what do women get out of islam?

[S.A.M.]

I might be. I find myself wondering about god sometimes recently. I even like reading religious texts - and yes, even the Quran.

Now that you've calmed down from your shock, I will say that it is, after all, the most unanswerable question possible, which is what interests me.

Its okay I used to be embarassed about it too.

Did it secretly so no one would think I was ready to wrap myself in (black) sackcloth and ashes. Me, the uber feminist!

I wonder, is it an effect of biological studies d'you think?

 

[GeoffP]

It's not well received in our field, whatever the religion. Although my present boss is religious, by accounts.

...we plan to burn him next solstice. You know. Can't be helped.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's not well received in our field, whatever the religion. Although my present boss is religious, by accounts.

...we plan to burn him next solstice. You know. Can't be helped.

You might be surprised how very common it is.

But have no fear your secret is safe with me. (heheheheh)

 

[Michael]

Why do the Islamic countries do this?

Yes why?

Well, there is my polygamy argument. But, you don’t like that one.

There is your Dictator argument – that one I don’t agree with because there are so many Dictatorial regimes where women are equal.
(A)
Well, if we meet half way and if I go with your argument that the inequality does not have anything to do with Islam, Then if that is that case Iran, KSA, Malaysia, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc are not Islamic countries. Actually, accordingly, there are no Islamic countries.

They have never existed.

That answers it. The question is spurious because there are and have never been true Muslim nations. (Just like Communism - there never has been a true Communistic State in existence)

(B)
Another explanation is that Islam is, as a social concept, not all that motivating. Simply compare Islam with the social concept of Communism – where women were given legal equality. Given this hypothesis we’d say that Muslim women living in societies that are ruled by a Communist régime should have more legal rights than Muslim women living in societies ruled by an “Islamic” Theocracy or modeled after a perceived Islamic government. We just so happen to have such a case. Muslim women in Western China are indeed legally equal. Some even rule over Muslims as female Imam’s – the first in the “Islamic” world I believe? So, perhaps the answer is that these nations (Iran, KSA, Malaysia, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc) never traditional afforded women very many rights and as people converted to “Islam” it wasn’t much of a social influence and simply didn't change this.

(C)
Or we could also hypothesis that in an Islamic Theocracy like Iran the women are afforded exactly the correct amount of rights that they should be Islamically afforded to them. Which just so happens to be much less than men. I’m sure the Mullahs running the Iranian show over there would agree to that.


Either way we need to come up with a reason why Islamic nations in particular have a low batting average on women being legally and socially equal with men.

Any other ideas?

My answer isn't because they have a dictator. I didn't say that at all. My answer is that they have dictators who run for a specific political agenda. I don't know what drives some of these people to hate women, but one thing is for certain: it isn't Islam.

Yes and so to do the North Koreans – they have a specific political agenda. Actually, the same is true of China or Cuba or Singapore or the USA for that matter etc…

While the social reality is one thing the first step is for women to be legally treated as equal. Why is it that in Indonesia and Malaysia women are not legally equal to a man while their neighbors Singapore and the Philippine women are legally equal?

Malaysia:
“Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, decent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.” (Article 8 (2).

The absence of State sanctioned protection against sexual discrimination in the Federal Constitution has failed to protect against a legal system and social structures in which equality between the sexes is apparent. Women and men are not equal before the law, nor do the sexes have equal protection of law. Women before the law continue to encounter sexual discrimination, in the formulation of laws, in lack of laws to protect women against discrimination, and in the interpretation and enforcement of laws. Inequality, and a failure to protect women against discrimination manifest itself in many detrimental ways in all spheres of women's lives.

The Philippines
The Philippines has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The Philippine Constitution of 1987 recognizes the fundamental equality of women and men and the New Family Code of 1987 affirms women's right to own property and to contract employment and credit without the need of their husbands' consent. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 guarantees equal rights to land ownership, equal shares of the farm's produce, and representation in advisory or appropriate decision-making bodies to qualified women of the agricultural work force. Legislation of 1990 mandates the establishment of day care centres in every village to free women for other activities such as farming or attending extension and other meetings. The Women in Development and Nation Building Act of 1992 provides equal access to resources, including credit and training. It also requires the allocation of a substantial portion of Official Development Assistance (ODA) funds to support programmes and activities for women.

The Qur'an highlights an important aspect of Islam's concept of leadership. After successfully completing a number of tests, Prophet Ibrahim is given the glad tidings that he has been appointed Imam (leader) of all the people. "What about my progeny?" asks Ibrahim. "My covenant does not include the dhalimeen (oppressors)", comes the divine reply (Al-Qur'an 2:124). An important point emerges from this dialogue: an oppressor is not fit to be leader of the Muslims, regardless of what other qualities he may possess. Implicit in this ayat are two other points about leadership: to be legitimate, it must have divine sanction and, Islam rejects the concept of hereditary leadership; each person must qualify for it on merit.[/I]

And what? Each Son of the successive Emperor in the Ottoman Empire just coincidentally happened to have divine sanction? Either that’s just ungodly lucky or according to this rational the Ottoman Empire was not an Islamic Empire. According to this rational it is impossible to have an Islamic Empire. Islam and Empire do not fit together. So the Ottoman Empire was just that – an Empire of Ottomans. It may have had a general populous of Muslims. So what - doesn't matter. It was no different than the Roman Empire or Chinese Empire or English Empire or Russian Empire ect.. Good Emperors and Bad Emperors. But they are all simply following the tried and true form of Dynastic rule (hardly and "Islamic" invention that one) – sure these can work for a few hundred years but the dice eventually roll craps. It happened for the Ottomans just as it happened for the rest.

Off topic, “divine sanction” is a sure fire guarantee of eventual governmental failure. Thank the lack-of-Gods we did exactly the opposite in the USA. Probably the single most defining characteristic of the American adventure and the reason why the USA has the oldest Constitution still in use in the entire World.

If an emperor is a true follower of Islam, then he will be good for his Muslim people. If an emperor is not a true follower of Islam, and his people are Muslims, then there will be problems. I just quoted Islam's status on leadership and how leaders are chosen. Yes, dictators are a bad idea, but if you have a good dictator, then it could be a great thing. That's the gamble.

You are combining two ideas. Yes, I agree, a great ruler who happens to be a devout Muslim will be by definition - a great ruler. A shit ruler that happens to be a devout Muslim will be by definition - a shit ruler. A great ruler who happens to be an Atheist will be by definition - a great ruler even if he/she happens to rule over Muslims. A shit ruler that happens to be a Atheist will be by definition - a shit ruler even if he/she happens to rule over Muslims.

The two are completely separate. Many Iranian Mullahs are probably pretty devout “true” Muslims that would agree with you 100% of the time on religous matters. Yet, when it comes to figuring out how to manage the economy, tax people, spend taxes appropriately, manage social change, invest what limited money there is wisely, etc.. that's a different ball game. Praying to Allah really hard ain't going to get you an A on that math test mate - ya gotta be good at math

It says 1-3, so let us assume 2% to be fair. Two in ONE HUNDRED men will choose to practice polygamy, and overwhelming odds are that they'll only have one extra wife. Do you see any urgency here whatsoever?

In my rational for why polygamy leads to a general state of mind non-conducive towards women being equal I still think that yes even 1 in 100 this is so. But you disagree so I offered (A) (B) and (C) additional hypothesizes.

Either way it’s obvious the post was opened because the person who started it recognized, like most everyone, that many nations with high Muslim populations are correlated with some of the worse records of giving woman equality with men.

They get to be part of harem of a rich men who can take care of them. they should be happy... Hahaha. Just kidding. Seriously though I'm sure these muslim women have enough intelligence to think for themselves.

nice pic
That’s not the point. Some Women are intelligent some stupid. Some men are intelligent and some stupid. The question is why are women in predominately Muslim counties treated so disparaging unequal when compared with countries that are not majority Muslim?

Why?

Perhaps one of the worst thing about beig a muslim for women is fear of family honour killing. Though muslim women are generally as intelligent and can think for themselves as much as any of us, it's important that we recognise such crap that goes on under their community such as honour killing. That stuff is happening everywhere sadly. It's tragic that some of these women can't trust their own family because of some backwards shananigans.

This is a good point on why, for some women, they will not divorce their husbands. And why, if they were forced to marry they would shut up and smile.

But that aside, I’d really like to know what the percentage if of Xians, Jews, Baha’i, ect.. in say Syria or Turkey or Iran etc.. and the percentage of those that commit an honor killing compared with the percentage of Muslims that do likewise. Is it higher or lower? In this way the statistic should reveal if religious belief makes any dent over the cultural practice of honor killing.

Anyone able to get the Stats on that????


Michael

 

[WildBlueYonder]

The West had a 300 year genocide, 2 world wars and a holocaust in between.

see what I get on google

Results 1 - 10 of about 592,000 for muslimi genocide of hindus. (0.14 seconds)

see this:
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust/

"The massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese."
iii- Francois Gautier

As for the woman, do you see any destitute women, any beggars or prostitutes?

My little taqiyya, you live such a sheltered life, besides mutah marriage, there are & were actual muslim prostitutes, see here:

http://www.mutah.com/how_do_i_do_mutah.htm

Firstly we would advise you to get acquainted with the background of Mutah and its Islamic legitimacy. There's no substitute for getting your head down and reading about it! So if you haven't yet read up on Mutah please go back to the previous page and start reading! Once you are convinced in your heart that Mutah is indeed a legitimate option in Islam and acceptable before the eyes of God, then move to the next level. . .[/QUOTE

http://www.islamicvoice.com/2001-08/feature.htm

Maqbool Ahmed Siraj
Problems do not go away by ignoring them. They fester, assume menacing proportions and ultimately damage the entire society.
Few in the Muslim community would like to hear about Muslim prostitutes. Yes, they exist. And exist in greater numbers than the community’s fair share, so to say. Going by the social stigma, one would realize how difficult it would be to reform and rehabilitate them.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3I...ts=yKSv5bMaAE&sig=yl5LcInffRFrR-iFnVzIZKyCjgg

The Victors and the Vanquished: Christians and Muslims of Catalonia and Aragon, 1050-1300
By Brian A. Catlo

Closed site, use cached link to enter
http://www.bangsamoro.com/mnotes/mn_080803.php

"Muslim prostitutes?" In Surabaya, Indonesia, women in hijab do actually engage in such a business as a form of employment. A Channel News Asia feature profiles a "home" for these ladies where they can learn Islam from a liberal-minded ustadz. He says these girls deserve a chance.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2279/is_n156/ai_20059975/pg_9

The prominence of Muslim prostitutes in Nairobi and among Hausa communities in southern Nigeria contradicts Kadri's assertion that prostitution was alien to Muslim Hausa women and that it was a result of the `evil influences' of the Gold Coast.(54) Indeed, in Nairobi, prostitutes converted to Islam and underwent training in Islamic decorum as a trade strategy. While it must be emphasized that Islam does not condone prostitution, it is likely that Kadri found it difficult to accept the assertiveness of these Hausa women and was embroiled in conflict with them.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/11/24/1164341396696.html?page=2

Her friend reluctantly told her she worked in the sex industry. "I thought if she can do it, then so can I," says Julie.
On her first night at the brothel she wore her hijab. "The owner said to me, 'Look, I know you are different and you have got a different belief, but in many ways we are a lot alike.'
"She gave me a room and told me I didn't have to do a job straight away, just to get comfortable. But it was so hard for me because, except for my husband, the most I had said to another man was 'Hi, how are you?'
"It took me six months to learn how to say 'Hi I am (Julie), how are you? I do sex, massage, oral with condoms."

 

[S.A.M.]

see what I get on google
see this:
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust/




My little taqiyya, you live such a sheltered life, besides mutah marriage, there are & were actual muslim prostitutes, see here:

http://www.mutah.com/how_do_i_do_mutah.htm

Firstly we would advise you to get acquainted with the background of Mutah and its Islamic legitimacy. There's no substitute for getting your head down and reading about it! So if you haven't yet read up on Mutah please go back to the previous page and start reading! Once you are convinced in your heart that Mutah is indeed a legitimate option in Islam and acceptable before the eyes of God, then move to the next level. . .[/QUOTE

http://www.islamicvoice.com/2001-08/feature.htm


http://books.google.com/books?id=3I...ts=yKSv5bMaAE&sig=yl5LcInffRFrR-iFnVzIZKyCjgg


Closed site, use cached link to enter
http://www.bangsamoro.com/mnotes/mn_080803.php


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2279/is_n156/ai_20059975/pg_9


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/11/24/1164341396696.html?page=2

Sorry those are not acceptable sources. Give me valid non propaganda sources.

 

[S.A.M.]

Mutah:

As far as the legal scholars, they talk about Mut'ah in the meaning of a gift, in the sense of what they make obligatory on a man who has married a woman without specifying a dowry, and then divorces her before having sexual relations. They would necessitate that the divorced woman be a gift that is appropriate for his economic status. This is based upon the ayat 236 of Surah al-Baqara: "There is no sin on you that you divorce women whom who you have not touched, and that you give them a gift (Mut'ah), the rich man based on his ability, and the poor based on his ability, a righteous gift which is a right over the pure ones." They also talk about Mut'ah in terms of hajj, which we have discussed elsewhere. Alongside of these uses, the scholars of law talk about Mut'ah in terms of a fixed-time marriage. There is universal consensus amongst Sunni and Shi'a scholars that Islam has legislated this, and that the Prophet (s) made this permissible. This is based upon ayah 24 of Surat an-Nisa': "When you have done Mut'ah with them, so give them the agreed upon dowry."


Nikāḥu’l-Mut‘ah, Nikah el Mut'a (Arabic: نكاح المتعة, also Nikah Mut‘ah literally, marriage[1] for pleasure[2]), or sigheh, is a fixed-time marriage which, according to the Usuli Shia schools of Shari‘a (Islamic law), is a marriage with a preset duration, after which the marriage is automatically dissolved. It is the second form of Islamic marriage, described in the Qur'an (4:24). However, it is regarded as haram (prohibited) by Sunnis. This is a highly controversial fiqh topic; Sunnis and Shi‘a hold diametrically opposed views on its permissibility. For the Sunni version of Mut'ah, see Nikah Misyar.

Although Nikah Mut'ah is usually portrayed in the western media as a form of "Islamic dating", there are a few differences between Nikah Mut'ah and modern western dating, mainly:[8]

* A woman is required to observe an iddah (waiting period) after their breakup, if they have consummated their relationship.
* It is forbidden for women to "date" non-Muslims, and men are not permitted to "date" women of non-monotheistic religions.
* The two parties must have a verbal consent, although some Muslims believe that implicit consent is also acceptable.

According to Usuli Shia scholars Mut'a is a valid marriage. Muslims in countries that permit Nikahu’l-Mut‘ah, such as Iran, have varying views on this form of marriage, depending on how it is used. Some practices are viewed as being more legitimate, while others are viewed as irresponsible

 

[S.A.M.]

As for prostitution
http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/christian.html

Non Goddess Prostitutes in the Bible
There are only a few non-cultic prostitutes mentioned in the bible. Since men could have as many wives and concubines (for breeding or just sexual enjoyment) as they could afford it may have been only the poorer men who would need prostitutes for sexual variety. They couldn't afford the "upkeep" of wives or concubines so they went to prostitutes for sexual pleasure and release.

Prostitution in Hebrew society was morally censored at times for legitimate reasons such as the knowing who would own the resulting children, with no effective birth control, but it was not illegal or a sin. Only Israelite priests were prohibited from marrying a prostitute. Listed as wrongs for which God will judge is trading "a boy for a harlot" (Joel 3:3). But being a prostitute (harlot or zonah in Hebrew) herself, if single, is guilty of no biblical crime unless she is a priest's daughter, in which case says Lev 21:9 she "profaneth her father" and "shall be burnt with fire."

Prostitution was common in biblical times. In Proverbs men are warned against squandering their money foolishly on prostitutes. But it was a money issue not morality. There was no law against prostitution for non-Hebrew women. Today prostitution flourishes in Israel and some of the world's most popular brothels are in Tel Aviv. For Hebrew women it was very important to have a husband to have children with to maintain the Hebrew people. It was never considered adultery for a man, married or single, to have sex with a prostitute, as long as she was single (not owned by another man). It was only wrong if it was for the purpose of pagan goddess worship.

Judah saw nothing wrong in hiring a prostitute for the night.

Rahab "the harlot" was praised in Hebrews 11:31 and Jos 6:17 as an example of faith. Rahab was praised because she helped Israelite spies whom she hid and helped escape but the mention of her as "the harlot" wasn't a negative reference .

In Hosea 1:3, God commanded Hosea to marry a prostitute named Gomez. In Hosea 4:15, God said he would not punish the daughters of Israel when they turned to prostitution.

In Hosea 1:3, God commanded Hosea to marry a prostitute named Gomez. In Hosea 4:15, God said he would not punish the daughters of Israel when they turned to prostitution. (Someone Commented: These passages are allegories to Gods relationships with Israel, which at the time wasn't exactly good. The Hosea 4:15 reference I believe is saying that though Israel in general is acting as a harlot, Judah (one tribe of Israel) is not. EG, all of the tribes except Judah are acting as harlots. I think some of this could possibly support the notion that there was clearly a double standard - one for men, and another for women. And it certainly seems to be stating that it's not OK for women to cheat.) And men could always cheat as long as the "other women" was not married (owned by husband).

Other prostitutes mentioned in the Old Testament were the harlot of Gaza, whom Samson visited, and two squabbling prostitutes who asked Solomon to settle a dispute. It is simply reported the fact that they were prostitutes, no big deal, nothing is ever said in condemnation of their profession.

In fact the Hebrew judge Solomon may have done more whoring than judging (Judg 16:1-4), and Jacobs son Judah, mistaking his own veiled daughter-in-law for a harlot, hired her as a prostitute (Gen 38: 13-18). The leader Gilead fathered Jephthah by a prostitute which resulted in Jephthah's half-brothers, when dividing up the inheritance, left Jephthah out (Judg 11: 1-2).

Proverbs obviously views the foreign prostitute unsympathetically (oppressor, not victim) who with superior wealth and astuteness manages to seduce simple Israelite boys and husbands. In this trajectory we may also read Paul's treatment in 1 Cor. 6:9-20, where Christian men (especially husbands, whose wives may have taken vows of sexual abstinence to pray, 7:5) are warned against uniting with prostitutes. As perhaps in Proverbs, the prostitutes apparently are viewed as manifesting the demonic forces of pagan religion (cf. 10:18-22). Christians are exhorted to "flee" both the prostitutes and their idolatrous religion (6:18; 10:14). How Jesus would have managed to become a "friend" of prostitutes by continually "fleeing" from them, traditional sex-negative Augustinian commentators never tell us.

Since wealthy men didn't need prostitutes (they had plenty of wives and concubines) prostitution was certainly not a high Noble calling. But there clearly was nothing immoral or wrong from a biblical prospective with non-goddess prostitution. Today many men have little opportunity for sexual fulfillment so prostitutes are the only viable option. Sexual frustration results in men that become aggressive and are far more likely to sexually harass, abuse or rape women than men who are sexually happy and fulfilled.

Legal Prostitution in the Bible reflects the cultures double standard that while a wife must be faithful, a Hebrew man can have sex with an unmarried prostitute, or any other single woman, and not be committing adultery. But if the woman is a wife -owned by her husband under the patriarchal system of the Hebrews - then both she and her sexual partners are adulterers, a crime for which the penalty is death (Lev 20:10; Deut. 22:22).

In New Testament times, there also was nothing said about prostitution being wrong and in fact Jesus makes the point that harlots who believed John the Baptist will enter the kingdom of God before the chief priests and elders who rejected John's message (Matt. 21:31-32).

Today prostitution is not pagan idolatry nor the concubines of biblical times - women as breeders and for sexual pleasure. And nowhere in the Bible is a word said about that being wrong!! Today many women enjoy providing intimacy and sexual pleasure to men based on their choice without being owned as concubines for men and of course always using safe sex to avoid "breeding" and so its a very healthy interaction both physically and emotionally.

Prostitution in Israel Today A June 15, 2000 review sent to me:
The best action in Israel is in Tel Aviv. There are tons of "health clubs" which provide full sex for a price going from 120 to 250 shekels for half an hour (full service) (4.2 Shekels= 1 USD). The best two I have been to are located close to each other, and are in the area of Hamasger street. These are a little more expensive, but the quality is amazing. The first one is called Promise bar (on Hamasger street) and the other one is in Shozino street (3 minutes walking from the first one) and is called Shozino bar. In these places, there is an entry fee of 50 shekels, including a drink. Then you can sit at the bar, and choose the girl you want. The price is 200 shekels for half an hour, and it includes full service, bbbj without and sometime even more. The girls are all russian or from ukraine. ALL of them I found friendly, and most of them like what they are doing. You can also stay for a longer time, the price increases and is 400 shekels for one full hour (this would include more than 1 act, of course)

As I said, there are plenty of "health clubs" but these two are the best I found (after a lot of research!!!). Enjoy it.

Adultery Is Not what you've been told it is
The issues of adultery are quite clear. For 2000 years since Moses gave the no adultery commandment, adultery was understood to only apply to married women, and never to a married man. A married man could have as many wives and concubines (single women as breeders) as he wished and this was never considered wrong. Only when the puritanically minded starting taking over Christianity and twisting the original texts did the sexually repressive teachings begin. The lie is that Christian sexuality is allowable only in marriage and only with one partner. Besides being very much against the nature of human kind it just has no biblical basis. More and more theologians are exposing the lies that preach repressive sexuality. More and more Christians are finding more Christlike love in loving more than just their husband or partner. And many are fleeing Christianity for other eastern religions that so wonderfully integrate sexuality with spirituality. Biblical Christianity could do the same, except for the lies of Church traditions that have tried to control people by repressing their natural wholesome sexual desires.

 

[Fugu-dono]

^ Is that last post not off-topic S.A.M.? It might make for a good new topic though.

Nice points Michael. Sexual equality barely exist in many religion not just Muslim. I have to agree though that many islamic countries' tradition will not recognise women even where Qur'an doesn't oppose bias to any sex. Pretty bad IMO.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Sorry those are not acceptable sources. Give me valid non propaganda sources.

you are sorry, but on a more serious note, just what is your standard for "acceptable sources" ? or is it, if it don't support you or your views, its "Verboten"? hmmmm, my little taqiyya?

 

[WildBlueYonder]

^ Is that last post not off-topic S.A.M.? It might make for a good new topic though.

Nice points Michael. Sexual equality barely exist in many religion not just Muslim. I have to agree though that many islamic countries' tradition will not recognise women even where Qur'an doesn't oppose bias to any sex. Pretty bad IMO.

funny, but Mohammad's first wife made him & he returned the favor by;
spending all her money, then becoming a bandit to make ends meet
after her death, marrying young & marrying often
& as a final insult, making women permanent 3rd class citizens via the religious edicts of the quran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadijah_bint_Khuwaylid

Khuwaylid ibn Asad (Khadijah's father), who died around 585, was a merchant, a successful businessman whose vast wealth and business talents were inherited by Khadijah and whom the latter succeeded in faring with the family's vast wealth. It is said that when Banu Quraish's trade caravans gathered to embark upon their lengthy and arduous journey either to Syria during the summer or to Yemen during the winter, Khadijah's caravan equaled the caravans of all other traders of Quraish put together. Fatimah bint Za'idah (Khadijah's mother), died around 575, was of Banu `Amir ibn Luayy ibn Ghalib, also a distant relative of Muhammad.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Its okay I used to be embarassed about it too.

Did it secretly so no one would think I was ready to wrap myself in (black) sackcloth and ashes. Me, the uber feminist!

I wonder, is it an effect of biological studies d'you think?

how does it feel to belong to what is viewed in islam as a 3rd class group & yet defend it so often, unappreciated fully by your co-religionists? where in your self-claimed religion you would be put in your place as an uppity westernized women? could you hold the position of imam? could you teach islamic studies at al-Azhar University in Egypt? or a madrassa in Pakistan?
http://www.alazhar.org/
http://ipcs.org/newIpcsPublications.jsp?status=publications&status1=issue&mod=d&check=15&try=true

say??? are you really even a women? or sock-puppet?

you couldn't be so opinionated & hold your own except in a Western context, I doubt you could act this way in a purely muslim context & get away with it

welcome to the Western internet, my little jihadi warrior

is this the only position you could be viewed as an equal, as a jihadi of the propaganda mill?

so, are you really a women?????

 

[Michael]

As for prostitution.... Prostitutes in the Bible....

I am not sure if I get the point?

The reason why women are treated equally in "Xian" societies certainly has nothing to do with the Bible. I have said many times, the Bible, Qu'ran and Torah are carbon copies of one another. So what one has a flying fairy horse or one puts a twist on a silly story here or there. They are all centered squarely and firmly in middle eastern culture. Luckily the NT is Greek and not too bastardized from Gnosis - it's saving grace.

Off the top of my head I'd say a combination of things have given women freedoms.
1) Wealth. Women with their own wealth are free women.
2) Removing patriarchal religions as far away as possible from acquiring real political power.
3) I have often thought it may have had something to do with Scottish and Irish women? They are fearse - scary even. Thet're ideas of equality influenced the English and the English conquored the world.
4) As I said before, and for those reasons, monogamy.
5) A society that doesn't take religion too seriously. Maybe follows the basic moral code but other than that not much else.

Anyone think of anything else?
Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

I am not sure if I get the point?
Michael

That its perfectly acceptable as per the Bible, hence something to be embraced by WBY.

 

[S.A.M.]

funny, but Mohammad's first wife made him & he returned the favor by;
spending all her money, then becoming a bandit to make ends meet
after her death, marrying young & marrying often
& as a final insult, making women permanent 3rd class citizens via the religious edicts of the quran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadijah_bint_Khuwaylid

And this analysis is based on?

 

[DiamondHearts]

Basically, this is all just speculation.

What do you expect? This thread is about Islam, and women for that matter.

It seems everyone, even those with no adequate knowledge feel it necessary to offer some new historical analysis.

 

[Kadark]

Yes why?

Well, there is my polygamy argument. But, you don’t like that one.

Since two in one hundred men practice it, and the ones who do are very likely to marry only one extra wife, I don't see how this can lead to anything drastically harmful or bad for society. Just don't see it happening.

There is your Dictator argument – that one I don’t agree with because there are so many Dictatorial regimes where women are equal.

And the dictators who don't treat women unequally treat somebody else unequally/unfairly. Pick your poison.

Well, if we meet half way and if I go with your argument that the inequality does not have anything to do with Islam, Then if that is that case Iran, KSA, Malaysia, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc are not Islamic countries. Actually, accordingly, there are no Islamic countries.

In order to truly be "Islamic", it has to be found in our Holy Book, right? The book which covers every aspect of our life and religion, right? Why is it that the way women are treated today in some countries cannot be found in the Qur'an? Why does the Qur'an say that men are to protect women, and the best among men are the ones who treat women well?

(B)
Another explanation is that Islam is, as a social concept, not all that motivating. Simply compare Islam with the social concept of Communism – where women were given legal equality. Given this hypothesis we’d say that Muslim women living in societies that are ruled by a Communist régime should have more legal rights than Muslim women living in societies ruled by an “Islamic” Theocracy or modeled after a perceived Islamic government. We just so happen to have such a case. Muslim women in Western China are indeed legally equal. Some even rule over Muslims as female Imam’s – the first in the “Islamic” world I believe? So, perhaps the answer is that these nations (Iran, KSA, Malaysia, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc) never traditional afforded women very many rights and as people converted to “Islam” it wasn’t much of a social influence and simply didn't change this.

The empires who have practiced Islam the best have run the smoothest. If you include your own laws within a theocracy, which every single Muslim theocracy under the sun does, then there will be confusion, controversy, turmoil, etc.

(C)
Or we could also hypothesis that in an Islamic Theocracy like Iran the women are afforded exactly the correct amount of rights that they should be Islamically afforded to them. Which just so happens to be much less than men. I’m sure the Mullahs running the Iranian show over there would agree to that.

They are a theocracy in name. How they treat women aren't in Islam. Michael, let's start arguing religion, not politics (which would make sense given the section of the forums we're at). Let's see from the Qur'an verses that don't allow women outside without men's permission, the forced marriage, the lower education, etc.

Either way we need to come up with a reason why Islamic nations in particular have a low batting average on women being legally and socially equal with men.

Any other ideas?

What does treating women unequally and unfairly have to do with Islam itself?

While the social reality is one thing the first step is for women to be legally treated as equal. Why is it that in Indonesia and Malaysia women are not legally equal to a man while their neighbors Singapore and the Philippine women are legally equal?

Because Indonesia and Malaysia have different leaders than Singapore and Philippine. How your nation treats its people starts at the top. Who leads your country is what differentiates these nations.

And what? Each Son of the successive Emperor in the Ottoman Empire just coincidentally happened to have divine sanction? Either that’s just ungodly lucky or according to this rational the Ottoman Empire was not an Islamic Empire. According to this rational it is impossible to have an Islamic Empire. Islam and Empire do not fit together. So the Ottoman Empire was just that – an Empire of Ottomans. It may have had a general populous of Muslims. So what - doesn't matter. It was no different than the Roman Empire or Chinese Empire or English Empire or Russian Empire ect.. Good Emperors and Bad Emperors. But they are all simply following the tried and true form of Dynastic rule (hardly and "Islamic" invention that one) – sure these can work for a few hundred years but the dice eventually roll craps. It happened for the Ottomans just as it happened for the rest.

You're stretching my words here. I never said they were a "divine sancation", or anything of the sort. My point in referencing the Ottoman empire is that whatever form of legal system they had, whatever they used to rule their country, etc, they were Muslim rulers who treated women equally. "Work for a few hundred years"? 623 is quite a long time for a single Empire to rule, especially considering how large its land was. 623 years, and democracy has been working for how long?

Off topic, “divine sanction” is a sure fire guarantee of eventual governmental failure. Thank the lack-of-Gods we did exactly the opposite in the USA. Probably the single most defining characteristic of the American adventure and the reason why the USA has the oldest Constitution still in use in the entire World.

How long do you predict the US's prosperity and democracy to continue?

You are combining two ideas. Yes, I agree, a great ruler who happens to be a devout Muslim will be by definition - a great ruler. A shit ruler that happens to be a devout Muslim will be by definition - a shit ruler. A great ruler who happens to be an Atheist will be by definition - a great ruler even if he/she happens to rule over Muslims. A shit ruler that happens to be a Atheist will be by definition - a shit ruler even if he/she happens to rule over Muslims.

Muslims wouldn't accept an atheist ruler (unless he was privately atheist).

The two are completely separate. Many Iranian Mullahs are probably pretty devout “true” Muslims that would agree with you 100% of the time on religous matters. Yet, when it comes to figuring out how to manage the economy, tax people, spend taxes appropriately, manage social change, invest what limited money there is wisely, etc.. that's a different ball game. Praying to Allah really hard ain't going to get you an A on that math test mate - ya gotta be good at math

And who the hell is disagreeing with this? We can agree on mostly the same things, but when it comes time to put your knowledge to action when making important decisions, they fail.

Either way it’s obvious the post was opened because the person who started it recognized, like most everyone, that many nations with high Muslim populations are correlated with some of the worse records of giving woman equality with men.

Here is where you're wrong. The thread starter said "ISLAM", not "MUSLIM POPULATIONS". You're arguing the policies of Muslim nations, but I'm arguing the Qur'an. I sense you're backing away from religion because you didn't do your homework on Islam, considering you've never read the Qur'an.

nice pic
That’s not the point. Some Women are intelligent some stupid. Some men are intelligent and some stupid. The question is why are women in predominately Muslim counties treated so disparaging unequal when compared with countries that are not majority Muslim?

Political agenda. Not religion.

But that aside, I’d really like to know what the percentage if of Xians, Jews, Baha’i, ect.. in say Syria or Turkey or Iran etc.. and the percentage of those that commit an honor killing compared with the percentage of Muslims that do likewise. Is it higher or lower? In this way the statistic should reveal if religious belief makes any dent over the cultural practice of honor killing.

Anyone able to get the Stats on that????

Can you find honour killings in the Qur'an?

Anyone able to find a verse on that?

 

[Michael]

Since two in one hundred men practice it, and the ones who do are very likely to marry only one extra wife, I don't see how this can lead to anything drastically harmful or bad for society. Just don't see it happening.

Lets think about it another way. Suppose Slavery was legal. People wanted to have Slaves. It was a goal. The Religion said it was moral to own up to 4 Slaves. It’s OK to own humans. It’s OK for humans to be property. It’s OK to be a Master. Do you think that if this were the case, that even if only 1-3 people out of every 100 owned a coupe of Slaves, that this mentality would have a dramatic effect on society?

I for one think it would have a huge impact on society.

In the past many Slaves accepted Slavery. Some Slaves, believe it or not, thought that Slavery was natural and just. Slaves used to think that their God had made them a Slave and rationalized their Slavery as having some sort of purpose. Thus they had a purpose. I am sure many women have felt trapped in an unloving polygamist marriage - they probably thought as much themselves. It's only human.

And the dictators who don't treat women unequally treat somebody else unequally/unfairly. Pick your poison.

I don’t get your point.

In order to truly be "Islamic", it has to be found in our Holy Book, right? The book which covers every aspect of our life and religion, right? Why is it that the way women are treated today in some countries cannot be found in the Qur'an? Why does the Qur'an say that men are to protect women, and the best among men are the ones who treat women well?

You keep going to this.

I’m sure that if there was a country where Samcdkey ran the show and Muslim homosexuals were fully accepted and integrated into the society you’d say “This is not a “true” Islamic society". Which is why it’s a pointless argument. And one I covered in argument (A) there has never ever existed a “truly” Islamic country - so it’s pointless to speculate. It makes equally as much sense to say there has never ever been a “true” Communist country and so the Chinese Communist Manifesto (which is a religous doctrine like the Qur'an) is still a brilliant peace of literature and we should all give Communism a try and why not worship Mao while we’re at.

The empires who have practiced Islam the best have run the smoothest. If you include your own laws within a theocracy, which every single Muslim theocracy under the sun does, then there will be confusion, controversy, turmoil, etc.

They were hereditary Dynastic Empires that just happen to encompass Muslim populations. History shows they suffered the exact same fate every single Empire has suffered – founding, war and conquest, golden age and peace, corruption, a poor dictator and collapse. That’s a simple fact of history. The Ottomans didn’t do anything differently than any other Empires. See: Chinese, Japanese, Roman, Greek, English, French, etc.. etc.. etc...

The point stands – These Empires never gave women legal equality with men. As such we can conclude the tenants of Islam were not as moving as those of Communism - which have given women legal equality.
There’s really no argument here – it’s a fact of history and present reality. See argument (B)

Don’t get me wrong, women have been second class in all societies throughout most of history. Even in Rome at the height of its empire a woman could only command her own destiny if her husband died AND she never remarried AND she had money.

I wouldn’t expect countries where there are a majority of Muslims to be any different than anywhere else. BUT, and this is the point, we live in a modern era. All countries of diverse belief and cultural normality are giving women legal equality with men - except (it seems) countries where there are a majority of Muslims. Why? Why are they bucking the tend? Do you think it has something to do with their religious belief or is that just a coincidence?

They are a theocracy in name. How they treat women aren't in Islam. Michael, let's start arguing religion, not politics (which would make sense given the section of the forums we're at). Let's see from the Qur'an verses that don't allow women outside without men's permission, the forced marriage, the lower education, etc.

This is reason I took the position “Islam in Practice”. You are trying to duck the argument by saying They aren’t is “real” Islamic. I say that this is a bogus argument OR we agree to (A)

For example: according to Sam Muslim Homosexuals are as Islamic as Muslim Heterosexuals. You see Qa`Dark, everything can be interpreted. So, what recourse are we left? I think the best recourse is “Islam in Practice”. Does it work or not? What are societies like that attempt to put the religion into practice in daily life. Not people - societies.

If not then your argument is akin to saying we can not talk about Communist Russia or Communist China because they were never “truly” Communist. They never existed.

If this is the case see argument (A).

What does treating women unequally and unfairly have to do with Islam itself?

Why is it that for the main it is “Islamic” counties that are treating women the most unequally?

Again, this goes to “Islam in Practice” not some sort of idealized version that only you agree to.

Presently countries with majority Muslim populations have a record that is far worse than Communist countries, worse than Buddhist countries, worse than Hindu countries, worse than Democracies – well why is such the case? I gave (A) (B) and (C) in addition to the polygamy argument which I rehashed.

So I am asking you –Why? What do you think? (note: Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Lebanon, etc.. do not have a Dictators, they have elected officials)

Because Indonesia and Malaysia have different leaders than Singapore and Philippine. How your nation treats its people starts at the top. Who leads your country is what differentiates these nations.

As they say: One gets the leaders One deserves.

Malaysia and Indonesia are democracies. It will be interesting to see if a separation of their Religion and their State will result in equality for women in those countries. If such should happen – I wonder how you will rationalize it? Will you still think an Islamic State is better than a secular Democratic one?

 

[Michael]

You're stretching my words here. I never said they were a "divine sancation", or anything of the sort. My point in referencing the Ottoman empire is that whatever form of legal system they had, whatever they used to rule their country, etc, they were Muslim rulers who treated women equally. "Work for a few hundred years"? 623 is quite a long time for a single Empire to rule, especially considering how large its land was. 623 years, and democracy has been working for how long?

The Roman republic lasted 450 years and it was the first of its kind.
Not bad huh???
Considering Empires have been around for 7000 years it’s not surprising a few would have a good run now and again.

- Egyptian Dynasties had continues rule for 2425 years - the longest in history.
- Japan’s Imperial family is the oldest surviving: 2667 years of continuous rule.
- The Roman Empire (including the East) lasted 1058 years.
- Zhou Chinese Dynasty lasted for 866 years.
- The Holy Roman Xian Empire - lasted from 800 years.
- Ottoman Empire lasted 623 years.
- The Wu Dynasty, Shu Dynasty & Wei Dynasty lasted 500 years each.
- The Portuguese empire was 489 years.
- The British Empire was the most geographically extensive empire in world history encompassing approximately one-quarter of the world's population ~250 years.


Again, the first Republic lasted 450 years - thats a first go. America has the oldest Constitution still in use.

The world is changing, Qa`Dark, minus some sort of unfathomable catastrophe we will never see “real” Empires again.

How long do you predict the US's prosperity and democracy to continue?

I predict that the USA will retain hegemony until 2025 at which time the world will be multi-polar with Russia, Europe and China balancing the power of the USA. By 2200 there will probably be a secular one World democratic government.

 

[Michael]

Here is where you're wrong. The thread starter said "ISLAM", not "MUSLIM POPULATIONS". You're arguing the policies of Muslim nations, but I'm arguing the Qur'an. I sense you're backing away from religion because you didn't do your homework on Islam, considering you've never read the Qur'an.

I already explained this - anyone can interpret the Qur’an to mean anything they want.
- Want peace look and you will find something in there that you can interpret to advance peace.
- Want war look and you will find something that you can interpret to advance war.
- Want Slavery look and you will find something that you can interpret to advance Slavery.
- Want to be a Muslim Homosexual look and you will find something that you can interpret to advance homosexuality.
- Want monogamy look and you will find something that you can interpret to advance monogamy.

As such is the case I am returning again to “Islam in Practice” and I refer to Islamic nations as “countries with majority Muslim populations”. Which is the reason I continue to compare the idea of discussing Islam with idea of discussing Communism.

If you disagree then we go back to argument (A)