Islam vs western values

[SkepticThinker]

For example not being in a situation where it would be possible.

Such as?

However, I don't think Bible tells the woman must marry in the situation, only that the man must, unless the victims family doesn't accept it.

Yeah, it's up to the victim's father, as though the victim is just a piece of property. So again, the victim doesn't get a choice.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What father would not listen to his daughter?

Lots of them.

I think the reason why the system was so is that the men are more able to protect the women.

It's in place because it's a patriarchy, where women are considered property.

As I think this discussion shows, women have no capability to protect themselves.

Well, it's a lot easier to protect oneself when you're not forced to marry a criminal and live with them for the rest of your life. Wouldn't you say?

Also, is there a scripture that tells the woman must marry? That the man would have to, doesn't necessary mean that the woman has to accept it.

We're talking about women being forced to marry their rapist.

 

[ChristineM]

As I think this discussion shows, women have no capability to protect themselves.

Many women are unable to protect themselves against violence.

I certainly couldn't. Rather like 'closing the door after the horse has bolted' but i was determined it would not happen again. I learned some krav maga after the event.

I am now quite confident about protecting myself.

 

[ppp]

As I think this discussion shows, women have no capability to protect themselves.

I think that this discussion shows that you are a proponent of a society where a women not protected by a man are free game.

 

[stevecanuck]

That is from Quran? I have no reason to defend Quran, but, I don't think that means woman can't do anything to prevent it.

Yes, it's from the Qur'an. It clearly says Muslim men can have sex with their wives and their slaves/captives whenever they want to. There's no mystery to it.

 

[stevecanuck]

What father would not listen to his daughter?

You're projecting your own values. Muslim men have complete control over the women in their lives according to 4:34

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women .....

I think the reason why the system was so is that the men are more able to protect the women. As I think this discussion shows, women have no capability to protect themselves.

Also, is there a scripture that tells the woman must marry? That the man would have to, doesn't necessary mean that the woman has to accept it.

If a woman's father says she must marry (see the above), then yes she has to.

 

[danieldemol]

If you have to pay taxes, you basically are renting the means of production from the government that fools you to believe you own something.

A capitalist who is opposed to rent - fascinating! Capitalist land owners would be furious with you in my opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For example not being in a situation where it would be possible.

You would fit right in with the Taliban

However, I don't think Bible tells the woman must marry in the situation, only that the man must, unless the victims family doesn't accept it.

Yes yes... "the victim's family".

Who cares what the victim wants, right?

 

[1213]

I think that this discussion shows that you are a proponent of a society where a women not protected by a man are free game.

Why do you think so? I don't think women are free game, and I don't support such idea.

 

[1213]

Many women are unable to protect themselves against violence.

I certainly couldn't. Rather like 'closing the door after the horse has bolted' but i was determined it would not happen again. I learned some krav maga after the event.

I am now quite confident about protecting myself.

Thanks. And I think the Biblical system offered more protection for women than the current western system, which is why I think it is not bad.

 

[1213]

We're talking about women being forced to marry their rapist.

And I don't think the scripture forces woman to do so. It forces the man, but if the woman don't accept, I don't think she would have to.

 

[1213]

Such as?

For example not being alone with the man.

 

[1213]

All taxes? Should you be taxed to pay for roads? Just how much of a non-tax extremist are you?

I am against all mandatory taxes. If people want a road, they can fund it freely on their own. It is much better that way, because then they have some control over how the money is really spent.

 

[ChristineM]

Thanks. And I think the Biblical system offered more protection for women than the current western system, which is why I think it is not bad.

No it didn't, it treated women as property to be used and abused at the will of their father, slave master (husband) or rapist. How you can call that "not bad"?

Do you not think a woman should have the same freedom of choice, the same rights as a man as to how they live their lives?

Or do misogynistic bronze age mores guide you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For example not being alone with the man.

So like in Saudi Arabia or Taliban Afghanistan, where women are not allowed outside without a male chaperone.

Great.

 

[ppp]

I am against all mandatory taxes. If people want a road, they can fund it freely on their own. It is much better that way, because then they have some control over how the money is really spent.

What money? What do you think that money is?

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. Islam never changes.

Unfortunate. Dead wood? India is soon going to replace 'dead wood' with a uniform civil code suited to the times.

 

[stevecanuck]

I think that this discussion shows that you are a proponent of a society where a women not protected by a man are free game.

The Qur'an arguably implies that in verse 33:59 - "O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused."

To me, the implication is that insufficiently covered women (those who don't obey their men regarding covering) may be abused.

 

[ppp]

Why do you think so? I don't think women are free game, and I don't support such idea.

That is the social structure that you are defending.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am against all mandatory taxes. If people want a road, they can fund it freely on their own. It is much better that way, because then they have some control over how the money is really spent.

That is quite silly. Make as 500 km road connecting two cities and costing USD 2 billion. You will employ an architect, a company with expertise to make a road, you will need raw materials, which company would you buy these from?
To whom would you give your part of the cost of the project, which bank will you deposit it in, who will the authority to pay the money, who will check if the money is not misused?
Your system is OK if you want a 1 km road to connect your village to the main road or dig a well in the village. But modern times require huge projects which canno0t be done in this village-wise way.
Are you living in a remote self-sufficient village? Even that will require things to be brought from cities. Would you grow your own cereals and vegs? Would you weave your own cloth? Would you use electricity or use bear fat to light a lamp in the night?