Afghanistan

[Gehrman]

It's part of our religion, we won't apologise for it. Nobody has to be Muslim, but if you choose to be Muslim there are rules to abide by.

Im not really into moral relativism. If you support barbaric practices it makes you a barbaric person. For people born into Islam there isnt always a free choice to leave it either.

 

[Zlatattack]

Im not really into moral relativism. If you support barbaric practices it makes you a barbaric person. For people born into Islam there isnt always a free choice to leave it either.

I'd say destroying babies because you don't want to take responsbility for your actions is barbaric too. Potato, pottato.

 

[Gehrman]

I'd say destroying babies because you don't want to take responsbility for your actions is barbaric too. Potato, pottato.

Well there is something that you and Ben Shapiro can agree on.

 

[Roane]

Isnt it just suffice to say its a medieval practice that's simply has no place in the 21st century? A bit like how adultery and homosexuality is punished.

As I said that's a wider discussion. Am happy to have that but not sure if this is the right thread without diverting it.

My point was more to highlight that it's not Islamic, despite what Saudi or taliban say, unless it adheres to the strict guidelines.

The same applies to homosexuality and adultery. There are very strict guidelines and a lot of countries, like Pakistan and India, are actually using the old British colonial laws but it gets called Shariah in media etc. It isn't.

With homosexuality it's interesting iif you look at the detail, not just Islamic law but also for example English law from a few years ago. For example Oscar Wilde and his imprisonment. If you look at the detail he wasn't actually imprisoned for being homosexual but because he bought a case against a John (forgot second name) and lost and the law was that if you accuse and it's false then it gets back on you. He was paying male prostitutes who were then under age of consent. So his imprisonment was about his own case backfiring rather than the law simply arresting him.

In Islam the case was never technically homosexuality as we know it now. It was the laws against sodomy and you needed 4 witnesses who saw penetration not just two guys living together. Same for adultery, it had to be witnessed. False testimony resulted in the person bringing the case forward being punished.

Another aspect of hudood law, which is often misunderstood, is that it isn't set in stone. Some Islamic laws are enshrined and nit open to say interpretation. But hudood laws are something that the khalif (leader) of the time has rights in establishing with struct guidelines

 

[Roane]

I'd say destroying babies because you don't want to take responsbility for your actions is barbaric too. Potato, pottato.

I don't think it's simple as that. Islamically for example putting a person in a cell for years is seen as barbaric. There isn't a prison system as such in Islam.

The punishment is something that has criteria. So for example the state has responsibility for ensuring food clothing and shelter. If that isn't provided and a person steals then the individual cannot be punished, the "punishment" is on the state. It's a bit more detailed than that but that's the gist.

Again not saying everyone has to agree with this but my point is things are a bit more nuanced than simply cut off the hand

Edit: sorry that was a response to @Gehrman

 

[Roane]

Im not really into moral relativism. If you support barbaric practices it makes you a barbaric person. For people born into Islam there isnt always a free choice to leave it either.

The freedom to leave Islam is often misunderstood and here the main issue seems to be the translation of certain words.

The traditional Arabic language used the words riddah and irtidad when talking about the issue of leaving Islam and punishment according to it, is the hadith of "execute with impunity" that gets used for apostasy. Often this is just headline grabbing.

The actual Arabic words mean much more than simply a person saying "I'm no longer Muslim". This part in and of itself doesn't mean the punishment of death. The death bit only applies if the person becomes a threat to the Islamic community.

 

[Gehrman]

As I said that's a wider discussion. Am happy to have that but not sure if this is the right thread without diverting it.

My point was more to highlight that it's not Islamic, despite what Saudi or taliban say, unless it adheres to the strict guidelines.

The same applies to homosexuality and adultery. There are very strict guidelines and a lot of countries, like Pakistan and India, are actually using the old British colonial laws but it gets called Shariah in media etc. It isn't.

With homosexuality it's interesting iif you look at the detail, not just Islamic law but also for example English law from a few years ago. For example Oscar Wilde and his imprisonment. If you look at the detail he wasn't actually imprisoned for being homosexual but because he bought a case against a John (forgot second name) and lost and the law was that if you accuse and it's false then it gets back on you. He was paying male prostitutes who were then under age of consent. So his imprisonment was about his own case backfiring rather than the law simply arresting him.

In Islam the case was never technically homosexuality as we know it now. It was the laws against sodomy and you needed 4 witnesses who saw penetration not just two guys living together. Same for adultery, it had to be witnessed. False testimony resulted in the person bringing the case forward being punished.

Another aspect of hudood law, which is often misunderstood, is that it isn't set in stone. Some Islamic laws are enshrined and nit open to say interpretation. But hudood laws are something that the khalif (leader) of the time has rights in establishing with struct guidelines

My commom sense response to stuff like you need 4 male witnesses to properly convict someone for homosexuality is "who the feck cares!?". Its not just not a victimless crime, its not a crime by any reasonable measure.

 

[Roane]

My commom sense response to stuff like you need 4 male witnesses to properly convict someone for homosexuality is "who the feck cares!?". Its not just not a victimless crime, its not a crime by any reasonable measure.

Gender of witnesses wasn't mentioned by me.

The witness issue isn't and wasn't related to just homosexuality, the need for witnesses was pretty much the case for any allegations of crime, any crime.

Tye usual headline grabbing points is what I was trying to clarify.

 

[Zlatattack]

It's part of our religion, we won't apologise for it. Nobody has to be Muslim, but if you choose to be Muslim there are rules to abide by.

Why are fundementals of the Islamic faith being marked as innappropriate content?

 

[Gehrman]

Gender of witnesses wasn't mentioned by me.

The witness issue isn't and wasn't related to just homosexuality, the need for witnesses was pretty much the case for any allegations of crime, any crime.

Tye usual headline grabbing points is what I was trying to clarify.

Wow the need for witnesses. How amazingly novel.

 

[Sultan]

Why are fundementals of the Islamic faith being marked as innappropriate content?

Apologies, bro. I have deleted the warning. There were no rules broken. Very likely a mistake from the moderator.

 

[Roane]

Wow the need for witnesses. How amazingly novel.

It was 1400 years ago.

Interestingly the 12 jury members and unanimous decision is said to be taken from the "lafif" under Maliki fiqh.

Henry 2 of England is said to have implemented a 12 person jury influenced by Thomas Brown who learnt it from the Muslims.

 

[Gehrman]

It was 1400 years ago.

Interestingly the 12 jury members and unanimous decision is said to be taken from the "lafif" under Maliki fiqh.

Henry 2 of England is said to have implemented a 12 person jury influenced by Thomas Brown who learnt it from the Muslims.

I was more making the point that the need for witness doesn't make the nature of these punishments or the nature of regarding non-crimes as crimes any better.

 

[Penna]

It's part of our religion, we won't apologise for it. Nobody has to be Muslim, but if you choose to be Muslim there are rules to abide by.

The problem for the people in Afghanistan is that they have found themselves back under a regime which quite a few don't support. I would say that they have a legitimate grievance, and they certainly don't have the opportunity to say "Hey Taliban leader, I don't choose to follow this interpretation of the Muslim faith because I was happy with how I was practising my religion before you took power, so I'll just keep on as I have always done."

They don't have the choice to not be Muslim and in any case, they want to be Muslim - but not Taliban Muslim. If I were a woman in Afghanistan who had an education, a job and independence a couple of months ago, would I be happy now?

 

[Sultan]

Due to 4 actual eyewitnesses required it's a near impossibility to ever be convicted unless you are deliberately carrying out lewd acts in the open. Amputation of the hand is the very last resort for constant robbers or greed and not for stealing food due to hunger. It's supposed to be a detterent. I have personally seen gold shops, money exchangers, expensive watch shops leave their shops at prayer times with minimum security.

Let's at least try to understand other cultures and thought processes before getting all high and mighty.

 

[Roane]

I was more making the point that the need for witness doesn't make the nature of these punishments or the nature of regarding non-crimes as crimes any better.

My point with the 4 witnesses was that it was a method to avoid false claims. You couldn't just allege something and allow for vigilante type justice.

 

[Sultan]

The problem for the people in Afghanistan is that they have found themselves back under a regime which quite a few don't support. I would say that they have a legitimate grievance, and they certainly don't have the opportunity to say "Hey Taliban leader, I don't choose to follow this interpretation of the Muslim faith because I was happy with how I was practising my religion before you took power, so I'll just keep on as I have always done."

They don't have the choice to not be Muslim and in any case, they want to be Muslim - but not Taliban Muslim. If I were a woman in Afghanistan who had an education, a job and independence a couple of months ago, would I be happy now?

We all at times find ourselves with governments we don't support. Afghanistan is not alone in being an autocracy. Some of the most powerful nations and oldest civilisations still work on this system of government.

There is no problem whatever interpretation of religion you follow with the Taliban. The civilisation in that part of the world has outlasted many regime changes and people of different faiths, and interpretations are still around. There are groups in Afghanistan who follow a much harsher interpretation of religion than the Taliban (ISIS, Al-Qaida).

Obviously, women with education, job and independence would regard this present situation as an unfair solution. However, I am sure women will soon be able to work and have businesses. The wife of the Prophet (SAW) was herself a businesswoman. If the Taliban do not allow women this right within the framework of Islamic interpretation they would be wrong.

 

[VorZakone]

We all at times find ourselves with governments we don't support. Afghanistan is not alone in being an autocracy. Some of the most powerful nations and oldest civilisations still work on this system of government.

There is no problem whatever interpretation of religion you follow with the Taliban. The civilisation in that part of the world has outlasted many regime changes and people of different faiths, and interpretations are still around. There are groups in Afghanistan who follow a much harsher interpretation of religion than the Taliban (ISIS, Al-Qaida).

Obviously, women with education, job and independence would regard this present situation as an unfair solution. However, I am sure women will soon be able to work and have businesses. The wife of the Prophet (SAW) was herself a businesswoman. If the Taliban do not allow women this right within the framework of Islamic interpretation they would be wrong.

On what basis are you sure about this?

 

[Penna]

I hope you're right, @Sultan. I know the news we read in Europe only tells one side of the story, but the Taliban made some assurances about people's rights when they took power - will they actually do what they said they'd do?

 

[Sultan]

It would be naive to think there is no adultery or theft in Islamic nations.

If these nations resorted to chopping off hands, stoning people for adultery, hunting down gays, and those not practising Islam there would be 10's of millions killed and without hands every year. Massive dramatisation whenever Islam is discussed.

 

[Sultan]

On what basis are you sure about this?

I have worked in that part of the world for 20 years, and have contacts. Women are working in bazaars today running their family shops, nursing, teaching, hospitals, etc...

 

[VorZakone]

I have worked in that part of the world for 20 years, and have contacts. Women are working in bazaars today running their family shops, nursing, teaching, hospitals, etc...

Okay. Then what are Western media all outraged about, you think?

 

[Sultan]

I hope you're right, @Sultan. I know the news we read in Europe only tells one side of the story, but the Taliban made some assurances about people's rights when they took power - will they actually do what they said they'd do?

The Mayor of Kabul. "until the situation comes to a normal state, we have asked them to stay at home." The Taliban said, "women have the right to work and study according to Islamic law".

It's just too early to start judging. Let's give them time and see where they go with these promises and statements.

 

[Sultan]

Okay. Then what are Western media all outraged about, you think?

I think Western media would be better placed to answer that question.

 

[Flamingo Purple]

Why did the Taliban release so many prisoners? If they need to implement the death penalty and amputations to reduce crime surely the first logical step in doing so would be to keep prisoners in prison.

 

[Sultan]

Why did the Taliban release so many prisoners? If they need to implement the death penalty and amputations to reduce crime surely the first logical step in doing so would be to keep prisoners in prison.

Many of the prisoners will have been Taliban fighters. Others could have been in for other offences. In the chaos and joy of taking over, the Taliban will hardly have known offences of each and every prisoner. So they just opened the flood gates. Basically, an amnesty.

 

[Zlatattack]

The problem for the people in Afghanistan is that they have found themselves back under a regime which quite a few don't support. I would say that they have a legitimate grievance, and they certainly don't have the opportunity to say "Hey Taliban leader, I don't choose to follow this interpretation of the Muslim faith because I was happy with how I was practising my religion before you took power, so I'll just keep on as I have always done."

They don't have the choice to not be Muslim and in any case, they want to be Muslim - but not Taliban Muslim. If I were a woman in Afghanistan who had an education, a job and independence a couple of months ago, would I be happy now?

The Taliban are a bunch of semi literate backwards idiots. As I think most of the Muslim people on this thread have mentioned, they're implementing Islamic laws incorrectly, even though I doubt any of us are legal experts - I'm certainly not


Life in Afghanistan was shit and will remain shit. Its going to be worse in some ways, better than others but ultimately shit. I suspect overall its going to be worse than it was before.

My whole point wrt Islamic laws is that just because the Taliban implemented them incorrectly or just because they seem harsh by Western Liberal standards today doesn't mean it should be something to be ashamed of.

 

[Agent Red]

The Mayor of Kabul. "until the situation comes to a normal state, we have asked them to stay at home." The Taliban said, "women have the right to work and study according to Islamic law".

It's just too early to start judging. Let's give them time and see where they go with these promises and statements.

The issue is that a lot of these statements were similarly badged as “temporary” in the Taliban’s previous reign and yet were never lifted. Under their current reign, they have taken early steps to restrict the education, work and wider activity (eg playing sport) of women.

Obviously they claim this is temporary but it is difficult to have any belief that women will not be worse off under their rule given both their track record and their early decisions this time round. Of course Afghanistan is a naturally conservative country, but it is difficult to see women have to give up rights they have become accustomed to, and knowing the wider cost that is likely to have.

 

[Sultan]

The issue is that a lot of these statements were similarly badged as “temporary” in the Taliban’s previous reign and yet were never lifted. Under their current reign, they have taken early steps to restrict the education, work and wider activity (eg playing sport) of women.

Obviously they claim this is temporary but it is difficult to have any belief that women will not be worse off under their rule given both their track record and their early decisions this time round. Of course Afghanistan is a naturally conservative country, but it is difficult to see women have to give up rights they have become accustomed to, and knowing the wider cost that is likely to have.

You're just stating the obvious, buddy. It's what we hear and read all day. We need to move forward and look for solutions to better the lives of those people.

If we carry on criticising their customs, culture and faith and demonise the leadership nothing gets achieved. Keep any channels of dialogue and engage with them and help out financially. I have personally engaged with the elders in that part of the world as an NGO. We have built segregated schools in line with their requests, health centres for women and they have been very supportive and welcoming. We also started vocational training 2 years back and that has been a massive success. Almost all of our local employees both in schools and the health centre are women.

Nation-building is achievable. What we have found is to simply work within the Islamic framework they request. Our charity is a small but significant model of what can be achieved by engaging with the village and tribal elders.

 

[Sultan]

A dimension

It is difficult to see women have to give up rights they have become accustomed to, and knowing the wider cost that is likely to have.

The main core of the women who got some semblance of freedoms were women of families with clout and those educated with jobs. There has been not been much change to their circumstances in rural Afghanistan and those from conservative families over the last few decades of occupation.
.

 

[TwoSheds]

You're just stating the obvious, buddy. It's what we hear and read all day. We need to move forward and look for solutions to better the lives of those people.

If we carry on criticising their customs, culture and faith and demonise the leadership nothing gets achieved. Keep any channels of dialogue and engage with them and help out financially. I have personally engaged with the elders in that part of the world as an NGO. We have built segregated schools in line with their requests, health centres for women and they have been very supportive and welcoming. We also started vocational training 2 years back and that has been a massive success. Almost all of our local employees both in schools and the health centre are women.

Nation-building is achievable. What we have found is to simply work within the Islamic framework they request. Our charity is a small but significant model of what can be achieved by engaging with the village and tribal elders.

So what's the plan for Kabul then? Or any other big towns or cities? Not saying you're wrong but engaging with village elders can't be a one size fits all approach. End of the day the national government needs to be engaged with at some stage too.

 

[Agent Red]

You're just stating the obvious, buddy. It's what we hear and read all day. We need to move forward and look for solutions to better the lives of those people.

If we carry on criticising their customs, culture and faith and demonise the leadership nothing gets achieved. Keep any channels of dialogue and engage with them and help out financially. I have personally engaged with the elders in that part of the world as an NGO. We have built segregated schools in line with their requests, health centres for women and they have been very supportive and welcoming. We also started vocational training 2 years back and that has been a massive success. Almost all of our local employees both in schools and the health centre are women.

Nation-building is achievable. What we have found is to simply work within the Islamic framework they request. Our charity is a small but significant model of what can be achieved by engaging with the village and tribal elders.

Your previous argument was that we need to give the Taliban time to see what they do in practice, and you included quotes from their leadership suggesting that the restrictions being placed on women now are only temporary. You've also complained about 'western media' exaggerating the issues. My point is that under the Taliban's original rule when they restricted the rights of women they similarly often claimed this was only temporary, and yet it turned out not to be, and all their early actions this time suggest we are still right to be concerned that women's rights will go backwards under them, so I don't see where your optimism and 'let's wait and see' faith in them delivering on their words comes from.

I agree we need to focus on solutions for making people's lives better, that's the whole point. We should continue delivering aid in the region, but countries need to use their influence to try and improve things for those suffering the most in Afghanistan, which is often women. That means acknowledging the issues and holding the Taliban to account on being 'different' this time.

A dimension

The main core of the women who got some semblance of freedoms were women of families with clout and those educated with jobs. There has been not been much change to their circumstances in rural Afghanistan and those from conservative families over the last few decades of occupation.
.

I've said all this before in this thread, but there were measurable improvement's for women in Afghanistan over the last 20 years in terms of improved life expectancy, maternal mortality, literacy etc. Of course there will be regional variation, but the differences are too significant to be driven by only a small group of already advantaged people. The test is to not let these improvements slide backwards through the reversal of freedoms.

 

[Roane]

A dimension

The main core of the women who got some semblance of freedoms were women of families with clout and those educated with jobs. There has been not been much change to their circumstances in rural Afghanistan and those from conservative families over the last few decades of occupation.
.

Sultan as someone who is involved over there I'm hoping you can shed some light on what I'm about to say.

Whenever it comes to Islam and many countries that claim to be Islamic the media/western world and folk on forums such as this get involved in the "women's rights" discussion.

This is fair enough, if rights are being violated we need to know.

My question or issue is why does no one mention the men?

So take this topic and let's look at it from that perspective. Oh women are oppressed in Afghanistan because they have to cover. Ok when did you last see a picture of an Afghani bloke without a hat/beard and the long shirt or baggy tunbaan (trousers)? They too have to "cover" it's the whole concept of Awrah. Even a house has to be designed a certain way with the notion of Awrah. So is the house now oppressed?


The point I guess I'm making is that often in these discussions we follow a narrative and stick with it without looking at the wider picture. Societies have their own customs and cultures. We in the west may find them backwards etc but they equally have a view on us in the west.

 

[2cents]

Whenever it comes to Islam and many countries that claim to be Islamic the media/western world and folk on forums such as this get involved in the "women's rights" discussion.

This is fair enough, if rights are being violated we need to know.

My question or issue is why does no one mention the men?

I think it may be because the perception is that these rules are made and enforced by men.

 

[Roane]

I think it may be because the perception is that these rules are made and enforced by men.

The Awrah/covering laws are religious laws so Islamically it's "Gods law" and I do appreciate that some folk see that as being man made too.

By my point is that it's across gender (and more if you look at the house example I gave). The Awrah "law" is implemented, as far as I know, in Afghanistan as much for men as it is women. You just have to look at what the men there wear generally and the Taliban specifically. As in all bearded, head gear, long tops and baggy trousers.

If you look at definition for Awrah laws, in Google etc, it usually only mentions hijab for women. It usually and typically sees hijab as a woman's dress and often cites the Quranic verse and Hadith to do with women's dress. This is in itself incorrect.

The real definition of hijab is to "partition" or "barrier". It is not exclusive to women. There are Quranic verse (surah Araaf and nur iirc) that tells men to observe "hijab too. In fact iirc the verses in surah Nur speak to the men first and then the women.

The hijab as we know it in the west today, muslims form around the world even, is what you see women women in the say the UK wearing. It consists of the long dress with a head covering. This is pretty me much a Saudi thing (Iran for example has the chaadar for women). Yet if you look at Saudi men they too wear a long thobe and have a head covering.

 

[2cents]

The Awrah/covering laws are religious laws so Islamically it's "Gods law" and I do appreciate that some folk see that as being man made too.

It’s not just “some folk”, it’s all non-Muslims. That’s the perspective we’re coming from.

By my point is that it's across gender (and more if you look at the house example I gave). The Awrah "law" is implemented, as far as I know, in Afghanistan as much for men as it is women. You just have to look at what the men there wear generally and the Taliban specifically. As in all bearded, head gear, long tops and baggy trousers.

If you look at definition for Awrah laws, in Google etc, it usually only mentions hijab for women. It usually and typically sees hijab as a woman's dress and often cites the Quranic verse and Hadith to do with women's dress. This is in itself incorrect.

The real definition of hijab is to "partition" or "barrier". It is not exclusive to women. There are Quranic verse (surah Araaf and nur iirc) that tells men to observe "hijab too. In fact iirc the verses in surah Nur speak to the men first and then the women.

The hijab as we know it in the west today, muslims form around the world even, is what you see women women in the say the UK wearing. It consists of the long dress with a head covering. This is pretty me much a Saudi thing (Iran for example has the chaadar for women). Yet if you look at Saudi men they too wear a long thobe and have a head covering.

The typical Western critique of women’s rights under the Taliban (and in Saudi Arabia and Iran also for example) goes way beyond clothing. It’s more broadly related to the distinction between the appropriate spheres in society for males and females to operate in which @Sultan has mentioned a couple of times, whereby public life and decision-making is seen as pretty much exclusively reserved for males. In the West the clothing issue serves as a visually compelling symbol is this separation of duties, and so receives much attention, but it’s just one element to it. (Please not I’m not making any critique or judgement of my own here, just explaining where I believe the emphasis comes from).

 

[Roane]

It’s not just “some folk”, it’s all non-Muslims. That’s the perspective we’re coming from.



The typical Western critique of women’s rights under the Taliban (and in Saudi Arabia and Iran also for example) goes way beyond clothing. It’s more broadly related to the distinction between the appropriate spheres in society for males and females to operate in which @Sultan has mentioned a couple of times, whereby public life and decision-making is seen as pretty much exclusively reserved for males. In the West the clothing issue serves as a visually compelling symbol is this separation of duties, and so receives much attention, but it’s just one element to it. (Please not I’m not making any critique or judgement of my own here, just explaining where I believe the emphasis comes from).

For me it is some folk rather than all non Muslims, and it particularly focuses on Muslims. So for example some of the Jewish areas in Britain have certain Jewish communities who have certain rules that don't get picked up on much. This includes certain times when women and men can't walk on the same side of the road etc. Also certain christian communities don't have issues with covering and "modesty". So for me its almost exclusively either folk who don't believe in a God or anti islamist types you see on YouTube etc but maybe attached to a religion. Your Sam shamouns etc.

But regardless of that I understand the criticism and don't deny the rights of folk to criticise. What I am attempting to do is widen the argument for said criticism. As in it isn't solely women with certain aspects. Of the argument was, for example, that in the west we have women covering but the men not so much I would agree. Simply because the Awrah laws don't allow for the men to dress certain ways (but they do it).

I do agree with @Sultan with some of his views. The reason for this is simply having been in certain environments or countries where it isn't simply a case of "oppression" in the true sense (imo). So where I'm from back in the day more boys went to school than girls. However it wasn't simply to oppress the girls rather a way out of poverty to educate the boys. We see many young men leave places of conflict and have the right wing foaming at why it's young men. Well put simply they are the most likely to get across and find employment and send money for the rest of the family. It's always been the way going back centuries.

For what it's worth I think the Taliban, specifically, situation was "overplayed" due to propaganda of a 20 year war. That isn't me defending the Taliban or supporting them. Just certain key statements receive more sympathy than others. Oppressed women for example evokes certain feelings for us here.

It was a different time but when I was born and raised for my early life the Afghan Russia conflict was on. We used to have some land which we would give to the Afghan refugees to use as they passed through. Mainly women and children. What always stuck with me was how much it was women who imposed the covering for the girls and would want the lads to learn to read and write so they could get employment. I saw young boys working, labouring for a day to bring money home. 10 years old and younger.

My own mum never learnt to read and write. She was born just after the partition and her mum died young. She never went to school. Learnt Quran reading from a local woman. She had one older brother. She was 4 and he would have been 6. He learnt to read and write and came to the UK as a teenager (on a wok visa whatever they were called at the time) and worked in the Yorkshire mills all his life. Sending money back for his sister and father (who was a farmer).

My mum always wore the traditional clothes with head scarf. My father wore shirt and trousers. She always insisted on my sister's wearing the traditional gear. My father was more open having lived here longer.

My sister's all have masters degrees, are married (non arranged) and wear full hijab (which isn't traditional for our community). One sister observed niqaab too until it became unsafe. She was an IT teacher at one stage for the WEA focussed mainly on women from non English backgrounds.

Interestingly they all started covering whilst at university.

The reason I write all that is because in my experience women have more of a say in these issues than men

 

[2cents]

For me it is some folk rather than all non Muslims, and it particularly focuses on Muslims.

Apologies, I misunderstood, l thought you were referring specifically to Islamic law, which of course non-Muslims do not accept as divinely mandated.*

As for the rest of your post, I think most reasonable people can accept that a variety of material circumstances combine with interpretations of divinely mandated law and time-honored custom to produce the type of inequalities which attract critique (of course there are also some who just want to use it as a stick to beat Muslims with). And posts such as your certainly help.

Having said that, when the modern, male-dominated state - be it Iran, Saudi Arabia, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, or wherever - enshrines these inequalities under the banner of divine law, and uses its coercive power to consolidate and enforce them rather than address the material conditions which have produced them, then the critique is valid and understandable. And given their history, the Taliban have yet to earn the benefit of the doubt that they are currently asking for and some appear willing to give them.

In other words, I think most of us (on this forum anyway) have no problem acknowledging the conservative nature of Afghan society, and no desire to enforce change there. Likewise, we are happy to acknowledge and accept the free choice of Muslim women in the West such as your sisters to wear whatever garb they feel best expresses their commitment to their faith. I think we just don’t believe it is ever the duty of the modern state to enforce these “choices.” But I think we are probably in agreement on this.

*(Actually there have been one or two Islamiphilic non-Muslim Western orientalists who have accepted the Qur’an and Muhammad’s mission as “divinely-inspired” if not infallible, the most famous being W. Montgomery Watt who wrote an extremely sympathetic biography of Muhammad)

 

[Spoony]

The problem for the people in Afghanistan is that they have found themselves back under a regime which quite a few don't support. I would say that they have a legitimate grievance, and they certainly don't have the opportunity to say "Hey Taliban leader, I don't choose to follow this interpretation of the Muslim faith because I was happy with how I was practising my religion before you took power, so I'll just keep on as I have always done."

They don't have the choice to not be Muslim and in any case, they want to be Muslim - but not Taliban Muslim. If I were a woman in Afghanistan who had an education, a job and independence a couple of months ago, would I be happy now?

You can believe me or not, but I've been talking to Hazara Afghans, they ought to hate the Taliban but they were all happy that US were out along with a government everyone hated. It's not a narrative that suits the West's agenda but there you go.

 

[Sultan]

Your previous argument was that we need to give the Taliban time to see what they do in practice, and you included quotes from their leadership suggesting that the restrictions being placed on women now are only temporary. You've also complained about 'western media' exaggerating the issues. My point is that under the Taliban's original rule when they restricted the rights of women they similarly often claimed this was only temporary, and yet it turned out not to be, and all their early actions this time suggest we are still right to be concerned that women's rights will go backwards under them, so I don't see where your optimism and 'let's wait and see' faith in them delivering on their words comes from.

I agree we need to focus on solutions for making people's lives better, that's the whole point. We should continue delivering aid in the region, but countries need to use their influence to try and improve things for those suffering the most in Afghanistan, which is often women. That means acknowledging the issues and holding the Taliban to account on being 'different' this time.



I've said all this before in this thread, but there were measurable improvement's for women in Afghanistan over the last 20 years in terms of improved life expectancy, maternal mortality, literacy etc. Of course there will be regional variation, but the differences are too significant to be driven by only a small group of already advantaged people. The test is to not let these improvements slide backwards through the reversal of freedoms.

Without a long and detailed response, the USA poured money into Afghanistan so it's no surprise most of the things you mention were better. The new government does not even have money to feed the population let alone education. The priority is food first and foremost and not education.