merouby - 7/30/2004 12:00 AM
In 7th century Arabia in a divorce case a man only comes out of the marriage with what is HIS and HIS only when he entered the marriage. The woman maintains her wealth. PLUS the man is responsible for her shelter and food even if she is a billionaire.
Sounds fairer than the British system to me....
How is 7th Century Arabia relevent to this argument? I was talking about conditions for women in the Middle East at the present time.
The new leaders in Iraq are seriously discussing the imposition of Shari'a law, in a state that was previously secular and women were allowed to do pretty much what they wanted. They can choose to cover their heads or not at the moment, under Shari'a law they won't have that choice.
You illustrated your argument with the example that your Wife is allowed to wear what she likes. Doesn't she live in the USA? (please do correct me if I'm wrong). I thought we were posting about women in the Middle East? (in the present, not 7th century).
Your Wife may not find life quite so pleasant in Jordan, Iran or Saudi Arabia:
"A woman is like an olive tree. When its branch catches woodworm, it has to be chopped off so that society stays clean and pure."
So declared one tribal leader when pressed on the issue of "honour killings" in Jordan, where approximately every two weeks a woman is killed by a male relative because of the shame she has brought upon her family by an alleged sexual transgression - "sins" which include being raped.
Her killer will, on average, receive a sentence of some six months' imprisonment.
Latest efforts to impose a harsher penalty on men who kill their daughters and sisters suffered a fresh setback in parliament this week, after deputies refused to sanction an amendment to the penal code.
The day after parliament sat, three brothers hacked to death their two sisters with axes "to cleanse the family honour". [:(!]