From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: WWWWWWOOOOOWWWWWW!
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:12:28 GMT

In article <lfh6eqINN1js@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> smortaz@handel.Eng.Sun.COM (Shahrokh Mortazavi) writes:

>apologies in advance for the cross-post...

>people of alt.feminism: you'll never read anything sadder than this.
>people of rec.humor: you'll never read anything *funnier* than this!

>on the subject of forced hijab (veil) in iran someone wrote:

: Here's a novel idea, by way of alternative: how about giving everyone
: the same social freedoms, and holding men responsible for acts of violence
: they commit against women?
: ...

	I certainly agree.

>and our resident islamic executioner Seyyed Mahdavian writes (read the whole 
>thing, its gutt wrenching comedy at its best!):

: Even the U.S. doesn't buy this idea. Men have to wear at least ONE piece of
: cloth, while women are required to wear at least TWO pieces!

	At least, until it's OK for women to go topless...

: The reason is simple. Men and women are simply DIFFERENT! Why should the law
: treat different people the same way? Another example is this: A crime committed
: by a juvenile, is NOT punished the same way as the same crime committed by an
: adult. Again, the reason is that a juvenile is simply DIFFERENT than an adult.

	That's because of the question of how much one can be held
responsible for one's actions.

	Being drunk and accidentally killing someone is not the same
thing as being sober and deciding to kill someone.

: West has been moving toward the so-called "equality" of men and women, but
: obviously has not been very successful, because lots of people still believe
: in family values.

	Like what? Polygamy? Treating women like men's property? It's
OK for men to go to prostitutes but not OK for a woman to be one?

West is simply confusing "justice" with "equality".

	Sometimes, justice == equality.

: Ali-ebn-abitaleb (a) defines justice as "putting everything in its own place".

	I've never heard of that guy.

: Let me give you an example. Suppose you have a cat and a bird. You also have
: some food, say some meat and some seed. If you want to be "fair", or "just",
: what do you do? Do you divide both the meat and the seed in two equal parts
: and give them to the cat and the bird? Obviously not. Justice forces you to
: give the meat to the cat, and the seed to the bird. What do you do if you
: have a small bird, and a big bird? Do you give them the same amount of food?
: Again here "justice" forces you to give "different" amount of food to them.

	This is a case of individual variation. I don't find many
advocates of the Procrusteanism that is presented here.

: The same thing applies to men and women! God's law is "fair" and "just",
: because God knows better of the specifications of his creatures!

	All I'm doing is following God's orders. And the Christian
Crusaders (Holy Warriors) were only following God's orders, also. And
the more fanatical of Jewish settlers in Israel (Gush Emunim and the
like) are also just following God's orders.

	And whose side was God on during the Gulf War, anyway? Bush's
or Saddam's? At least one of the two _has_ to be wrong.

	And if they are not really following God's orders, then how
does one tell the real thing from a fake?

God provides
: DIFFERENT rules for men and women exactly for the sake of JUSTICE! 

	...

Men and women have "different" talents,
: physical power, feelings, weaknesses, and capabilities, so being "just",
: implies that we must treat them "differently".

	A lot of people of both sexes would disagree about there being
fundamental differences between the sexes, though some differences do
exist.

>needless to say, his views arent shared by most iranians.

	Maybe, but they seem to be the official line of Iran's
leadership.

	But if Communism could fall and if Bush could lose on his
right-wing "Family Values" platform, then maybe the mullahs will
someday fall.

>...on the subject of what makes beating women legal in islam he writes:

: If "beating" is the only solution to prevent a woman to go whereever
: she wants, with whomever she likes, without the consent of her husband,
: and finally become like a prostitute, isn't it legitimate?

>have at it..

	This character seems to think that married women are to be the
property of their husbands. Good grief!

	And how is an independent woman like a prostitute?

	And why is being a prostitute supposed to be so terrible, when
it seems to be OK for a man to go to prostitutes? Why aren't men who
go to prostitutes administered some suitable Islamic punishment, such
as being kicked in the balls?

/Loren