I thought about writing up another satire to highlight the atrocity that is taking place in Sudan right now, but I determined that I couldn’t do those women enough justice.
Instead, I’m just going to ask a question or three of everyone.
Why are we not treating the Sudanese government like a terrorist organization?
Why are we not invading Sudan to put down the theocratic fascist regime?
How can we justify the invasion of Iraq because it “might” have weapons of mass destruction, but not invade countries like Sudan, whose government is currently, actively, and openly hurting women only because they are women?
Ignore for a moment the religious justifications these wicked men use to beat women for merely wearing pants. Ignore the fact that the government is based on religious law. Ignore the fact that western cultures once allowed and advocated the beating of people based solely on their color. Ignoring all of that, isn’t it our duty as citizens of the world to stop this atrocity? Why are we holding back, especially when we are so trigger-happy to invade other countries for trivial or falsified reasons (or for the spoils of victory)?
Women in Sudan have been protesting (i.e., sitting with signs) the trial of Sudanese journalist Lubna Hussein, who faces 40 lashes if found guilty. Guilty of wearing pants.1
What a satirical title that would make: Woman Flogged in Public for Wearing Pants While Crowd of Protesting Women Outside Beaten
Wouldn’t you be relieved if you read that and then found out it was satire? I would. Unfortunately for Lubna Hussein and the women of Sudan and everywhere in theocratic countries, this is no joke.
When a Muslim suicide bomber takes out a wedding procession, a bus, or a clinic, the moderate Muslims cry, “It was the work of extremists. That is not Islam!” I see that in the news regularly. Too regularly. But when women are beaten for wearing pants, and a woman is having to undergo a trial to determine if she was, indeed, wearing pants, and thus subject to 40 lashes, where are the moderate Muslims crying, “This is Muslim extremism. This is not Islam!”? No, they cannot cry that. For this is not Muslim extremism. It’s the Muslim government in a Muslim country.
What’s sadly funny is that Hussein is arguing that the indecency law prohibiting the wearing of pants by women is “un-Islamic,” despite the fact that it was based on an interpretation of Islam. Despite your troubles, Ms. Hussein, I must disagree with you. The law isn’t un-Islamic. It is inhumane. It is sexist. It is an example of what happens when you let power-hungry men rule a country with religion. Perhaps the first step needed to stop all of this madness is to help the victims of it shed their denial.
Poll Results:
Should the U.S. Invade Sudan?
********* No, we should recognize sovereignty and let countries run themselves, no matter how sick they are (45%, 9 Votes)
****** Yes, the Sudanese government is beating women for wearing pants; that’s terrorism (30%, 6 Votes)
***** Maybe, undecided (25%, 5 Votes)
Total Voters: 20
Tags: indecency, islam, Islamic Law, Lubna Hussein, Muslim, sexism, Sudan, theocracy, women, women's rights
“Perhaps the first step needed to stop all of this madness is to help the victims of it shed their denial.”
Perhaps, indeed. Excellent point.
Thanks, Vince!
The tendency of religious people to consider themselves the pinnacles of creation, the rulers of the earth, is cruelly ironic when viewed in the shadow of the atrocities it causes them to justify.