It was intentional. The sardonic tone aside, humor me and show me exactly where was the strawman…I don’t recall actually trying to refute any particular proposition.
No ravage, it’s most relevant. If one is going to question along the lines of differences based on gender, then why not class, or blood lines? Or should one dare not question the very premise of a question in the first place.
Ravage, in different places it includes friends, strangers, institutions and pets.
And yet if Islam were truly biased against women, we would have a 2:1 share of alms to male and female poor…yet it isn’t so. Alas, that is another point…conveniently overlooked no doubt.
Ravage, my intent was to divine the basis for “fairness” in the first place. Is the share unequal? Yes. What does that have to say about male vs female in terms of intrinsic worth? That is the question, in case you missed it.
Yes, I get it…systemic unbalance in terms of inheritance share based on sex exists. The question was, what of it? What does that mean? Then? Now?
What does an inequity in inheritance really mean? Why is this used to exemplify the ILL treatment of women? Is it intentional, or an example of abuse by temporal authorities with a deliberate agenda? Is Islamic tradition truly immutable on this particular issue? What is the net affect of concern, given that the distribution makes sense even in contemporary socio-economic arrangements in the Muslim world? What would be the affects of equalizing the inheritance? What “wrong” would be made “right”? Why does it’s systemic nature imply a wrong, but the same behavior at the familial level not? If such inequity is truly “wrong”, or unfair, then what of other inequities related to exactly the same situation? I’m sorry ravage, these questions are relevant. It’s a cop-out to suggest that we shouldn’t question the questioner on these matters, or not simply keel over and take the claims of the questioner wholesale without further thought.
Wages are a measure of economic worth, which implies a social status. Notions of justice I am familiar with try hard to transcend that difference. Wages indicate how much a society values an individual’s skills, services, etc.
It’s not legitimate when the question, and the provided answer to that question, is itself a strawman used to purport (or so it is perceived) of an indoctrinated, and official stance of recognizing one sex as intrinsically of less worth.
The counter-questioning is not a strawman, in that it asks counter questions which are very much the same, just not couched in gender related terms. It is an attempt, as I said before, to establish an actual position behind a barrage of questions.