News Egypt's Islamists warn giving women some rights could destroy society

[Evo]

Women aren't cattle, they're not "owned" and should have the same rights as men. I just find this attitude toward women unacceptable.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Egypt's ruling Muslim Brotherhood warns that a U.N. declaration on women's rights could destroy society by allowing a woman to travel, work and use contraception without her husband's approval and letting her control family spending.

The Islamist movement that backs President Mohamed Mursi gave 10 reasons why Muslim countries should "reject and condemn" the declaration, which the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women is racing to negotiate a consensus deal on by Friday.

The Brotherhood, whose Freedom and Justice Party propelled Mursi to power in June, posted the statement on its website, www.ikhwanweb.com , and the website of the party on Thursday.

Egypt has joined Iran, Russia and the Vatican - dubbed an "unholy alliance" by some diplomats - in threatening to derail the women's rights declaration by objecting to language on sexual, reproductive and gay rights.

A coalition of Arab human rights groups - from Egypt, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan and Tunisia - called on countries at the Commission on the Status of Women on Thursday to stop using religion, culture, and tradition to justify abuse of women.

"The current positions taken by some Arab governments at this meeting is clearly not representative of civil society views, aspirations or best practices regarding the elimination and prevention of violence against women and girls within our countries," said the statement issued by the Coalition for Sexual and Bodily Rights in Muslim Societies.

http://news.yahoo.com/egypts-islamists-warn-giving-women-rights-could-destroy-061331905.html

 

[Astronuc]

Egalitarian societies thrive. Inequality destroys, or otherwise diminishes a society or group.

Equity and reciprocity are necessary.

 

[jim hardy]

We just gave 'em $250 million?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/03/why-john-kerry-gave-250-million-egypt/62706/

I'm confused.

 

[Evo]

We just gave 'em $250 million?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/03/why-john-kerry-gave-250-million-egypt/62706/

I'm confused.

We shouldn't give them anything until they allow equal human rights, just my opinion.

 

[aquitaine]

We shouldn't give them anything until they allow equal human rights, just my opinion.

I seriously doubt that they will. Unfortunately progress like women's rights has not touched that part of the world in a meaningful way and it will take a lot more before it finally does, if ever. Still it is sad though, women in general seemed to have had more rights under secular dictators like Saddam and Mubarak than islamist democracies...

 

[jobyts]

My understanding is $250 million is part of the Camp David agreement, not just a "give":) Egypt is expected to buy US weaponry. So this is just an international business deal. Muslim brotherhood wants to come out of this treaty.

In a bigger picture, it all runs on money, and no one cares about human rights. They all say it to make common people like you and me to make feel good.

Saudi is one of the countries with the worst women right laws among other Arab countries. And it is the most friendly Arab country to US.

 

[AlephZero]

We shouldn't give them anything until they allow equal human rights, just my opinion.

So long as "you" treat all other countries equally in that respect (best not to name manes, when most of the ban-guns are controlled of the US ), it sounds like a wim-win situation.

The US gets to stay rich. The rest of the world gets to carry on doing whatever it wants. What's to liose?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I just find this attitude toward women unacceptable.

I'm afraid you are going to have to accept it, because...

We shouldn't give them anything until they allow equal human rights, just my opinion.

...it's a part of the Islamist value system that there is a hierarchy: Islamic men at the top, Jewish women at the bottom. The concept of "equality", which the west sees as a virtue, is something that the Islamists see as a direct attack on their religion.

Their minds won't be changed by conditions of foreign aid. Or anything, really. Your choices are to accept it today, and hope to change the minds of the next generation or the one after that (and part of the reason for foreign aid is to change their minds), or a massive military action to strip these people of their political power. I don't think that's realistic.

 

[Lavabug]

I'm afraid you are going to have to accept it, because...



...it's a part of the Islamist value system that there is a hierarchy: Islamic men at the top, Jewish women at the bottom.

I would add to that: "and homosexuals underground".

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Egalitarian societies thrive. Inequality destroys, or otherwise diminishes a society or group.

Equity and reciprocity are necessary.

Unfortunately this kind of self correcting system isn't true IMO. For thousands of years women and other groups were subjected and society still flourished. In addition even in the west we live in patriarchal societies riddled with privilage. We might be more egalitarian but that doesn't make us absolutely so.

 

[Tosh5457]

Islamism teaches that women are inferior to men in the Qu'ran, the Muslim Brotherhood aren't even extremists. As long as islamists control a government, those will always be the rules. The same could be said for Christians or Jews perhaps, as the Old Testament says the woman shall be dominated by the man...

 

[JonDE]

Islamism teaches that women are inferior to men in the Qu'ran, the Muslim Brotherhood aren't even extremists. As long as islamists control a government, those will always be the rules. The same could be said for Christians or Jews perhaps, as the Old Testament says the woman shall be dominated by the man...

I don't know that it is really fair to say that about islamists. In Turkey, 99.8 percent of the population identify their religion as Islam, yet they seem to be making strides towards equalization between men and women. I am not saying Turkey is perfect at it, but they do seem to recognize it is a problem and are trying to fix it. They have even had a female prime minister.

 

[mheslep]

...it's a part of the Islamist value system that there is a hierarchy: Islamic men at the top, Jewish women at the bottom. The concept of "equality", which the west sees as a virtue, is something that the Islamists see as a direct attack on their religion.

I don't think the value system described is as fundamental to Islam in general as it is to particular Islamic sects (that I call radical) which have risen in prominence. See for example:

Cairo University
1959, no vails.
http://c481901.r1.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/egypt1.jpg

1995, about 50% vails
http://c481901.r1.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/egypt3.jpg

2004, all vails, few exceptions.
http://c481901.r1.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/egypt4.jpg

 

[mheslep]

Egalitarian societies thrive. Inequality destroys, or otherwise diminishes a society or group.

Equity and reciprocity are necessary.

Unfortunately this kind of self correcting system isn't true IMO. For thousands of years women and other groups were subjected and society still flourished. In addition even in the west we live in patriarchal societies riddled with privilage. We might be more egalitarian but that doesn't make us absolutely so.

The suppression of women is one of the major reasons given by some scholars to explain why Islamic countries gradually fell behind their western counterparts, after initially being more advanced - better mathematics, better scholarship and government in general for some centuries. Yes productivity increased slowly for both in the Middle Ages but later failed to keep pace in Islamic countries as the West's productivity exploded during the Renaissance.

What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East

 

[boomtrain]

I'm afraid you are going to have to accept it, because...



...it's a part of the Islamist value system that there is a hierarchy: Islamic men at the top, Jewish women at the bottom. The concept of "equality", which the west sees as a virtue, is something that the Islamists see as a direct attack on their religion.

Their minds won't be changed by conditions of foreign aid. Or anything, really. Your choices are to accept it today, and hope to change the minds of the next generation or the one after that (and part of the reason for foreign aid is to change their minds), or a massive military action to strip these people of their political power. I don't think that's realistic.

Or we could ignore them, worry about our own society, and assimilate anyone who immigrates.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think the value system described is as fundamental to Islam in general

Which is why I said Islamist and not Muslim.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Or we could ignore them

Sounds a lot like "accept" to me.

 

[aquitaine]

The suppression of women is one of the major reasons given by some scholars to explain why Islamic countries gradually fell behind their western counterparts, after initially being more advanced - better mathematics, better scholarship and government in general for some centuries. Yes productivity increased slowly for both in the Middle Ages but later failed to keep pace in Islamic countries as the West's productivity exploded during the Renaissance.

What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East

I have to question that notion. Until very recently the West didn't really have any women's rights either, an example of that was during the Victorian era women essentially were the legal property of their husbands. They had no right to own property, to file lawsuits, to vote and what wages she might have earned were to be turned over entirely to her husband who had total control over the families financial affairs.

The problem I think is a lot more fundamental. Since the end of the Dark Ages in Europe, Western societies have had a number of very significant, groundbreaking reform movements. Off hand I can think of the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Women's Rights and Civil Rights movements. All of these had monumental effects and essentially gave us the Western world as we know it today. But here's the rub: Those reform movements didn't really happen in the non-Western world. The Reformation, for example, gave us the modern idea of separation of church and state, but that didn't happen in the Islamic world. This is why Islam almost always appears to be intertwining itself with the state it inhabits, this is why when the Islamists took power they wanted to cram as much Sharia into their constitution as possible and why areas in Europe with high muslim immigration have (especially in the UK) tried to setup their own parallel legal system based elusively on Sharia. Now there are some areas that did have some of these reform movements and not others, like Turkey for now does have a decently strong separation between mosque and state.

This also applies to other parts of the non-Western world too to greater or lesser degrees. Japan for example did adopt the enlightenment, but not any of the others. Shinto-ism was essentially the state endorsed religion and still believed in the royal family's divine right all the way until the end of World War 2. They didn't reform that willingly, they adopted the separation of temple and state only after we firebombed their cities, nuked them twice, and then put a gun to their head and told them this is how they will govern themselves from now on (the post war Japanese constitutional revisions were more or less written by the US occupying authority). That is why Japan has the appearance of a modern state with a modern economy and political system while women are still second class citizens and racism is quite prevalent both against foreigners and the Ainu.

In a way it's like looking back through time to varying points in our own history. If you want to see many of the kinds of behaviors and values our ancestors had at one time or another. It also goes a long way towards explaining why things in the world are the way that they are.

 

[boomtrain]

Sounds a lot like "accept" to me.

If by "accept" you mean "accept that your country doesn't have infinite powers to change the world" Then I'd agree.

If by "accept" you mean "find this attitude acceptable" then I'd disagree.

 

[Evo]

If by "accept" you mean "accept that your country doesn't have infinite powers to change the world" Then I'd agree.

It's the UN, not a country.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think the UN is going to be much help. Many countries would be afraid of the precedent that UN will come in with force - and it would take force - to support the western ideal of human rights.

Would China support it? Would Russia? That's 2 of the P5 already. You also need 4 members from the other 10. Seven, actually, as Morocco, Pakistan, and Azerbaijan are majority Muslim and therefore hopeless.

 

[Evo]

I don't think the UN is going to be much help. Many countries would be afraid of the precedent that UN will come in with force - and it would take force - to support the western ideal of human rights.

Would China support it? Would Russia? That's 2 of the P5 already. You also need 4 members from the other 10. Seven, actually, as Morocco, Pakistan, and Azerbaijan are majority Muslim and therefore hopeless.

Unfortunately, you're correct.

 

[aquitaine]

I don't think the UN is going to be much help. Many countries would be afraid of the precedent that UN will come in with force - and it would take force - to support the western ideal of human rights.

Would China support it? Would Russia? That's 2 of the P5 already. You also need 4 members from the other 10. Seven, actually, as Morocco, Pakistan, and Azerbaijan are majority Muslim and therefore hopeless.

There already is a UN Declaration of Human Rights and all of those countries you mentioned did sign it. Here's a map of all the signatories:

Now considering the abysmal state of human rights of all kinds in many of those countries I would say this declaration shows just how useless the UN really is.

 

[boomtrain]

Their minds won't be changed by conditions of foreign aid. Or anything, really. Your choices are to accept it today, and hope to change the minds of the next generation or the one after that (and part of the reason for foreign aid is to change their minds), or a massive military action to strip these people of their political power. I don't think that's realistic.
...

Sounds a lot like "accept" to me.

If by "accept" you mean "accept that your country doesn't have infinite powers to change the world" Then I'd agree.

It's the UN, not a country.

Vanadium 50 didn't mention the UN or anyone country specifically, but you're correct that the OP does include a quote from the UN via Reuters. In any case, who would supply the lions share of troops in a "massive military strike"? Who supplies the bulk of the foreign aid that's used to "change their minds"?

For the sake of accuracy, I probably should have said: 'If by "accept" you mean "accept that your coalition of countries doesn't have infinite power to change the world" Then I'd agree.'

 

[Galteeth]

It's occurred to me that both Fundamentalist Islam and Ultra-Orthodox Judaism have similar views on women. It is an interesting question to ask: Did these attitudes in middle-eastern societies predate their establishment as religious dogma? If so, why? Certainly religion as a whole has rarely been kind to women, but there seems to be a certain extreme misogyny here. Does this have something to do with the way women were treated in nomadic desert environments? Does anyone know the history or psychological/sociological explanations for this phenomenon?

 

[slider142]

It's occurred to me that both Fundamentalist Islam and Ultra-Orthodox Judaism have similar views on women. It is an interesting question to ask: Did these attitudes in middle-eastern societies predate their establishment as religious dogma? If so, why? Certainly religion as a whole has rarely been kind to women, but there seems to be a certain extreme misogyny here. Does this have something to do with the way women were treated in nomadic desert environments? Does anyone know the history or psychological/sociological explanations for this phenomenon?

Galteeth, not really, although there are many hypotheses, and even examples of matriarchal societies. You may be interested in the book Misogyny, by Jack Holland, which attempts to trace the history of the title prejudice. The book "A History Of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years" by Diarmaid MacCulloch also has several key chapters on the history of this issue with respect to its topic.

 

[mheslep]

I have to question that notion. Until very recently the West didn't really have any women's rights either, ...

The former lack of equality before the law for women in the West does not mean the treatment of women was roughly equivalent between the West and the then Ottoman empire. Treatment was not remotely similar then or now. The kings of England and France did not have harems. The 18th century Sultan of Morocco had 500 concubines. Women were treated like cattle in many Muslim countries, and to a degree still are (per Evo's OP ).

As to your point that there were/are several other cultural differences holding back Muslim countries: I agree.

 

[JonDE]

The former lack of equality before the law for women in the West does not mean the treatment of women was roughly equivalent between the West and the then Ottoman empire. Treatment was not remotely similar then or now. The kings of England and France did not have harems. The 18th century Sultan of Morocco had 500 concubines. Women were treated like cattle in many Muslim countries, and to a degree still are (per Evo's OP ).

As to your point that there were/are several other cultural differences holding back Muslim countries: I agree.

Madame de Pompadour, Louis XVs personal female pimp, I fail to see the difference.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I fail to see the difference.

The two kinds of error are: failure to see the similarities in things that are different, and failure to see the difference in things that are similar.

 

[mheslep]

Madame de Pompadour, Louis XVs personal female pimp, I fail to see the difference.

The difference between prostitution and defacto slavery?

 

[Skrew]

It makes me wonder why feminists and gays are so quick to defend Muslim immigrants.

In regards to women I believe christian europeans were the first group to value their females over being a commodity. Christian europeans were the first to stop slavery and their repeated military intervention into the middle east/barbary coast coast in the 1800s stopped the slave trade of europeans. Slavery only ended in the middle east/africa(although still goes on without official government support) per european colonization of these areas. That evil white imperialism.

 

[arildno]

Until very recently the West didn't really have any women's rights either, an example of that was during the Victorian era women essentially were the legal property of their husbands. They had no right to own property, to file lawsuits, to vote and what wages she might have earned were to be turned over entirely to her husband who had total control over the families financial affairs.

Coverture laws were peculiar English and American laws, and were not at all in that shape in Germany, France, Denmark, Norway etc.

 

[Niles]

As to your point that there were/are several other cultural differences holding back Muslim countries: I agree.

It is ironic, because in pre-Islamic Iran it was not uncommon for women to be soldiers and have high-ranking military positions. One of the commanders of the (10.000) Immortals was a female, her name was Arteshbod Pantea.

 

[nitsuj]

I have to question that notion. Until very recently the West didn't really have any women's rights either, an example of that was during the Victorian era women essentially were the legal property of their husbands.
...
...
It also goes a long way towards explaining why things in the world are the way that they are.

That was a great read...thanks!

 

[jobyts]

Such a policy is really strange. I don't see any point in depriving women of their rights. In what way will it ruin anything? I absolutely don't get it.

Some cultures measure the success of a society by the divorce rate, number families with single parents and not by their technological advancements. When they look at the west, that's what they see.

 

[aquitaine]

It makes me wonder why feminists and gays are so quick to defend Muslim immigrants.

My working hypothesis is that cultural relativism ends up producing a prodigious amount of doublethink, which is simultaneously holding two mutually exclusive ideas as being equally true. One thing Christopher Caldwell demonstrated in his book Reflections on the Revolution In Europe is that the policies of relativistic acceptance have clearly not been thought through and will change European society in a negative way. The UK is already seeing this in the form of microcourts and "Sharia Enforcement Zones".

It would be one thing if they were willing to accept our values, and the ones that have should be welcomed. But in Europe a great many have not.

Some cultures measure the success of a society by the divorce rate, number families with single parents and not by their technological advancements. When they look at the west, that's what they see.

In other words they see success as how well they can imprison women and take away their freedom. But even so, one thing South Korea and Japan have demonstrated is that there really isn't much of a link between technological advancement. Beneath those technologically advanced first world economies is a third world society where women are still distant second class citizens.

Coverture laws were peculiar English and American laws, and were not at all in that shape in Germany, France, Denmark, Norway etc.

They might not have been taken to that extreme, but at least in Germany during that period things were scarcely better.

That was a great read...thanks!

You're welcome.

 

[ImaLooser]

The first effective Women's Rights movement began with Communism. I remember in 1960 reading how awful it was in the USSR since women had to work, with a photo of a female policeman. Horrors! Women's rights was a big selling point for Communism in China. Women supported it.

Somehow or other Western media doesn't mention this. Maybe they forgot.

 

[pftest]

There already is a UN Declaration of Human Rights and all of those countries you mentioned did sign it. Here's a map of all the signatories:

That map surprised me because i was under the impression that virtually all islamic countries (57) had rejected universal human rights for them not being in accordance with the sharia. So they created their own version in which people have human rights as long as they act according to the sharia:

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) is a declaration of the member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference adopted in Cairo in 1990,[1] which provides an overview on the Islamic perspective on human rights, and affirms Islamic Shari'ah as its sole source. CDHRI declares its purpose to be "general guidance for Member States [of the OIC] in the Field of human rights". This declaration is usually seen as an Islamic response to the post-World War II United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam

So that means these ones don't accept the universal declaration of human rights:

 

[ramsey2879]

That map surprised me because i was under the impression that virtually all islamic countries (57) had rejected universal human rights for them not being in accordance with the sharia. So they created their own version in which people have human rights as long as they act according to the sharia:

So that means these ones don't accept the universal declaration of human rights:

The last statement on human rights (this setting up the "Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission of the OIC") was in the summer of 2012. See http://www.oicun.org/75/20120607051141117.html Note is made of the following Articles:

" Article 3

The Commission shall be composed of 18 members nominated by the Member States’ governments among experts of established distinction in the area of human rights and elected by the Council of Foreign Ministers for a three-year period renewable once.

Article 6

The Member States shall encourage the nomination of women to the membership of the Commission.

Article 11

The Commission shall support the Member States’ efforts in terms of policies aimed at enhancing legislation and policies in favour of advancing the rights of women, the young and those with special needs, in the economic, social, political and cultural fields as well as eliminating all forms of violence and discrimination.

CHAPTER IV. Mandate of the Commission

Article 12

The Commission shall carry out consultative tasks for the Council and submit recommendations to it. It shall also carry out other tasks as may be assigned to it by the Summit or the Council.

Article 13

The Commission shall support the OIC’s position on human rights at the international level and consolidate cooperation among the Member States in the area of human rights.

Article 14

The Commission shall provide technical cooperation in the field of human rights and awareness raising about these rights in the Member States, and offer approving Member States consultancy on human rights issues.

Article 15

The Commission shall promote and support the role of Member State- accredited national institutions and civil society organisations active in the area of human rights in accordance with the OIC Charter and work procedures, in addition to enhancing cooperation between the Organisation and other international and regional human rights organisations.

Article 16

The Commission shall conduct studies and research on priority human rights issues, including those issues referred to it by the Council, and coordinate efforts and information exchange with Member States’ working groups on human rights issues in international fora.

Article 17

The Commission may cooperate with Member States, at their request, in the elaboration of human rights instruments. It may also submit recommendations on refinement of OIC human rights declarations and covenants as well as suggest ratification of human rights covenants and instruments within the OIC framework and in harmony with Islamic values and agreed international standards."

Although the commission is severely limited by Article 13, its creation and consultation duties appears to be a step forward in protecting the human rights of women, children and those with special needs.

 

[ramsey2879]

Women aren't cattle, they're not "owned" and should have the same rights as men. I just find this attitude toward women unacceptable.
http://news.yahoo.com/egypts-islamists-warn-giving-women-rights-could-destroy-061331905.html

Although such an attitude may be unacceptable to most countries, I feel the UN should take the pragmatic approach and remove much of the specific provisions dealing with equal status in the economic and reproductive rights within marriage, and other rights such as contraception and reproductive rights, and gay rights in order to obtain the approval of the OIC of the more important provisions such as protecting women against violence and discrimination based upon gender which can be construed as deemed fit by the 18 OIC states. The approval of such language by the OIC without the more objected language would in my mind be a historic milestone.

From the link posted in the OP "Egypt has joined Iran, Russia and the Vatican - dubbed an "unholy alliance" by some diplomats - in threatening to derail the women's rights declaration by objecting to language on sexual, reproductive and gay rights."

For a view of the proposed UN resolution, see http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cs...ns_advance_unedited_version_18_March_2013.pdf

There is not that much disagreement between the UN resolution and the 2005 10 year plan of the OIC in particular the following section of the 10 year plan:
"VI. Rights of Women, Youth, Children, and the Family in the Muslim World

1. Strengthen laws aimed at enhancing the advancement of women in Muslim societies in economic, cultural, social, and political fields, in accordance with Islamic values of justice and equality; and aimed also at protecting women from all forms of violence and discrimination and adhering to the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, in line with the Islamic values of justice and equality.

2. Give special attention to women’s education and female literacy.

3. Expedite developing “The Covenant on the Rights of Women in Islam”, in accordance with Resolution No. 60/27-P and the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

4. Strive to provide free and quality basic education for all children.

5. Strengthen laws aimed at preserving the rights of children, enjoying the highest possible health levels, taking effective measures in order to eradicate poliomyelitis and protect them from all forms of violence and exploitation.

6. Encourage the Member States to sign and ratify the OIC Covenant on the Rights of the Child in Islam, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child in Islam, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and its annexed Optional Protocols, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and its Optional Protocol with regard to the Girl Child.

7. Call upon all Member States to support and promote youth programmes and youth forums.

8. Call upon the OIC to contribute towards projecting Islam as a religion that guarantees full protection of women's rights and encourages their participation in all walks of life.

9. Accord necessary attention to the family as the principal nucleus of the Muslim society, exert all possible efforts, at all levels, to face up to the contemporary social challenges confronting the Muslim family and affecting its cohesion, on the basis of Islamic values.

10. Establish a Division responsible for Family Affairs within the framework of the General Secretariat’s restructuring."

See http://www.saudiembassy.net/archive/2005/statements/page4.aspx

 

[pftest]

The last statement on human rights (this setting up the "Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission of the OIC") was in the summer of 2012. See http://www.oicun.org/75/20120607051141117.html [...]

Here is the actual Cairo Declaration on Human Rights:

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html

Some quotes from it which refer to the sharia:

Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari'ah-prescribed reason.
...
Parents and those in such like capacity have the right to choose the type of education they desire for their children, provided they take into consideration the interest and future of the children in accordance with ethical values and the principles of the Shari'ah.
...
Both parents are entitled to certain rights from their children, and relatives are entitled to rights from their kin, in accordance with the tenets of the shari'ah.
...
Everyone shall have the right to enjoy the fruits of his scientific, literary, artistic or technical labour of which he is the author; and he shall have the right to the protection of his moral and material interests stemming therefrom, provided it is not contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.
...
There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari'ah.
...
Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah
...
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.
...
The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

You can see the pattern: "you have this and this right... unless you do not act according to the sharia". We would have to delve into the sharia to see what rights women are granted, though i believe it is forbidden to discuss such things on this particular section of the internet. Ill just say that i do not believe much improvement will ever be made in the region while islam remains the dominant faith there. We can already see the situation deteriorating in many of those countries now that the dictators are gone and the peoples wish for faith to play a bigger role is being respected.

 

[aquitaine]

Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!

Gender segregation is already in effective in the majority of schools in the Palestinian territory but from the next school year, it will be enforced by law in every one of Gaza's education establishments, including Christian and private schools and those run by the United Nations.
"We are a Muslim people. We do not need to make people Muslims and we are doing what serves our people and their culture," Waleed Mezher, a legal advisor to the ministry of education told Reuters, explaining that the Hamas government was attempting to protect conservative Muslim values with legislation.
This is the latest in a string of recent announcements from the Hamas regime in Gaza tightening restrictions on Palestinian girls and women. An annual UN-sponsored marathon in the Gaza Strip was canceled last month because Hamas authorities would not permit either foreign or local women to run alongside men, even if they were veiled.

Egypt isn't alone in its backslide...

 

[mheslep]

The first effective Women's Rights movement began with Communism. ...

Timeline of women's suffrage
Timeline of other women's rights.

 

[nazarbaz]

The one thing that westerners need to learn is to shut up when they obviously don't get what is going on. I have no sympathy for islamists and I fought them almost all my life but you have to know that most of what you are saying about the arab world and the muslim cultures is gross misconception. Who knows this kind of societies from the inside knows that women's run it despite all the leads that tend to prove the opposite for a western eye. The inferiority of status is here to hide à de facto superiority in what matters most for them : the politics of the family. This idea that your countries are an oasis of freedom in a world hostile to liberty and justice is ridiculous. It reminds me what is most silly in my native society standard behavior and thinking : judging the big complicated world outside by the old village habits and giving good or bad grads to whatever seems to be différent from us. You don't seem to be that différent from this standpoint.

 

[Evo]

The one thing that westerners need to learn is to shut up when they obviously don't get what is going on. I have no sympathy for islamists and I fought them almost all my life but you :have to know that most of what you are saying about the arab world and the muslim cultures is gross misconception. Who knows this kind of societies from the inside knows that women's run it despite all the leads that tend to prove the opposite for a western eye. The inferiority of status is here à de facto superiority in what matters most for them : the politics of the family. This idea that your countries are an oasis of freedom in a world hostile to liberty and justice is ridiculous. It reminds me what is most silly in my native society standard behavior and thinking : judging the big complicated world outside by the old village habits and giving good or bad grads to whatever seems to be différent from us. You don't seem to be that différent from this standpoint.

If you had bothered to read the OP, you'd know that it is the citizens of Egypt that are opposing the oppressive Islamic rule.

Please do not post unless you have read and understood the issue.

 

[nazarbaz]

I am not talking about the OP but what followed it. I hâte this retarded morons of islamists. What is unacceptable is to judge whole cultures and societies.

 

[Evo]

I am not talking about the OP but what followed it.

What, specifically, was said that is incorrect, and yes, you will need to cite sources that back you up. I'm not aware of any misinformation.

And no, just because women have been raised to consider themselves as not worthy of equal rights in society is not an excuse.

 

[aquitaine]

If you had bothered to read the OP, you'd know that it is the citizens of Egypt that are opposing the oppressive Islamic rule.

Some are, but looking at the results it would seem that most would not. If most citizens of Egypt were opposed to the Islamist agenda then why hand them 69% of the parliament seats?

 

[Evo]

Some are, but looking at the results it would seem that most would not. If most citizens of Egypt were opposed to the Islamist agenda then why hand them 69% of the parliament seats?

Who said it was most citizens? Aren't the oppressors a majority? I said the article in the OP referred to Egyptian citizens that oppose the oppression.

 

[nazarbaz]

It seems pretty clear that the whole debate is structured by a binary view of things : our liberty and equality against their alienation and hierarchy. Some posters try not to be judgemental but they think within this framework and they fail.
Long ago I stopped judging people and their ways of life. I can tell you that freedom has no content at all, and that there is no point to fill it with a particular set of value and laws rather than an another one... The key point is your attitude towards them.