This post has been read 9443 times!
He called me at a late hour and presented himself as an old reader and an ardent follower. He wanted to talk to me about my toughness and going to the extreme with the Islamists.
I interrupted him, saying my extremism is not different from ‘their’ extremism, but I am trying to save lives and they are trying to annihilate them. He did not comment and continued saying that what I wrote in response to what his relative wrote was not fair and that the society to which he belongs has been conservative since a long time and has its own traditions and values that reject all these freedoms that I demand, especially women’s freedoms, as he put it.
He said women’s liberation from the chains of religion and inherited traditions will destroy society, and that most of the feminist demands often pour into trivial matters that are harmful to women, without realizing it such as giving them the right to wear whatever they want, and to make friends and get into relationships with whomever they want, etc. He said that this leads to women insulting their dignity and they become a commodity for pleasure.
I interrupted him again, and said that the society that he claims to belong is the most degrading of women to make her a commodity for pleasure, and the cases examined and considered by the courts are the best evidence.
Also, the demand for an increase in financial benefits for women, a decrease in her working hours, an increase in her vacation days, and a decrease in her retirement age does not mean that those who demand these are her supporters, or those who support her rights, but rather they do so to push her to stay at home more after they were unable to prevent her from working, and to continue as an electoral tool according to their whims and a great source of income for the family.
I told him that secularists do not demand all these benefits for women, and they are confident that a large percentage of working women will not like this, and will deprive the secular of their electoral votes. However, this did not prevent them from conforming to their principles and demanding them, so which is the most credible party here?
The caller admitted that my words were fairly correct but he replied naïvely, saying that he still refuses what we demand in terms of gay rights, or allowing, for example, a woman to live in a hotel with a man without a marriage bond.
I replied to him that what we demand are rights recognized by the whole world, from a purely humanitarian point of view, especially for those who had no choice in what they chose, as they found themselves with no gender defined in terms of physical, psychological and physiological aspects, so what is their fault?
The issue of homosexuality has accompanied humanity from its beginnings, and various cultures and religions dealt with it in one way or another, until the developed world found itself before the only option, which is to recognize their rights.
As for the issue of allowing a woman to live in a hotel with a stranger, it is an issue that requires a long talk, and now is not the time, and we agreed to meet in my office the next day to complete the conversation.
The caller came at the agreed time with an envelope and put it in front of me, put his hand on it, and said that he owed me two apologies:
The first for calling the night before at an inopportune time, and he thanked me for my patience.
The second apology was for his illogical position and his disagreement with me, after he discovered this morning the error of his position.
He raised his hand from the envelope, opened it, took out today’s issue from a daily newspaper, and pointed to a news published on the front page related to the issuance of a ruling by the Court of Appeals to compel a well-known political and religious figure to pay a large sum to a woman who turned his back on her and denied his relationship with her after he had pleasure with her in a hotel.
The visitor stopped suddenly and said that he would not stay long, and that my conversation with him yesterday, and the news published in the newspaper this morning showed him enough facts.
By Ahmad alsarraf