the empowerment of women in islam vs western feminism

[Meow Mix]

we muslim world believe wife beat is right, we muslim allow you to live west culture, are west untolerates?

It's not "intolerant" to be compassionate for other people even if they aren't in our countries.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

 

[Meow Mix]

no such country exists at the moment unfortunately. the middle eastern countries are as much secular and democratic as all others are.

the Ottoman Empire had full shariah and was run by a Khalif this ended in the early 20th century with the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

No, the middle eastern countries are NOT secular and NOT democratic.

 

[Meow Mix]

people being religious and adherents of a particular religion doesn't mean the country in which they live in is run according to the laws of that religion or the beliefs of the people.

middle eastern countries although have some laws based on islamic shariah, they are still as much secular and democratic as any other country. in a secular and democratic country a law must pass by the parliament and receive acceptance in order to be implemented, that could include islamic laws or man made laws. in islam, no such thing happens since islam has it's own laws and justice system so we do not need to add anything, if we do need to add anything it has to have a basis in the Qur'an and Sunnah and it doesn't have to go through parliament and receive acceptance, if the majority of the scholars agree that is has basis in islam and is a just law then that is the end of it.

does any of that clarify the matter?

I think you have a misunderstood notion of what secularism is in a country.

A truly secular country has freedom of religion in that the affairs of the state are separate from the affairs of any particular religions (even if you say they are misinterpreting a religion, a secular country runs its business separated from even THAT).

China is not a secular country, for instance, because of state-supported atheism, which is not what secular means. A secular country necessarily has great freedoms.

 

[Meow Mix]

you mean a state which has full shariah and is in accordance to islam?
i'd leave to go live in such a country any day.

But wouldn't having such a system for laws be grotesquely unfair to those who are born in that country who do not believe Islam or don't want to be Muslims?

 

[Starsoul]

Any woman who thinks she increases her choices of who to mate with by making herself look unattractive to others is delusional. She is certainly not going to get many offers of marriage by running around looking like a trash-gathering bag lady

.
Any man who thinks he's increasing his chances of finding a successful life partner by specifically judging how attractive a woman looks to him, is super delusional and plain idiotic.

Obviously, if you are a woman, and you want to attract a lot of men in order to have many men from which to choose a mate, you act kind and make yourself beautiful. Is that so hard to understand?

Thats what you're far from understanding, women in islam arent treated/perceived as attractively dressed shelve products who are bound to compete in looks with each other before they expire or better looking products replace them; and then hunt to grab the most heaviest pocket of the most eligible bachelor out there, which seems to be the standard of your society; superficial to the core.

Women in Islam beautify themselves 'Exclusively' for their spouses and for the men of their family, they dont seek attention/fame of every other dirty prick on the streets to earn a quick name in the neighbourhood/or the community as the prettiest bimbo out there, for a reward like, lets say: being chased by Mr. Raging hormones and then get dumped/pregnant by a guy who's last name she can hardly recall? And then forced by circumstances to discontinue her education and start earning by weird means? what a super protective social setup , Must say, even hell sounds more protected.

And is it so hard to understand that any moral system -- religious, feminist, or otherwise -- that prevents or discourages women from making themselves look beautiful is effectively reducing the pool of males that a typical woman gets to choose from when deciding who to mate with.

Yawn, you should actually compare statistics of marriages and divorces in muslim cultures and those of your own, and it wont remain any harder for you to understand that muslim women are way more successful in acquiring a pool of eligible men without having to resort to cheap tactics, but yawn again, how would you understand that?

A person who can rip apart a fully covered woman's dignity by assimilating her with a flour bag, gives away a lot on how he perceives a woman otherwise; just a commodity with an expiry date, thanks for saying that out loud.

Telling women to dress as modestly as sacks of flour is a step towards taking from them the control over their own reproductive choices. ...- that you reduce a woman's attractiveness, you reduce her choices of who to mate with.

Unless you believe that men and women must have sex in order find out their true compatibility, your post seems far from any sense. Reproductive choices? is that what a woman is to you? (or vice versa) a vehicle to 'choose' better looking genes no matter how pathetic they may be in behavioral makeup ?

 

[TruthSpeaker]

It's not "intolerant" to be compassionate for other people even if they aren't in our countries.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

sister meow, how you define help? in this thread www.religiousforums.com/forum/quranic-debates/75600-treatments-women.html , you see muslimahs favor of wife beating, muslimahs dislike your help but you want help forcefully? compassionate mean to allowance others to live their wish, not forcefully make them live what you wish, it is cruelty.

 

[Meow Mix]

Note before anything that i'm in substantial agreement with everything you're trying to say. And that i'm more than aware that you're not anti-Islam in anyway.

However, in my view, passing judgements on the Quran based on mere familiarity is not the best way to express your points. Because almost all of the objections you raised here, are addressable without any interpretation gymnastics of any kind.

That's why I'm trying to be open about my general ignorance of the Quran and its defenses. I can speak freely about the Old and New Testaments of the Bible because I'm so familiar with them and many of the defenses for their passages; but when I'm raising my objections about the Quran they're more in the form of a question than they are a statement. I've tried to make my statements conditional and to use qualifiers such as "If it's true that..." and "As far as I understand it..."

Its not fair for me (nor do i want to) to try to address them or argue against your posts however, since you're replying to very provoking, and in some cases slanderous accusations being made about you in effect, in more than one way.

In other words, i'm just stating my disagreement with your descriptions and opinion of the Quran, and explaining why i'm not going to defend it.

Which is fair, I know I use strong language sometimes -- but that's just because I'm a passionate person on some areas. Personal freedoms are some of those areas, so if it seems to me that books, ideas, concepts, or beliefs infringe those freedoms I can use some strong language to denounce them.

I don't denounce Islam. I think Islam can enhance society and enhance life. But I think societies should be secular to ensure freedom for all, and I think that the SOURCE that Islam comes from contains wicked things; but I'm not singling it out. I also think this about Christianity and Judaism. I've seen Christians/Jews/Muslims with great beliefs, it just seems to me they have to ignore or twist certain things in order for them to be great. I'm not trying to insult them, I'm not trying to stand against them. In fact I wish more people would join them. I'm just calling it what I see it as.

 

[Meow Mix]

sister meow, how you define help? in this thread www.religiousforums.com/forum/quranic-debates/75600-treatments-women.html , you see muslimahs favor of wife beating, muslimahs dislike your help but you want help forcefully? compassionate mean to allowance others to live their wish, not forcefully make them live what you wish, it is cruelty.

TruthSpeaker, it's a difficult issue. I wouldn't wish to interfere with someone's ability to make a choice for themselves if they're mature enough to do so and have the cognitive capacity to give consent.

However, there should be an "out" for people who feel like they're being coerced into it, and that's not so easy. Options need to be available to women who don't want to be treated like cattle, even if their family and supposed lover goad them into it.

 

[waitasec]

I've explained already why i'm not going to do that (when replying to a similar request in another post earlier).

why not...can you show me what post that was so i can understand why not.

You should read what you reply to before posting.

you asked me if i thought feminism was a failure.

As to your response in eventually saying "then whats so special about Islam", like i said whats so special about feminism? Is it a failure?

what is so special about islam in terms of empowering women?

The countries that supposedly apply sharia today do not represent Islam or appropriate Sharia as a concept, in my view.

then this is just nonsense.
as there is absolutely no standard to use in order to say this or that country is truly islamic.
is it any wonder why all these islamic"ish" countries are in the position they are in now...

anything goes it seems...
sorry thats how i see it.

such a shame :sad:

 

[dust1n]

There's a difference between being "simply homosexual" and the corruption of young naive people

:biglaugh:

 

[Starsoul]

Well, I'm only passingly familiar with the Quran, I won't hide that. Is it true, though, that a female witness counts as half of a man's witness in certain courts?

Only in cases where there are more men witnesses. (Reasoning: because a woman's honor is well protected and guarded in islam, unless she is an essential and the only witness, she is given ease and support to bring along another woman with her as women is Islam are not supposed to be somewhere far from home all alone. (this by no means lessens the importance of her witness) . Imagine a system where women never went anywhere alone, it was natural then, that if a crime happened, both of them were called as witness, not because a woman witness is considered weak, but because women find great support in their accomplices and most might even refuse to record a statement if they fear that they'd be involved in a certain case and would have to go all by themselves to the courts, leave their kids behind and record statements for cases they do not want to be involved in.)

[Second reason was to ease her from the burden of having to remember specific details about an incident since it is documented about women that they loose a lot of memory in child birth and while managing a number of kids, it is a natural physical aspect of women, ( and since muslims believe that Allah is all knowing,) it seems quite plausible that God gave one woman witness a chance to re confirm her information with her accomplice woman, so that they both can remind each other lest they forget (part of this is mentioned in the Quran) and in order to avoid the mixing up of key information.

I'm sure quite a few women are very sharp of brains and can recall exact details of an incident, but most common women undergo panic when they experience shock and they hardly notice any details, this is a fact! And since Islamic justice system caters to all segments of the society, the level of ease and accommodation begins from the person having the lowest means to fare well in the world, not the richest or the bestest brains, as is the custom of today's world i.e only the best fare well]

Now, in Cases regarding women and children, and other women , one woman witness is held as one. You obviously haven't understood it well at all, all verses have context and the explanation that you have given is hardly is the one that supports it, where did you even get it from?

I understand that there's an "explanation" for women inheriting less (because the man's supposed to work and take care of the wife, blah blah -- which is misogynistic in itself), but I've not seen an explanation for why women count as half of a witness yet -- if indeed that's what the Quran says.

The explanation of daughters inheriting just half from their fathers, of what a son would, is, that she gets the other half from her husband, simple. So that makes her financial baggage complete. While the same son, since he'd be getting married and spending his share on all his family including an old parent, his wife and his kids, thus his share never remains his own, as his financial needs multiply, he gets a little more since he gets to distribute it among his wife and kids. And since a daughter already gets some from the father and some from the husband, it is entirely hers and she is not bound to even spend it on her family, she can do whatever she wants with it, start a business or support her family, it all depends on her choice. Hope that cleared it a bit.

 

[waitasec]

sister meow, how you define help? in this thread www.religiousforums.com/forum/quranic-debates/75600-treatments-women.html , you see muslimahs favor of wife beating, muslimahs dislike your help but you want help forcefully? compassionate mean to allowance others to live their wish, not forcefully make them live what you wish, it is cruelty.

people should never treat each other disrespectfully...no matter what.

but you seem to be ok with disrespecting others as long as you are not the one who is disrespected

i call that hypocrisy and cowardly...

congratulations, because of people like you i am justified in having the very very low opinion i have of most men who live in islamic countries

 

[TruthSpeaker]

TruthSpeaker, it's a difficult issue. I wouldn't wish to interfere with someone's ability to make a choice for themselves if they're mature enough to do so and have the cognitive capacity to give consent.

thank you, i agree it

However, there should be an "out" for people who feel like they're being coerced into it, and that's not so easy. Options need to be available to women who don't want to be treated like cattle, even if their family and supposed lover goad them into it.

then too no need your help because shariah law has all options. Muslims obey only allah's law called shariah law. If she have faith in allah she only goes to shariah court.

 

[waitasec]

compassionate mean to allowance others to live their wish, not forcefully make them live what you wish, it is cruelty.

the irony in this is absolutely mind bending


this wins the prize!!!
:clap

 

[Meow Mix]

Only in cases where there are more men witnesses. (Reasoning: because a woman's honor is well protected and guarded in islam, unless she is an essential and the only witness, she is given ease and support to bring along another woman with her as women is Islam are not supposed to be somewhere far from home all alone. (this by no means lessens the importance of her witness) . Imagine a system where women never went anywhere alone, it was natural then, that if a crime happened, both of them were called as witness, not because a woman witness is considered weak, but because women find great support in their accomplices and most might even refuse to record a statement if they fear that they'd be involved in a certain case and would have to go all by themselves to the courts, leave their kids behind and record statements for cases they do not want to be involved in.

This is still jaw-droppingly backwards to me. I can't believe a woman would support this injustice... and I don't see how this explanation of women "not going anywhere alone" (MORE misogyny and inequality there, that is!) helps anything, nor do I see how a stereotype that women find support in accomplices helps anything (seems like more misogyny to me to stereotype them as such!)

[Second reason was to ease her from the burden of having to remember specific details about an incident since it is documented about women that they loose a lot of memory in child birth and while managing a number of kids, it is a natural physical aspect of women, ( and since muslims believe that Allah is all knowing,) it seems quite plausible that God gave one woman witness a chance to re confirm her information with her accomplice woman, so that they both can remind each other lest they forget (part of this is mentioned in the Quran) and in order to avoid the mixing up of key information.

Do you have any evidence that "women lose a lot of memory in child birth," and do you have any evidence that any supposed loss is so devastating that a woman can't be trusted to provide testimony? Sorry, this just seems like an absurd amount of "reaching" to find an explanation for the blatant inequality found in the book to me.

Also, apparently if women or children are on trial, this supposed memory loss from childbirth doesn't matter anymore I guess? What does that say about how much women and children are valued if testimony which isn't considered good enough for a man is good enough for women and children?

I'm sure quite a few women are very sharp of brains and can recall exact details of an incident, but most common women undergo panic when they experience shock and they hardly notice any details, this is a fact! And since Islamic justice system caters to all segments of the society, the level of ease and accommodation begins from the person having the lowest means to fare well in the world, not the richest or the bestest brains, as is the custom of today's world i.e only the best fare well]

More stereotyping, and from a smart woman What makes you think that "most common women" would "panic" and "hardly notice any details?" Women seem to do just fine in courts in America, so why would it be different in Shariah?

As for accomodating the people of the lowest means, why should competent people be dragged down with unnecessary rules? Why can't people who have special needs receive special help if they need it rather than forcing everyone to have special help? Isn't that sort of like making people capable of walking up stairs to take the wheelchair ramp?

There's nothing demeaning about having special needs, but there is certainly something demeaning about forcing everyone to accept special help that they don't need -- such as a woman testifying by herself.

Now, in Cases regarding women and children, and other women , one woman witness is held as one. You obviously haven't understood it well at all, all verses have context and the explanation that you have given is hardly is the one that supports it, where did you even get it from?

It seems obvious that women's testimony is valued less if it has to be reinforced with other witnesses to "back them up" for men, but it's ok to use their "flawed testimony" on other women and on children. :sarcastic

I can't imagine why you're not outraged by this! If I lived under such a system I would be irate about the oppression!

The explanation of daughters inheriting just half from their fathers, of what a son would, is, that she gets the other half from her husband, simple. So that makes her financial baggage complete. While the same son, since he'd be getting married and spending his share on all his family including an old parent, his wife and his kids, thus his share never remains his own, as his financial needs multiply, he gets a little more since he gets to distribute it among his wife and kids. And since a daughter already gets some from the father and some from the husband, it is entirely hers and she is not bound to even spend it on her family, she can do whatever she wants with it, start a business or support her family, it all depends on her choice. Hope that cleared it a bit.

I figured as much on that part, but I already think that whole system is incredibly misogynistic as it is. The whole notion of pre-determined gender roles disgusts me.

 

[Nakosis]

thank you, i agree it then too no need your help because shariah law has all options. Muslims obey only allah's law called shariah law. If she have faith in allah she only goes to shariah court.

So you have examples of Sharia courts upholding women's rights?

What isn't wrong with Sharia law? | Law | guardian.co.uk

I don't usually weigh in but there seems a problem which isn't being addressed.

 

[Meow Mix]

thank you, i agree it then too no need your help because shariah law has all options. Muslims obey only allah's law called shariah law. If she have faith in allah she only goes to shariah court.

How do we make sure that women who don't agree with that version of Shariah are protected from family, friends, and their lovers though?

Imagine that you are a woman who's getting married to a man that you think you're in love with. Now imagine that you have slightly different beliefs, for instance you think it's wrong for him to EVER hit you. But your family tells you that you should stay with him, and he tells you that you should stay with him, and your imam tells you that you should stay with him -- but you deep inside don't believe that him being able to hit you is right.

How can you be protected? Sometimes family will HURT you, or your lover will HURT you, if you try to disagree with it! How can we make sure women are protected who disagree with being treated like pretty animals/property?

 

[Badran]

why not...can you show me what post that was so i can understand why not.

Let me spell it out:

1) Because i'm not willing to do your work for you.

2) Because i see no point in changing my mind about that, since it will be fruitless anyway.

you asked me if i thought feminism was a failure.

Oh boy, okay, note carefully what happened afterwards:

As to your response in eventually saying "then whats so special about Islam", like i said whats so special about feminism? Is it a failure?

No, neither is. Both have been used relatively to advance women's rights and conditions. Today however unfortunately Islam is being used (amongst loads of other things) to oppress women in some parts of the world.

In case its still not obvious (i can't see how it wouldn't be but anyway), i wasn't actually seriously asking you. I answered it myself, with a NO. I don't think its a failure, just the same way i don't think Islam is a failure.

what is so special about islam in terms of empowering women?

Whats so special about feminism in terms of empowering women?

(Warning: this isn't really a serious question).

then this is just nonsense.

Not if you try to read what was written appropriately.

You asked me which Sharia country do so and so, since in fact i don't think any of the countries today who claim to follow sharia are appropriately doing so, since they violate some of the basic ideas, there's only two ways to answer it:

1) The way i already answered it in.

2) Saying that there are 'versions' of sharia, and that i personally disagree with the ones implemented today.

In other words, i do agree that in said countries women are mistreated. But i also don't think whats applied there is actually sharia. Its just a glaring example of abuse of religion and corruption.

 

[waitasec]

Let me spell it out:

1) Because i'm not willing to do your work for you.

Badran, how do you suppose i can understand this way of thinking if one is not to meet me in the middle?
if you are not willing to show me, as i concede that there is a influx of a negative outlook i need you to show me how this is not accurate.
where do i look? point the way.

2) Because i see no point in changing my mind about that, since it will be fruitless anyway.

changing your mind about what...i am asking you to show me something i'm having a very difficult time seeing.

Oh boy, okay, note carefully what happened afterwards:



In case its still not obvious (i can't see how it wouldn't be but anyway), i wasn't actually seriously asking you. I answered it myself, with a NO. I don't think its a failure, just the same way i don't think Islam is a failure.

my bad i didn't read that part as i thought it was a part of your signature...


alright in response to this:

Both have been used relatively to advance women's rights and conditions.

the relatively part bugs me...
can you show me anything that has empowered women in regards to
everyday women, women who make up the masses in the islamic world..where their rights have been advanced that will differentiate women of the 21st century from women 20th century?

Not if you try to read what was written appropriately.

You asked me which Sharia country do so and so, since in fact i don't think any of the countries today who claim to follow sharia are appropriately doing so, since they violate some of the basic ideas, there's only two ways to answer it:

1) The way i already answered it in.

2) Saying that there are 'versions' of sharia, and that i personally disagree with the ones implemented today.

In other words, i do agree that in said countries women are mistreated. But i also don't think whats applied there is actually sharia. Its just a glaring example of abuse of religion and corruption.

which makes a stronger case for the separation of church and state.

curious what you think of this article Nakosis brought to the table:


What isn't wrong with Sharia law? | Law | guardian.co.uk

 

[Badran]

Badran, how do you suppose i can understand this way of thinking if one is not to meet me in the middle?
if you are not willing to show me, as i concede that there is a influx of a negative outlook i need you to show me how this is not accurate.
where do i look? point the way.

Okay, i promise i'll look for sources regarding your second question and share them if i find any.

changing your mind about what...i am asking you to show me something i'm having a very difficult time seeing.

I meant regarding not looking up for the sources, since i thought it would be fruitless. (I changed my mind now though )

my bad i didn't read that part as i thought it was a part of your signature...


alright in response to this:

the relatively part bugs me...
can you show me anything that has empowered women in regards to
everyday women, women who make up the masses in the islamic world..where their rights have been advanced that will differentiate women of the 21st century from women 20th century?

What i was trying to say is that the difference in time between both "movements" so to speak will have a considerable say when we compare them. In effect, i was actually acknowledging what you're trying to point out here.

Islam's powerful impact in regards to women and the changes it brought can be obvious and apparent in its time. After such a long time though, in the current conditions of most countries where Islam is wide spread and in comparison to a newer movement, the comparison won't work unless we put in mind that time difference and what it means.

which makes a stronger case for the separation of church and state.

I'll assume you were just using what i was saying to make a point since i didn't actually argue against the the separation between the church and state, or secularism in other words (thats because i have no problem with the concept).

curious what you think of this article Nakosis brought to the table:

What isn't wrong with Sharia law? | Law | guardian.co.uk

I'll share on that when i get back with the sources (hopefully).