Saudi Women Driving issue

[Infiltrator]

Obviously - but why? What is this "progessed"?? How and why does that come about?

That's a complicated question because there isn't one simple answer for it and it's very debatable how all this "progress" actually occurred. There are many things which have contributed to this progress from protests, the separation of church and state (at least in the west), development of laws (i.e. equality acts), etc.

I know your a think tank but bombarding me with open-ended questions expecting a well thought out answer isn't really what I had in mind when I made that response.

I know the obvious response is you shouldn't of made those claims in the first place but the fact is society changes and it is always changing. Similarly, culture and religious views change to an extent. How that comes about changes from country to country and culture to culture as well.

I really don't want to delve into this discussion looking for a complete answer to what your looking for because there simply isn't one. It took thousands of years for even western society to come to some level of gender equality and for certain countries around the world, it will take even longer.

 

[SQ8]

................... Zipped !

whats zippy about it?

 

[muse]

That's a complicated question because there isn't one simple answer for it and it's very debatable how all this "progress" actually occurred. There are many things which have contributed to this progress from protests, the separation of church and state (at least in the west), development of laws (i.e. equality acts), etc.

I know your a think tank but bombarding me with open-ended questions expecting a well thought out answer isn't really what I had in mind when I made that response.

I know the obvious response is you shouldn't of made those claims in the first place but the fact is society changes and it is always changing. Similarly, culture and religious views change to an extent. How that comes about changes from country to country and culture to culture as well.

I really don't want to delve into this discussion looking for a complete answer to what your looking for because there simply isn't one. It took thousands of years for even western society to come to some level of gender equality and for certain countries around the world, it will take even longer.

Actually, what I was hoping you would point towards is that the use of the word "progressed" was intentional because you wanted to express a value/theory laden word to high light how this change came about -- the change really came about in the realm of philosophy, in particular with regard to Epistemology, that is to say, the Study of Knowledge (What is the nature of knowledge, how do we know what we claim to know, How do we justify what we claim as knowledge)

Knowledge changes? Does it evolve? Does the evolution of knowledge mean that it may expand and also contract? Does this "evolution", this changing" of knowledge also effect the study of religious sciences ???

Now of course if one were inspired by utopian sensibilities, would one be able to argue that it is the nature of knowledge that it change or evolve, that it expand and contract?? Obviously, not without foregoing the very utopian sensibilities one had set to defend and promote.

 

[harpoon]

KSA is the only place in the world where woman cannot drive but can fly aircrafts.

 

[Infiltrator]

Actually, what I was hoping you would point towards is that the use of the word "progressed" was intentional because you wanted to express a value/theory laden word to high light how this change came about -- the change really came about in the realm of philosophy, in particular with regard to Epistemology, that is to say, the Study of Knowledge (What is the nature of knowledge, how do we know what we claim to know, How do we justify what we claim as knowledge)

Knowledge changes? Does it evolve? Does the evolution of knowledge mean that it may expand and also contract? Does this "evolution", this changing" of knowledge also effect the study of religious sciences ???

Now of course if one were inspired by utopian sensibilities, would one be able to argue that it is the nature of knowledge that it change or evolve, that it expand and contract?? Obviously, not without foregoing the very utopian sensibilities one had set to defend and promote.

I have a bias when I use the word "progress". Is that what you wanted me to admit? The bias in promoting and defending by "utopian sensibilities? That's what it seems you meant by when you claim I wanted to express a value/theory laden word. So what if it was intentional? Everyone has a bias to an extent.

This change came about for various reasons. Philosophy and more specifically epistemology i.e. "nature of knowledge" played essential roles as you mentioned but there is no way to prove exactly how this "progress" or "change" came about. There were various contributing factors (philosophy, movements etc.) to this "change" in thought.

You call my ideas and beliefs "utopian sensiblities." I disagree and am not going to continue this philosophical discussion on an internet defense forum.

So if you desire to continue this open-ended philosophical discussion, feel free to. I rather not.

 

[muse]

I have a bias when I use the word "progress". Is that what you wanted me to admit? That's what it seems you meant by when you claim I wanted to express a value/theory laden word. So what if it was intentional? Everyone has a bias to an extent.

This change came about for various reasons. Philosophy and more specifically epistemology i.e. "nature of knowledge" played essential roles as you mentioned but there is no reason to prove how this "progress" or "change" came about. There were various contributing factors to this "change" in thought.

You call my ideas and beliefs "utopian sensiblities." I disagree and am not going to continue this philosophical discussion on an internet defense forum.

So if you desire to continue this open-ended philosophical discussion, feel free to. I rather not.

I'm sorry you have misunderstood me and there is no need to be defensive, if you just read, you will see that I am adding to your position, not attacking it - I'm not suggesting that you have expressed yourself with or through a utopian lens - quite the contrary - I was pointing to the traditional Salafist/Islamist position with reference to utopian sensibilities.

I have zero problem with the word "progressed" - in fact I support such a "bias" or "training" because I am persuaded that the notion that knowledge changes and evolves is a valid or rather a more practical tool than others - for instance, within so called Islamic thought, through the work of the Al- Ashari school of thought (a neo-platonic exercise) the issue of morality or Justice, is dealt with as using ideas and concepts from Quran as guides, however, and in particular Justice is a non-Quranic concept, isn't it? and therefore the use of religious texts to derive it's substance, seems misguided, at least to me.

Quran itself suggests that the nature of knowledge is that it is subject to change, after all, it claims it is a continuation of "Guidance" and therefore the use of religious texts and religious learning to argue that women are other than human in the sense that they are not equal before the law, seems misguided. You follow??

 

[SQ8]

I'm sorry you have misunderstood me and there is no need to be defensive, if you just read, you will see that I am adding to your position, not attacking it - I'm not suggesting that you have expressed yourself with or through a utopian lens - quite the contrary - I was pointing to the traditional Salafist/Islamist position with reference to utopian sensibilities.

I have zero problem with the word "progressed" - in fact I support such a "bias" or "training" because I am persuaded that the notion that knowledge changes and evolves is a valid or rather a more practical tool than others - for instance, within so called Islamic thought, through the work of the Al- Ashari school of thought (a neo-platonic exercise) the issue of morality or Justice, is dealt with as using ideas and concepts from Quran as guides, however, and in particular Justice is a non-Quranic concept, isn't it? and therefore the use of religious texts to derive it's substance, seems misguided, at least to me.

Quran itself suggests that the nature of knowledge is that it is subject to change, after all, it claims it is a continuation of "Guidance" and therefore the use of religious texts and religious learning to argue that women are other than human in the sense that they are not equal before the law, seems misguided. You follow??

Its the Salafi and najdi ideals that have distorted such views..
Nowhere.. in the Quran.. or in teachings of prophet does it mention inferiority of women under the law.
The laws are "different".. which does not necessarily imply being biased.

 

[Infiltrator]

I'm sorry you have misunderstood me and there is no need to be defensive, if you just read, you will see that I am adding to your position, not attacking it - I'm not suggesting that you have expressed yourself with or through a utopian lens - quite the contrary - I was pointing to the traditional Salafist/Islamist position with reference to utopian sensibilities.

I have zero problem with the word "progressed" - in fact I support such a "bias" or "training" because I am persuaded that the notion that knowledge changes and evolves is a valid or rather a more practical tool than others - for instance, within so called Islamic thought, through the work of the Al- Ashari school of thought (a neo-platonic exercise) the issue of morality or Justice, is dealt with as using ideas and concepts from Quran as guides, however, and in particular Justice is a non-Quranic concept, isn't it? and therefore the use of religious texts to derive it's substance, seems misguided, at least to me.

Quran itself suggests that the nature of knowledge is that it is subject to change, after all, it claims it is a continuation of "Guidance" and therefore the use of religious texts and religious learning to argue that women are other than human in the sense that they are not equal before the law, seems misguided. You follow??

Well, it's difficult to understand what your actually saying when your post is filled with open-ended thoughts and questions.

In regards to "utopian sensibilities", I misunderstood you because my knowledge of Salafist/Islamist positions is lacking. I only have a small understanding of Islam from a single university class, my own research and experiences with my Muslim friends. So forgive me for my misunderstanding.

In regards to justice being a non-quranic concept, that is debatable from my knowledge on the Quran. The Quran repeats this idea of "Islamic justice" many times. Whether that "Islamic justice" is similar to the many view of justice today I'm not sure. What does seem clear is that most of quotes from the Quran regarding justice are in someway related to the "justice of Allah."

Also, does the Quran suggest that? I never heard about it mentioning the "nature of knowledge" but then again, I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone with little knowledge about the teachings of Quran other than what's been repeated in my western studies of it. Do you have any quotes that I could look at?

And yes, I follow but it is much easier to see what your saying when your response is free of more open-ended thoughts as I mentioned earlier in the post.

 

[Secular Revolution]

I'm not a fan of the salafi idealogy myself, infact quite the opposite but I don't think its fair to lay this one solely on the salafis/wahabis/najdis.

The issue of inhibiting the rights of women is deep-rooted within the Islamic curriculum and is not limited to any particular sect.

In my opinion, Islam not only gives rights to women, it gives mor rights to them than it does to men in a lot of cases. It is the only religion to my knowledge that has defined the role of women as mothers, wives, sisters and daughters and associated great virtues with each category.

The mullah on the other hand is far from recognising this and has been using loop-holes in extended Islamic literature and self-interpretation of the Quran to stifle such rights.

One thing that disappoints me though is that you almost always hear men talking about the rights of women whether in favour or against. I would like to see more women standing up and speaking out on how they feel on these topics and whether they do feel they are treated as "second-rate species" (to coin a phrase) under the religious framework as it stands.

 

[silko]

please, dont think every single muslim country is like saudi!

most of the muslims i know hate the king of saudi and the saudi laws! a big portion if the blame should go to USA, why? because USA is a close allie and never says a word to the king because they're afraid their friendship will end! wherever USA doesn't have interest's they care about human life and all that. but when it is in their interests they do everything to get that!

i hate the king of saudi arabia, whis someone just killed that fat bastard! he suppresses his women population! where in the kuran does it say that women cant drive? and they are supposed to protect mecca and medina. they are a SHAME to the muslim world, whis islams two holy places was an independent part so those idiots don't have controll of it.

i have said it before to, the only reason saudi-arabia is important in the muslim world is because of mecca and medina, if they didn't had controll of them they would mean nothing to the musli mworld!

 

[silko]

One thing that disappoints me though is that you almost always hear men talking about the rights of women whether in favour or against. I would like to see more women standing up and speaking out on how they feel on these topics and whether they do feel they are treated as "second-rate species" (to coin a phrase) under the religious framework as it stands.

well, they get beaten up by their husband and maybe hanged in saudi for talking about their rights!

 

[SQ8]

I'm not a fan of the salafi idealogy myself, infact quite the opposite but I don't think its fair to lay this one solely on the salafis/wahabis/najdis.

The issue of inhibiting the rights of women is deep-rooted within the Islamic curriculum and is not limited to any particular sect.

In my opinion, Islam not only gives rights to women, it gives mor rights to them than it does to men in a lot of cases. It is the only religion to my knowledge that has defined the role of women as mothers, wives, sisters and daughters and associated great virtues with each category.

The mullah on the other hand is far from recognising this and has been using loop-holes in extended Islamic literature and self-interpretation of the Quran to stifle such rights.

One thing that disappoints me though is that you almost always hear men talking about the rights of women whether in favour or against. I would like to see more women standing up and speaking out on how they feel on these topics and whether they do feel they are treated as "second-rate species" (to coin a phrase) under the religious framework as it stands.

The current system laid down has its roots in the Salafi/ najdi works..
The detachment of teachings carried down through generations.. and through established works..
ala Maulana maududi who considered all those before him incorrect... is what led to this current framework.
The inability to adapt.. and assimilate.

 

[Secular Revolution]

i have said it before to, the only reason saudi-arabia is important in the muslim world is because of mecca and medina, if they didn't had controll of them they would mean nothing to the musli mworld!

I have to agree with this statement.

The only reason why Saudi Arabia features into anything for the non-Muslim world is because of the Oil.

The only reaon Saudi Arabia features for me as a Muslim is because of the Holy Cities of Makkah and Madinah and everything in between that is associated with our Pious Predecessors.

With the exception of the above I view Saudi Arabia to be simply "Saud's Arabia".

 

[Secular Revolution]

The current system laid down has its roots in the Salafi/ najdi works..
The detachment of teachings carried down through generations.. and through established works..
ala Maulana maududi who considered all those before him incorrect... is what led to this current framework.
The inability to adapt.. and assimilate.

It does as far as Saudi Arabia and its influence in other parts of the world in particular the Indo-Pak sub-continent is concerned. I'm talking about before Najdiyat was born.

The Wahabi movement is fairly recently - give or take 300 years as originated by Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab. We have to look into what inspired Ibn-e-Abdul Wahab and the entire Salafi movement and you'll find that their beliefs originate from Islamic literature itself albeit against a hardline intrepretation and selective assessment.

There are many alleged hadiths that would be deemed unfair and contradictory to the rights of women as we learn from other aspects of hadiths and the Quran itself.

Plus, I haven't seen evidence that any other Islamic sect lends fair rights to women either? granted that salafi/najdi works take it to the extreme.

 

[muse]

Well, it's difficult to understand what your actually saying when your post is filled with open-ended thoughts and questions. It

In regards to "utopian sensibilities", I misunderstood you because my knowledge of Salafist/Islamist positions is lacking. I only have a small understanding of Islam from a single university class, my own research and experiences with my Muslim friends. So forgive me for my misunderstanding.

In regards to justice being a non-quranic concept, that is debatable from my knowledge on the Quran. The Quran repeats this idea of "Islamic justice" many times. Whether that "Islamic justice" is similar to the many view of justice today I'm not sure.

Also, does the Quran suggest that? I never heard about it mentioning the "nature of knowledge" but then again, I'm looking at it from the perspective with little knowledge about the teachings of Quran other than what's been repeated in my western studies of it. Do you have any quotes that I could look at?

And yes, I follow but it is much easier to see what your saying when your response is free of more open-ended thoughts as I mentioned earlier in the post.

Allow me to deal with the parts I have bolded:

OK, but again, questions -- Can we know right and Wrong without reference to Quran? Is there really a role for Reason for the religious faithful? see, the Asharite position was that Murder, for instance, is Murder, if Quran says it is - that is how the radicals have created positions wherein they justify the murder of others, ideas such as the entirely contemptible"Wajib ul Qatl" -- Worthy of Murder or Killing - - there is of course an opposing point of view, The Muttazalite position which is focused on Reason as a tool to discern right from wrong.

Simply adding "Islamic" to a term or concept does not give it legitimacy, certainly not to those who have an interest in studying these -- Does "Justice" really become something else if we add a Islamic or Judaic or Christian or Secular before it?? The laws and precedents may be different and the quality of "Justice" different - is the concept "Justice" therefore different? Certainly not, it's the quality(ies) of that Justice that may be different. That is part of the reason I am suggesting that such ideas as "Justice" exist outside Quran, some may seek ownership or trademarking of it by adding their choice of religion to the concept.

Quran and the nature of knowledge - Does Quran say it is a continuation of Guidance in it's final form? Yes, it does, it claims a relationship through time and space with the religious texts of Jews And Christians - and this in interpreted as meaning that knowledge changes and evolves. But wait, what about that final part, doesn't that mean that the position I am taking is incorrect? after all if the nature of knowledge is that it changes and evolves and the Quran suggests that is then how come such knowledge is to stop after the Quran?? is this not a correct way to read this?

There are any number of interpretations that any number of differently "trained" will be persuaded by, but to deal with the specific question above, allow me to suggest that this is best understood as a exclusivist claim - After all, with out an exclusivist claim, what religion can claim "the truth".

To the "faithful" the claim of "The truth" is in their experience - but all religious adherents are not among the "faithful" and their "religiosity" is of a different substance ( for a more substantive discussion - See Types of Religiosity by A. Soroush).