Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Richard Dawkins: One man circular firing squad?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

We wouldn’t have believed it possible. Trust a celebrated Darwinian atheist to bring it off.

And so now here (Huffpo):

Outspoken atheist writer Richard Dawkins took to Twitter this week to air concerns about the status of women in Islam. Needless to say, his unsolicited advice to a religion of 1.6 billion people didn’t sit well with many.

It shouldn’t sit well.

The status of women in Islamic regions is a disgrace in the eyes of the world and everyone knows it, including all decent Muslims.

So why do we need an outspoken atheist to point it out?

Dawkins pointed to child marriage, female genital mutilation and other atrocities in some countries as evidence of Islam’s inherent bias against women.

Right. And are these practices sanctioned by the holy book of the Muslim religion? Yes or no?

Can we start with an honest discussion for once? Lots is at stake.

And as Sarsour mentioned, countless Muslim women and men are already working for women’s rights and challenging stereotypes that are too-often perpetuated in the media.

Sure, but we won’t get anywhere if we don’t start by facing facts: How much of the abuse is sanctioned by Islamic scripture, custom, and law?

Too much we hear in the west is just plain implausible in the face of the facts.

Now, the News desk here has defended Dawkins, sort of, in one “women’s issues” controversy he blundered into, couple years back. It involved an elevator he wasn’t even in (of whose existence he was probably unaware).

That said … Dawkins has here made the all-too-familiar mistake of a certain type of alpha xy’s — thinking he should speak for women.

Speaking as an xx (no y), let me put it like this: Islam needs a big reform in its treatment of women. But the initiative must come from women. I suspect only Muslim women can properly direct it, though others can certainly help.

That is not really very surprising.

In general, groups of people start to get free when they just decide to quit believing that they deserve low status, confinement, denial of opportunities, terror, floggings, mutilations, grisly deaths. They decide not to take it any more—and to start acting like people who are not taking it any more.

See, for example, Grameen Credit Bank. And Malala.

Yes, they can.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
This is Dawkins practicing seagull diplomacy - swoop in, make a lot of noise, poop all over everything, and leave without helping the situation. 1. "Look at me" 2. "I love pointing out how religion is bad, so: Here's a practice in one form of religion that is obviously morally wrong" 3. "Please ignore the fact that, under atheism, there really isn't any such thing as 'bad', or 'obviously morally wrong', and that I am therefore being ridiculously illogical" 4. "Buh-bye, that is the extent of my willingness to help, I used my notoriety to point out something everyone knows"
Is there some reason atheists can’t join in this discussion?
See Point #3 above (and about 10000 posts on this topic here at UD). Atheists can, and do, and as long as you remain unbothered by their inability to live according to what they profess to believe, it's all good.drc466
July 25, 2015
July
07
Jul
25
25
2015
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
Not a problem, DaveS at 6. I have helped people out of various types of abuse. But found I could only really help someone who seriously wants to get free. That person must take the first step: Imagine a life that means being the best one can be - and doesn't revolve around either avoiding or suffering abuse. If people stick to that vision, others can help. But it must remain their vision; they must own it themselves, and stay true to it. I said I would help; not that I would live their lives for them.News
July 25, 2015
July
07
Jul
25
25
2015
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
News, Thanks, I misunderstood that part of your post.daveS
July 25, 2015
July
07
Jul
25
25
2015
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
daveS at 4, of course outspoken atheists can join in the discussion. The point in the OP is that, generally speaking, people must free themselves. Muslim women must decide not to put up with abuse, as many groups historically have. No one can free people who have not decided first to free themselves. If they have so decided, others can help.News
July 25, 2015
July
07
Jul
25
25
2015
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
It shouldn't sit well. The status of women in Islamic regions is a disgrace in the eyes of the world and everyone knows it, including all decent Muslims. So why do we need an outspoken atheist to point it out?
Is there some reason atheists can't join in this discussion? I pay very little attention to Richard Dawkins' tweets these days, but I don't know that he's that far off here. Regarding FGM and Islam, it seems like the situation regarding custom and law is complex:
The historical religious view of Islam, on FGM, varies with the school of Islamic jurisprudence: The Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be wajib (obligatory). The Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be makrumah (honorable) and strongly encouraged, to obligatory. The Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be sunnah (optional) and preferred. The Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be sunnah (preferred).
There are dichotomous differences of opinion among Sunni scholars in regards to female genital cutting. These differences of opinion range from obligatory to acceptable. The Shafi'i and Hanbali schools of Islamic jurisprudence consider circumcision to be obligatory for both males and females, while the Hanafi and Maliki schools of Islamic jurisprudence consider circumcision to be Sunnah (preferred) for both males and females. There is no consensus whether the hadiths support or forbid FGM. Different schools of Islamic jurisprudence have expressed different views on FGM.
Shiite religious texts, such as the hadith transmitted by Imam Al-Sadiq, states, "circumcision is makrumah for women". Makrumah is usually translated as "meritorious action or noble deed, but something that is not religiously obligatory".
From here (Yes, it's wikipedia)daveS
July 25, 2015
July
07
Jul
25
25
2015
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
And are these practices sanctioned by the holy book of the Muslim religion? Yes or no?
Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was nine years old. According to the Quran ‘women’ are ready for sex after they had their first menstruation . [Surah 65: 4] The Quran on wife-beating, proving rape, polygamy and sex slavery.Box
July 25, 2015
July
07
Jul
25
25
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Islam needs a big reform in its treatment of women.
Agreed, and when it happens, I'll bet anything that future generations of Muslims will credit Islam for the reform. (That is, if what usually happens in the West is any guide.)goodusername
July 25, 2015
July
07
Jul
25
25
2015
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
Maybe muslim women (Yazidis and Middle East Christian women should at least take note) should arm themselves to the teeth like those brave Kurdish Peshmerga women do. That should even up the score a little and decrease the number of virgins male Jihadi martyrs receive in paradise.Mapou
July 25, 2015
July
07
Jul
25
25
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply