Tindamax Online Without Prescription

Thank you for this well written article! Personally, I agree with all your wishes, and I do think that secularism, specifically the concept of separation of the religious institution from the state is essential. Before imperialism, Islam was developing organically and the possibility of a naturalized democratic and liberalized muslim state was becoming more plausible, but since the clash of the west with the east, and with the rise of religious extremism, I think society was damaged, and liberal Islam is no longer a possibility. This works out for me, as I would have preferred secularism anyways. But I mention this because, this is one issue where the main hindrance, I feel, is not a few ruling elite throughout the Arab world, but rather the society en masse is holding tight to Islam, often strict, fundamentalist islam, and view any “liberalization” or “secularization” as a victory of the west, and selling our most basic principles.

Your article is intended to mobilize (or more accurately, intice) a certain group of people, and does so successfully. However I'd like to ask, how do you think one can advocate for, or popularize, social change in this specific aspect to the masses?

Yes, secularism is the way froward for Muslims, the same way it was for Europe and the rest of the civilized world.
The key to the advancement of any nation is the status of women, and by that I mean how educated and how much power and freedom they have, either at home, or in the workplace or under the law and how much influence they have in society in general.

But unfortunately, most Muslims believe something completely illogical and unscientific, they believe that the way forward is by sharii'a law, and we're are constantly told by our clerics and imams that the only way Muslim countries can advance is by adopting sharii'a, and having those same imams and clerics in power.
The only thing you need to do to when elections -for example- in any Arab country, is to hand out booklet with four words on them…”Islam is the solution”, and people will overwhelmingly for vote for you without even knowing who you are.
I think it's going to be a very long time before muslims can open their eyes and start to seriously think about secularim.

Eyas- Thank you for your positive comment and encouragement.

The Arab world is certainly captivated by two powers: the political regimes and the religious clerics.The general masses you mention are mobilised by the religious authority to adhere to their religious indoctrines and interpretations of the religion. No matter how you look at things you will see that there is an alliance between the political leadership and the religious authority. One of the main problems we witness today is that the clerics have become the leading shapers of public opinion.

Although Islamists and religious establishments are sometimes enemies of the regime, the government; they often favor their activities over those of liberals since both the islamists and the religious establishments often but not always advocate similar ideas that reinforce the regimes’ positions.

Moreover, their strength also frightens people into supporting the regime. For instance, speakers of Islamic Extremism are given a free hand to spread their ideas by all means (as long as they are not overly critical of the regime). On the other hand, Islamist preachers use the media such as satellite stations to condemn liberals and reform while not being allowed to voice negative remarks toward the regime.

I think changes would need to come about through several venues- here are two very important and crucial ones that would affect social changes and the status quo:

1. A political leaderhsip that is willing to lean towards a rational interpretation of history and a vision for the future. A leadership that works towards achieving radical procedural change within the structure of the islamic scholarly community and that is willing to herd this community into harmony with the age of science and the progress of humanity. This change will not be brought about with the regime having an iron fist over the people and can only happen in a democratically open platform

2.Educational reform in all schools and institutions with a new generation of followers who believe that in this day and age societies cannot be led by men of religion but by the latest discoveries in science, management, ideas and information technology.

Dana- I am glad you enjoy reading my articles and agree with alot of the issues I discuss.

Here is my response to your questions:

1. I do believe in a secular system where a person is not identified by their religion but by who they are, and what I mean when I say removing references of religion in law I am mostly referring to issues related to inheritance and applying secular laws that govern equality inheritance between both men and women.

2. Regarding religion in schools- let me just start by agreeing with you about wwhat you said regarding current teaching methods-students are taught to memorise the information and then regurgitate information.On the most part, students are not encouraged to think, use their rational or discuss matters. From a very young age, they are taught to do as they are told and grow up doing exactly that!

According to me, having good ethics and moral values comes from a strong moral code, being helpful to others, displaying noble character traits as altruism, tolerance and a strong work ethic.

Now regarding religious education- I do think that religion should not be a mandatory subject and can be an elective class that is taught oustide the school setting. Instead of mandating a religion class where children are seperated according to the religion they follow; students should study comparative religion, modern logic, philosophy, psychology, and history, as well as economics and political theory.

If parents want to teach their children about religion as a seperate subject and not a mandatory one in school- certain reforms are essential. Those changes should include revising the curricula of religious schools, learning about all schools of interpretation instead of only a single school which is common practice. Another important change would be that instead of studying only the rulings and interpretations of the schools of interpretation, students would also learn about the evidence used to arrive at these interpretations, as well as
other methods of interpretation.

I share with you the hope for secularism throughout the region, but I wish I was as optimistic as you are about eliminating political Islam in the near future, actually I think the opposite is more likely;

-How is it possible for the mainstream to accept secularism when the Islamist propaganda machine has wrongfully labeled the very word 'secularism' in a way that it is not accepted by people anymore? Many have been brainwashed to perceive secularism as 'kufr' or anti-Islam.

-Are the Arab and Muslim societies ready and mature enough to embrace real secularist democracy under secularist laws? Deep inside societies are still kind of supremacist, narcissist, and I mean by this that we do not tolerate different opinions, methods, or beliefs (My way is the only right way, and you have no right to talk about your way) though it's extent differ by country. We -as societies- do not willingly obey laws unless they are enforced upon us, perhaps it's all the residue of centuries of religious and political oppression! This must change before we can progress towards secularist democratic societies.

-Whenever any form of democracy is introduced political Islamists easily and overwhelmingly win and rise to power though they rarely have any real reform program, from labor unions and student councils, to parliaments, from Algeria to Bahrain to Egypt to Gaza to Iraq… The magic phrase 'Islam is the solution' as mentioned, the motto is that is abused by their political arms to implicitly refer to Islamic parties, banks, insurance co., schools, media….. As this parallel economy is flourishing, it comes one step closer each day towards replacing the known face of economy, thus making it harder for a chance of secularist states.

-Even in Jordan, unfortunately the atmosphere is not very encouraging, the right of divorce that was gained by women several years ago (khul3) is now being scrapped off the new civil law (A law that was entirely formulated by religious authorities, which I'm not sure if it's the first time but hope is not), and whenever any publication is banned – today another novel for a Jordanian writer was banned – the mainstream will hail imposing such restrictions, even demand reducing their civil rights if religion was the justification.

-Bottom line, if you pass a referendum in the Arab world today maybe 9 out of 10 will vote for Sharia' over Secularism, most of them not knowing the differences between both or what their rights under each law will be, but only reacting to what was injected through media and teachings. Sorry if I'm being pessimistic, but is there any way to convince people that secularism is not what is accused to be? And that it is the best way that guarantees their religious rights, personal rights, diversity, alongside social and scientific advancements. And how is it possible to undo the damage done through the past 30 years to the idea of secularism, maybe the people of Iran as you mentioned are more ready because they learned the hard way, but do the rest of us need to learn the same way too?

ZM- thank you for your comments and elaboration. I do understand where you are coming from and how you see the political islamisation as it is right now and what it represents.

Let me start by saying that I agree with you on many of the points you have made and also add that the religious, educational, cultural and media institutions in arabic-speaking societies have created a mindset that considers the call for progress and modernity a call to accept a cultural invasion and the loss of cultural specificity- this equates with the definition you provided for what secularism stands for in the region- in order for the religious authority to keep an iron fist on the average person, they need to define ideas against their ideologies and beliefs in negative terms related to religion and cultural values.

Just like the religious authorities uses the religion to discourage people from understanding such terms as secularism and modernity, the same applies to the arab regimes who have become experts at explaining their failings away. The justification they use is that the people cant handle being ina secular democtratic environment by pointing to the culture and saying it is unsuited to forms of democracy. Or they point to the history, and say that in modern times they would have done much better had they not had to deal with the intrusions of imperialists, zionists and cold warriors.Of course no one will deny that these factors have influenced the region drastically, especially the formation of Israel, but arab regimes have also had their share of keeping things stagnant and use islam as one of their main pillars for maintaining power. No matter what shortcomings exist in the society, no matter how slow the pace of development, no matter how low living standards, and no matter how often the government fails, the regimes remain in power!

I do think that the majority of muslims remain unaware of the atrocious passages in the quran and hadith either due to the fact that they were written in old classical arabic or the high illiteracy rate in the muslim world. Moreover, muslims generally know what their imams and religious leaders tell them about islam.
However, muslims who are aware of these passages ignore them or privately interpret them within historical contexts.

Although I do believe that educational reform could bring about changes in the younger generations and the generations to come but other important factors such as economic development, jobs, literacy, normal schools, and medical care would make people oppose radical islamists. Freedom of expression would back this process of course.

An economically independent citizen, even with a modest level of education, is usually rational. Until then, the tunnel is long and thorny. This project is costly, but promising.

Unfortunately, neither the arab nor the islamic regimes nor their religious establishments would,at present, allow any reform of islam in a democratic and free climate. That implies self-suicide for both. Therefore, reforming islam and moving onto a secular state will have to wait yet for two to three decades until this becomes a tangible reality.

I would like to add that reform in Tunisia dates back to the 1950s thanks to the strength of political leader, Bourghiba, who was backed by an eminent Muslim jurist, Tahar Haddad (1899-1936). Often, Bourghiba established laws and asked muftis to justify them according to tradition. For example, Tunisian legislation recognizes monogamy only. Has mandating this law made Tunisia a less muslim country?? it certainly hasnt!

There are many issues and obstacles at stake, I know I sound too optimistic but someone needs to remain positive and only hope that change will come about sooner than later.

In concrete terms the islamic system that covers different fields is currently out-dated with problems pertaining to democratization at the political level(where the seperation of religion and state needs to be implemented); social justice problems at the socio-economic level; family law and women's rights at the basic level.
ZM- thank you for your comments and elaboration. I do understand where you are coming from and how you see the political islamisation as it is right now and what it represents.

Let me start by saying that I agree with you on many of the points you have made and also add that the religious, educational, cultural and media institutions in arabic-speaking societies have created a mindset that considers the call for progress and modernity a call to accept a cultural invasion and the loss of cultural specificity- this equates with the definition you provided for what secularism stands for in the region- in order for the religious authority to keep an iron fist on the average person, they need to define ideas against their ideologies and beliefs in negative terms related to religion and cultural values.

Just like the religious authorities uses the religion to discourage people from understanding such terms as secularism and modernity, the same applies to the arab regimes who have become experts at explaining their failings away. The justification they use is that the people cant handle being ina secular democtratic environment by pointing to the culture and saying it is unsuited to forms of democracy. Or they point to the history, and say that in modern times they would have done much better had they not had to deal with the intrusions of imperialists, zionists and cold warriors.Of course no one will deny that these factors have influenced the region drastically, especially the formation of Israel, but arab regimes have also had their share of keeping things stagnant and use islam as one of their main pillars for maintaining power. No matter what shortcomings exist in the society, no matter how slow the pace of development, no matter how low living standards, and no matter how often the government fails, the regimes remain in power!

I do think that the majority of muslims remain unaware of the atrocious passages in the quran and hadith either due to the fact that they were written in old classical arabic or the high illiteracy rate in the muslim world. Moreover, muslims generally know what their imams and religious leaders tell them about islam.
However, muslims who are aware of these passages ignore them or privately interpret them within historical contexts.

Although I do believe that educational reform could bring about changes in the younger generations and the generations to come but other important factors such as economic development, jobs, literacy, normal schools, and medical care would make people oppose radical islamists. Freedom of expression would back this process of course.

An economically independent citizen, even with a modest level of education, is usually rational. Until then, the tunnel is long and thorny. This project is costly, but promising.

Unfortunately, neither the arab nor the islamic regimes nor their religious establishments would,at present, allow any reform of islam in a democratic and free climate. That implies self-suicide for both. Therefore, reforming islam and moving onto a secular state will have to wait yet for two to three decades until this becomes a tangible reality.

I would like to add that reform in Tunisia dates back to the 1950s thanks to the strength of political leader, Bourghiba, who was backed by an eminent Muslim jurist, Tahar Haddad (1899-1936). Often, Bourghiba established laws and asked muftis to justify them according to tradition. For example, Tunisian legislation recognizes monogamy only. Has mandating this law made Tunisia a less muslim country?? it certainly hasnt!

There are many issues and obstacles at stake, I know I sound too optimistic but someone needs to remain positive and only hope that change will come about sooner than later.

In concrete terms the islamic system that covers different fields is currently out-dated with problems pertaining to democratization at the political level(where the s
eperation of religion and state needs to be implemented); social justice problems at the socio-economic level; family law and women's rights at the basic level.

I also apologise if my comment has spelling mistakes or seems a bit disjointed, it is quite late and I'm extremely tired.

Thank you for your thorough reply Farida,
You have covered most of the factors that are preventing reform in the region.
Maybe before we can progress all misconceptions about secularism shall be cleared to the average citizen by enlightened writers, thinkers and individuals who believe it's not only woman's but the whole society's way through.

One of the main reasons that is impeding reform in the region is the ongoing Palestinian cause and the injustice that has been going on for 60 years, this injustice is fueling support for political Islamist groups thus shifting the entire society towards far right, while Islamists are accusing secularism and secularists of being pro-Western, maybe this should be first cleared out for the average Arab that secularism is not a political stand, there can be Islamic parties under secularist laws (Like in Turkey), socialist, liberal, etc. And that people must differentiate between the West (as a civilization that we can learn a lot from) and Western foreign policies (that is subject to another factors).

As a man I believe that no real progress can be made in any nation while half of it is marginalized, any real change shall begin with women, because those who experienced inequity the most were the first throughout history to rise up and speak out, and only secularism guarantees the rights of all components of the society.

Farida,
Thank you for your response, yes thank you your earlier comments were helpful to clarify and help me understand your points, but the problem remains, you cannot say that our rulers are not secular because they are “bad”. In fact the meaning of secular is a neutral one, it does not have any particularl ideological slant. Therefore the Khmer Rouge, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Sweden are all secular states. Democracy is also not the same as secularism, and it is interpreted differently in different countries. In Britain for example, what is commonly called democracy is actually quite different from popular perceptions, here the elections are based on a principle known as “first passed the post”, which elects MP's regardless of the number of people who actually voted for them. So democracy itself is a far from clear term, practicality and political pragmatism define how democracy is implemented. Ancient Greek democracy excluded women, slaves and poor people from voting, yet it was a form of what is popularly referred to as democracy. Aristotle referred to it as the “least worst form of government” due to the fear of mob rule, Plato was dead sent against it as it was democracy which executed the father of philosophy, Socrates.

So the terms you use are ambiguous and not at all certain, and they are subject to debate.

Secondly you refer to passages in the Qur'an arguing that they can be interpreted to wage war. In the United States, creative interpretation of the constitution means that the last time the United States declared war was in World War II, yet we all realise that it has technically been at war with countless countries since then. See Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Iraq 1 and 2, Bosnia, and so on. So it is not that the Qur'an is inherently violent, it is man who is inherently violent. Therefore it is not helpful to use the Qur'an as an example of why religion should be separate from the state.

Thirdly, as I said previously, religion is separate from the state. As I have said repeatedly, Arab rulers are in fact secular even if they are not democratic and they are oppressive. But they do not rule according to the principles of religion, they employ corrupt people to use religion to oppress people. There is a difference and it is not wise that we ignore it because there is enormous potential for revolutionary change in Islam and in fact in any religion, see Liberation Theology in Latin America, where in spite of the oppressive nature of the Catholic church – it was far more interested in assisting America against the Soviet Union than to speak against atrocities by governments in Latin America – priests rebelled against injustice and mobilised the poor to revolt. So again, I ask you to reconsider your position, there is much you have not taken account of.

Finally, I don't doubt the integrity and honesty of many human rights activists, but many of their positions, whilst admirable in rejecting the “Sultan” are also wrong because they are against the laws of the Qur'an, the laws that are also being rejected by the Sultan for your information.

I stand by my position that the separation of religion from the state is a sham argument, simply because they are in fact already separate and those, like yourself, who argue otherwise usually demonstrate a lack of clarity in the terms they employ, and they use them wantonly with little care of what the actual situation is like.

I agree the solution begins in our heads, but the Sheikhs are not a distinct class and it is not a profession, like a priesthood, we are all shepherds to each other, and all Sheikhs. If some people have abused this responsibility, then we should only blame ourselves for not knowing our Islamic rights and obligations. It is our responsibility to learn and live our principles and we must accept this and stop blindly following every brightly coloured pied piper or bearded mullah. That's all there is to it.

ZM- Thank you for a very eloquant response. I cant agree with you more about the palestinian issue and how islamic groups are abusing the occupation to market themselves and take over the political power and control the minds of many!

We surely do need more men like you who are willing to accept women as their equal and who feel confident and secure refusing to want to control womens' lives and fate through religion, culture and tradition.

I would like to include a quote that was mentioned in Obama's speech at the Entrepeneurship Summit where he said “countries that educate and empower women are countries that will prosper”

Forgive me if I'm going to sound like an ass too, but I couldn't stop laughing reading you're first post, although I didn't read the whole post, and I agree that wesam sounded just as ignorant as you did.

Religious books are all inventions of humans who didn't how the world was created at the time, and “god” was their best explanation of it.
Most of civilized world today (unlike the uncivilized muslim world) is not only secular but mostly atheist.

I suggest you start by reading something by Richard Dawkins, or “The Future of an Illusion” by Sigmund Freud.

I think the recent protests and riots in Iran are proof enough that the religious regime is not really working, the argument that the Quran is the way for women to gain equality, will only make sense if you're a Muslim yourself, but what if you're not?

Maysaloon:
“Finally, I don't doubt the integrity and honesty of many human rights activists, but many of their positions, whilst admirable in rejecting the “Sultan” are also wrong because they are against the laws of the Qur'an”
If you really believe that, then what's the point of reading all the books that you mentioned?
Sounds to me that that point was based on the pure belief in the Quran, and nothing else. Philosophy, politics and history had nothing to do with it, and you don't have to be on a certain league to see that that doesn't really make sense “unless” you believe the Quran to be the word of God.

Just to be clear, I don't want to associate myself with Wesam, but I have to admit that he had a point there.
Arrogance and name calling from both of you are not really intelligent arguments.

@Hamzeh N.
I think gender equality and secularism are directly related, most of the issues that people have problems with today when it comes to women's rights are mostly based on sharii'a law, for example: inheritance and divorce, how can you ask for equality in inheritance without mentioning secularism?

I agree that secularism is the way forward for women, because it was tried in other countries, it worked and it's still working, and because no one has ever come up with an argument for Islamic law or sharii'a that is not purely based on faith and faith only.

And honestly, I have yet to meet or hear of a Muslim scholar who will not resort to name calling and accusations of treason and conspiracy against Islam when they are debated about secularism, as Z.M. mentioned earlier.
Part of the problem are people like Wesam who also resort to name calling and ridiculing of Muslims whenever they talk about secularism, which gives people that idea that if you're secular you must against Islam.

Farida, I really appreciate you talking about this issue, but unfortunately, I think secularism is not coming to the Arab world anytime soon…

You said yourself that you can't think of any Muslim scholar who will not resort to conspiracy theories when you mention the word “secularism.” That's my point. Why give your opponents ammo against you when your goal can be achieved by delivering a very focused message (e.g. giving women equal nationalization rights) as opposed to a very broad one (e.g. separate religion and state).

I disagree with what you said regarding most injustices being back by religious rules and regulations. Consider the following:

1- Discrimination against women in nationalization rights has nothing to do with religion, but mostly to do with politics. A secular Jordan will still impose those rules against women giving citizenship to their children.

2- Discrimination against women in the work place happens for all sorts of reasons. In the US for example, women are paid less than men on average, they are discriminated against because companies incur higher costs during maternity leave, and God knows what other reasons people use to pay women lower wages than men. CEOs in the US are overwhelmingly men just like they are in the Middle East. Worst yet, today a lot of discrimination happens in the work place because of religion but in the opposite direction of that which you're thinking about. Women who wear hijab are discriminated against in many businesses in the Arab and Muslim world and especially in secular societies. In extremist “secular” countries like France and Turkey, these women are discriminated against by law! Of course, there's always Saudi Arabia and the discrimination against women participating in the labor force there via the prohibition on mixing of the sexes, but the biggest proof that low participation in the labor force is not driven by law is actually Jordan, which has the worst participation rate of females in the labor force of any country in the world (at least the 133 countries investigated by the WEF), worse than Saudi Arabia. There's no law in Jordan that bans women from work or bans them from mingling with male coworkers, so why do they not participate in the labor force. It's either a personal choice, or their families stop them from doing it. Either religion has nothing to do with it, of if it does, secularism cannot help that because the drivers for that law participation rate are not in the law.

3- Discrimination against women in inheritance cannot be fixed by secularism either. A secular system of laws has no way of fixing it because it gives people complete freedom to define their will. People will simply start writing “Islamic wills” that follow the rules that are set by their religion (give my son 200 but give my daughter 100). If you try impose a system of laws that says people need to distribute their inheritance equally among their children, then your message is really about “equality” and not “secularism,” and that's exactly what my point was. We need to focus on the important point here, equality. How do we do that? Secularism is not always the answer.

4- Discrimination against women in marriage (polygamy). A minor problem these days for most of us, but yes, religions like Islam allow men to wed multiple wives, while they do not allow women to do so. But women have an easy way of combating this which they never use; the marriage contract. There is an excellent example of a Jordanian woman who actively worked on a marriage contract that set several conditions, one of which (if I remember correctly) was that the husband shall not marry another woman. This was featured on the Aramram web site, search for it.

5- Discrimination against women in divorce is also not driven by religion. Unfortunately, it seems that Jordan has taken a step back recently by removing the “khulu3″ from the civil law, but khulu3 is an Islamic thing and it's an example of how the religion itself has hooks in it to give women equal rights in some of the most important aspects of life, like marriage/divorce. Why did they remove it from the civil law? Surely it was not for religious motives, since khulu3 itself is backed by the religion in this case.

6- Discrimination against women in criminal law (the honor crimes case). The law in Jordan that discriminates against women here has nothing to do with religion. Yes, the people who put this law into place were Muslims, but they will most likely still be there in parliament even if we have a secular country. They will still keep this law in place.

I hope this explains why it is important to carefully think about how you want to work towards your goal and why you need a focused message.

Asking for secularism because you want equal rights for women is like asking for world peace because you want an end to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

From your previous posts: “I don't doubt the integrity and honesty of many human rights activists, but many of their positions, whilst admirable in rejecting the “Sultan” are also wrong because they are against the laws of the Qur'an”

So in other words, if someone does something good with good intentions it's still wrong if it's against the quran? I'm sure that implies that if someone does something bad that goes with the teachings of the quran that makes it ok?
I'm sorry, but that doesn't even rise to the level of common sense and logic, but I have to admit that that argument is on a whole different league…not a good one though.
Why did you waste your time reading books if in the end the only thing that matters is what the quran says?

And before you start with the insults and your irrelevant book recommendations, I have a book for you, it's called “Logic For Dummies”, although it could be a bit hard for you…but you should at least try it.

One more thing, I don't agree with wesam, or what he said in the last comment…

I'm not saying the pro-secularism crowd shouldn't speak. I'm just saying results are better achieved when the messages are more focused, especially when the odds are stacked so much against the broader wishes like a secular Middle East.

Not to be too simplistic about things…

There's a lot of crap floating around masquerading itself as religious law and thought where it is in fact purely folkloric tradition rather than religious interpretations.
One of the worst of these is that the male is superior by virtue of a penis, which is completely wrong.
Secularism will not take place in this part of the world as religious law, politics, insecurities and more will always be intertwined in a Gordian knot.

Be that as it may just looking at the posts in reply to Faridas well formulated piece, it showed why we as a people will never agree to disagree civilly, usually it boils down to name calling and labelling, we just can't , just look at the TV and see whenever you have two factions it nearly always is a debacle which ends up in name calling shouting etc.

One has to ask why the clerics of most religions consider women weak and chattel? Why even after signing the women's rights decrees Jordanian women can't give their children the nationality (unless “Wasta” is involved)? Inheritance? Divorce?
The list goes on and on… Answer is very simple Men fear Women, it boils down to that, there is no other explanation for the misogyny going on in the Arab Moslem world.

I think it is a matter of education and awareness, yet I see so many educated so-called “civilised” men who look down upon women, and I see many educated women who perpetuate the cycle of ignorance forced upon them by men.

while a woman can write a contract limiting her husbands marriage to herself … that contract is void is the husband chooses to

I don't see your point. Are you saying that the husband should NOT be able to withdraw from the marriage contract (i.e. get a divorce)? Or are you saying that the husband can simply choose not to marry the woman on this condition? If that is the case, then so be it, I don't see what the problem is!

I'm not sure where you got the idea that “khulu3″ has no basis in Islam, as I am sure there have been well documented cases of women being allowed to end their marriages from their husbands. Ok, even if I were to assume (mistakenly) that you're right, my point is that it is at least allowed in Islam and has been well studied and regulated within that scope, yet our parliament has chosen to remove it, why? Not for reasons that are based on religion.

As for nationalization, what you said doesn't make sense. What does the name have to do with what nationality you have? And how is that supposed justification something that is based in religion? Lack of control over her own life? Care elaborate? There's some recursion in that logic.

As for the bases for honor crimes and crimes of passion in Islam, I would be very curious to know why the parliamentarians who continue to keep the discriminating laws in place, and the judges who continue to abuse article 98 do not resort to these bases. What are they?

The western world has achieved respect for women through secularism. Women empowerment, and equality between genders are now deep rooted in western society.
This video is a demonstration of that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRdHsuuXxfk

(if you haven't noticed, I'm being satirical)

It looks good,I have learn a recruit!Recently,I found an excellent online store, thenrtrsmitters.com XX are completely various, good quality and cheap price,it’s worth buying!

Answer is very simple Men fear Women, it boils down to that, there is no other explanation for it

I first agreed with Farida but after reading your comment I agree with you %100.

Well said!

Very interesting, but why such strong views towards moving against religion and the state of power in the country? The things done by the woman in the Friday prayers is not acceptable mentally. You say that you are strongly in your research path of spiritual understanding of Islam. Forgive me, but you seem way lost in between, tangled up by hatred and God knows what.