Do you as a Muslim believe in women's equality?

[Debater Slayer]

Feminism has broken the family which creates all the problems in the lower working classes to start with. You living in this world is a cop out. Women did not jjust ''live in this world'' when they decided they wanted the vote did they.

Do you actually have a problem with women's having the right to vote? What the hell is that? Which century do you live in?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Do you actually have a problem with women's having the right to vote? What the hell is that? Which century do you live in?

It seems you miss the point. Though I will answer your question in a minute. When I said ''''Women did not jjust ''live in this world'' when they decided they wanted the vote did they.''''

what I meant was, the women of that time did not just accept what was around them, they decided to change it. This is in direct answer to the writer of the post I was responding to who claims that she is somehow a victim of what is around her, just living her life by the system in place. Understand now?

Now tell me this, why, if the man and woman are married and therefore one flesh, do they need to separate votes? Do they live in two separate houses? And if you reply that not everyone is married, some are single, then this leads to further problems like fornication and adultery.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It seems you miss the point. Though I will answer your question in a minute. When I said ''''Women did not jjust ''live in this world'' when they decided they wanted the vote did they.''''

what I meant was, the women of that time did not just accept what was around them, they decided to change it. This is in direct answer to the writer of the post I was responding to who claims that she is somehow a victim of what is around her, just living her life by the system in place. Understand now?

Now tell me this, why, if the man and woman are married and therefore one flesh, do they need to separate votes? Do they live in two separate houses? And if you reply that not everyone is married, some are single, then this leads to further problems like fornication and adultery.

For one thing, it's not that easy to go out and change things. Women have historically been harmed both physically and verbally for trying to do so, as have people from other genders who sided with them.

For another thing, the notion that marriage turns the husband and wife into "one flesh" is not held by everyone, thankfully. Couples need separate votes because they are separate people, unlike what some ancient text teaches.

The same goes for what you define as "fornication and adultery": your version of religion teaches that, but that doesn't mean other people share your beliefs. Not everyone has to live according to your views just because you think they should.

Apparently you also think everyone else has become one flesh with you; why else would you keep trying to pass the ridiculous and archaic beliefs you hold as facts that everyone else has to accept?

 

[Robert.Evans]

For one thing, it's not that easy to go out and change things.

That was my point to the first poster. Yet women seem to have managed it, right.

Women have historically been harmed both physically and verbally for trying to do so, as have people from other genders who sided with them.

As have men for going against it. Either way, I think you exaggerate. Women firebombed places in the uk.

For another thing, the notion that marriage turns the husband and wife into "one flesh" is not held by everyone, thankfully. Couples need separate votes because they are separate people, unlike what some ancient text teaches.

If they are not one flesh, then that means they don't really think the same and do not have a lot in common. Not a good basis for a relationship.

The same goes for what you define as "fornication and adultery": your version of religion teaches that, but that doesn't mean other people share your beliefs. Not everyone has to live according to your views just because you think they should.

But apparently we have to live in line with yours, as yours are secular and that is the rule were under.

Apparently you also think everyone else has become one flesh with you; why else would you keep trying to pass the ridiculous and archaic beliefs you hold as facts that everyone else has to accept?

I see no one here agreeing with me, so I think you are safe with your 'modern day' views. I still see no problem with two people getting on together and thinking the same things. If they don't the relationship probably won't last long. You need things in common. You have been maniputlated by femininst and governments who are controlling you for their own ends. It is shame that you think that it is now better. I do not think so, and I have given some evidence to show that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

 

[Debater Slayer]

That was my point to the first poster. Yet women seem to have managed it, right.

Yes, and they deserve every single right they have today. They have fought for decades or even centuries against oppression and people who hold beliefs like yours to get their rights.

As have men for going against it. Either way, I think you exaggerate. Women firebombed places in the uk.

The good old persecution complex. Because people fight against misogynistic ideas and mock those who hold such ideas (rightfully, in my opinion), the misogynists are supposed to be "victims."

If they are not one flesh, then that means they don't really think the same and do not have a lot in common. Not a good basis for a relationship.

Not really. The reason partners in very healthy relationships might disagree with each other is that they are in a relationship with another human, not a brick wall.

But apparently we have to live in line with yours, as yours are secular and that is the rule were under.

Unfortunately, not everyone lives under secular law. The fact that you can express beliefs like yours without fear of repercussions is a point for the secular law you are so set against.

I see no one here agreeing with me, so I think you are safe with your 'modern day' views. I still see no problem with two people getting on together and thinking the same things. If they don't the relationship probably won't last long. You need things in common. You have been maniputlated by femininst and governments who are controlling you for their own ends. It is shame that you think that it is now better. I do not think so, and I have given some evidence to show that.

I think it's ridiculous to assume I've been manipulated by feminists or a society that advocates it, seeing as how the majority of people in my society don't care about feminism or view gender equality as a good thing.

You have made it very clear that you are against women's rights. You don't need to keep stressing that point anymore for us to be aware of it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yep. Some people think "women's rights" means "I can shove whatever I think is best for women down their throats" rather than advocating free choice.

On a related note...

 

[Woodrow LI]

And yet women can't have more than one husband at the same time.

That's no equal right. It is double standard.

It only equal right, if men were banned from having more than one wife, or one woman should be able to have 2 or more husbands.

And the sharia law, supposedly established at muslim nations, give more weight to a man's testimony than a woman's testimony.

No, equal rights for women are far from "equal" among Muslims.

You look at it as unequal treatment. I see it as a means of protecting women from free loaders that would try to live off the wealth of a rich woman.
a man is permitted up to 4 wives not because it means satisfaction, but because it is a social obligation to provide for women that are unable to care for them self.

The restriction of 4 wives was made to discourage polygamy, not to encourage it. The criteria to have more than one wife is very difficult to achieve. The financial obligation alone is hard to meet. Each wife is to have her own house. In Islam the wife owns the house and furnishings. Each house is to be of equal value. When a woman marries it is she who sets the what she wants in a house in the Nikkah. If a man takes an additional wife and she demands a house worth more that what the existing wives have, he must upgrade the value of their homes.

Next in the choice of his added wife, he must first choose from among the widows and divorcees in the community, if they all turn him down only then can he look further.
The permission to have multiple wives was not given to satisfy males, it's purpose is to provide for women that can not provide for them self.

The reason a woman is not required to have multiple husbands is because a woman is not required to financially support any male.

I do not see the requirement to have 2 female witness as being unfair, I see it as a means of reducing the chance of a woman being intimidated by an abusive husband. In other words it is much more difficult to get 2 woman to testify in favor of a man than it would be to get just one to.this is done out of fairness not because of inferiority.

For example in the signing of the nikkah(Marriage) contract a man needs to provide 2 male witnesses to testify he is doing so of his own free will, a woman has to provide 4. This makes forced marriages much more difficult to carry out.
Yes abuses occur, but they are abuses and not what we are commanded.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Funny how it is always perceived as male dominance is'nt it. Most women I think you will find will actually agree with it. You don't think they do it just because a man said so do you? I don't think so, not nowadays, unless it is some remote tribe somewhere

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes, and they deserve every single right they have today. They have fought for decades or even centuries against oppression and people who hold beliefs like yours to get their rights.

We do not deserve any ''right''. We are supposed to be keeping the commands of God.
And no, they have not fought me, as you clearly don't understand what I stand for in the first place, nor care I imagine.

The good old persecution complex.

No, the good old truth complex

Because people fight against misogynistic ideas and mock those who hold such ideas (rightfully, in my opinion), the misogynists are supposed to be "victims."

Just because we keep a God given role as they are supposed to, they make up labels to stick on people so they can manipulate people. Perhaps they have done a good job with you.

Not really. The reason partners in very healthy relationships might disagree with each other is that they are in a relationship with another human, not a brick wall.

No one is saying there will not be disagreement.

Unfortunately, not everyone lives under secular law. The fact that you can express beliefs like yours without fear of repercussions is a point for the secular law you are so set against.

No, the reason I can express my views is God given. If he takes it away, then he takes it away. It has nothing to do with secular thinking.

I think it's ridiculous to assume I've been manipulated by feminists or a society that advocates it, seeing as how the majority of people in my society don't care about feminism or view gender equality as a good thing.

The same thing could have been said before they had the vote, but with the boot on the other foot.

You have made it very clear that you are against women's rights. You don't need to keep stressing that point anymore for us to be aware of it.

I am not against women's rights. We are supposed to keep the law of God. Do you understand that now? I suppose now you will go to the OT and misrepresent a law I am not even under now.
And why is it that ''rights'' and ''equality'' always equates to money and power?

 

[Robert.Evans]

In Islam the wife owns the house and furnishings.

Is that always, even in the west? I would think not. But interesting all the same.

I do not see the requirement to have 2 female witness as being unfair, I see it as a means of reducing the chance of a woman being intimidated by an abusive husband. In other words it is much more difficult to get 2 woman to testify in favor of a man than it would be to get just one to.this is done out of fairness not because of inferiority.

What a great answer How different things seem when you see the reason behind it, instead of judging through our own biased perspective.

Yes abuses occur, but they are abuses and not what we are commanded.

Exactly. Good post

 

[Debater Slayer]

We do not deserve any ''right''. We are supposed to be keeping the commands of God.
And no, they have not fought me, as you clearly don't understand what I stand for in the first place, nor care I imagine.

No, the good old truth complex

Just because we keep a God given role as they are supposed to, they make up labels to stick on people so they can manipulate people. Perhaps they have done a good job with you.

No one is saying there will not be disagreement.

No, the reason I can express my views is God given. If he takes it away, then he takes it away. It has nothing to do with secular thinking.

The same thing could have been said before they had the vote, but with the boot on the other foot.

I am not against women's rights. We are supposed to keep the law of God. Do you understand that now? I suppose now you will go to the OT and misrepresent a law I am not even under now.
And why is it that ''rights'' and ''equality'' always equates to money and power?

The fact that you are proceeding from the premise that such oppressive laws were given to us by a deity thousands of years ago makes me think that it would be unproductive to debate anything else with you until we get that premise out of the way. Doing anything else seems to me like trying to build a tower out of hay.

 

[Koldo]

You look at it as unequal treatment. I see it as a means of protecting women from free loaders that would try to live off the wealth of a rich woman.

Do you mean there is no protection from free loaders that would try to live off the wealth of a rich man? Why is that?

a man is permitted up to 4 wives not because it means satisfaction, but because it is a social obligation to provide for women that are unable to care for them self.

What about the men who can't take care of themselves?

The restriction of 4 wives was made to discourage polygamy, not to encourage it. The criteria to have more than one wife is very difficult to achieve. The financial obligation alone is hard to meet. Each wife is to have her own house. In Islam the wife owns the house and furnishings. Each house is to be of equal value. When a woman marries it is she who sets the what she wants in a house in the Nikkah. If a man takes an additional wife and she demands a house worth more that what the existing wives have, he must upgrade the value of their homes.

Why does the house have to be the woman's in the first place?
I can comprehend the merit of it when we are talking about housewives who don't work outside, but if she can and does work outside, why?

I do not see the requirement to have 2 female witness as being unfair, I see it as a means of reducing the chance of a woman being intimidated by an abusive husband. In other words it is much more difficult to get 2 woman to testify in favor of a man than it would be to get just one to.this is done out of fairness not because of inferiority.

For example in the signing of the nikkah(Marriage) contract a man needs to provide 2 male witnesses to testify he is doing so of his own free will, a woman has to provide 4. This makes forced marriages much more difficult to carry out.
Yes abuses occur, but they are abuses and not what we are commanded.

Is this applicable when reporting a crime?

 

[Draka]

My guy and I each have our own minds. Are our own people. Have our own views. And while many of them, probably most of them, align most of the time, there are things we stand differently upon and that is fine. When looking for a mate I don't think either of us were just looking for someone who is the exact same as us, or someone who would just go along with everything we said. I don't look for a weak little doormat and neither does he (obviously). Having differences, different opinions, different outlooks, is what keeps a relationship interesting and alive. Being able to share them with each other, discuss them, perhaps even learn from them, is a good thing, not a bad one. He and I are of different religious outlooks, we belong to different political parties, have different shows on tv that we like. None of that is a bad thing. Now, as partners, as equal individuals sharing with each other in this relationship, why should my opinion or vote not matter? Would someone care to tell him that my opinion or vote doesn't matter? That it shouldn't matter? I do believe he'd laugh at you.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The fact that you are proceeding from the premise that such oppressive laws were given to us by a deity thousands of years ago makes me think that it would be unproductive to debate anything else with you until we get that premise out of the way. Doing anything else seems to me like trying to build a tower out of hay.

Like I say, you have to understand the law.
They knew years ago not to kill, yet we still do it. So I should not hold you head too high my friend.

By the way, I was part wrong in the last thread. You spoke of secular laws giving religion freedom. In one sense that is right. You see, at the time of Christ the Romans ruled Yerushalaim, and they would not allow the death penalty. So it seems that the secular world then ruled as it does now largely, certainly in the UK at any rate.
This begs the question as to why?
Is God not powerful enough to allow the Church to rule for example? But one of the basic laws of thousands of years ago was, Do not kill. This is said to mean do not murder, but that depends on who you listen to!

So, if we take that as a God given law, and then the other laws, the Mosai, as being man-made, which in turn had the death penalty, it seems that he took away their ability to use the death penalty, then and now.
We might also ask why that is. The reason for that is, the Mosaic law reflects God himself, as God on earth. But ultimately, it is only God who is supposed to take life, not us. So it seems to prevent us acting as 'gods' he put in a secular government who would respect humanity more.

So you were partly right

 

[turk179]

How I feel about women? Perhaps you'd like to explain that.

It was a statement made regarding Poe's law. Do I need to explain Poe's law?

 

[Robert.Evans]

My guy and I each have our own minds. Are our own people. Have our own views. And while many of them, probably most of them, align most of the time, there are things we stand differently upon and that is fine. When looking for a mate I don't think either of us were just looking for someone who is the exact same as us, or someone who would just go along with everything we said. I don't look for a weak little doormat and neither does he (obviously). Having differences, different opinions, different outlooks, is what keeps a relationship interesting and alive. Being able to share them with each other, discuss them, perhaps even learn from them, is a good thing, not a bad one. He and I are of different religious outlooks, we belong to different political parties, have different shows on tv that we like. None of that is a bad thing. Now, as partners, as equal individuals sharing with each other in this relationship, why should my opinion or vote not matter? Would someone care to tell him that my opinion or vote doesn't matter? That it shouldn't matter? I do believe he'd laugh at you.

It is not that it does not matter, it is at one time at least, husband and wife meant something, it meant they stayed together for life, and looked after one another, and were not selfish and self centered like nowadays... what they call 'independent'...haha

So there is no need for two votes, or at least, should not be. That is all about the woman wanting influence and power over men, to gain more power and wealth for themselves. As for men not seeing that, women have done a great job, as governments have, of steering their thinking to their ideas. Nice when it works, and it has worked. The evidence is all around. But there is always penalties to pay, always consequences.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It was a statement made regarding Poe's law. Do I need to explain Poe's law?

You don't want to explain it then, okay, no matter. Hollow argument with an excuse at the end of it, it seems

 

[turk179]

You don't want to explain it then, okay, no matter. Hollow argument with an excuse at the end of it, it seems

I explained my statement. I said it was in regards to Poe's law. I get the feeling that you're just not understanding. My apologies but I don't think I can make that any clearer.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I explained my statement. I said it was in regards to Poe's law. I get the feeling that you're just not understanding. My apologies but I don't think I can make that any clearer.

Maybe I can help. This is what you said:

She is right. Your views are a very good example of Poe's law. Your views are extremely outrageous. I'm not even sure if men in the 1920's believed that they were as superior over women as you portray yourself to be. You're either joking or crazy. But if this really is how you feel about women, might I suggest counseling.

You see the end part. It is not part of the Poe commentary. Okay