Saturday, April 28, 2012
Fuzzy Memories
When reading the book on Muhammad, I found the idea of the Qur'an's version of Hell being vague and undetailed quite interesting. I wonder if the Bedouin's belief that being forgotten is the worst thing which can happen to a person might have prompted this vagueness; if people do not even know much about the details of Hell, then of course they will not remember the names or lives of those who end up there. In this way, the worst part of Hell might not be the various tortures which Hell's denizens would presumably force one to endure, but instead the lack of remembrance in the minds of those still living. This may seem strange to modern readers of the Qur'an, particularly those in the United States, with its focus on punishment and reward which comes with capitalism and a retributive justice system. It reminds me somewhat of the apparent strangeness of the attitude people in Jesus' time would have had to crucifixion, with the worst part being the destruction of the body rather than the pain. However, the Bedouin were not the only ancient culture to emphasize remembrance; Viking culture, which may be more familiar to the contemporary American or European reader, also placed far more value on fame and memorable deeds than on physical comfort.
Response: Realism
In response to Lauren Feeney's post "Protected Love" (April 28, 2012):
The question of whether it is better for women in Islamic countries (both historically and today) to marry for protection or to live without that protection requires something of a two-sided answer. While in an ideal situation, or even a situation close to ideal, of course women should choose for themselves who and when (if ever) to marry, the dangerous and sexist societal circumstances in Muhammad's time meant that women were frequently better off marrying for protection. Most people, and therefore most women, prefer living in less-than-ideal circumstances to dying or living in totally miserable circumstances, so marrying for protection would have been a preferable alternative one's enemies, or simply unscrupulous people, killing or taking advantage of one. The societal circumstances of today's world, however, are in many cases less harsh than those of Muhammad's time. This opens up the possibility of reforming the remaining sexist aspects of society, and therefore making it possible for women not to marry for protection out of necessity.
The question of whether it is better for women in Islamic countries (both historically and today) to marry for protection or to live without that protection requires something of a two-sided answer. While in an ideal situation, or even a situation close to ideal, of course women should choose for themselves who and when (if ever) to marry, the dangerous and sexist societal circumstances in Muhammad's time meant that women were frequently better off marrying for protection. Most people, and therefore most women, prefer living in less-than-ideal circumstances to dying or living in totally miserable circumstances, so marrying for protection would have been a preferable alternative one's enemies, or simply unscrupulous people, killing or taking advantage of one. The societal circumstances of today's world, however, are in many cases less harsh than those of Muhammad's time. This opens up the possibility of reforming the remaining sexist aspects of society, and therefore making it possible for women not to marry for protection out of necessity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)