zodiac15 Jun 2005

Is this poem about Muslims in the 9th century?

First off, in response to your "cast out of society" comment from my post, you should know that Jordan (along with Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and many neighborhoods in Egypt and UAE) is middling liberal for Islamic countries. Here, a raped-but-married woman would either, one, say nothing and neither would her husband or, two, be encouraged by her family to return to her parents' house, not go outside very much, be unemployed, and not have many friends besides her family and close neighbors. In other words, she'd be exactly as she was before she got married and mostly as she was WHILE she was married, except she naturally wouldn't be hoping to get married again. (This, incidentally, is the situation of about a dozen women I know whose marriages have broken up for some reason or other.) You must understand: In almost no part of the Middle East do women BELONG to any society they can be cast out of. If your raped woman came from my part of the world, she would be divorced but IN EVERY RESPECT indistinguishable from any other woman in the country. In other words, she'd be practically invisible.

The more real danger (and this is what separates us from Saudi Arabia and non-liberal Muslim countries - that is, it's bad enough here and gets worse there,) is that she'll be killed or beaten into some crippled state by her husband or brothers. You can call this "cast out of society" if you want, but it's really more accurately "cast out of earthly existence altogether."

That said, about the poem. Yes, Mohammed did in fact teach respect for women. All Muslims know this. In fact, most Muslims know that after Mohammed's famous statement that men can marry "one, two, three, or even four women" he immediately added, "but you have to love them exactly the same amount." Most Muslims also know that, this being impossible, it's essentially the same thing as saying you can't marry more than one. And most don't care. Muslims here (and at least in the parts of the Arabic world I see on tv) are about as Muslim as most Americans are Christian. Pointing out that Muslims aren't exactly adhering to the letter of their faith is pretty much a losing battle, and about as useful as pointing out that Christians aren't either. That is to say, not useful at all.

Stanza 2: "disgrace" made me laugh.

Stanza 4: Robbers! Tee-hee. For one, there are much fewer violent robbers in the Middle East than rapists. As a cover-up, this would be totally unbelievable. For another thing, and more importantly, a woman violently robbed will be as much disgraced as a woman raped; it's just as Haram, and it will simply be assumed that she was raped, too. As far as my experience goes, she'd be just as well off as if she'd admitted the rape. If you're going to say your Muslim friend tried this dodge - well, good luck to her. I don't see how it worked.

Also, "cast her out for Allah's good": No non-insane person in the Arabic world would say or think something like this. Everybody here knows Allah is already all-good. It's an enormous sin to think he could be improved or kept from taint, i.e., that something could be done for his good. In reality, she's cast out for the men of the community's good. All repression of women under Islam, from the Qura'an down, is justified as a way of protecting MEN who, exposed to women's charms, even a wisp of her hair, would not be able to keep themselves from sinning. It's flattering, see? The women's good is secondary. Obviously, a woman who's already been raped would pose double the temptation to men; that's why they need to be protected from her. Don't ask me to explain why. I can't.

Good poetry, though.