what do women get out of islam?

[LiveInFaith]

Just a general observation.

Is it just me or does it seem the in the three "Abrahamic" monotheisms (I can't say for Bahai') women are not allowed to lead the men during the religous services? Why? Doesn't this restriction imply there is something inherently inferior with women compared with men? As if women are not smart or enlightened enough to provide a valuable religous service?

Michael

Some interpretation it is regarding the nature of sexual lust tendency, in general, men are more inclined to sexual lust than women. Focusing to a lady leading religious service, men are more likely possible to give attention the lady instead of what she said. Not that much tendency otherwise.

 

[Bells]

Maybe, but the status of women in Christian nations verses in Muslim nations argues that Christians must not take those bits as seriously as Muslims do.

Really.

You might want to revise that. We treat them really well. Especially when they are young.Link

I'd say it is. If Muslim men are so great, why aren't you married to one?

Why is her marital status any of your business?

You don't just need to be married to know men in Islam. I am sure she will have knowledge of Muslim men by looking at her own father for inspiration (as one example).

Regarding your experience, well, I'd hate to embarass Bells in front of her kids again, so let's not go into that.

Beg yours?



PS. Forgot to tell you. Thank you for the information on Lasik!:worship: My mother was advised to wait a bit longer.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Really.
You might want to revise that. We treat them really well. Especially when they are young.Link

Come on. Are you seriously equating an aberent case of a pedophile getting off easy thanks to some idiot judge with the institutional sexism in many Muslim nations?

Why is her marital status any of your business?

It's not, really. It was mostly in the vein of a childish "if you love 'em so much, why don't you marry one?" In other words, just giving Sam a hard time.

PS. Forgot to tell you. Thank you for the information on Lasik!:worship: My mother was advised to wait a bit longer.

Glad to help.

 

[Michael]

Some interpretation it is regarding the nature of sexual lust tendency, in general, men are more inclined to sexual lust than women. Focusing to a lady leading religious service, men are more likely possible to give attention the lady instead of what she said. Not that much tendency otherwise.

I have heard this before but
a) there are many women whom most men wouldn't find lustful - many women work as teachers and doctors and bosses and managers of men and they get the work done. Female leaders can function leading men just as good and sometimes better as men.
b) some men are attracted to men.
c) women are of course attracted to men.
d) some modern churches have female leaders and do fine.

It's just another observation of how the "Abrahamic" monotheistic faiths have placed women under men, and not equal with men, for millennia.

Michael

 

[LiveInFaith]

I have heard this before but
a) there are many women whom most men wouldn't find lustful - many women work as teachers and doctors and bosses and managers of men and they get the work done. Female leaders can function leading men just as good and sometimes better as men.
b) some men are attracted to men.
c) women are of course attracted to men.
d) some modern churches have female leaders and do fine.

It's just another observation of how the "Abrahamic" monotheistic faiths have placed women under men, and not equal with men, for millennia.

Michael

I will anticipate you make a list containing Margareth Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, or even Joan d'arc, but again, in general, regardless of the speech contents/substance, voice of men are more suitable than women, in regard of talking in front of masses.

Qur'an Sura 4:34 doesn't specifically instruct men to be religios service leaders, it is ok for me to put women in front of masses leading such services. As I see it, it is a rule for men treating women. In general, those who has more power, should be more regulated in the way they behave against the weaker.

Do you not agree men are physically stronger than women? And voice wise, louder than women ?
Louder voice of men, but on the other hand, men are often not persistent enough to handle mouth-quarreling against women; and that is the case when men tend to use their hand, ie. physical power; to stop women).
Then the sura put that men are protector / maintainer / in charge of women, is reasonable.
It is supposed to regulate men, not putting women undermined.

 

[DiamondHearts]

It doesn’t matter the source, you first need to apply "common sense" to the first sentence of the paragraph dude. And it is not from "common sense" that you judge a fellow human with the standards set by others. It is not "common sense" that prosecutes people, these are just politics of "common men". I hold no good feelings for politics...

To me, I deduce through my own reason and understanding the views of both sides of the argument that homosexuality is not natural (i.e. not something one is born with) and proves the downward spiral of a society to selfishness and loss of purpose. It is quite natural to for a male to be with a female, and this is the way God created His lovely human beings in such a pure state.

 

[Bells]

Come on. Are you seriously equating an aberent case of a pedophile getting off easy thanks to some idiot judge with the institutional sexism in many Muslim nations?

Sexism is also institutionalised in the legal community as well as the law. In other words, we aren't perfect. Stones... Throwing.. Glass houses..

 

[Michael]

... It is quite natural to for a male to be with a female, and this is the way God created His lovely human beings in such a pure state.

:bugeye: Hello???
Peope are born with
XY
XYY
XXY
XXXY
XO
YO
to name a few.....
Also, some people are born genetically male (wXY) but phenotypically LOOK like a female.
Some people are born with with both sex organs.
Etcetera....

It's obvious that there are these blantant mixing of the sexual identities then there must also be many more subtle mixing in identity.

.. His lovely human beings in such a pure state... tell that to a poor Muslim born with both a penis and in place of testis a vagina.

Michael

 

[Kadark]

This is not an argument on why it is good for women that men should practice polygamy.
Your argument seems to stand that – well many men couldn’t practice polygamy ergo it’s good.
??
You do agree that if it were practiced by every men there’d soon be too few women?
If anything to me you are arguing against polygamy. At least by the average Muslim man. Taking your point of view it seems that only the rich and the powerful should have many wives.

You are completely misinterpreting my whole point. I'm not arguing the advantages of polygamy, nor am I saying it is a better choice. I am merely stating that it is perfectly normal. Polygamy can never be practiced by all men, the most obvious answer being financial restrictions. To add to that, if there was a rare time in the future where there was an improper ratio for men to women, the women would prefer to marry the single men to preserve life instead of the men already with a husband.

To an extent, yes, I am saying only the rich should marry a maximum of four wives. I think this because with the wives, yourself, and the children factored in, there is a very high economic bar set for your household. Only people with the thickest wallets can fairly and adequately support such a large family.

The purpose of marriage in my mind is to spend the rest of your life with the one person you love.

I respect that. I may disagree, and point out to the hysterically high divorce rate in your nations which outlaw polygamy, but I won't go any further. I accept your definition, as you should mine.

But, if it is just to have kids, and using your first argument that most Muslim men couldn’t afford to have more than one wife. Why limit it to 4 – Hell, go for 1000 women and have sex with two or three each day. Really get the kids pumping out there.

If you have a 1000 wives, then you're doing so only for sex, and like I stated, that is not allowed. In order to look after your four wives financially, spend time with them, actually develop a relationship, etc, takes a valuable portion of time. A 1000 wives would make it virtually impossible for you to develop any time of communication.

Oh come on, just admit it – there is no rational reason for 4.

Hey, four is better than unlimited, isn't it? Besides, what rational reason is there for any number other than four?

The Communist were able to eliminate slavery and give women equality under the law in a shorter tome period and did so without taking a harem of women. One would logically conclude that Mohammad, having God on side, could have done at least as good?

I could argue that Muslims are enforced to treat women equally, have slaves under limited restrictions (restrictions I've spent days explaining), etc, but it is simpler to say that Islam has stood the test of time. Islam has flourished and expanded since it began until only some decades ago. Communism has constantly crumbled and led to mass genocide.

Thus in reality we go back to your main reason for marriage - which is to have kids. This stuff about having a huge impact socially, morally, and legislatively is a red herring. Women can have a huge impact socially, morally, and legislatively without being married.

I agree that women can have an impact socially, morally, and legislatively without being married. However, in Muhammad's circumstance, it was a bigger encouragement and lesson to actually marry an old, poor woman than to tell his followers, 'we should also accept the older, poorer people, and not always fall for the young ones'. Things like that. Muhammad was practicing what he preached.

It may have been normal in Arabia but then again so was polytheism. If Mohammad wanted to set a good precedent he could have adopted her and cared for her as his granddaughter. He could have arranged for her to marry a good man that was closer to her age. I fail to see how marrying her over adopting her promoted female dignity and equality.

Muhammad never married Aisha to promote female dignity and equality - this is where you're confusing the Prophet's motives. Muhammad married Aisha to strengthen ties (political purposes) with her family, and because the Prophet admired her matureness and intelligence for a person that young. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Muhammad marrying Aisha, and I fail to see what part of it you're disagreeing with.

Are you arguing she was too young? Read the three solid arguments I posted, which seemingly have slipped your mind, judging by your post.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

To me, I deduce through my own reason and understanding the views of both sides of the argument that homosexuality is not natural (i.e. not something one is born with) and proves the downward spiral of a society to selfishness and loss of purpose. It is quite natural to for a male to be with a female, and this is the way God created His lovely human beings in such a pure state.

I agree with you, but I think we are nobody to judge homosexuals, only God can judge.

 

[GeoffP]

I respect that. I may disagree, and point out to the hysterically high divorce rate in your nations which outlaw polygamy, but I won't go any further. I accept your definition, as you should mine.

How is polygamy going to help that? I also point out:

Unfortunately, such stories are not uncommon. Divorce is on the rise in the Muslim community, especially in the West. According to a study conducted by Dr. Ilyas Ba-Yunus, a sociology professor at State University of New York, the overall divorce rate among Muslims in North America is at an astounding 31%. The state of California ranks highest with a 37% rate of divorce and New York, Ontario, and Texas follow closely with a 30% rate. Compared to the overall rate of divorce in the U.S. (49%) and Canada (45%), the increasing rate of divorce among Muslims is cause for alarm.

http://www.infocusnews.net/content/view/986/191/

Not merely a religious phenomenon, then. And polygamy doesn't appear to help at all, but rather compound the problem:

"Polygynous marriage, remarriage and divorce were found to be common in this traditional Muslim community. The odds of divorce were 2.5 times higher for grooms' polygynous marriages and 1.6 times higher for brides' remarriages compared to their peers' first marriages."

...

"The process of divorce is usually lengthy and hazardous starting with quarrels followed by mental and physical insults to women, followed by separation and, finally, leading to divorce."

...

"Moreover, in view of the fact that Bangladesh is a male-dominated society we also expect a difference in divorce rates by gender: men will divorce more frequently than women and and divorce rates will be particularly high in polygynous marriages.

http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol3/4/3-4.pdf

Take a look at the findings of the study. And apply your own point about having more wives for sex, and read page 5. A 17% polygyny rate (pg 9)! 1 in 5! That's a major demographic issue, my friend, not a minor side-rate. Lower incidence of polygyny also (Table 1) is associated with a lower rate of divorce. What should we say about statistics like these? I assume we're also not counting the Sunni practice of temporary marriage here, as well.

Hey, four is better than unlimited, isn't it? Besides, what rational reason is there for any number other than four?

Stats-wise, four is a pretty bad number, apparently.

I could argue that Muslims are enforced to treat women equally, have slaves under limited restrictions (restrictions I've spent days explaining), etc, but it is simpler to say that Islam has stood the test of time. Islam has flourished and expanded since it began until only some decades ago.

That's like excusing fascism because the Nazis did really well during the first half of WWII. It has no bearing on the morality of the system.

Communism has constantly crumbled and led to mass genocide.

Well, it's not "real" communism, is it? You make the argument that all the islamic countries in the world aren't really islamic, so the same argument applies to all the communist ones then too. N'est-ce-pas?

I agree that women can have an impact socially, morally, and legislatively without being married. However, in Muhammad's circumstance, it was a bigger encouragement and lesson to actually marry an old, poor woman than to tell his followers, 'we should also accept the older, poorer people, and not always fall for the young ones'. Things like that. Muhammad was practicing what he preached.

He tried to ditch an older wife for a younger one. That's not practicing what you're saying.

Muhammad never married Aisha to promote female dignity and equality - this is where you're confusing the Prophet's motives. Muhammad married Aisha to strengthen ties (political purposes) with her family, and because the Prophet admired her matureness and intelligence for a person that young. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Muhammad marrying Aisha, and I fail to see what part of it you're disagreeing with.

The part where a 50-yr old man had intercourse with a 9-yr old girl, which the Ayatollah himself affirmed and supported. Didn't he also have a 9-yr old wife? Look, learn to criticize that which requires criticism and accept that nothing is perfect, and maybe there's a social hope for islam. But complaining that the theory is fine and that the practice is flawed, and then supporting that practice anyway, is really not working.

 

[GeoffP]

To me, I deduce through my own reason and understanding the views of both sides of the argument that homosexuality is not natural (i.e. not something one is born with) and proves the downward spiral of a society to selfishness and loss of purpose. It is quite natural to for a male to be with a female, and this is the way God created His lovely human beings in such a pure state.

And what, then, is to be done with homosexuals, DH? What do you think should be done with those that refuse to change?

 

[Kadark]

How is polygamy going to help that? I also point out (statistics).

You are completely discoursing off topic in a futile attempt to modulate your flaccid assertion. Never did I become proximate with the argument that Muslims had an exorbitantly substandard divorce rate; I merely judiciously made it distinct that a man and woman format could (by statistics) fail at radically superior rates. To insinuate that I implied a utopian setting with polygamy is the epitome of asinine.

Well, it's not "real" communism, is it? You make the argument that all the islamic countries in the world aren't really islamic, so the same argument applies to all the communist ones then too. N'est-ce-pas?

Are you betokening the conception of communism as prosperous and propitious if done so veraciously? My dear friend Michael would most zealously disharmonize. A potential debate in the making, perhaps?

He tried to ditch an older wife for a younger one. That's not practicing what you're saying.

Your vapid imagination is haphazardly jocular. I recounted the indubitably sincere and scrupulous recollection of the story, yet you incommodiously disregarded it. There is substantially a diminutive amount of words unconsumed within me to make vicissitude with your cretinous mind.

The part where a 50-yr old man had intercourse with a 9-yr old girl, which the Ayatollah himself affirmed and supported. Didn't he also have a 9-yr old wife? Look, learn to criticize that which requires criticism and accept that nothing is perfect, and maybe there's a social hope for islam. But complaining that the theory is fine and that the practice is flawed, and then supporting that practice anyway, is really not working.

My solitary injunction in this irrevocable debate is that you anatomize my three prevailing and fundamental vindications of Muhammad’s marriage. Reclaiming this invariable argument from behalf of you is an irresolutely prodigality of everyone’s time.

 

[GeoffP]

You are completely discoursing off topic in a futile attempt to modulate your flaccid assertion. Never did I become proximate with the argument that Muslims had an exorbitantly substandard divorce rate; I merely judiciously made it distinct that a man and woman format could (by statistics) fail at radically superior rates. To insinuate that I implied a utopian setting with polygamy is the epitome of asinine.

Your phrase was "and point out to the hysterically high divorce rate in your nations which outlaw polygamy". You mentioned that there's lots of divorce in the West (which I have to admit is a strange statistic, as I have yet to meet more than five couples who have divorced in my entire life experience, but anyway) and you brought in polygamy. So, your point was clear. It is in fact very evident that a "man and multiple women format" also fails at very high rates, and fails at higher rates the more women are involved. So do yourself a favour and read the document before making idiotic, unfounded assertions.

Are you betokening the conception of communism as prosperous and propitious if done so veraciously? My dear friend Michael would most zealously disharmonize. A potential debate in the making, perhaps?

LOL - a little "divide and conquer" as a solution to your own troubling issue of defending the indefensible? Do try. Michael and I can settle our issues later. I believe a communist system would be a good one - but that the practical examples fail in many ways. I, unlike you, am not so blind as to first damn the examples and then try to defend them.

Your vapid imagination is haphazardly jocular.

"Vapid" would be "uninspiring". Rather, it has inspired your hatred, so it clearly cannot be that. In your search of the thesaurus, do try to convey the actual meaning of the phrase. And your excuplatory attempts don't do you or your subject justice: explain how your "scrupulous recollection of the story" amounts to a disproof of my point. The facts are, unfortunately, rather bare. I suspect you prefer to see the world through the veil of your bias.

Also, your grammar is fucked. Seriously.

Reclaiming this invariable argument from behalf of you is a irresolutely prodigality of everyone’s time.

LOL: "prodigality"? Absurd. You treat the issue as a trivial one; yet, I assure you, it is quite serious. Why is it that when pushed to the very limit of indefensibility, you resort to inanity? Are they so tightly joined, then?

 

[GeoffP]

BTW, DH still refuses to say what he would do with or to unrepentant homosexuals. I wonder why he avoids the question, or what his 'solution' might be.

 

[Kadark]

Your phrase was "and point out to the hysterically high divorce rate in your nations which outlaw polygamy". You mentioned that there's lots of divorce in the West (which I have to admit is a strange statistic, as I have yet to meet more than five couples who have divorced in my entire life experience, but anyway) and you brought in polygamy. So, your point was clear. It is in fact very evident that a "man and multiple women format" also fails at very high rates, and fails at higher rates the more women are involved. So do yourself a favour and read the document before making idiotic, unfounded assertions.

Your panorama of my debate is assuredly clouded. I unmitigatedly sustencanced polygamy not for its quantitave ascendancy, but rather to provide bulwark against nonsensical elucidation regarding morality and fairness.

LOL - a little "divide and conquer" as a solution to your own troubling issue of defending the indefensible? Do try. Michael and I can settle our issues later. I believe a communist system would be a good one - but that the practical examples fail in many ways. I, unlike you, am not so blind as to first damn the examples and then try to defend them.

Inexpiable balderdash! My admonition was in lucid presentiment of galvanizing healthy debate. Please eschew from impelling the obloquy from yourself to me, in the name of all things good.

"Vapid" would be "uninspiring". Rather, it has inspired your hatred, so it clearly cannot be that. In your search of the thesaurus, do try to convey the actual meaning of the phrase. And your excuplatory attempts don't do you or your subject justice: explain how your "scrupulous recollection of the story" amounts to a disproof of my point. The facts are, unfortunately, rather bare. I suspect you prefer to see the world through the veil of your bias.

Thesaurus? What is a ‘thesauraus?’

I prognosticate you will peruse my three cardinal arguments for Muhammad’s mariage, yet for the time being, my premonition is fruitless and unavailing. Feel free to reciprocate, but as it stands, I grow tiresome of your ‘beating around the bush’.

Also, your grammar is fucked. Seriously

.
Amidst your scurrilous parody, explicate where I am fallacious.

LOL: "prodigality"? Absurd. You treat the issue as a trivial one; yet, I assure you, it is quite serious. Why is it that when pushed to the very limit of indefensibility, you resort to inanity? Are they so tightly joined, then?

Then I am cordial and congenial to further embroider this grandiloquent use of linguistics. I see you are a worth advesary, although espousing this challenge is most barren and arid on your behalf. I bid you farewell good sir, wot wot!

 

[Kadark]

BTW, DH still refuses to say what he would do with or to unrepentant homosexuals. I wonder why he avoids the question, or what his 'solution' might be.

This notion may seem absurd to the high likes of you, but perhaps he hasn't read this thread yet? Maybe, by some miracle from the high heavens, he hasn't signed online yet.

Wouldn't that be something?

 

[GeoffP]

It might be that DH has not signed on: it is actually statistically more likely that he has chosen to avoid answering my questions.

Still more amazing it is that you choose to embrace a little rationality in your dialogue! The second post, anyway. Listen: I'm not trying to be insulting - never me - but you should probably have a native English speaker address your posts prior to submission. No one loves the language more than I, but it's difficult to overlook the ridiculousness of your attempts. Let's have, for a start, your excuses regarding the story of she whom Mohammed would unwed and cast aside for...er...her own good.

 

[Kadark]

At the time being, DiamondHearts has last signed in about 1:43 AM. You posted "BTW, DH still refuses to say what he would do with or to unrepentant homosexuals. I wonder why he avoids the question, or what his 'solution' might be" at 2:03 PM.

So much for statistics.

 

[GeoffP]

Not at all: I have ample experience with DH, and I think I can discern his intent rather accurately, given his liberal, open stance on the beheading of apostates.