An Inconsistency

[poliphilo]

The puritans who rule Saudi Arabia are busy destroying anything that could invite idolatry. Vast tracts of old Mecca and Medina have been flattened- to the despair of archaeologists and historians of Islam- and Mohammed's birthplace and the cave in which he composed the earlier parts of the Koran are under threat.

I respect the puritan mindset, but what I don't understand is why, if shrines must go, the Kaaba is spared? How is it OK to prostrate yourself before a big black rock but not to visit the house where the prophet was born? There's a lack of follow-through here.

Comments

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I have to defend the Puritans a bit here! They were not notably misogynist (by general seventeenth-century standards), and far more likely than most to encourage women's literacy and to emphasize their status as helpmeets and rational companions of men, rather than chattels.

Otherwise, I agree.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Yes, that was a bit simplistic of me. The 17th century puritans were pioneers of women's rights. Modern puritans (Wahabi clerics for instance) tend to be less so.

"Right but repulsive"- why do our ancestors have to be so nuanced?

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Judged by the standards of the day, I find that women were treated equitably before Puritan courts of justice as well. A widow could and usually did enjoy a high degree of legal independence and authority.