Islam for Women or is it?

[ravage]

@picoico

And that’s the point. To focus on A without addressing B, approving B, or putting B in context is a valid challenge to the questioner. When equivalences can be found between A and B, and the suggestion that A is horrible while B is not mentioned means that a generalization is not possible, or a person is disinterested in the generalization. The latter may speak to your point; but what I want to determine is if the alternative forms of alleged bias are construed as banal or not. If not, then speak in terms of generalizations, and let us see how far we get with them. Already, you seem to accept the socio-economic stratification as somehow natural…misconceptions my fault alone, of course.

Your whole argument can be deflated by saying Im not interested in B, or assessing its truth value. If you want to include in your response a generalized principle that also covers B thats another matter.

Ravage. the point wasn’t that there was a bias. The point was that the bias implied a hatred, dislike, or something like that, of women. If that were true, then why not in other circumstances?

She did point out other instances of bias. Now again you dont have to have bias in every instance for there to be bias.

Economically equal…hyperbole. Entitled to half a share of inheritance, which is not earned by the way. No, it’s not as natural as you think. As we’ve discussed, economic disparieties arise naturally, and for a wide variety of reasons. That, I argue, does not devalue one’s life.

You havent really argued that yet. Stating is not arguing.

Now, if one’s belief system is that their worth to humanity in general, society in particular, and to themselves, is directly proportional to their assets, then I can only disagree. That, in the end, is a value judgment - a faith - I don’t share.

You present a reductive picture of the argument. the ‘systemic unbalance’ was merely part of the chain of evidence offered.

The value proposition for “equality” is questionable, if there are other instances of inequity which are considered normative.

what other inequities are considered normative, and by whom are they considered normative?

It’s not equity in general, but the audacity to define gender roles and infer entitlements based on these roles.

You call it gender roles they call it inequality. Language is political.

It’s very much different than disadvantaged ethnic groups, and more akin to disparities within an ethnic group, if anything.

No reason offered for why thats the case. What kind of disparities within ethnic groups, and how does that impact the argument in any way? Southern punjabies are considered disadvantaged compared to northern punjabies and complain. Does that make it different?

Inheritance is done within a familial unit, with understood roles and obligations. Women do not form a cohesive societal unit in this context, the only common attribute being shared, for this particular case, is being entitled to half a share of inheritance. This is about the difference between sons and daughters, not men and women…

Male and female children vs sons and daughters… distinction without a difference… what is the difference between sons and daughters?

sole sisters, or sole sons are not a factor. In one case, a daughter may receive full inheritance, in others, little.

has no impact on the argument when the argument is that women are inferior to men. Not by themselves.

In one case, the son and daughter of a rich man will get vastly more inheritance than the son and daughter of a poor man.

this is just a variant of the bias could be worse argument. Yes, the laws dont prescribe that the rich girl’s inheritance be taken away and given to poorer men.

To take the family out of the equation and make this strictly a gender argument is a canard.

It isnt. Its an ‘all other things the same why is there disparity based on gender’. a pretty standard form of argument.

Cop-out. A question was asked, rhetorically, and proclamations made subsequently. Second, it’s perfectly valid to assault the very premise of a question to begin with.

Second, the questions asked would be natural to those who are inquisitive. It’s quite easy to ask a question, and not remunerate on it’s implications. If the questions posed have been considered, respond. If not, address them. This is how discussions move forward.

I have considered such questions in the past, and time and time again the questions I have posed in return are simply ignored, or not deemed relevant without any further discussion or even an attempt at a rationalization. So if my method of response seems unorthodox to you, I assure you it’s probably because I’ve experiences you simply haven’t shared.

If one is going to jump to conclusions as soon as they pose a quiestion, then the other questions they had not considered need to be brought up.

So, what is the questioners position on the immutability of this particular issue? Is there an opinion at all, has it been considered? Historical context? What are the actual affects of this mode of distribution? Was it considered? Is it worth considering? Does it not make sense, if so why? And no, simply stating it’s ‘not equal’ doesn’t cut it, unless one is open and declaring such an axiomatic value they will not compromise on, regardless of real world consequence (or lack thereof). These are important things to consider. What matter is it if these points are brought up in the form of a question or answer? Is it not fair to ask the questioner to elaborate, to refine their question, to address perceived disparities in the line of questioning?

You continuously ‘raise questions’ without providing answers yourself. You say you have had bad experiences, but that doesnt mean you come into every thread and start asking questions. Why are you asking this? Why arent you asking about that? Where does this lead to? Should I start asking you why you arent in the thread about best Islamic way to pray namaz and asking ‘why arent you guys asking about fasting, what underlies this question?’? Sorry too lazy to go back to the main menu to find a better example. But you get the point, it is not an unorthodox line of attack, it is one of the most commonly used deflection tactics, and is only deployed from a position of defensiveness. The implication is not that you’re provoking thought and questioning the questioner, but that you have nothing else. Avoid answering the question by obfuscating the topic.

If you think any of those questions are relevant, the decent thing to do is to provide them in the form of arguments.

If one feels that power makes one a better person, in the eyes of God no less, then I can’t address the point because I don’t agree with the premise.

You misread the argument. You said wages were indicative of skill, learning etc, I said they historically have meant more. Power, societal valuation of identity. The extrapolation to God wouldnt be in terms of power ofcourse, but worth/relative valuation.

What do you mean about valuing of identity? In terms of worth as a human being, in terms of usefulness of a skill set, in terms of ability to perform a task?

Worth as a human being foremost. Skillset/ability to perform tasks is more or less comparable these days anyway.

Is the fact that women inherit less then men meant to suggest that women are worth less in the eyes of God?

That is part of the evidence offered. Perhaps not ‘in the eyes of God’ but ‘in an Islamic society’ is better phrasing. One cant see with the eyes of God.

In your words, prove it. Prove that that is the intent. And no, the disparity in and of itself does not prove it.

Its impossible to prove intent. The disparity in and of itself does count as evidence of diminished economic worth at the very least, unless you offer justifications for it as psyah attempted. It is simple really. If you have two children, you’re required to give one an economic advantage over the other based on their gender thats straightforward evidence of social devaluation based on gender.

And do consider things like why Islamic rituals, rites and responsibilities are not assigned based on wealth.

They arent? What of sadqa, jihad bil maal and so on? After all someone would more money would have more ability to perform those sawab worthy things no?

If there is a notion of worth which involves personal means, in the financial sense, why is it not demonstrated elsewhere?

It isnt a question of wealth in itself, but the ‘systemic unbalance’ in access to it. Your argument is that the unbalance doesnt indicate worth. It is a much better argument if you actually say what it does indicate.