Mustafa Akyol: Faith versus tradition in Islam

Share/Save/Bookmark

ramintork
by ramintork
27-May-2011
 

I think I have issues with even Islamic modernist although I certainly prefer them to Islamists. The problem is that they go back to the first 20 years of Islam when it was a simple religion loosely centred around tribal life traditions and then they compare it to the other 1400 years and say the rest is made up. They have a point but try removing all those deviations! Fat chance!

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by ramintorkCommentsDate
Shamloo and T.S. Elliot
2
Sep 18, 2012
بختک
1
Aug 27, 2012
My very Iranian Art
3
Aug 21, 2012
more from ramintork
 
ramintork

Thanks azadeh

by ramintork on

I enjoyed your feedback, and always learn something from our conversation.

I hadn't seen this video, thanks for sharing it.

Of course one thing for both of us to remember is that we are generalising a large span of history when at each state multiple cultures, religions and traditions existed.  Even in the Royal courts the traditions would have changed regionally and through time. 


Azadeh Azad

Masoumeh Price, etc..

by Azadeh Azad on

Ramin jan:

 I read Masoumeh Price's article. Our discussion began when I mentioned that Chador – Persian hijab – was used among upper-class women and forbidden to other women (the majority of the population.) When you say that Chador did not have the same significance as Chador worn today, you are saying something obvious. Today’s Chador is a religious clothing, while Persian Chador was a symbol of status and a form of protection of the female relatives of the kings from the strangers’ gaze.       

 

Masoumeh price says, “Veiling has a long history in ancient Mesopotamia and Mediterranean cultures,” yet she somehow tries to insinuate that the Persian veiling was not a real veiling. Wasn’t Persian Empire part of these ancient Mesopotamian cultures? We know that ancient Persians were very much influenced by the previous Mesopotamian cultures and there is no reason to believe that every single culture of the region used veiling except Persia.   

 

As for rejecting the Greek sources regarding the practice of veiling among the kings’ female relatives, I’d rather do a research myself, instead of simply accepting what Ms. Price says.      

 

One thing that puzzles me is the existence of eunuchs in Achaemenid courts as described in the following article, which might be by Ms. Price as well.    

//www.pavasta.com/scribesnotes/persianwomen.html 

 

Closely related to the concept of a 'harem’ is the combination of Achaemenid Royal Women and scheming court eunuchs. No other subject fascinated ancient Greek and Roman writers more than the fanciful tales of imperial court intrigues of the imperial Persians fueled by alliances between powerful queens and ambitious eunuchs.”   

 

This other article rejects the veracity of the Greek and Roman accounts regarding the existence of eunuchs as well, which is really strange. Why should all Greek and Roman travellers lie about the existence of eunuchs? This is a very interesting subject of research.    

 

The possible existence of eunuchs in the Persian royal courts is another sign of the possible relative seclusion of the upper-class women.  Of course I don’t see any contradiction between these women’s right of property,  their involvement in commerce and administration of economic activities on the one hand, and their wearing some kind of Chador, on the other hand. In today’s Iran too, fundamentalist women from rich families are involved in commerce and other economic activities while wearing Chador (Faezeh Hashemi is a good example.)   

 

Finally, you have probably seen all these coverings from pre-Islamic Iran:  

//iranian.com/main/2011/may/fashion-ancient-iran         

Cheers,

Azadeh


ramintork

Azadeh Jan

by ramintork on

I came across this article which claims is based on archaeological text:
//www.parstimes.com/women/women_ancient_persi...
It concurs some of you points but regarding veil wearing in public, it states it is a sign of status, and in a post Islamic phase it becomes a property protection issue which is closer to what I suggested.
When I mentioned the Greeks and ornamental culture I meant a culture that holds status symbols high.
So at the end I'm not convinced ancient Iranian women lived like captives, if so it might have been self imposed in the same way that today having access to the rich and famous is via limited access by their own choice.
There are records of a better maternity pay then than now for women, but we did have a cast system and slavery existed so it wasn't a utopia.
Of course from scholarly pvt you wouldn't just rely on what an article claim,so I don't know how accurate the document is.


Azadeh Azad

I beg to differ

by Azadeh Azad on

Ramin jan,

In ancient Mesopotamia and in pre-Islamic Iran, "respectable" upper-class women veiled, while veiling by servants, slaves and prostitutes was forbidden. It is because the veil marked class status. However, the origin of veiling was not the love of ornamental and expensive fabrics, although this love was possibly cultivated once the veiling by the upper-class women became compulsory.

Based on my research on the condition of women in the ancient world, the male slave-owners and land-owners were very much obsessed with keeping their wives either secluded in their harems or enveloped in some kind of veil in order to ensure that: 1) No other man touched or desired or disrespected their women as properties, and 2) their heirs were truly theirs. In other words, the upper-class women had to be protected as properties.

It is important to remember that while the majority of women, that is slaves and peasants and specialized workers, were free to mingle with men and wear whatever, the upper-class women were both privileged and the exclusive property of their men. Cruel punishment for adulterous women, such as drowning, was practiced exclusively among the upper-class. As the majority of men had nothing to pass to their children, their wives' adultery had no importance.

The Shahnameh's stories of women on horses or women freely mingling with men cannot be generalized as how upper class Persian women lived. Many of those stories are simple myths or have their origins in a time when matrilineal descent was the dominant mode of succession.

What patriarchal religions such as Islam did was to universalize patriarchy. Regarding Hijab or Chador, Islam made the clothing restrictions, which were already imposed on the upper-class women everywhere in the ancient world,  general and universal.

Cheers,

Azadeh


ramintork

Azadeh Jan

by ramintork on

I think the Chador they wore and it's significance was a lot different then. If you look at Greek literature ( enemey perspective) they used to make fun of us for having a too ornamental culture. This is because ancient Persians had a passion for beautiful and expensive fabrics and covered themselves with it as a status symbol. This is similar for instance to the 40's Hollywood women wearning very long fur coats. So these things had a different meaning.

Islam made Hijab for women a cloth for protection of property.

With women beinng that property, and with the tradition of taking slaves from non Islamic tribes, it became a requirement to keep women invisible. 


Azadeh Azad

I agree with you, Ramin

by Azadeh Azad on

I agree with you, Ramin jan.

It is interesting to see what Aryan Basijis would say about the Persian tradition of women's seclusion having influenced the practice of Islam. LOL.

It is a historical fact that Chador was worn by all upper-class iranian women before the imposition of Islam by sword. What the practice of Islam did was to universalize this horrible Persian tradition.

Cheers,

Azadeh


ramintork

Here is the link

by ramintork on

in case you can't see the embedded video

//www.ted.com/talks/mustafa_akyol_faith_versus_tradition_in_islam.html