Islam for Women or is it?

[ravage]

@picoico

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.

sure.

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.

Fallacy number 1. You are trying to argue against questioning on gender with other class lines. They are not exclusive. One can do A without being interested in B even if B is also applicable.

Ravage, in different places it includes friends, strangers, institutions and pets.

and..

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.

Not really. If Islam were truly biased against women, women wouldnt get alms at all. Depends on your definition of ‘true bias’. To me, its a sliding scale. All you’re showing here is that the bias could be worse.

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?

I think the question raised, that women are not considered economically equal follows quite naturally from that.

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?

I believe she takes it as an instance of unbalance against women. I dont think there is any great mystery as to what question is being asked and what implications are being drawn.

What does an inequity in inheritance really mean?

That is whats at issue right? The OP clearly feels it means women are a disadvantaged group. You can simply argue otherwise.

Why is this used to exemplify the ILL treatment of women?

To someone who values equality a ‘systemic unbalance’ would be an example of ill treatment. Not too different from ethnic groups who want equality under law pointing to economic disadvantages as instances of ILL treatment.

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.

You see you can question the questioner, but that is merely a way of avoiding answering the question. You can also frame some of these questions as answers to her question, with a little more work. If you feel that Islamic tradition isnt truly immatable on this particular issue, say so, and then address the questions of the sources of this issue. If you feel that this distribution makes sense in contemporary arrangements, prove it. If you think the same behaviour occurs at the familial level show some basis for that. You just cant ask questions with arguable relevance.

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.

They go beyond that. Historically wages have also been indicative of power. In western societies women earn 75% of men for the same job with the same skillset. Likewise for black laborers and white laborers and catholic laborers till their respective emancipation movements. Similar differences in wages occur in our country, for example for Christians. Systemic disparity in wages/economic status usually mean a society values that person’s identity less. Thats a fact of life if its happening in particular society. Its difficult to deal with if you’re trying to rationalize it as a divine assessment of your worth.

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.

Why not? Note that this was not the only evidence offered.

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.

I think the position is quite obvious given her other responses in the thread. What of it?