Many non-Muslims make confident but false claims about women’s rights in Islam. Some of these are tied to views of America’s long incursion in Iraq. There are claims that the United States fought in Iraq in part in order to champion women’s rights in Muslim countries. In fact, the United States went to war in Iraq not to champion women’s rights, but to bring down a dangerous despot, Saddam Hussein, who was in fact more secular than those who succeeded him, and thus more protective of women’s rights. Nor did the United States become the champion of women’s rights in Muslim countries after Saddam was gone. There was no attempt by the American government to make any Muslim country change its treatment of women. Not in Egypt, not in Saudi Arabia, not in Iran, nor in any other of the 50-odd Muslim-majority countries.
Then some Muslims insist that the woes of post-war Iraq are entirely due to the United States, is both unseemly and untrue. The inability of Sunni and Shi’a Arabs to create a successful democratic order is not America’s fault. Nor is the refusal of the Arabs in Iraq to offer the Iraqi Kurds the autonomy they deserve. Unused to democratic rule, and less interested in compromise because for their entire lives they have only seen outcomes where one side emerges the Victor and the other the Vanquished, the leaders now in Baghdad continue to haggle over power. Clearly the Sunnis, who had been favored under Saddam, are unwilling to permanently acquiesce in their loss of political power. And the Shi’a, who at long last possess the power their numbers — they are 65% of the Iraqi population — entitle them to, are unwilling to relinquish that power.
The claim has even been made that the Iraq war led to the creation of “extremist Islam.” Yet “extremist Islam” was not the result, but rather, the cause of the American war in Iraq. Had 9/11 not happened, there would have been no invasion of Iraq. It was believed, wrongly, that Saddam Hussein was a supporter of such terrorists. He was a monster, but ideologically quite different from those other monsters, Osama bin Laden of Al-Qaeda and Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State. “Extremist Islam” did not need to be created by Unbelievers; it is as old as Islam itself; its texts are those of the Qur’an and Hadith. If any geopolitical act helped create Al-Qaeda, which in turn gave rise to the Islamic State, it was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the subsequent creation of the Taliban in the Afghan refugee camps inside Pakistan. It was in Afghanistan that Al-Qaeda was first created by the “Arab Afghans” who had come to help drive out the infidel Russians.
In line with this is the claim that, aside from this extremism, Islam offers them a workable model for human progress. This strains credulity, given the record of wretchedness and despotism and staggering corruption, and civil conflict, even civil war, in so many Muslim countries. How does Islam, with its misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, anti-Infidel hatred, offer a workable model of human progress?
There are, indeed, differences among Muslims in the degree of fervor with which Qur’anic commandments are followed. But the Qur’anic verses are immutable; they remain the same for all Muslims, and for all time. There are differences, for example, in the kind of cover mandated in different Muslim countries. Iran requires the chador, and Saudi Arabia the niqab, and Afghanistan the burqa, while Tunisia and Lebanon require Muslim women to wear only the hijab. But the principle of the need for women to cover, and to dress modestly, remains everywhere applicable to Muslim women. The claim that there are Muslim communities where women enjoy equal rights with men is grossly exaggerated. It would be more accurate to say that Muslim women living in the West have the same rights, protected by the Infidel state, as do men. Muslim states may differ in the degree, but not in the fact, of unequal treatment of men and women.
Walter Sieruk says
About the term “Extremist Islam.”
For those Western similar Western terms “radical Islam” as well as “Islamic extremism” it’s really not fitting term as the following explains.
For the terms Islamic extremism” and “Islamic extremist” as well as “Radical Muslim” is actually a misuse of terms. “Moderate Muslim” are actually Western term and not that well known in the Islamic Middle East.
This is because what In the Islamic mindset in the Muslim Middle East as well as in Indonesia and other Muslim controlled countries what the non-Muslims of the Western nations view as “radical and “extremist” the Muslims of those places in the world see as “Normal” and even Devout and committed to the Cause of Islam.”
In addition, those “Moderate Muslims” are those of the Islamic worldview and non-devout and non –committed Muslims. The violent jihadists even see them as “hypocrites.” Therefore, this explains the jihadist chant of those jihad-minded Muslims in different Islamic terror organizations. When they chant aloud “Death to infidels and hypocrites.” Meaning Death to people who and not Muslims and people who are non- jihadist Muslims.
Concerning the last part of this above essay, the violent spirit of that vicious jihadist chant “Death to infidels and hypocrites.” The later word of the chant “hypocrites” in the jihad –minded Muslim worldview is further explain in the book titled JIHADIST PSYCHOPATH by Jamie Glazov , for on page 42 the reader is informed that “Islam mandates that devout and real Muslims must punish , and in some circumstances kill, those Muslims whom they regard as neither legitimate nor properly devout.”
Walter Sieruk says
One lie about the religion of Islam that the Western news media keep telling the public is that there are to different kinds of Islam which are “Extremist Islam” and “Radical Islam” and “Moderate Islam.”
Many scholars on Islam ,such as Brigitte Gabriel and Robert Spencer, had explain those terms “Extremist Islam.” And “Radical Islam” as well as “Moderate Islam” Western terms and are unknown to the Islamic world. As one of their leader said “Islam is Islam”
Furthermore, a Muslim in an Islamic country would view that a Westerner would call a “Radical Muslim” in a Muslim nation he would be seen as a “devote Muslim” who is totally committed to the cause of Islam by the way of the violent jihad,
By contrast what a Westerner would call a “moderate Muslim’ many Muslims in Asia as well as the Middle East call a Muslim who is not really living up to his faith in Islam by not taking up arms in the violence and killing of the jihad for Islam.
Therefore many of Muslim, overseas , would call him a “hypocrite” This is way many devote Muslim who are violent jihadists gather together in a group and chant “Death to infidels and hypocrites ” Meaning “Death to non-Muslims and non-violent, jihadist Muslims.
somehistory says
In the U.S., public nudity is not acceptable. There are nudist colonies, but the people must wear clothing when they leave the colony areas. Nude beaches may be included.
However, neither male nor female may walk down the street with nothing on without facing an arrest for indecent exposure.
This is *equal* treatment.
I recall that several news outlets sent women reporters to afghanistan after U.S. troops had made it safer to do so, but they still wore clothing that was acceptable to the taliban and other mozlums. Diane Sawyer and Ashley Banfield spoke of the unequal treatment of women and girls and implied that things would improve for them under a different government.
For a temporary time, girls did go to school and women had jobs. But islam roared back and that has all changed.
islam, compared to the demands of other religions, is extreme in the treatment meted out to any who don’t bow down to their false god and fake prophet. The treatment is entirely evil and evil in the extreme.
Peacelover says
Re: ‘But the principle of the need for women to cover, and to dress modestly, remains everywhere applicable to Muslim women’……Just curious…I saw a movie,withing the past 5 yrs,set in modern era in which was a Muslim community and the women were uncovered,that is,no head covering I am speaking about here,nor did they have robes, The movie was a horror flick set in my guess,southeast Asia and maybe on some islands. Anyone have any comments on this?
Also,there Is always the chance I am mistaken on this but I believe what I have typed above is correct. Sorry,can’t remember title of the movie.
John1 says
Saddam Hussein kept the (kor)animals in their cages. The Baby Bush invasion of Iraq was like going to the zoo and releasing all the animals. They’re all free, and the lions eat the lambs.
SC says
There is no such thing as extremist Islam. There is islam which is about 20% of the world population. Most of whom were bullied or cajoled into it and there is everything else. If they reach 30% the world is done apart from a few armed patriots. Time to resist or check out.
Mick says
The Ba’athist regimes of Syria and Iraq tolerated minority Druze, Yazidi and Christians.
.Maybe 50% of North African women wear no head covering.
Anti-colonial Islam spread from Egypt in the 1920s. After displacing the colons (and Jews who had lived there for 3000 years), from Algeria the faith of the Muslim Brotherhood settled down to humdrum, lazy, corrupt Socialism.
Saudi Wahhabism arrived from the 70s, triggered the civil war of the 90s between the FLN regime + moderate Berbers versus poor zealous Arabs..The extremists lost.
James Lincoln says
A muslim “extremist” is simply a very devout muslim.
Mick says
The US knew that 9/11 was led by Saudis and Egyptians, and that Iraq had nothing to do with it.
In Gulf War 1, Bush Senior left Saddam”s regime intact to avoid setting off wars between Shia and Sunni, Turk, Arab, Kurd and Persian.
In GW2, Bush Junior was led by the neocons, who I guess wanted: a stronger hold over Gulf oil and paydays for the arms industry.
Blair was led by Bush Jr.
They trashed Lt Gen Jay Garner’s master plan for Saddam’s aftermath and appointed numb-skull diplomat Paul Bremer to lead the way.