Islam for Women or is it?

[picoico]

@ravage

Wow. This really takes the cake for being both all over the place and cramming the maximum number of strawman arguments in the least space possible.

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.

[quote]

You begin with asking why should it go to anyone at all. Interesting point, zero relevance to the topic at hand.

[/quote]
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.

[quote]

Whatever reason there is for inheritance going to one's descendants applies to men and women.

[/quote]
Ravage, in different places it includes friends, strangers, institutions and pets.

[quote]

Societal responsibilities to the less needy etc have nothing to do with it, the less needy could be men or women.

[/quote]
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.

[quote]

There can be more than one dimensions of unfairness, attempting to point out others does not address the first.

[/quote]
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.

[quote]

You then say you dont make as much as a doctor that doesnt mean you're less of a person. Im afraid you're only half correct there.

[/quote]
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.

[quote]

Similarly it is certainly legitimate to question the rationale behind why women get half the inheritance of men. Just as you do in your strawman argument about how other legal systems allow adhoc distribution of wealth allowing some to get nothing and the state to take lots.
[/quote]
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.

[psyah]

psyah some of your replies to her questions arent very convincing. lets begin with the question of witnesses. you try to argue that this is to lessen responsibility, but why? why treat women like special needs children. furthermore, what if these witnesses wanted justice instead of wanting to avoid responsibility?

you say it isnt 'unfair' to treat women like children, it is certainly patronizing to regard them as in need of being treated like children. there is an implication of inferior intellect running through your entire argument. you say children are treated as such because its a nurturing process, which implies that at the end of the process they would be treated as adults. Unfortunately there seems to be no end in the process of infantalizing women, atleast as explained by you.

Peace ravage

You say that I try to argue that the number of witnesses is to lessen responsibility and then you assert that this is treatment of special needs children.

You have forced a comparison based on the assumption that:

a) treatment of children is debasing
b) that women are being treated as such

I didn't make this comparison ... let me put it another way for you to understand ... if I open a door for a woman is that to be considered polite or is it considering her invalid?

Should I do something to make the life of others better or will they turn their backs on me saying that I am being controlling, condescending, etc ...

The treatment we do of children in whatever they do should be out of love and for dependent women also. This is not equating women with children rather it shows us that the softness we need to use with children is the same with women. As a man you may not realise this straight away, but show me an honest woman who will not love to be treated nicely even when she is angry or sad with you. Instead many men get angry at their women and that will stretch the conflict.

There is a verse in the Qur'an that shows when Maryam (AS) was born that the male is not like the female, according to the fuqaha they say that this puts the advantage on women. To say they are better than men at many things if Islam did not give men authority then we would be subdued by their superior abilities.

By doing this a sense of parity develops and we truly become more equal.

Even though there is a limit for men in terms of hitting, should a woman hit her husband for no big reason at all is she held accountable to it according to Qur'an? My wife may thump me one but I will just smile back and she knows that I cannot hit her. Surely we do this with children i.e. if they show us ingratitude and abuse we calm them down or pour out more love for them, but to equate the two is wrong. The nurturing process is for the children and a caring process or nurturing the relationship can be the similitude you apply to the case of women.

I hope this has made it clearer.

[psyah]

^ dont be so sure.

having said that, i think it would be cool if women were also allowed to beat up their husbands in case they were adulterous. is there an injunction against that in Islam

Peace ravage

My wife beats me for far lesser reasons! LOL ... No seriously, women have other ways of torturing their husbands.

[diwana]

Re: Islam for Women or is it?

SULTAN ISLAMIC LINKS, Discover Islam, Muslim people, Holy Quran and Islamic Religion

For comparison,

Women In Islam Versus Women In The Judaeo-Christian Tradition

BEARING WITNESS
Another issue in which the Quran and the Bible disagree is the issue of women bearing witness. It is true that the Quran has instructed the believers dealing in financial transactions to get two male witnesses or one male and two females (2:282). However, it is also true that the Quran in other situations accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man. In fact the woman’s testimony can even invalidate the man’s. If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, he is required by the Quran to solemnly swear five times as evidence of the wife’s guilt. If the wife denies and swears similarly five times, she is not considered guilty and in either case the marriage is dissolved (24:6-11).
On the other hand, women were not allowed to bear witness in early Jewish society. 12 The Rabbis counted women’s not being able to bear witness among the nine curses inflicted upon all women because of the Fall (see the “Eve’s Legacy” section). Women in today’s Israel are not allowed to give evidence in Rabbinical courts. …

I think what others have done is to reform their way of lives based on current situations, and left their religious strict doctrines or made some changes which are acceptable in this day and age, then perhaps what OP is trying to say some form of reform must be made in Islam also.

This is where Ijtahad is necessary in Islam collectively. We all do some form of individual ijtehad knowingly or unknowingly.

[psyah]

Psyah, Burqaposhx, Picocio: Ravage has pretty much summed up my thoughts so I won't repeat them here.

Now you tell me this, if something that is open to anybody's interpretation, then what good of a guidance book does it make in the first place? I can interpret it, you can interpret it but it's all invalid until one goes to a scholar/ulema to find out what God is really asking us to do. If the word is from God then shouldn't it be understood by all of us without resorting to find someone who may or not be actually right in his interpretations. That in itself doesn't make sense! If it's from God, then it should be clear enough for all us of to understand. How can we avoid getting thrown in hell fire for eternity? How does God expect us to find answers within ourselves? Why do we have to hear them from another MAN!

Having said that, wouldn't God have known that women in the age and time would be more intellectual than those 1400 years ago? Wouldn't God have known a women today is capable of taking on any occupation that men hokd? What's the deal here?

Peace Miss_Noland

I hope you do not think that I have given an interpretation. I am simply providing a way you can reconcile and come to terms with your own interpretation or the ones you have heard. I am merely showing you that even with the understanding that you have gauged it is not as black and white as you are putting it.

The correct interpretation is the one that will point you to Allah (SWT), but you still may not be guided by it until you allow yourself to be guided by it and Allah (SWT) Wills it for you. To arrive at the place where Muslims are in this regard at least those who have become Muslim by choice, which does not include myself, is to acquire the answers from those people who know more than us and they will also provide you with satisfactory answers with why they should be consulted.

The Word is from God, but that does not make it necessary that all will be guided by that Word. The Qur'an itself says that some will be misguided by it. Surely it would be proof against the Qur'an if it claimed that it will guide everybody and yet we still see people being misguided, rather it states that some will be guided and others not, and this is exactly what is happening.

Okay for your last contention ... The very beginning of the Qur'an states that it is a Guidance for those who fear God. i.e. the condition to fear God comes before trying to receive guidance from the Book. Know that those who read the Qur'an and do not get guided by it, are also not those who fear God. Believe in God first, understand Him well, then consult the Qur'an for guidance, or rather just read the Qur'an with an open mind and in time hopefully you will find what you are looking for.

It is true that you will find things that you disagree with, because they may seem to be unfamiliar to your likes, preferences and experiences, but if you ask yourself what "other" meaning can be taken from this and if you find that there are "other" possibilities than the negative one then read on ... because until you find a conclusive impossibility in the Qur'an it is hence not falsifyable.
There is no reason why you must focus on the negative interpretation, when really you should be looking at the whole Qur'an and argue you case by looking at all of it.

Some people say the Qur'an was written by the devil, this cannot be true because the Qur'an curses the devil. There are many things like this that directly address your concerns. In many places it talks about justice and equity and the rank of women then why is it you take a single verse here and there and automatically assume it to be the negative meaning that does not fit with the rest of the Qur'an?

You are looking for fairness but I don't think you are being fair in your assessment of the Qur'anic ayaat.

[psyah]

@diwana

SULTAN ISLAMIC LINKS, Discover Islam, Muslim people, Holy Quran and Islamic Religion

For comparison,

Women In Islam Versus Women In The Judaeo-Christian Tradition

BEARING WITNESS
Another issue in which the Quran and the Bible disagree is the issue of women bearing witness. It is true that the Quran has instructed the believers dealing in financial transactions to get two male witnesses or one male and two females (2:282). However, it is also true that the Quran in other situations accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man. In fact the woman’s testimony can even invalidate the man’s. If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, he is required by the Quran to solemnly swear five times as evidence of the wife’s guilt. If the wife denies and swears similarly five times, she is not considered guilty and in either case the marriage is dissolved (24:6-11).
On the other hand, women were not allowed to bear witness in early Jewish society. 12 The Rabbis counted women’s not being able to bear witness among the nine curses inflicted upon all women because of the Fall (see the “Eve’s Legacy” section). Women in today’s Israel are not allowed to give evidence in Rabbinical courts. …

I think what others have done is to reform their way of lives based on current situations, and left their religious strict doctrines or made some changes which are acceptable in this day and age, then what OP is trying to say some form of reform must be made in Islam also.

This is where Ijtahad is necessary in Islam.

This is a good response JazakAllahukhair

[BarbieCue]

Is our dear sister even reading all of these lengthy replies as carefully as she should??

If you really wanted your questions answered in depth you would go talk to a scholar, just like the 20,000 american women who convert to islam every year do!! And plz don't tell me they can be brain washed, aren't american supposed to be like the smartest and the most aggressive when it comes to women's rights??

And this is just america I'm talking about... 20,000 women is a huge number for a religion thats ridiculed and misunderstood so much! ALHUMDULILLAH this number comes to millions when u add up the figures around the world.
**
So thats ur answer as far as im concerned*... women wouldn't be converting if this religion was to treat them like s**.

I myself, Alhumdulillah, am a revert i.e. I only started following islam 2 years ago. I am proud of my decisions and I'm proud of being a muslim.

*I couldn't be happier with my life. *

Allah mian, plz always be with me.... plz!

**

PS: No one is forcing u to follow this religion my dear, if u really think "so highly" of it, then quit following it. Just in case u only read the women-are-inferior hadiths and quotes, let me give u another one that u might not have come across .. "there's no compulsion in religion".**

[psyah]

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.

Apologies if already mentioned but in addition to these points the men have to provide for their families whereas a woman's inheritence is her own. If he gives charity he gets one reward, but if she does the same then she gets two. It makes sense then that men get more because they need to cater for more.

[Miss_Noland]

Peace ravage

You say that I try to argue that the number of witnesses is to lessen responsibility and then you assert that this is treatment of special needs children.

You have forced a comparison based on the assumption that:

a) treatment of children is debasing b) that women are being treated as such

I didn't make this comparison ... let me put it another way for you to understand ... if I open a door for a woman is that to be considered polite or is it considering her invalid?

Should I do something to make the life of others better or will they turn their backs on me saying that I am being controlling, condescending, etc ...

The treatment we do of children in whatever they do should be out of love and for dependent women also. This is not equating women with children rather it shows us that the softness we need to use with children is the same with women. As a man you may not realise this straight away, but show me an honest woman who will not love to be treated nicely even when she is angry or sad with you. Instead many men get angry at their women and that will stretch the conflict.

There is a verse in the Qur'an that shows when Maryam (AS) was born that the male is not like the female, according to the fuqaha they say that this puts the advantage on women. To say they are better than men at many things if Islam did not give men authority then we would be subdued by their superior abilities.

By doing this a sense of parity develops and we truly become more equal.

Even though there is a limit for men in terms of hitting, should a woman hit her husband for no big reason at all is she held accountable to it according to Qur'an? My wife may thump me one but I will just smile back and she knows that I cannot hit her. Surely we do this with children i.e. if they show us ingratitude and abuse we calm them down or pour out more love for them, but to equate the two is wrong. The nurturing process is for the children and a caring process or nurturing the relationship can be the similitude you apply to the case of women.

I hope this has made it clearer.

I like that anology but it's irrelavent here. Openning a door and asking us to be obedient are two different things! You can show kindness to us but it doesn't do any good if you would tell us to keep our mouth shut and obey you!

How would you feel if you were in our position and read the Qur'an and felt -Wow! there's a lot for men but not much for women, yes our existence is noticed but only so that we could cause no trouble for men in this man-dominating world. What is a wife supposed to do if she wants a divorce? A woman alone cannot divorce her husband without his consent according to Sharia, right?! How does that make any sense to you? So beating lightly or not will make no difference until the man allows his wife to divorce him- you call that justice?

The point is women are women, they are not children! You cannot treat women like children. If women were like children to these men we are speaking of, there wouldn't have been sex slaves, 4 wives, and 72 virgins! Or do these men not know the difference?

[psyah]

I like that anology but it's irrelavent here. Openning a door and asking us to be obedient are two different things! You can show kindness to us but it doesn't do any good if you would tell us to keep our mouth shut and obey you!

How would you feel if you were in our position and read the Qur'an and felt -Wow! there's a lot for men but not much for women, yes our existence is noticed but only so that we could cause no trouble for men in this man-dominating world. What is a wife supposed to do if she wants a divorce? A woman alone cannot divorce her husband without his consent according to Sharia, right?! How does that make any sense to you? So beating lightly or not will make no difference until the man allows his wife to divorce him- you call that justice?

The point is women are women, they are not children! You cannot treat women like children. If women were like children to these men we are speaking of, there wouldn't have been sex slaves, 4 wives, and 72 virgins! Or do these men not know the difference?

Peace Miss_Noland

For sure it is relevant ... If I open the door for you and insist "No, you first" then you can easily contest and say "why are you ordering me to go first?" ... it does not happen because you understand my motive is to be polite.

Conversely I would never say "keep your mouth shut and obey me" in any instance, however, in some cases you have with respect, taken partiality to verses without fully understanding the motive behind them, I believe some translations also do not help, and some ignorant Muslim people using force do not help either.

The last part I am not going to answer, because I have already answered the part about treatment of women and the difference or similitude to children should not be taken as a negative. Conceptually it may sound odd, but in reality you will like your husband to be patient with you if you lose it on him. That is the same way we treat children.

[BarbieCue]

@Miss_Noland

The point is women are women, they are not children! You cannot treat women like children. If women were like children to these men we are speaking of, there wouldn’t have been sex slaves, 4 wives, and 72 virgins! Or do these men not know the difference?

Is that all there is to Islam???

People need to get their minds off sex and look at the main reason why we’re given this life to begin with… heaven n hell anyone???

PS: a few more quotes if ur still interested in finding the mysterious equality and justice for women in islam.

With the advent of Islam, the darkness of that era vanished and Allaah enjoined kindness, love and compassion towards girls. Taking good care of girls was encouraged, as was giving them special attention in the process of their upbringing. In fact, Islam has designated a special reward for raising them that is not granted for raising sons. Anas (rza) reported that the Prophet (saw) said: “He who raises two daughters until their puberty will be with me in Paradise like this, and he symbolized the proximity by showing two of his fingers with a slight gap between them.” (Muslim)

Read more here.
IslamWeb - Daughters in Islam - I

^Authentic quotes, no rubbish biased stories.

Do I wanna be a daughter of this religion? ooooooh yeah!!! ; )

[Miss_Noland]

[QUOTE]
Is our dear sister even reading all of these lengthy replies as carefully as she should??

If you really wanted your questions answered in depth you would go talk to a scholar, just like the 20,000 american women who convert to islam every year do!! And plz don't tell me they can be brain washed, aren't american supposed to be like the smartest and the most aggressive when it comes to women's rights??

And this is just america I'm talking about... 20,000 women is a huge number for a religion thats ridiculed and misunderstood so much! ALHUMDULILLAH this number comes to millions when u add up the figures around the world.

So thats ur answer as far as im concerned... women wouldn't be converting if this religion was to treat them like s***.

I myself, Alhumdulillah, am a revert i.e. I only started following islam 2 years ago. I am proud of my decisions and I'm proud of being a muslim.

*I couldn't be happier with my life. *

Allah mian, plz always be with me.... plz!
[/QUOTE]

Huma, I am happy to hear that you don't regret your decision. It's easy for Americans to convert to Islam since they don't live in the Islamic environment to understand what it's really like to live as a muslim woman under Islamic rule. Also, I would like to correct you, about 75% of the 20,000 are women, which is still a very large number. I can understand why Islam attracts Westernized women who are fed up of the western wya of life and want to bring order/modesty into their lives, I can totally see that! BUT take any of these women to the Middle East or Pakistan, Afghanistan & Sudan and I would like to know how fast they switch back their old religion or become athiests. I have witnessed it but didn't understand it until now.

Also, people turn to religion for many different reasons. There are millions of Christians who do not necessarily believe every aspect of New or Old testament but reguarly go to church because they feel closer to God there. The same could be said the way we perform prayers, you can say it's kind of therapy. People who look for faith, find it. People who judge everything harshly may never find faith (like myself) because they can never make sense of things.

[Miss_Noland]

Peace Miss_Noland

For sure it is relevant ... If I open the door for you and insist "No, you first" then you can easily contest and say "why are you ordering me to go first?" ... it does not happen because you understand my motive is to be polite.

Conversely I would never say "keep your mouth shut and obey me" in any instance, however, in some cases you have with respect, taken partiality to verses without fully understanding the motive behind them, I believe some translations also do not help, and some ignorant Muslim people using force do not help either.

The last part I am not going to answer, because I have already answered the part about treatment of women and the difference or similitude to children should not be taken as a negative. Conceptually it may sound odd, but in reality you will like your husband to be patient with you if you lose it on him. That is the same way we treat children.

Ok so I get your point. Now kindly answer my question regarding divorce. What difference would it make how lightly or not a husband beats his wife or how badly or not he treats her when she cannot even divorce him without his consent?! Everything is irrelavent at that point! Women again have to turn to men to free them, they can't free themselves no matter what pain she has to endure.

[ravage]

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.

[quote]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[quote]

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

[/quote]

and..

[quote]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[quote]

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?

[/quote]

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

[quote]

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?

[/quote]

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.

[quote]

What does an inequity in inheritance really mean?

[/quote]

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

[quote]

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

[/quote]

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.

[quote]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[quote]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[quote]

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.

[/quote]

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

[quote]

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.
[/QUOTE]

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

[ravage]

@psyah

Peace ravage

Walekum Peace!

You say that I try to argue that the number of witnesses is to lessen responsibility and then you assert that this is treatment of special needs children.

You have forced a comparison based on the assumption that:

a) treatment of children is debasing
b) that women are being treated as such

I didn’t make this comparison … let me put it another way for you to understand … if I open a door for a woman is that to be considered polite or is it considering her invalid?

Should I do something to make the life of others better or will they turn their backs on me saying that I am being controlling, condescending, etc …

That really depends. If you knew for example that the person did not like others opening doors for them (and there are people like that) your opening a door for them would certainly not be an act of politeness.

Similarly it is all good to say that you’re trying to take care of women, but what of women who dont want to be taken care of, assuming the care also brings with it, as it often does, less palatable aspects of patriarchy?

The treatment we do of children in whatever they do should be out of love and for dependent women also. This is not equating women with children rather it shows us that the softness we need to use with children is the same with women.

Should women treat men like children? After all, if its just about love then women should also protect men like children.

As a man you may not realise this straight away, but show me an honest woman who will not love to be treated nicely even when she is angry or sad with you. Instead many men get angry at their women and that will stretch the conflict.

Show me an honest man who will not love to be treated nicely when he is angry or sad with his wife? Im not sure why theres a gender difference in that particular argument.

There is a verse in the Qur’an that shows when Maryam (AS) was born that the male is not like the female, according to the fuqaha they say that this puts the advantage on women. To say they are better than men at many things if Islam did not give men authority then we would be subdued by their superior abilities.

By doing this a sense of parity develops and we truly become more equal.

Thats an interesting argument. Better than the child one :k:

Even though there is a limit for men in terms of hitting, should a woman hit her husband for no big reason at all is she held accountable to it according to Qur’an? My wife may thump me one but I will just smile back and she knows that I cannot hit her.

Thats what I was saying, that if there is no Islamic injunction against your wife thumping you then we dont really have an issue. If anything this is just a recommendation on how men should thump without placing bounds on any retaliation. Which would be sensible given the propensity for men to thump much harder than women can. Which is good but seems like a far-fetched interpretation.

Surely we do this with children i.e. if they show us ingratitude and abuse we calm them down or pour out more love for them, but to equate the two is wrong. The nurturing process is for the children and a caring process or nurturing the relationship can be the similitude you apply to the case of women.

Once again, I dont like the children analogy. Unless you’re prepared to be treated like a child yourself (and that isnt obvious at the moment) it is certainly patronizing. In the same way some imperialists used to argue that its a good thing we have these colonies because we take care of them and treat them with kindness.

I hope this has made it clearer.

Fundamentally I think you’re a nice guy and therefore your interpretations are also couched in very nice language and have a nice spin to them. I am not sure they are very general though.

[psyah]

Ok so I get your point. Now kindly answer my question regarding divorce. What difference would it make how lightly or not a husband beats his wife or how badly or not he treats her when she cannot even divorce him without his consent?! Everything is irrelavent at that point! Women again have to turn to men to free them, they can't free themselves no matter what pain she has to endure.

Peace again Miss_Noland

I need to admit one thing and that is I thought you were probably here to create problems but I was mistaken and it seems that you are genuine. Please excuse me for that.

Regarding divorce ... She may divorce him without his consent if she raises the divorce through a trial. It is true that the man can divorce his wife without going to trial over it, however, the lawyers do get involved in any case.

A man is not allowed to 'beat' his wife ... it is not something that he should be doing at all. If she is unfaithful/disloyal then one 'tap' is allowed to remind her as a last resort even if she then does not come to her senses then divorce on good terms is the next step. If a man beats his wife on a regular basis then he is going against that verse you quoted earlier.

So if she is going through 'pain' then she has complete grounds to leave him, she will not be legally divorced but she can leave him anytime and the divorce will take place in trial, just like in a secular court.

Islam teaches us to come to terms with gender difference. We are not enemies of each other. Rather men and women are made for one another as companions. We should be happy about that not MEN this or WOMEN that because when a person speaks this way it is clear that they are not content with their own position in the society they currently live in with the rights they currently have. If secular western society was so amicable to women then why is this society breeding the most reactionary feminism? It proves that there is a problem. Islam hopefully will make us deal with our difference, and it does not try to make us the same, yet it does show us how we can all get our fair share of justice so there is no need for people to stand up for their rights because they are already getting them.

As for why men can do verbal divorce and women divorce by trial only, I can only give personal experience and that is not saying much but here is my reason. I believe if verbal divorce was in the hands of women as well then we would have many more divorces, and hence many more opportunities for men not to be tolerant with their women and go and seek other women to wed and bed. Sorry for the crudeness but that is it. Women in my experience will utter the words 'divorce' more readily and will themselves suffer if they say it. If they are mothers, they say 'I divorce you' because husband didn't do something then they are left with the kids to raise. Even if it was not psychology by having two sets of people who can utter divorce, by probability alone 'divorce' will increase. Divorce is actually frowned upon in Islam.

When in a sensitive situation men tend to heighten in their rational faculties and women in their emotional ones. Men see memories as past events however, women tend to relive their memories every time they recall them. It is to do with a physical difference in the brains. Of course Allah (SWT) knows us better than we know ourselves.

[picoico]

sure.

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.

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.

[quote]

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.

[/quote]

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? What is the reason for this inconsistency? The claim does not fit in compartmentalized circumstances. It is perceived that this is a suggested trait of the faith proper.

[quote]

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

[quote]

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. 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.

[quote]

To someone who values equality a 'systemic unbalance' would be an example of ill treatment.

[/quote]

The value proposition for "equality" is questionable, if there are other instances of inequity which are considered normative. It's not equity in general, but the audacity to define gender roles and infer entitlements based on these roles.

It's very much different than disadvantaged ethnic groups, and more akin to disparities within an ethnic group, if anything. 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...sole sisters, or sole sons are not a factor. In one case, a daughter may receive full inheritance, in others, little. 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. To take the family out of the equation and make this strictly a gender argument is a canard.

Again, it's not the actual amount. It's simply the audacity of differentiating.

[quote]

You see you can question the questioner, but that is merely a way of avoiding answering the question.

[/quote]

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?

[quote]

They go beyond that. Historically wages have also been indicative of power.

[/quote]

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.

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?

Is the fact that women inherit less then men meant to suggest that women are worth less in 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. And do consider things like why Islamic rituals, rites and responsibilities are not assigned based on wealth. If there is a notion of worth which involves personal means, in the financial sense, why is it not demonstrated elsewhere?

[Miss_Noland]

Peace again Miss_Noland

I need to admit one thing and that is I thought you were probably here to create problems but I was mistaken and it seems that you are genuine. Please excuse me for that.

Regarding divorce ... She may divorce him without his consent if she raises the divorce through a trial. It is true that the man can divorce his wife without going to trial over it, however, the lawyers do get involved in any case.

A man is not allowed to 'beat' his wife ... it is not something that he should be doing at all. If she is unfaithful/disloyal then one 'tap' is allowed to remind her as a last resort even if she then does not come to her senses then divorce on good terms is the next step. If a man beats his wife on a regular basis then he is going against that verse you quoted earlier.

So if she is going through 'pain' then she has complete grounds to leave him, she will not be legally divorced but she can leave him anytime and the divorce will take place in trial, just like in a secular court.

Islam teaches us to come to terms with gender difference. We are not enemies of each other. Rather men and women are made for one another as companions. We should be happy about that not MEN this or WOMEN that because when a person speaks this way it is clear that they are not content with their own position in the society they currently live in with the rights they currently have. If secular western society was so amicable to women then why is this society breeding the most reactionary feminism? It proves that there is a problem. Islam hopefully will make us deal with our difference, and it does not try to make us the same, yet it does show us how we can all get our fair share of justice so there is no need for people to stand up for their rights because they are already getting them.

When in a sensitive situation men tend to heighten in their rational faculties and women in their emotional ones. Men see memories as past events however, women tend to relive their memories every time they recall them. It is to do with a physical difference in the brains. Of course Allah (SWT) knows us better than we know ourselves.

Thank you! My intent was never to disrespect anybody or hurt anybody's feelings.

In regards to divorce, I believe you are speaking of khula (separation). Yes, I am aware of it. Don't you think it's unfair that a man has the right to divorce his wife but the wife can only separate from him? The wife still has to obtain her husband's permission to seek Khula, correct me if I am wrong.

[QUOTE]

As for why men can do verbal divorce and women divorce by trial only, I can only give personal experience and that is not saying much but here is my reason. I believe if verbal divorce was in the hands of women as well then we would have many more divorces, and hence many more opportunities for men not to be tolerant with their women and go and seek other women to wed and bed. Sorry for the crudeness but that is it. Women in my experience will utter the words 'divorce' more readily and will themselves suffer if they say it. If they are mothers, they say 'I divorce you' because husband didn't do something then they are left with the kids to raise. Even if it was not psychology by having two sets of people who can utter divorce, by probability alone 'divorce' will increase. Divorce is actually frowned upon in Islam.
[/QUOTE]

I can actually agree with you on that to an extent, that's only because I find a lot of women making stupid decisions during one of their emotional episodes. Somehow I still don't find the argument convincing enough. I could say the same thing about men granted the right to marry more than one woman. Had it not been permitted in Islam, we wouldn't have men practicing polygamy without a cause. Polygamy causes so much resentment and distress to women. Why didn't Qur'an forbid polygamy then? It could see that women would be taking advantage of the right to divorce but it failed to see how men would manipulate the polygamy law to marry for their own selfish reasons. I am sure if Qur'an forbid polygamy, we would see much less of it today.

I still see that as a grave injustice among our society. Islam has really bound women in many ways. Yes, they have rights that the preceding religions fail to give them, but if we were to call Islam the true religion, it should be fair and just to all irregardless of time, sex, and age.

[Miss_Noland]

@""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.

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? What is the reason for this inconsistency? The claim does not fit in compartmentalized circumstances. It is perceived that this is a suggested trait of the faith proper.

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

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. 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.

The value proposition for “equality” is questionable, if there are other instances of inequity which are considered normative. It’s not equity in general, but the audacity to define gender roles and infer entitlements based on these roles.

It’s very much different than disadvantaged ethnic groups, and more akin to disparities within an ethnic group, if anything. 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…sole sisters, or sole sons are not a factor. In one case, a daughter may receive full inheritance, in others, little. 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. To take the family out of the equation and make this strictly a gender argument is a canard.

Again, it’s not the actual amount. It’s simply the audacity of differentiating.

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?

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.

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?

Is the fact that women inherit less then men meant to suggest that women are worth less in 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. And do consider things like why Islamic rituals, rites and responsibilities are not assigned based on wealth. If there is a notion of worth which involves personal means, in the financial sense, why is it not demonstrated elsewhere?

Wow! You are such an awesome conversationalist that I haven’t even bothered to respond to any of your gibberish claims. I didn’t start the topic to get questions thrown at me. I am here to learn and listen to what the Muslims here have to say about the status of women in Islam. I am not interested in learning how to hold a discussion, so you can keep the counter attacking strategies to yourself, thank you. If you can’t provide anything useful, please don’t bother. I would rather be provided with reliable external sources than read all that you have writen, which so far hasn’t said much about the actual topic.

[Miss_Noland]

Peace Miss_Noland

I hope you do not think that I have given an interpretation. I am simply providing a way you can reconcile and come to terms with your own interpretation or the ones you have heard. I am merely showing you that even with the understanding that you have gauged it is not as black and white as you are putting it.

The correct interpretation is the one that will point you to Allah (SWT), but you still may not be guided by it until you allow yourself to be guided by it and Allah (SWT) Wills it for you. To arrive at the place where Muslims are in this regard at least those who have become Muslim by choice, which does not include myself, is to acquire the answers from those people who know more than us and they will also provide you with satisfactory answers with why they should be consulted.

The Word is from God, but that does not make it necessary that all will be guided by that Word. The Qur'an itself says that some will be misguided by it. Surely it would be proof against the Qur'an if it claimed that it will guide everybody and yet we still see people being misguided, rather it states that some will be guided and others not, and this is exactly what is happening.

Okay for your last contention ... The very beginning of the Qur'an states that it is a Guidance for those who fear God. i.e. the condition to fear God comes before trying to receive guidance from the Book. Know that those who read the Qur'an and do not get guided by it, are also not those who fear God. Believe in God first, understand Him well, then consult the Qur'an for guidance, or rather just read the Qur'an with an open mind and in time hopefully you will find what you are looking for.

It is true that you will find things that you disagree with, because they may seem to be unfamiliar to your likes, preferences and experiences, but if you ask yourself what "other" meaning can be taken from this and if you find that there are "other" possibilities than the negative one then read on ... because until you find a conclusive impossibility in the Qur'an it is hence not falsifyable. There is no reason why you must focus on the negative interpretation, when really you should be looking at the whole Qur'an and argue you case by looking at all of it.

Some people say the Qur'an was written by the devil, this cannot be true because the Qur'an curses the devil. There are many things like this that directly address your concerns. In many places it talks about justice and equity and the rank of women then why is it you take a single verse here and there and automatically assume it to be the negative meaning that does not fit with the rest of the Qur'an?

You are looking for fairness but I don't think you are being fair in your assessment of the Qur'anic ayaat.

I missed your this post and indeed, you are right in everything you have said. I do not fear God because I don't know where, what, or who he is. If there was something to be feared, I would have fear. I can't bring myself to believe in something I don't understand and asking me to devote myself to God is too big of a demand. I do believe in higher power and won't necessarily call it a GOD.

If there's a true religion, it shoud guide all of us and not divide us. Of course, if Islam is indeed the religion of God, I want to make sure I live my life according to it. However, with the amount of descrapencies I have noticed in all Abrahamic scriptures, it's hard to conclude that Islam teaches anything different. It's all the same in a nutshell.

There are thousands of religions, sects and what not and Qur'an claims it sent messengers for all nations to get his message. If all messengers performed their duty then why does Qur'an mistreat/hate them and label them as Kuffar? Afterall, they too listened to their messengers, they too have a guidance book of their own. Why should they have listened to anybody else when the preceding messengers never mentioned another coming of a prophet (not speaking of the second coming of Jesus Christ here).

You are asking me to find other possibilities than the negative ones for the Qur'anic verses I found quite wrong. Well, I can certainly do that but if I have to "find" the positive meaning behind every verse of Qur'an, then what makes it so different from other scriptures? I could find the positive message in other scriptures too, if I wanted to. It doesn't provide much guidance if I am looking for its true meaning everywhere, does it? You can say that I am saying this because I don't believe in God and you are right. There's no logic behind faith, it seems and I believe in logic, does it mean I can never find faith?