In majority Muslim countries women exercise varying degrees of liberty based on whichever Islamic interpretation holds dominance where they live. But, in all cases, women are faced with religious restrictions that curtail the liberty Western women presently enjoy.
However, you're correct that the Qur’an contains verses that may be interpreted to permit or support the role of women in politics, such as its mention of the Queen of Sheba without ever negating the validity of her role as a leader, and the Hadith provides numerous examples of women having public leadership roles and that this has kept the door open for Muslim women to engage in politics in Muslim nations (as long as they live within the religious and political restrictions Islam demands). I also don't have a problem with your estimates of the burqa; however, the number of women wearing the Niqab, Al-Amira, Shayla, Khimar, Chador, etc... are exponentially greater than those who choose the burqa.
Now it's bizarre and disingenuous to falsely assert that
one founding father reading a Quran to understand what was motivating the Barbary Pirates, misrepresenting the Treaty of Tripoli, misrepresenting
John Adam's view of Islam, falsely asserting that Washington’s welcoming some “Mahometans” as workers on his Mount Vernon estate equates to his endorsement of Islam which his published materials (such as the General Orders he issued to the Continental Army for example) clearly refute, etc... means the founding fathers were pro-Islam.
What also needs to be mentioned here specifically with respect to the Treaty of Tripoli is that the translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been found faulty, and there is doubt whether Article 11 corresponds to anything of the same purport in the Arabic version.
In 1931 Hunter Miller completed a commission by the United States government to analyze United States' treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean in terms of the United States' legal position in relationship with the rest of the world. According to Hunter Miller's notes:
"The Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic" and "Article 11... does not exist at all." After comparing the United States' version by Barlow with the Arabic and even the Italian version, Miller continues by claiming that, "The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli.
How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.
From this, Miller concludes: "A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic... yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts..."
The evidence for U.S. Christianity is indisputable. Invoking an altered and mistranslated treaty that sought to assure Muslim pirates they were not in a religious war changes nothing.
As John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, declared:
"From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American Union and of its constituent States, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians, in a state of nature; but not of Anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct" (1821, p. 26, emp. added).
Note: Recommended reading for those interested in actually learning about the history of the United States:
1) A Patriot's History of the United States:
A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to Americas Age of Entitlement: Larry Schweikart, Michael Patrick Allen: 9781595231154: Amazon.com: Books
2) The Patriot's History Reader:
The Patriot's History Reader: Essential Documents for Every American: Larry Schweikart, Michael Allen, Dave Dougherty: 9781595230782: Amazon.com: Books
As for your false assertions about Muslim warring, they are utter fabricated nonsense. The truth is that the Muslims were straight genocidal maniacs. They murdered 80,000,000 Hindus, for example. They once lined up 150,000 unarmed Hindus and slaughtered them in a single day.
Compare that to the 2 million or so killed on both sides (Islam and Christian) in the course of the Crusades. See
'The New Concise History of the Crusades' by
Dr. Thomas Madden.
For a quick primer, read:
The Real History of the Crusades | Christianity Today
In contrast to the first centuries of Christian martyrdom, the first centuries of Islam were absolutely
soaked in blood. The killing only slowed down as the Islamic empire finally ran into boundaries in the 8th century, after about a century of expansionist, imperialist, unprovoked Islamic aggression. See:
Tears of Jihad - Political Islam
Even after the initial expansion slowed, the killings did not end. Slaughter (
jihad) and oppression (
sharia) are part of the core doctrines of Islam. Killing for Islam is not a modern idea, and it will never end until some sort of reformation takes place within the religion. See:
Comparing Jesus and Muhammad, Christianity and Islam
But the historically ignorant atheist simply fabricates a fictional history and twists it to comport to their anti-Christian view of the world which they then disingenuously propagate. There's not even a shred of credibility or actual truth seeking involved.
As for Islam:
Islam doesn't allow women power or authoirity? Actually, four of the five most populous Islam states have elected female heads-of-state. America, in this regard, is more oppressive to women than men.
Islam forces women to wear Burkha? Actually, more Islamic countries ban the Burkha than those who allow it. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the only Muslim countries where in certain areas women are expected to wear the Burkha, and these two countries make up less than 5% of Muslims worldwide. In France, for instance, there are 3 million Muslim women. Less than 400 wear a burkha.
The founding fathers were Christian and would oppose Islam? So why did Thomas Jefferson teach himself Arabic with his own copy of the Quran and host an Iftar at the White House during Ramadan? Why did John Adams, in his book ''Thoughs on Government'' call Mohammed one of the great inquirers after truth? WHy did Ben Franklin say ''Even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send an emmisary to teach Mohammedenism to us, he would be welcomed and given a pulpit''? Why did George Washington employ Muslims? You know who the very first global political figure to recognize the US as an independent nation was? A Muslim: Sultan Mohammed ben Abdellah. The Treaty of Tripoli states ''The government of the USA is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion and has itself no character against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims''.
Islamic countries are historically more inhumane and bloodthirsty than others? Take one look into the codes of Islamic armies and their application throughout history (particularly in Crusades periods and before the Italian rennaisance) and you'll see that Muslim armies were much more humane than their Christian counterparts. They fed the armies of defeated enemies, adhered to strict rules barring the killing of women, children, combatants and livestock, barring the destruction of crop, water wells and infastructure, and barring the rapes of women as described and evidenced in Gerard Chailand's ''The Art of War in World History''.
In comparison the Christian armies raped and pillaged all round them. Check out the Internet Medieval Sourcebook here.
Internet History Sourcebooks
The Muslims littered conquered nations with schools, libraries, and social welfare, as per Medieval Sourcebook and other books, among them Patricia Crones Columbia University Press Publication ''God's Rule - Government and Islam''.
Lastly, about 45% of American Muslims are scientifically literate and believe evolution is the best explanation for the diversification of life. That's the same as America as a whole, about 45% of all Americans think evolution is the best explanation. Barely 20% of American Christians believe so. Muslims historically, did much more to contribute to scientific progress than hinder it as the Christian Church has done.
It's really only in the last 100 years (during the oppression, manipulation and exploitation of Muslim nations) wherein there has been a massive surge in Muslim violence. Historically, by and large, they were a more hospitable, progressive and humane crowd than Christians were.
Exceptions exist, of course.
