Muhammad the Reformer

A New York Times Article describes how Iran has instituted Needle exchange and Methadone programs to help combat AIDs and drug abuse. How does a doctrinaire theocracy manage to overcome the moralistic objections that have made it so hard to start these programs in the West? Here's one quote of interest.

No matter what the regime, Iran’s medical schools have emphasized real science. “When I look at other countries I see lots of power interference from religion in public health,” said Bijan Nassirimanesh, a harm-reduction pioneer in Iran and founder of Persepolis, a drop-in harm reduction center in Tehran. “You don’t see that in Iran except for sex education. The foundation (of science) was so strong that it became a shield.”

In the "enlightened" USA there is not a single Republican Congressman that accepts the science of global warming. Apparently the foundation for science isn't as strong here.

Another quote confirms something I have definitely noticed in my own studies of Islam.

There is a rule in Islam that between bad and worse, you have to accept bad.

This is a principle that runs through all of Muhammad's teachings. Muhammad knew he couldn't get full equality for women. Consequently, he settled for giving women partial rights, while affirming that the rest of the patriarchal system should remain in place, to placate his male patriarchal followers. The unequal distribution of inheritance replaced a system in which women not only couldn't inherit at all, but were often inherited as property themselves. The passage in the Koran on corporal punishment for wives lists a series of things that men must do before they are permitted to use corporal punishment. (And according to some translators, doesn't mention physical force at all). Muhammad did not abolish slavery, but instituted reforms that permitted slaves to sue their masters in court if they were mistreated.

Sadly, many contemporary "conservative" Muslims are insisting that Muhammad's first steps towards reform be frozen in place, and have thus portrayed this great reformer into a reactionary.

Culture vs. Religion

Here's another Beliefnet post. The rest of that post, and the discussion in which it occurs, can be found here:

As a christian, I read the bible several times and disliked how women were treated in the old AND new testament. The subjection of women in christianity is doctrine. You can't argue that women are equal using scripture and the scripture clearly points out that women are subject to men, shouldn't take leadership, and should wear a constant reminder that they are under the authority of a man. Do all christians do these things today? No, but I am a person who is concerned with principles and islam doesn't have those principles. I have often found it amusing that I left one religion where the (general) culture is that women are equal to men, but the religion does not prove it, to a religion where women are equal to men, but the culture doesn't prove it. Dealing solely with the principles, I wouldn't want to raise a daughter in a religion that considers her second class in relation to men. Islam does not teach this, and the culture of many muslims, I can deal with that by using the Quran to refute it.