"Dean sent Democratic Party mice running for cover again last weekend when he (correctly) stated that if Iraqis adopt a constitution based on traditional Islam's rules for (mis)treating women, Iraqi women would be worse off than they were under Saddam.

Now, that statement is demonstrably true. A high school freshman on her first day in debating class could win that side of the debate without cracking a book. "

I have to strongly disagree with the above statement made by author Stephen Pizzo. That high-school freshman who didn't bother to crack a book would be getting all her/his information about "traditional Islam" filtered through the U.S. news media - and if they don't have an agenda, I don't know who does.

I question what Pizzo means by "traditional Islam." Is he talking about the way women were treated in Afghanistan under Taliban rule? If so, there is nothing "traditional" or even much Islamic about the way that situation manifested.

In fact, true Islam is very respectful of women and their rights. I lived and worked in a Moslem country for three years and had occasion to actually look behind the media filter - and yeah, I learned a lot by cracking a few books on the subject and then following up by talking to kind and peaceful people who practiced the Moslem faith. We only have ourselves to blame if we remain ignorant about "traditional Islam."

Very good point Linda - I agree with you whole-heartily and I do recognize the need for clarification. I actually understood Dean's initial comment refering to "traditional" Islam to mean fundamentalism, but you are right, it is ambiguous and potentially misleading. Having worked in close association with many Muslims in my last administrative position, I experienced many personal accounts which exemplified the deep love and respect for women within their family unit. From my perspective, there was never any doubt.