I know you have been critical of liberals on the site who have come out in support of 'modern Islam'. I probably read too much into it. I'm guessing it's just your opinion of Islam in general as being backwards. Wink

I still think it's a travesty that radical Muslims are preventing women from competing. Do you think it was the inclusion of Beach Volleyball that raised the ire in the Muslim world?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2004 09:02 am
I could see that, but it was intended to show my ire against Islam, rather than it's defenders here.

But, notice that we both agree that it's despicable how women are treated.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2004 09:03 am
No, you were right Cav; McG was using honey to draw out the liberal ants. I for one have to agree somewhat. Any modern religion that doesn't recognize the rights of half the world's population isn't the shiniest spoon in the drawer.
0 Replies
 
drom et reve
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2004 11:45 am
Whether we're left or right of centre, we can all agree that any religion that degrades women or treats us as subhuman is distasteful. But even modern, Western society can and often does do this. Bigotry comes in plenty of different forms.

0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2004 11:51 am
I'm just impressed that McG has created a thread where both liberals and conservatives can agree on at least one particular issue, the despicable treatment of women around the world. I feel faint actually. Shocked
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2004 11:52 am
...and I thought America was sexually f*cked up.
0 Replies
 
drom et reve
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2004 12:06 pm
Ah, Mc.G. is not evil; he's just a Republican. There's a difference, if you look for it really hard Laughing.

(Only joking, McG.)

0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 01:24 pm
Iran Focus

On Sunday, August 15, a 16-year-old girl in the town of Neka, northern Iran, was executed. Ateqeh Sahaleh was hanged in public on Simetry Street off Rah Ahan Street at the city center.

The sentence was issued by the head of Neka's Justice Department and subsequently upheld by the mullahs' Supreme Court and carried out with the approval of Judiciary Chief Mahmoud Shahroudi.

In her summary trial, the teenage victim did not have any lawyer and efforts by her family to recruit a lawyer was to no avail. Ateqeh personally defended herself. She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims.

The judge personally pursued Ateqeh's death sentence, beyond all normal procedures and finally gained the approval of the Supreme Court. After her execution Rezai said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her "sharp tongue".

link
0 Replies
 
drom et reve
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 01:29 pm
As I've said, terrible.

But what do you suggest that we do, McGentrix? (I ask this from interest, not from defence.) Should we attack Iran, then-- after a few years' fighting-- hand things back to them and have the same things continue to happen? Should we return to the days of colonialism and store up more problems for the future, killing a few thousand soldiers on the way? What would you do, bearing in mind that 'liberation' may mean a change of Government, but not a change of custom?

0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 02:06 pm
We could encourage them to take a step into the 21st century. We could fund the young of the country to rise up and rebel against the oppressive regime of elder mullahs that are keeping to the most ancient interpretation of the Koran.
0 Replies
 
drom et reve
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 04:11 pm
You know, McG, I like that idea in principle. In an ideal world, that is what should happen. I don't like the idea of our creating deep-rooted civil war, or having to send soldiers out there for forty years; or losing, a la Vietnam, because of lack of support.

Nonetheless, neither you nor I can say that this would not be a battle worth fighting for. In fact, it would be better to go the whole way and actually do something lasting for the people, than just bomb the hell out of them. And, since this would curb the flow of fundamentalism a little (ideally, but we can't say that it would finish it off completely due to Saudi Arabia,) benefit outweights loss. Do you think that S.A. should be targetted too? Their treatment of we women is just as disgraceful, if not more so.

0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 04:20 pm
Well, women in the U.S. (and elsewhere, I am sure) made great strides during WWII when the men were off a-fightin' and the factories needed to keep churning out war machines. So I suggest we bring similar impetus for social change to the Muslim world. Rather than going there and bombing them, I think we should invite them to invade, en masse, the United States. With all of the able-bodied men of Iran and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Egypt and Pakistan and Qatar and ... over here trying to get control of Appalachia (hey, I don't want them anywhere I might want to go), their women will move onto the assembly lines to build planes and tanks and bomb casings and whatnot, showing their worth in the economic sphere, gaining self-worth, and forming unions. Then, after five or six years of fighting here (we must be careful not to crush them, or they will return home early to oppress their women), the men can go back to their homelands and buy their women's compliance with refrigerators and automatic washing machines and little pink houses.

Whattaya think?
0 Replies
 
drom et reve
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 04:27 pm
Genius, patio. When Perot croaks, I'm hoping you replace him.

0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 04:37 pm
I've got big ears, but I'm about two heads to tall. (That Perot? Or Pierrot, the sad French clown?)
0 Replies
 
drom et reve
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 06:18 pm
Perot, the Hero... (unless you want to multitask?)


0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2004 04:10 pm
This is the only Perot
I know



http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/USPics40/perot2.jpg
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2004 04:13 pm
Did you mean Inspector Perot?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » That modern, understanding religion...
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/06/2025 at 06:39:20