what do women get out of islam?

[Michael]

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.

I understand. And normally in most societies women have not been treated equally either socially nor legally. Normality isn’t always conducive to progress. In Islamic countries women have not been socially or legally equal to men. I suppose the question is: Is it good that women be socially and legally equal with men?

It’s ironic we should be having this conversation as last night SBS (a television station) was running a show about a Muslim girl in Algeria.

“Cutting Edge - Chahinaz: What Rights For Women?
Chahinaz is a 20 year old university student in Algeria - she's vibrant and questioning as any young student should be. Her questions are both personal and universal - how can I continue to live as a woman in such a traditional society? And further, how can women around the world get equal rights? On her journey from Algeria to neighbouring Morocco, from India, to Ireland, France, the US and back again to Algeria, she learns what it takes to ‘change the world' for women. (From France, in French, English and Arabic, English subtitles)”

The problem in Algeria is this law called The Algerian Family Code. Which basically puts the woman’s husband as her custodian. As if she was a child.

Sadly, it’s not at all surprising is it?

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

I said my rational.

Men have historically ruled over women. So, how do we get a society run by men, who lord over women, to allow their female subject equality with themselves?

In monogamist societies there is a higher chance that the man (who can only have one wife) will pick one he cares about. In a one on one relationship there is a greater chance that a bond can form where the husband truly loves his wife and feels that she is his equal. Therefore in a monogamist society there is a greater chance of the husband desiring his wife to be his legal equal.

In a polygamist society the man focuses his attentions on his all of his wives. The chances are that a man with multiple wives will not form multiple unions such that he feels his many wives are all his equals. Some of his wives are probably just for alliances anyway. It’s far more likely that a polygamist will reach the conclusion that some of his wives are better than other wives and thus the natural solution he will come to will be a tiered system. In this tiered system some of his wives are raised above other wives but they are never raised to his equal status. In general a polygamist will have a difficult time having some of his wives his complete equal while others are not. Agreed? That just is not practical for the average polygamist. Further, it therefore likely that in general the men in a polygamist society will come to the conclusion that women are for creating a large clan. History will show that these clannish societies with massive extended tribal families do not treat women equally with men.

That’s simply a fact of history.

Polygamist societies have never given woman equal right with men.
Monogonistic societies have done so.

So here is a very easy to follow explanation on why ONE wife is a better number than FOUR wives. One would think that a forward thinking Prophet with God on side would have come to the same conclusion.

Michael

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Muhammad marrying Aisha, and I fail to see what part of it you're disagreeing with.

How old was Aisha when she was married?

 

[DiamondHearts]

Qa' Dark, ignore these two, they have a habit of repeating the same questions over and over expecting different answers later.

Also, If anyone wants to know my personal views, they are free to ask me. I don't need other people to discern my views for me.

 

[GeoffP]

Rather, we ask the same questions over and over hoping eventually you'll be brave enough to answer them.

I've asked you several times now. I'll ask one of the more recent ones again: what would you do with homosexuals who refused to stop being homosexual?

 

[S.A.M.]

Rather, we ask the same questions over and over hoping eventually you'll be brave enough to answer them.

I've asked you several times now. I'll ask one of the more recent ones again: what would you do with homosexuals who refused to stop being homosexual?

What can you do with them? In a homophobic society, they won't come out. During the Ottoman rule, same sex love was probably more free than it is today, especially if you read the poetry/history of the times, it is pretty clear.

The reputation of hamams (baths) in Turkey comes from this age. The "tellaks" (young boys who helped men to have a bath) did not only work for washing the men. They also served as male prostitutes. There is a book in the Ottoman archives called "Dellakname-i Dilkusa" (The Record of Tellaks). It tells about the most famous "tellaks" of Istanbul. The way they serve their customers, their price, how many times they can make you reach orgasm, the rate of their beauty and many more details are mentioned in this book.

ottoman Literature is called "Divan Literature". In Divan Literature there are many poems written by male poets about their male lovers. These poems were about how beautiful these boy lovers were. None of these the poet talks about his boy lover and he complains that his beard is starting to grow and because of this his beauty is going away. Boys were maybe kind of substitutes for women who had smooth skin with no hairs. Those poems are in a very old fashioned, hard to understand Turkish which is called Ottoman and are in literature books for high school students.There was no pressure from the authorities on the poets for writing such poems about boys. Actually sex with boys were not legally forbidden and even the sultans were engaged in sex with male boys.

This tolerance for homosexuality disappeared in the early 19th century with the adoption of western culture. The sultans went on some renovations and the source was France. With the changes in the governmental and social system, the ideas were adopted too. Because of Christianity, male to male sex was strongly refused in the European culture. This effected ottoman society too and those kind of relationships were started to be looked upon.But of course a tradition that had been going on for such a long time didn't disappear. There is still a hamam culture which is still going on but not as common as it used to be. And extreme nationalists who take great pride in ottoman culture still deny this side of Ottomans.

 

[Kadark]

Michael: Considering this debate has boiled down to two or so of my post's quotes, I can see there isn't much left to discuss.

I understand. And normally in most societies women have not been treated equally either socially nor legally. Normality isn’t always conducive to progress. In Islamic countries women have not been socially or legally equal to men. I suppose the question is: Is it good that women be socially and legally equal with men?

Absolutely.

It’s ironic we should be having this conversation as last night SBS (a television station) was running a show about a Muslim girl in Algeria.

“Cutting Edge - Chahinaz: What Rights For Women?
Chahinaz is a 20 year old university student in Algeria - she's vibrant and questioning as any young student should be. Her questions are both personal and universal - how can I continue to live as a woman in such a traditional society? And further, how can women around the world get equal rights? On her journey from Algeria to neighbouring Morocco, from India, to Ireland, France, the US and back again to Algeria, she learns what it takes to ‘change the world' for women. (From France, in French, English and Arabic, English subtitles)”

The problem in Algeria is this law called The Algerian Family Code. Which basically puts the woman’s husband as her custodian. As if she was a child.

Sadly, it’s not at all surprising is it?

I don't understand what you're arguing here, because all I can sense is your description of this show you saw. Yes, I believe women should be treated equally and fairly, be able to conduct business (buy/sell land, etc), get equal education, etc. Do they in some Muslim nations? Unfortunately, no. However, Muslim nations and Islam are two totally different concepts. We may have to agree to disagree. This is my viewpoint, and nothing can change it. If you feel the same way, so be it.

In monogamist societies there is a higher chance that the man (who can only have one wife) will pick one he cares about. In a one on one relationship there is a greater chance that a bond can form where the husband truly loves his wife and feels that she is his equal. Therefore in a monogamist society there is a greater chance of the husband desiring his wife to be his legal equal.

But in monogamist societies, people are more often than not dissatisfied with their relationships (ie, very high divorce rate). I'm not saying polygamists don't divore, I'm only saying monogamists do so more. This is why monogy isn't any better than polygamy, according to the statistics.

In a polygamist society the man focuses his attentions on his all of his wives. The chances are that a man with multiple wives will not form multiple unions such that he feels his many wives are all his equals. Some of his wives are probably just for alliances anyway. It’s far more likely that a polygamist will reach the conclusion that some of his wives are better than other wives and thus the natural solution he will come to will be a tiered system. In this tiered system some of his wives are raised above other wives but they are never raised to his equal status. In general a polygamist will have a difficult time having some of his wives his complete equal while others are not. Agreed? That just is not practical for the average polygamist. Further, it therefore likely that in general the men in a polygamist society will come to the conclusion that women are for creating a large clan. History will show that these clannish societies with massive extended tribal families do not treat women equally with men.

Which is exactly why only the most responsible and financially stable men should take on polygamy. It is a practiced allowed - not ordered. You can marry one person, and most men do. For the few that can afford to take care of and treat equal 2-4 wives, then polygamy is just as effective as a well-executed monogamy.

Polygamist societies have never given woman equal right with men.
Monogonistic societies have done so.

Did you JUST imply that polygamy is why women aren't given equal rights to men? How many polygamists do YOU think there are in these nations?

How old was Aisha when she was married?

There is some dispute. Some believe 6 to 9, and others say around 13.

 

[GeoffP]

What can you do with them? In a homophobic society, they won't come out. During the Ottoman rule, same sex love was probably more free than it is today, especially if you read the poetry/history of the times, it is pretty clear.

But again: the question is what DH and people of his theologic zone would do with homosexuals. It's not a question of ability, but intent. I don't have a problem with homosexuals, although I have to admit that "Queer as Folk" isn't exactly my cup of tea. I have a feeling that DH is a bit less tolerant than I. What is implied by his continued, reasonable-seeming pressing that things must be "just so" or they aren't acceptable? I have a fair idea.

 

[GeoffP]

But in monogamist societies, people are more often than not dissatisfied with their relationships (ie, very high divorce rate). I'm not saying polygamists don't divore, I'm only saying monogamists do so more. This is why monogy isn't any better than polygamy, according to the statistics.

And yet, polygamy is an issue of human chattel, really. Money. It devalues women; or rather, it places monetary value on them, rather than seeing them as partners.

Did you JUST imply that polygamy is why women aren't given equal rights to men?

Personally, I would certainly agree with that. Polygamy is about sex. It always has been. Why do you think these mythical Arabs of yours favoured 100 wives? Are we really meant to believe that the motive for those marrying only four is somehow different? Why is that?

How many polygamists do YOU think there are in these nations?

Somewhere between 15-30% in Bangladesh, as far back even as 1985:

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

How many of those women are able to remarry? The report suggests that most such women are looked on as damaged goods.

Pg 4: "Divorce of a woman damages her as well as her family's prestige. It may lower prospects of marriage of her younger sisters with the most eligible grooms." And so on, and so on. Read the report.

There is some dispute. Some believe 6 to 9, and others say around 13.

Most of the conventional estimates are 9; the Ayatollah and al-Ahzar Uni included.

 

[S.A.M.]

But again: the question is what DH and people of his theologic zone would do with homosexuals. It's not a question of ability, but intent. I don't have a problem with homosexuals, although I have to admit that "Queer as Folk" isn't exactly my cup of tea. I have a feeling that DH is a bit less tolerant than I. What is implied by his continued, reasonable-seeming pressing that things must be "just so" or they aren't acceptable? I have a fair idea.

Like your position on Islam? Dont be silly, he may be uncomfortable with considering homosexuality acceptable but then so do a lot of Americans; to translate that to violence and genocide is just part of your ghoulish tendre for morbidity.:bugeye:

 

[GeoffP]

Ah, he's already said he supports the judicial execution of apostates. His continual avoidance of the issues indicates he still feels that way.

My position on islam is that it should be utterly, absolutely disengaged from politics, and political force. What was your take on my position? Hmm?

 

[S.A.M.]

Ah, he's already said he supports the judicial execution of apostates. His continual avoidance of the issues indicates he still feels that way.

My position on islam is that it should be utterly, absolutely disengaged from politics, and political force. What was your take on my position? Hmm?

Judicial execution is supported by all countries that have execution by the justice system. And even the ones who don't have armies to kill those who destabilise their societies. Do you support judicial execution of the "terrorists"?

And it will make utterly no difference whether there is Islam or not. Hitler executed several homosexuals, probably Stalin did too. Homophobia is not attached to religion, all you have to do is add the numbers. I bet you'd find as many instances of hate crime in any society, in one guise or the other. Witness the Haditha massacre. State sanctioned murder.:shrug:

 

[GeoffP]

Judicial execution is supported by all countries that have execution by the justice system. And even the ones who don't have armies to kill those who destabilise their societies. Do you support judicial execution of the "terrorists"?

Yes, if they've blown people up or are planning to do so. Not merely because they're muslim, or because they've switched religion to islam. Should I have this latter opinion? Because that's what we're talking about.

And it will make utterly no difference whether there is Islam or not. Hitler executed several homosexuals, probably Stalin did too. Homophobia is not attached to religion, all you have to do is add the numbers.

Good: now illustrate where I accept or rationalize such bloodshed based on some bizarre religious tenet about where the naughty parts are supposed to go. Point out how I justify such for the "betterment of the state" or the theory, or whatever, or how I refuse to acknowledge problems in my society.

Or, better yet, just accept that there are legalized problems in islamic law and that they need to be dealt with. I have already stipulated to the issues of the West; let's see if you can do the same for the ummah.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, if they've blown people up or are planning to do so. Not merely because they're muslim, or because they've switched religion to islam. Should I have this latter opinion? Because that's what we're talking about.



Good: now illustrate where I accept or rationalize such bloodshed based on some bizarre religious tenet about where the naughty parts are supposed to go. Point out how I justify such for the "betterment of the state" or the theory, or whatever, or how I refuse to acknowledge problems in my society.

Or, better yet, just accept that there are legalized problems in islamic law and that they need to be dealt with. I have already stipulated to the issues of the West; let's see if you can do the same for the ummah.

Umm They are at present killing Muslims, Islamists, Sunni insurgents and Shia insurgents.

Notice how the qualifier is always about the religion?

Whether Lebanon or Iraq or Palestine or Iran, its Sunni or Shia or Islamic.

Obviously a war against Muslims.

 

[Michael]

Michael: Considering this debate has boiled down to two or so of my post's quotes, I can see there isn't much left to discuss.

Fare enough - If you'd like to post a summation I'm happy to see where you stand.

In summary, what is your explanation to this question:
Why have States with majority Muslim populations given women far less legal equality compared with non-Muslim States?


I thought my answer of polygamy versus monogamy was reasonable, it's the best this debate has brought to my mind.

Unfortunately, no. However, Muslim nations and Islam are two totally different concepts. We may have to agree to disagree. This is my viewpoint, and nothing can change it. If you feel the same way, so be it.

OK, think about this. On paper both Communistic and Democratic societies are free societies where the leaders serve the people. In practice Communistic societies are socially repressive often run by dictators while Democratic societies are socially free and never run by dictators. One could make the point that the reason the Communistic societies are in the mess they are in has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with the system of Communism. It just hasn't been implemented correctly - so there really has never been a "true" Communistic State.

To me this is the argument you are attempting to make towards Islamic States. Of course, you will notice in the above question I did not phrase it as "Islamic" States to avoid this conundrum and instead asked about "States with majority Muslim populations."

Did you JUST imply that polygamy is why women aren't given equal rights to men? How many polygamists do YOU think there are in these nations?

Now this is odd? It’s as if you agree with my assessment but then digress to the notion polygamy is even practiced. Well, I’ll look. Wiki says up to 3 in every 100. That’s a lot of people. Especially if the practice is mainly limited by economics. Also, it may not be the practice but the mentality that develops in societies that allow for the practice. Which is what it's all about anyway. Encouraging men to give women equality starts by recognizeing they are legally equal. This mean if polygamy was to be the societal norm polygyny must be balanced by polyandry.

Anyway, I’m curious as to what your alternative explanation is.

Michael

Malaysian group to research polygamy's effects on Muslim families
The upcoming survey is significant because existing research on Muslim polygamy in other countries has only scrutinized a small number of respondents and focused on legal issues. As such, there has been a failure to understand the financial and social impact of polygamy, Norani said.

Sisters In Islam's researchers plan to ask polygamous families a wide range of questions, including how their expenditure for clothes and other necessities is affected when the man marries another wife, and whether existing wives and children are forced to make financial sacrifices.

A pilot study by Sisters in Islam in 2005 involving 40 members of polygamous households revealed that some children suffer emotional problems as a direct consequence of the practice, causing them to take up alcohol and smoking, Norani said.

 

[Kadark]

Why have States with majority Muslim populations given women far less legal equality compared with non-Muslim States?

Summary: Because Muslim states, unfortunately, have been run by horrible regimes and dysfunctional dictators. However, this thread is titled, “what do women get out of ISLAM,” not “what do women get out of Muslim societies”. These are polar opposite topics, and I think we are arguing different cases here.

I thought my answer of polygamy versus monogamy was reasonable, it's the best this debate has brought to my mind.

If you are suggesting polygamy is the reason why a lot of Muslim nations are in the middle of widespread turmoil, then I laugh. I don’t think Saddam killed all those Kurds because of polygamy, for example.

OK, think about this. On paper both Communistic and Democratic societies are free societies where the leaders serve the people. In practice Communistic societies are socially repressive often run by dictators while Democratic societies are socially free and never run by dictators. One could make the point that the reason the Communistic societies are in the mess they are in has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with the system of Communism. It just hasn't been implemented correctly - so there really has never been a "true" Communistic State.

To me this is the argument you are attempting to make towards Islamic States. Of course, you will notice in the above question I did not phrase it as "Islamic" States to avoid this conundrum and instead asked about "States with majority Muslim populations."

The most successful Muslim empires and nations are ones who have leaned closest to Islam. Nowadays, dictators have their own regimes and political agendas to fulfill, and only use religion to attract votes. Islamic law doesn’t permit a dictator to rule over all people, so no nation with a dictator can truly be called Islamic. I am starting to lose focus of what it is you disagree with. It seems I’m arguing religion, and you’re arguing politics.

Now this is odd? It’s as if you agree with my assessment but then digress to the notion polygamy is even practiced. Well, I’ll look. Wiki says up to 3 in every 100. That’s a lot of people. Especially if the practice is mainly limited by economics. Also, it may not be the practice but the mentality that develops in societies that allow for the practice. Which is what it's all about anyway. Encouraging men to give women equality starts by recognizeing they are legally equal. This mean if polygamy was to be the societal norm polygyny must be balanced by polyandry.

1) Can I have a link?

2) Do the polygamists have two wives? Three? Or four? For argument’s sake, I could assume two. Two is not much more than one.

3) Please visit my mathematical analogy about being “equal/same”.

4) Are you worried about the fact that in America, women can’t go to the beach shirtless like men? Does it concern you that women get paid less than men, even for working the same job? These two situations have a thing in common: a woman has no choice. However, polygamy allows choice, as the women aren’t forced to marry.

Don’t you think there’s a little extracurricular hate on Islam on your part here? There are tons of other issues about women not being equal to men, especially in these democratic nations. These hindrances are forced, yet neglected by you. I would like you explanation on why you let these major issues pass, yet argue so vehemently and passionately on something that women choose and harms nobody.

 

[GeoffP]

Umm They are at present killing Muslims, Islamists, Sunni insurgents and Shia insurgents.

So you switch now from domestic to international? Why? We were discussing domestic law. There is a difference, you know. But while we're on the subject, I don't suppose an islamic nation like, say, Pakistan would ever engage in the wholesale (and not coincidental) massacre of civilians, would they?

Notice how the qualifier is always about the religion?

An even bigger qualifier seems to be Shia, for the Sunnis, and Sunni, for the Shia.

Whether Lebanon or Iraq or Palestine or Iran, its Sunni or Shia or Islamic.

Obviously a war against Muslims.

Ah! So the Sunnis are making war on muslims - and the Shia too! Those islamophobes! They will not prevail! Islam will triumph.

Well, someone's will, anyway. By the look of the great diversity of opinion on the "mod[erate] squad"...it'll be Riyadh's. Not my fault though; I merely foretell.

 

[GeoffP]

Summary: Because Muslim states, unfortunately, have been run by horrible regimes and dysfunctional dictators. However, this thread is titled, “what do women get out of ISLAM,” not “what do women get out of Muslim societies”. These are polar opposite topics, and I think we are arguing different cases here.

Then quit defending their element and practice. Refute also Q 4: 34, and 4: 11.

The most successful Muslim empires and nations are ones who have leaned closest to Islam.

Ahhh! And which ones are those?

1) Can I have a link?

2) Do the polygamists have two wives? Three? Or four? For argument’s sake, I could assume two. Two is not much more than one.

Two is twice as much as one. Addition sometimes coincides with multiplication, but the mathematically current recognize that demography is a proportional process.

However, polygamy allows choice, as the women aren’t forced to marry.

In practice, they are. Sorry. See my link.

Don’t you think there’s a little extracurricular hate on Islam on your part here? There are tons of other issues about women not being equal to men, especially in these democratic nations. These hindrances are forced, yet neglected by you. I would like you explanation on why you let these major issues pass, yet argue so vehemently and passionately on something that women choose and harms nobody.

Ah, the old "internal matter" argument. You seem to have utterly missed my link about the damage divorce does to women in islam, to say nothing of how their treatment as chattel in a polygynous system reduces their rights to a family-vantage economic interest. We will pluck our specks; then we will see more clearly to remove your planks.

 

[Kadark]

Ahhh! And which ones are those?

With the collapse of the Mongol administration of the Islamic lands in the 14th and 15th centuries, a trio of new empires began forming across Asia: the Ottoman Empire in Asia Minor, the Safavid Empire in Persia, and the Mughal Empire in India. These three empires were the result of centuries of Islamic state building and expansion, and at their height, they covered nearly the entire Islamic world. The only Islamic regions left outside their domain were West Africa and Southeast Asia. These three empires were also significant because they provided the bridge between the medieval and modern periods of Islamic history.

The Ottoman Empire, which formed in the early 14th century, was the first of the three Great Islamic Empires. The Ottoman Empire reached its peak by 1600, after which time it fell into a gradual decline, as a result of both internal disorganisation and pressure from its external foes in Europe and Asia. Nevertheless, the Ottoman Empire survived through the First World War, and it was disbanded only in 1918. Out of the core of the Empire, in Asia Minor, came the present-day country of Turkey.

The Safavid Empire, which was founded as a political dynasty in 1501, was the second Great Islamic Empire to form. It originated as a religious sect, and it acquired the military and political traits of an empire only after 1501. The Safavid Empire also differed from the Ottoman and Mughal Empires because it was an officially Shi'ite empire, and religious differences led to much antagonism between the Safavids and its Sunni neighbours. The Safavid Empire was the shortest-lived of the three, forming in 1501 and suffering its final collapse at the hands of the invading Afghans in 1722. It forever influenced Persian nationalism, however, and out of the remnants of the Safavid Empire grew the present-day country of Iran.

The Mughal Empire in India, which formed in 1526, was the third Great Islamic Empire to form, and it struggled for several years after that to consolidate its territory. It benefited from a succession of strong rulers throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, many of whom were able to ensure the Empire's survival by appeasing the majority Hindu population of the Indian subcontinent. Like the Ottoman and Safavid Empires, however, the Mughal Empire's power eventually declined, and it was absorbed by the expansion of the British Empire in India in the mid-19th century.

Two is twice as much as one.

And it is half of four.

Ah, the old "internal matter" argument. You seem to have utterly missed my link about the damage divorce does to women in islam, to say nothing of how their treatment as chattel in a polygynous system reduces their rights to a family-vantage economic interest. We will pluck our specks; then we will see more clearly to remove your planks.

Your link was about divorce rates in polygamy. Here are divorce rates in monogamy.

http://www.divorcerate.org/

Wow.

 

[Michael]

Summary: Because Muslim states, unfortunately, have been run by horrible regimes and dysfunctional dictators. However, this thread is titled, “what do women get out of ISLAM,” not “what do women get out of Muslim societies”. These are polar opposite topics, and I think we are arguing different cases here.

I understand your point but, again, Communist States are “run by horrible regimes and dysfunctional dictators” yet they still promoted equality between the genders because this is a basic tenant of the system.

Can you think of any other explanation?

Would you say that the Iranian leaders are horrible dictators or a loving Ayatollahs? I’m sure from the Ayatollahs point of view he just wants to sheppard his flock of Muslims in the right direction and passing draconian discriminatory laws against woman is protecting the Islamic Republic.

If you are suggesting polygamy is the reason why a lot of Muslim nations are in the middle of widespread turmoil, then I laugh. I don’t think Saddam killed all those Kurds because of polygamy, for example.

No I’m asking why is it the countries that are mostly Muslim do not give women equal rights with men?

Islamic law doesn’t permit a dictator to rule over all people, so no nation with a dictator can truly be called Islamic.

I was positive that throughout the history of the Ottoman Empire the ruler was an Emperor? I thought that was the case for pretty much all countries that were majority Muslim? Didn’t they usually have an Emperor or a King or some sort of hereditary ruler? I don’t recall the Middle East or India or Indonesia or Malaysia or Africa being democratic nations in the past?

1) Can I have a link?

The New Encyclopedia of Islam(2002), AltaMira Press. ISBN 0-7591-0189-2 . p.477

2) Do the polygamists have two wives? Three? Or four? For argument’s sake, I could assume two. Two is not much more than one.

Haa! I’m assuming anything over 1.

3) Please visit my mathematical analogy about being “equal/same”.

Women are not the same as men. We have a penis That’s not the point. Women are also not legally equal to men in any nation. But, women in countries that are majority Muslim have even less legal rights than in Western and Eastern countries. Some countries don’t even allow women to drive or to vote or to walk around without a veil! Remember all those girls that burned to death in the school fire because it would be better if they die than have been seen?!?!

4) Are you worried about the fact that in America, women can’t go to the beach shirtless like men? Does it concern you that women get paid less than men, even for working the same job? These two situations have a thing in common: a woman has no choice..

I think they should be equal. If a women wants to walk around without a top that’s fine by me. She should be paid the same as well.

However, polygamy allows choice, as the women aren’t forced to marry..

Oh come on. Many women have been forced to marry in all societies regardless of number of wives. But at least when they are legally equal to a man they have a chance to legally fight off an unwanted marriage.

Don’t you think there’s a little extracurricular hate on Islam on your part here?

I don’t “hate” Islam any more than I “hate scientology or hate Xianity. They’re the same to me. Using this argument if I told a Scientologist his religious notion of an alien overlord floating over from Xenon-23 was ridiculous you’d tell me I “hate” them? No I don’t hate Scientology or Islam etc.. That said, I will only give respect if I can see something to respect.

I do not respect polygamy. I accept it but I do not regard it in high standing.
I do not respect a 55 year old man marrying a 9-13 year old child regardless of time or place. I accept it used to happen – I don’t respect it happening.
I do not respect taxing people of a differing belief.
I do not respect the notion of an “infidel”
I do not respect institutionalizing Slavery.

I do respect making peace by voluntary inaction.
I do respect scientists who have added something worthwhile regardless of religion.
I do respect artists, playwrights, sculptors and novelists – regardless of religion.
I respect a well thought out argument.
I respect honesty.

I’m sure you and I agree on most of this.

There are tons of other issues about women not being equal to men, especially in these democratic nations. These hindrances are forced, yet neglected by you. I would like you explanation on why you let these major issues pass, yet argue so vehemently and passionately on something that women choose and harms nobody.

Which issues? I’d be happy to give you my opinion.

Michael

 

[GeoffP]

With the collapse of the Mongol administration of the Islamic lands in the 14th and 15th centuries, a trio of new empires began forming across Asia: the Ottoman Empire in Asia Minor, the Safavid Empire in Persia, and the Mughal Empire in India.

Mughal: Then you're aware of the Jat uprising, which began because of religious discrimination under Aurangzeb (the consumate "expander", expansion being your keystone here) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb), or the Ottoman persecution of the Greeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Greece), or the Safavid dynasty with its persecution of the Persians? Yes, these were all wonderful islamic societies. Not necessarily for the unbelievers, mind you, but for the believers it was all good. Great.

And it is half of four.

Which is three too many. Maybe you were right about the addition thing.

Your link was about divorce rates in polygamy. Here are divorce rates in monogamy.

http://www.divorcerate.org/

Wow.

Interesting. Tell me: does the lower divorce rate in islamic polygynism correspond to the inherent happiness of women there, or the inherent economic and societal danger in divorce, as we've already seen?

 

[Kadark]

I understand your point but, again, Communist States are “run by horrible regimes and dysfunctional dictators” yet they still promoted equality between the genders because this is a basic tenant of the system.

Can you think of any other explanation?

Explain to me, why doesn't communism work? Is it related to Islam?

No I’m asking why is it the countries that are mostly Muslim do not give women equal rights with men?

They dictate for a political agenda, not a religious motive. You're arguing politics, Michael, not religion. In case you haven't noticed, we're in the religious section of the forums/

I was positive that throughout the history of the Ottoman Empire the ruler was an Emperor? I thought that was the case for pretty much all countries that were majority Muslim? Didn’t they usually have an Emperor or a King or some sort of hereditary ruler? I don’t recall the Middle East or India or Indonesia or Malaysia or Africa being democratic nations in the past?

A leader is different from a dictator. Democracies have Presidents, right? Ottomans had "emperors". And pretty darn good ones, too.

The New Encyclopedia of Islam(2002), AltaMira Press. ISBN 0-7591-0189-2 . p.477

But you said wikipedia. Until you give me the link, your post is as good as BS. (And that's not very good).

Women are not the same as men. We have a penis That’s not the point. Women are also not legally equal to men in any nation. But, women in countries that are majority Muslim have even less legal rights than in Western and Eastern countries. Some countries don’t even allow women to drive or to vote or to walk around without a veil! Remember all those girls that burned to death in the school fire because it would be better if they die than have been seen?!?!

Michael, hear me out. I realize women don't get equal rights to men around the world, and more so in Muslim nations. But...is this supported in the Qur'an? Is this Islam being practiced, or the man-made laws of a nation?

I think they should be equal. If a women wants to walk around without a top that’s fine by me. She should be paid the same as well.

But they can't, and they're not. Why don't you protest these issues?

Oh come on. Many women have been forced to marry in all societies regardless of number of wives. But at least when they are legally equal to a man they have a chance to legally fight off an unwanted marriage.

Prove to me women are forced to marry men who have already married. Also, is this "forced marriage" supported by the Qur'an? Answer: no.

I do not respect polygamy. I accept it but I do not regard it in high standing.
I do not respect a 55 year old man marrying a 9-13 year old child regardless of time or place. I accept it used to happen – I don’t respect it happening.
I do not respect taxing people of a differing belief.
I do not respect the notion of an “infidel”
I do not respect institutionalizing Slavery.

I went over every single issue already, mike. Slavery, taxes, marriage, polygamy, etc. If you don't agree with me, then let's drop it. We're not getting anywhere like this.

I do respect making peace by voluntary inaction.
I do respect scientists who have added something worthwhile regardless of religion.
I do respect artists, playwrights, sculptors and novelists – regardless of religion.
I respect a well thought out argument.
I respect honesty.

As do I.

On a side note, Michael: Would you please tell GeoffP that this debate is between me and you? I don't think I can give the best quality answers to you if I have to debate somebody else as well.