Speakers Corner Liberal Social

Se o Miguel se dignasse a explicar o que pretende atingir ao colocar um post com tais traduções....
Se é para demonizar o Islamismo, e demonstrar como é inerentemente contra a dignididade feminina, talvez tivesse valido a pena ler primeiro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminist

Veria que, tal como a Bíblia, o Corão, não só expõe uma teologia mas também reflecte a estrutura societal duma época em que as sociedades eram fortemente patriacais. Mas, tal como o Cristianismo, talvez até mais, o Islamismo também contém elementos ideológicos radicalmente igualitários, nomeadamente entre os sexos. Acho que é mais "útil" convencer os que professam a religião islâmica que esta não obriga "necessariamente" a mulher a ser submissa ao homem, mas que há maneiras de interpretar o Corão das quais resultam uma igual dignidade para homens e mulheres, do que andar a pintar uma religião professada por biliões de pessoas como algo de inerentemente maléovolo, e portanto que deve ser combatido (quiçá literalmente).

Antes de mais parece que estamos de acordo na interpretação que fizemos do texto do Corão que coloquei online. Eu dei-me ao cuidado de resistir à interpretação do mesmo, precisamente para evitar distorcer o seu significado. Mas parece que tu chegaste exactamente à mesma interpretação. No entanto, peço desculpa, esqueci-me de dizer mal igualmente de todas as outras religiões, dizer mal apenas de uma em particular é politicamente errado (aliás, no nosso tempo, parece que criticar-se uma religião é cada vez mais politicamente errado). Por isso, aqui vai.

Em geral as religiões não me merecem muito respeito, porque têm uma tendência a conduzir os seres humanos ao fanatismo e à intolerância contra os que praticam outras religiões ou não são religiosos. Quem me dera que esta tendência fosse particular ao Islão, mas infelizmente, o fanatismo e apelos à violência que encontramos em alguns (muitos) praticantes desta religião actualmente, é passível de ser encontrado em quase todas as outras grandes religiões (talvez com honrosas excepções como o Budismo). Aliás, se pensarmos bem, qualquer coisa que diz que é a "verdadeira" e que sabe o "caminho" é algo que será sempre radicalizada por alguns, pior ainda, quando esse coisa que é "verdadeira" tem mensagens radicais escritas nos seus livros sagrados.

O tratamento da mulher como um ser inferior não é evidentemente algo único ao Islão, o Cristianismo e o Judaísmo é igualmente culpado (e eu não preciso de dizer isso, todos nós sabemos que na prática a mulher tem sido discriminada pelo mundo inteiro, usando-se frequentemente a religião com justificação paa isso). Como sou um tipo justo, eis algumas passagens do Antigo Testamento (fonte: ReligiousTolerance.org):

Genesis 1:27 to 3:24:

In the first creation story (Genesis 1:27) God is described as creating man, both male and female at the same time: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." 2 This might be interpreted as implying equality between the two genders.

But in the second creation story, (Genesis 2:7) God formed only a man: "...the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Realizing that he needed a helper (Genesis 2:18), God marched all of the animals past Adam (Genesis 2:19-20) looking for a suitable animal. Finding none suitable, God created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. The term "helper" has historically been interpreted as implying an inferior role for Eve, although some modern interpreters believe that the word can mean a companion of equal status. "...the Hebrew word translated "helper" is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament: twenty of these cases refer to help from a superior." (3) In Genesis 2:27, Adam later asserts his authority over Eve by naming her: "...she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." In ancient times, one was believed to have authority over a person or thing by naming it.

Genesis 3:16: Adam's role is to be Eve's master. The King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV) use the term "rule" to describe Adam's role over Eve: "...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." The Living Bible uses the term "master". The Modern Language Bible uses "dominate". By implication, all of their descendents are would have the same power imbalance between spouses.

A man could marry (literally "become the master of the woman") as often as he desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.

Genesis 16:2 : Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar: "Sarai said unto Abram...I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her." Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command.

Genesis 19:8: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that he bring his two guests out so that the men can "know" them. This is frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead: He is recorded as saying: "I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young women.

Genesis 21:10: A man could simultaneously keep numerous concubines. These were sexual partners of an even lower status than a wife was. As implied in this verse she could be dismissed when no longer needed: Sarah is recorded as saying: "...Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac." Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; David: many; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.

In Exodus 1:15-16, the Pharaoh ordered the midwives to kill all Jewish boys at birth, because of the threat that they might pose to the kingdom. "And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live." The girls, being considered less important, were not seen as a threat; they were allowed to live.

Exodus 20 & 21: This is perhaps the most misogynistic pair of chapters in the Bible. A number of verses describe a woman as the property of her father. At marriage, her ownership was transferred to her new husband:

Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." It is important to realize that a manservent and a maidservant were male and female slaves. They were not a hired butler and maid. The tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor's house, wife, male slave female slave, animals or anything else that the neighbor owns. The wife is clearly regarded as equivalent to a piece of property.

Exodus 21:2-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing....If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." A slaveowner was permitted to give a woman to his male slave as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. After serving six years, he would leave, but his wife and children would remain slaves of the slaveowner. Again, there is no indication that the woman was consulted on this arrangement,

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." A father could sell his daughter as a slave. Even though a male slave is automatically given his freedom after 6 years, a female slave remained a slave forever.
bullet Exodus 22:16-17: The first seventeen verses of Exodus 22 deal with restitution in case of stealing, or damage to, a person's property. Verses 16 and 17 deal with the case of a man who seduces a virgin. This was viewed as a property offense against the woman's father. The woman was expected to marry the seducer. If her father refused to transfer ownership of his daughter to the seducer, the latter was required to required to pay money to her father. The money would be in compensation for the damage to the father's property - his daughter. It would be difficult for a non-virgin to marry.

Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because of the blow, the man is punished as the husband decides and must pay a fine for their act - not to the woman, but to her husband, presumably because he has been deprived of a child. The woman had no involvement. Exodus 21:22: "...he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

Exodus 23:17 states that only men are required to take part in the feasts of unleavened bread, of harvest and of ingathering: "Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD."

E não vamos esquecer como os Hindus tratam as suas mulheres segundo a sua religião, usando a Wikipedia, que aparentemente é uma boa fonte para ti, podemos aprender coisas úteis como:

- Manu Smriti contradicts itself by declaring that a wife has no property and the wealth earned is for the husband [Manu VIII.416];
- Sati (as verb) is an act of immolation of a woman on her husband's funeral pyre. Sati (as noun) one who immolated either self-willingly or by societal inducement and compulsion. Though no scripture mandates it, the Puranas, part of the Hindu Smriti, mention sati as highly meritorious in several instances;
- Both Manusamhita and Arthashastra say that, if the husband is impotent, a traitor, evil-liver, has become an ascetic or an outcast or is missing for a prescribed number of years, then the wife can leave him without blame and marry again. Arthashastra also declares that in other circumstances, divorce can take place only by mutual consent;

Fora da Wiki, sobre o Hinduismo, em um texto Hindu ainda tens referências a:

- Que uma mulher de uma casta alta, não se pode casar com um home de uma casta baixa (aqui);