A piece about virginity - satyre with a serious undertone

Submitted by Michel (United States), Mar 8, 2007 at 13:26

Dear Friends,

Today, in the Neue Zuercher Zeitung I found the below roughly transcribed article around the topic of the need to be a virgin in the muslim word in order to marry.

A few months ago, I would have read it, and one hearthy laugh as typical infidel reader later, would have moved on shaking my head, but otherwise dismiss the thing as a joke.

Today, after all these discussions, I read such so much differently, which I something I do have to be grateful for.

Thanks to Dhimmi, Noah and Susan, Plato, MM and Ianus I personally was forced to go through a learning curve, as far as my own individual position vs Islam is concerned. In the beginning I too saw a major Muslim threat and an upcoming clash of worlds, but fortunately I became so appaled by some to the radical opinions here, that I tried to find counter arguments and look at Islam with a bit more consideration.

Here is what I found ( the link for those who understand German):

http://www.nzz.ch/2007/03/08/vm/articleEZNAZ.html

_______________________________________________________________

Intaktes Jungfernhäutchen als Bedingung
Intact Hymen as Condition

Ägyptens Grossmufti erlässt «Hymen-Fatwa» für Eheschliessungen
Egypt's Grand Mufti issues Hymen Fatwa with regards to marriages

Without intact hymen, an Arab Muslim woman can not marry. Or can she?
Some religious authorities in Egypt allow the woman to reconstruct the hymen in order to prevent

Loss of honor and prtect the family of scandals.

Egypt's Grand Mufti had proposed during a famous talk show of the state television the reconstruction of a destroyed hymen. Since Ali Gomaa is the Great Mufti for all Sunni Moslems,
his words usually are regarded as Fatwas.
The remark initiated immediately heated debates, and a few days later was related as solely valid for raped women.-

The religious sheiks throughout the middle east were outraged and declared both Fatwas as contradictionary to the laws of Islam which declares pre-marital sex and adultery as unlawful.
Hence Gomaa's Fatwas could be considered as progressive, as they would prevent a lot of women to be outcast and the likes. At second glance however, the typical double standard within the Islamic world seems to be cemented, as many women still as why they have to enter marriage as virgins, whereas men never do.

Within the Arabic World as well as in Iran, pre-marital sex is widely common. Since tabu, it must happen in secret. Most people pretend to follow the religiouos law. Many Clinics profit from this contradiction and offer reconstruction services at around 500 – 2000 Sfr. (around 1000$)

Sheik Khaled al-Gindi, another well-known religious authority in Kairo states, that reconstruction should be allowed in any case, as it should not be duty of humans to judge other's morales.
Gindi is a representative of tolerant Islam, stating that the Prophet Mohammed intended to prevent

Humiliation of others.

Gindi has another argument. Men and women in Islam are equal, but only women have a hymen.

Why then does he not proclaim abolition of this craze for virginity? He states that unfortunately
Muslims are not mature enough yet to take this step to reform. Until that happens, therefore this work around must be accepted.

CR - Translated excerpt out of the Neue Zuercher Zeitung

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now – Dear Reader,

What conclusions can one derive from the above ?

1. Noah, Susan, Dhimmi et al will of course once again state how backwards, medieval Islam still is. Acrid sarcasm from the enlightened world about these idiots in the middle east will most likely dominate any comments.

2. I on the other hand read the above article as evidence again for progressive ( in relation to classic Islam of course) tendencies within even the traditional Arabic world. Once again just a slither of proof for my hypothesis that even "sacred" issues are currently being debated and different conclusions are being drawn.

Isn't with Mr. Gindi another of those mythical tolerant or moderate Muslims out there at least trying from within and with admittedly limited success so far working towards equality for women?

Speaking of which - it was within my own generation that the very last Kanton in Switzerland finally adopted the women's right to vote. Here in the US female managers still make less than men and Wimbledon just recently issued the same price money for women as for men. All little pieces of evidence and much more could be listed to evidence that disparity is not a unique attribute to Islam. Since so many of the Islamic countries must still be seen as third world countries, progress on every level lags behind - why is that so difficult to grasp?

Does not above article once again provide at least some circumstantial evidence for my statement that different interpretations are existing, that debate within the Muslim world - heck even their religious authorities does happen? Why not give em some time to develop these grass roots efforts to reform from within?

If such a debate can occur in Egypt - after all a still traditional Muslim Country – how can we possibly assume that the Muslim community within the US for example, is not way farther along a progressive, modern, tolerant road?

Once again - look at our own Christianity and Rome's inability to even entertain moderate reform. The differences in interpretations and expressions between modern latin american factions and the Vatican. The variety of liberal churches here in comparison to what is expected in the eyes of the Vatican.

Why is it so impossible to come to the conclusion that Islam too may well have such factions and shades and various levels of traditionalism?

As far as our debate is concerned, I at least have submitted many pieces of evidence for my stand that Islam is by far not as coherent, as you guys want to make us believe.

In response to my evidence, all I have seen, are again and again quotes out of the Koran to the contrary. But other than that, not much tangible proof. That seems just from a purely pragmatic point of view not good enough.

Since you can not deliver proof for the all-encompassing, comprehensive, coherent indoctrination of >1B people towards one expansive goal of conquering the world, based upon real life situations, you remain on the dimension of a sheer theological debate, which is why we never can come to any result.

Dismissing such admittedly sometimes funny pieces as irrelevant and marginal, and then go back to the Book and quote from it to prove me wrong, is just unfair to a huge amount of normal boring average people like me.

Do I really have to step into the Bible and find out of the new Testament out of context, horrific soundbites proving exclusive and expansionist dogma? Can we honestly deny that no one but a true Christian can enter paradise or that we shall go out and "spread the gospel" in order to comply with at least Roman Catholic directives?

I repeat myself again - let's move on from these old books and see them as what they are: historical documents, but nothing more.

Have you read the post of the MM? I felt for him, as he tries to live peacefully and productively and gets nothing but insults. You shoot at the right people, but with bazookas at mice, hurting so many in the process and accepting that as collateral damage.

Enlightened people? My arch.

This unconditional, unlimited, unrestricted unilateral righteousness and condemnation of a huge chunk of our people belays all principles of enlightenment.

Stop the finger pointing and start helping cleaning up our own messes is my advice.

Come down from yor ivory thrones and get your hands dirty. learn to know the people you condemn so easily, exchange with MM, not accuse him. If you gave that an honest and fair effort, you would quickly come to the result that he is now really not a person to be deported or banned.

Again and again I am reminded of the gang rape in a NY subway and the demagogues of the Nazi regime. The inability of human kind to learn from history.

Once again - MM - I apologize to ya and can only state that these do not represent us.
Blogs like this one have a tendency to bring out the desk jockeys and wingers of the outer limits of the bell curve.

I've seen a bit of defensiveness and hurt in your last post - don't. No need.

Stay your course and do not respond with anger and hatred to the insults, as hard as that may be at times. Most people like me do not engage in these blogs and it is these many who believe that people like you are the majority of Muslims.

Does it matter, if you are a "real" Muslim? Imperfect in the eyes of some medieval Mufti out of Timbuctu or not as knowledgeable as Dhimmi about the Koran? Hell no. You should be proud of it, as you found meaning and an interpretation of your religion, which works for you in the same manner, as I believe to be a decent Christian, yet have no bloody idea about the precise paragraphs and go to Rome to admire Michelangelo, but have nothing but a sad smile for those pompous Cardinals living in their palaces utterly removed from reality and facts of real life.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".