Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Islam and Women
Comments
-
The link I posted has various scientific studies quoted, which came from independent sources?
Psychiatry in Practice, April 1983 issue states:
"Forty percent of women suffer from pre-menstrual syndrome in some form and one in if our women have their lives severely disrupted by it. Dr Jill Williams, general practitioner from Bury, gives guidelines on how to recognise patients at risk and suggests a suitable treatment." [Psychiatry in Practice, April 1993, p.14]
(snip)
Medina, those studies you quote are not as relevant to the question at hand as the one I posted. The question was - are women as reliable witnesses as men? The study I post says they are in fact more reliable.
Your studies talk about "breast discomfort" and vaguely reference "psychological changes". None of the text you've quoted deals with women's suitability as witnesses - none of it. Posting irrelevant chunks of text may look impressive, but not once you read it.
Also, can anyone answer my question about the evidence from a raped woman? I presume this must always be considered false if the (male) rapist denied the rape, even if the woman's evidence seems more convincing?
P.0 -
And if there is no medical evidence, then it comes down to what a woman says versus what a man says. And then the requirement for witnesses can come both ways...
(Surat-al-Nur: 24)
But (and correct me if I'm wrong here) if it came down to the mans word vs the womans word, the man would automatically be believed because there is an inherent sexual inequality in the sharia law system that favors men.0 -
jam_mac_jam wrote: »The idea that hormones are going to prevent a woman being able to report or witness a crime is laughable. .
Where did I say that?
You interpreted what I did say a certain way to retro fit it to your preconceived notions of how Islam treats women. No one said women can't report or witness a crime
btw Jack the scientific quotes came from the link I quoted from.
I leave it to yourself to source the original studies if you feel the need to.0 -
Jack Sheehan wrote: »But (and correct me if I'm wrong here) if it came down to the mans word vs the womans word, the man would automatically be believed because there is an inherent sexual inequality in the sharia law system that favors men.
Doesn't the example I quoted show that there is no sexual inequality? A man is just as much required to produce witnesses as much as a woman is.0 -
Where did I say that?
You interpreted it a certain way to retro fit it to your preconceived notions of how Islam treats women
btw Jack the scientific quotes came from the link I quoted from.
I leave it to yourself to source the original studies if you feel the need to.
I do not have any notions of how Islam treats women at all, I think its more to do with the culture of a country then the religion of it to be honest. Dont assume my preconceived notions about Islam when I know a little more about it having been to many differing muslim countries and seen the vast differences in the treatment of women.
I am explaining to you why others may get these notions from.0 -
Advertisement
-
Doesn't the example I quoted show that there is no sexual inequality? A man is just as much required to produce witnesses as much as a woman is.
Ok another example, If a Woman is raped by a man and the man produces one witness. The woman also produces one witness. According to sharia law does or does the man not win because of he gender inequality present?0 -
jam_mac_jam wrote: »I do not have any notions of how Islam treats women at all, I think its more to do with the culture of a country then the religion of it to be honest. Dont assume my preconceived notions about Islam when I know a little more about it having been to many differing muslim countries and seen the vast differences in the treatment of women.
I am explaining to you why others may get these notions from.
Well I am very glad to hear you don't have preconceived notions, I apologise sincerely.
You are right in that cultures treat women very differently, and that is what we want to distinguish, that its the culture not Islam who can treat women as inferior beings0 -
Doesn't the example I quoted show that there is no sexual inequality? A man is just as much required to produce witnesses as much as a woman is.
In that case, the quote you posted doesn't bear much resemblance to how Islamic law is actually implemented in real life.
From Wikipedia:
The status of women's testimony in Islam is disputed. Some jurists have held that certain types testimony by women will not be accepted.[22]. In other cases, the testimony of two women can equal that of one man.[22][Qur'an 2:282][23] The reason for this disparity has been explained in various manners, including women's lack of intelligence,[24] women's temperament and sphere of interest,[25] and sparing women from the burden of testifying.[26] In other areas, women's testimony may be accepted on an equal basis with men's.[22][27]
So in the best case, a woman's testimony is only worth half that of a man's. I find it hard to know how you square this with "sexual equality".
P.0 -
Jack Sheehan wrote: »Ok another example, If a Woman is raped by a man and the man produces one witness. The woman also produces one witness. According to sharia law does or does the man not win because of he gender inequality present?
As I said Jack, I have no idea how an Islamic court would rule on this however I can't see that the ruling would hinge on number of witnesses unless there are no other evidences.
In the case you have quoted you have already ascertained it as a truth that the woman was raped, this is the flaw.
If you were a member of a jury for this case, and there were no evidences except witnesses, how would you decide on this? From a non-Islamic point of view they have produced equal witnesses.
From an Islamic point of view , he has produced more.
In either way he would probably be deemed innocent.0 -
In an Irish court they would be thouroghly cross examined and not taken on a 2:1 basis.
Anyway I'm off.0 -
Advertisement
-
On the issue at hand, I believe the 2:1 ratio thing is only required when witnessing something of a financial transaction where memory of fine details is required and, as the article from the link that Medina posted to pointed out, women may have trouble remembering things if it is during their cycles. The verse in full:
Al-Baqara:282
"O you who have attained to faith! Whenever you give or take credit for a stated term, set it down in writing. And let a scribe write it down equitably between you; and no scribe shall refuse to write as God has taught him: thus shall he write. And let him who contracts the debt dictate; and let him be conscious of God, his Sustainer, and not weaken anything of his undertaking. And if he who contracts the debt is weak of mind or body, or, is not able to dictate himself, then let him who watches over his interests dictate equitably. And call upon two of your men to act as witnesses; and if two men are not available, then a man and two women from among such as are acceptable to you as witnesses, so that if one of them should make a mistake, the other could remind her. And the witnesses must not refuse [to give evidence] whenever they are called upon. And be not loath to write down every contractual provision, be it small or great, together with the time at which it falls due; this is more equitable in the sight of God, more reliable as evidence, and more likely to prevent you from having doubts [later]. If, however, [the transaction] concerns ready merchandise which you transfer directly unto one another, you will incur no sin if you do not write it down. And have witnesses whenever you trade with one another, but neither scribe nor witness must suffer harm; for if you do [them harm], behold, it will be sinful conduct on your part. And remain conscious of God, since it is God who teaches you [herewith] - and God has full knowledge of everything."
As for the questions in Windsock's post:
Please allow me to be so lazy as to quote myself from a previous post on this forum:Windsock wrote:Does that mean a Woman is only half of what a Man is by physique?the_new_mr wrote:The inheritance thing has also already been covered. Women may get half of that of a man in some cases but they may also get more in others. In yet other cases, a woman may receive a share and a man doesn't.
There are two main factors when in it comes to inheritance. These are:
a) Closeness to the deceased
b) Responsibility.
The man is religiously obligated in front of God to provide for his family whereas the woman isn't. And, as mentioned, there's the dowry.
Consider the following example.
A man dies leaving 150,000 to one son and one daughter. Let's call them, Ali and Sally (it rhymes ). Ali gets 100,000 while Sally gets 50,000.
Then, later on, they get married. Ali may pay 25,000 as dowry to his future wife. Let's say that Sally's future husband also pays her 25,000 as dowry. Now they're on 75,000 each.
Sally, unlike Ali, doesn't have to spend anything out of her 75,000 except on herself. Ali, on the other hand, is obligated to support his new family with this money. Add to that the fact that Sally receives the reward of someone giving to charity in God's eyes if she decides to spend a single cent on her own family and it's clear that it's not as unfair as people think.
This question will, God willing, be answered by Medina in this thread soon.Windsock wrote:I personally have some issues regarding the highlighted text.
The women spoken of here are not those of earth but separate entities. Who is to say that women don't also get pure companions in heaven? As MeditationMom already said:Windsock wrote:So a womans role in heaven is to be a young virgin? What happens when she is no longer a celestial virgin? Does she become a heavenly sex slave? ..... What is this bit about?MeditationMom wrote:Sex is not the problem. Our attitudes that we bring to it, are.
Why should sex only be seen as something dirty? Is it not a beautiful thing between two people who love each other on earth? Can it not also be something to be enjoyed in heaven if condoned by God?0 -
moe_sizlak wrote: »you have a right to your opinion but your statement that the treatment of women in theese places is due to the culture of the country and not islam, well i do not buy that
i believe it is down to islam , im entitled to my opinion and it is a widely held one too i might add
Unless you know Islam,then you do not know what you are talking about.You, like a vast majority of the ignorant,assume Islam to be dominating when in fact the very basics of the religion clearly state a woman is equal to that of a man.However,it is without a doubt a cultural issue that women are mis-treated.
Please take a minute to think of the Bible Belt of the United Sates.Think of the extreme Christians there,who also are known to take more then one wife.And who are also known for their abusive towards women.Now I presume they are not of Islamic faith????
Saudi Arabia is the main focus of "all that is bad" for women in Islam, because thats what gets the most attention.Media coverage over the past few years has rarely focused on strong,positive,modern Muslim women.And why would it?? Its way more fun to feed people's morbid misconceptions.
I am a Christian by birth.I'm engaged to a Muslim man.I have met a lot of Irish Muslim women.And not one of them are mis-treated.In fact they are as loud,boisterous and out-going as any other Irish woman,only they dress modestly and adhere to respecting themselves and those around them.So how is Islam an oppresive faith?
And as someone who had little knowledge of the religion before choosing to study it, I also had the opinions that Islam was an extreme religion that thought nothing of beating its women to a pulp,and that was AFTER I lived in the Middle East for a couple of years.It took me seeing it from an Irish perspective to realise the difference between religion and culture.And to see that they are by no means the same thing at all.
0 -
(Posted by normar)
AN-NISA (WOMEN)
004.011
Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females:
004.034
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
AL-WAQIA (THE EVENT, THE INEVITABLE)
056.035
We have created (their Companions) of special creation.
056.036
And made them virgin - pure (and undefiled), -
056.037
Beloved (by nature), equal in age,-
056.038
YUSUFALI: For the Companions of the Right Hand.
AN-NABA (THE TIDINGS, THE ANNOUNCEMENT)
078.031
Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfilment of (the heart's) desires;
078.032
Gardens enclosed, and grapevines;
078.033
And voluptuous women of equal age;
The Book of Women 4:15
"As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation)."
Any Muslims able to justify these quotes? Or will it just end up with ye trying to argue that it's a mistranslation and it actually means that women are the same as men and everything's hunky dory?
The he_new_mr responds thus:the_new_mr wrote: »
The women spoken of here are not those of earth but separate entities.
This is about as good as it gets when women are considered by the Qu'ran.
They are "separate entities" who are also "voluptuous women" but hey not real women mind you. And they are only "for the Righteous"
Are men seperate entities? Do "Righteous women" get "voluptuous men"
This is why I am and will remain an Athiest. To live and to work to further the rights of all humans here on the real and tangible earth which sustains us all here and now.
..0 -
by normar - here and now.
That is all that ever needs to be learned. Here and Now is eternal and infinite. It is where God resides. Anyone who does not learn that in this lifetime will, when he or she gets to heaven, instantly leave heaven again.
God is not in the past (Jesus, Moahmmed, Buddha) nor in the future - in heaven. God is Here Now - just wake up to it. No need to even believe in God.0 -
Please take a minute to think of the Bible Belt of the United Sates.Think of the extreme Christians there,who also are known to take more then one wife.And who are also known for their abusive towards women.Now I presume they are not of Islamic faith????
So do you really believe that the Bible Belt in the US is full of "extreme Christians who are known to take more than one wife"?
Polygamists in the US are predominantly found among breakaway offshoots of Mormonism and are found in the West (mainly Utah) not in the Bible Belt. In fact the 'extreme Christians' of the Bible Belt see Mormonism as a cult and do not accept its validity as Christian at all.
Even if your information was correct (which it is not) your argument would still be illogical. The fact that a tiny number of non-Muslims in America practice polygamy has no relevance whatsoever to whether Islam treats women well or not.0 -
Shockingly misleading. Perhaps you should refrain from making wild accusations.normar wrote:This is about as good as it gets when women are considered by the Qu'ran.
Some verses from the Quran showing the opposite:
Al-Imran:195
"And their Lord hath accepted of them, and answered them: "Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female: Ye are members, one of another:..."
An-Nisa:19
"O you who have attained to faith! It is not lawful for you to [try to] become heirs to your wives [by holding onto them] against their will; and neither shall you keep them under constraint with a view to taking away anything of what you may have given them, unless it be that they have become guilty, in an obvious man*ner, of immoral conduct. And consort with your wives in a goodly manner; for if you dislike them, it may well be that you dislike something which God might yet make a source of abundant good."
And some hadith (sayings) of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him):
"Heaven lies at the feet of your mothers."
"O’ ye men. Fear Allah and treat your women with kindness."
Why not?normar wrote:Are men seperate entities? Do "Righteous women" get "voluptuous men"0 -
MeditationMom wrote: »........ Anyone who does not learn that in this lifetime will, when he or she gets to heaven, instantly leave heaven again.
God is not in the past (Jesus, Moahmmed, Buddha) nor in the future - in heaven. God is Here Now - just wake up to it. No need to even believe in God.
Sorry Medatation Mom.
That above makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
Of course you can believe it as is your right but it does not make it a fact. I mean a real provable fact.0 -
the_new_mr wrote: »
An-Nisa:19
"O you who have attained to faith! It is not lawful for you to [try to] become heirs to your wives [by holding onto them] against their will; and neither shall you keep them under constraint with a view to taking away anything of what you may have given them, unless it be that they have become guilty, in an obvious man*ner, of immoral conduct. And consort with your wives in a goodly manner; for if you dislike them, it may well be that you dislike something which God might yet make a source of abundant good."
This is also a verse from the Qur'an.
004.034
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
I would like to emphasize this part of the verse " ......As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct,....."
This verse gives men a religious basis to beat women simply because men may "fear" that women are disloyal. It is enough apparently for men just to fear women are disloyal to render a beating justified.
This is what the verse is saying. You can take no other meaning from it.
It demonstrates unequivocally the dangerous contradictions that can be found in the texts of all revealed religions, Islam included. If you want justification for something than it can be found in the passages in the Bible and in the Qur'an.
I also raised the question " Are men seperate entities? Do "Righteous women" get "voluptuous men" " when they go to heaven, to paradise?
The answer from The New Mr was..... 'why not"
By this logic this would seem to make paradise a place of full sexual liberty for both men and women.
Why id it then that sex on earth is so repulsive to god, yet in paradise or heaven it is freely available.
That just don't figure.
To me such glaring contradictions and double standards simply show religions are all made made, and without any basis in fact.0 -
Whaaat?This is also a verse from the Qur'an.
004.034
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
I would like to emphasize this part of the verse " ......As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct,....."
This verse gives men a religious basis to beat women simply because men may "fear" that women are disloyal. It is enough apparently for men just to fear women are disloyal to render a beating justified.
This is what the verse is saying. You can take no other meaning from it.
It clearly says beating - if beating at all, I'm sure you've seen the argument on that translation by now - is a last resort. It most certainly doesn't say you beat them for a fear.0 -
by normar -
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeditationMom View Post
........ Anyone who does not learn that in this lifetime will, when he or she gets to heaven, instantly leave heaven again.
God is not in the past (Jesus, Moahmmed, Buddha) nor in the future - in heaven. God is Here Now - just wake up to it. No need to even believe in God.
Sorry Medatation Mom.
That above makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
Of course you can believe it as is your right but it does not make it a fact. I mean a real provable fact.
Normar - I'll try to explain. Heaven is absolute contentment, infinite bliss and eternal life. Would you agree?
If, when you get to heaven and for one instant have a thought about lets say virgin number 64.972 who has become boring and you think you are ready for virgin number 64,973 - or if for a moment you think now you would like to eat a sandwich - you destroy "absolute contentment and infinite bliss as well as eternal life" Even the idea of eternal life could fill you with dread of infinite boredom.
So learning to be here, now with no thought of past or future - is important to learn before getting to heaven. Maybe it is a silly idea.
I also think that heaven and hell is the same, but how we experience it is what makes it heaven or hell to us. As in - what is a prison cell to a murderer is a sanctuary to a monk. What do you think?0 -
Advertisement
-
I’m a bit surprised at the reading you are putting on this, given the discussion here. I think it’s clear that no responsible source see that quote as a mandate for regular beatings. But I think it is fair to take it to mean that mild physical chastisement is mandated by the Quran in the one instance of an unrepentant habitually disobedient wife. That's a quite a distance from 'fear'. People opt for a far higher level of submission and physical chastisement if they choose to become Koatians, because they want to live out a lifestyle depicted in fiction. In that context, what in particular is wrong with people being a bit old-fashioned if they want?It is enough apparently for men just to fear women are disloyal to render a beating justified.
The key issue is, of course, those three words ‘if they want’ to the extent that any of us have a choice. And, indeed, Islam does have a bit of an issue over that as traditionally persons born Muslim are not regarded as having the right to leave the faith if they feel it’s not for them. In fairness, I don’t think anyone posting here has ever sought to defend that position. But countries that align their laws, to a greater or lesser extent, to the Sharia do have a problem, to a greater or lesser extent, with Muslims who convert to another faith or just leave the faith.
That, to my mind, is a legitimate complaint about the coherence of the faith. There’s no problem expecting people to fulfil this or that religious obligation, so long as they have a clear ability to leave it all behind them. Once that is present, it’s just a lifestyle choice. There might be a residual issue in terms of public space. I doubt if anyone would be comfortable with a primary school teacher leading his Koatian slave by a chain into the classroom. Equally (to pick your own interest) I can’t imagine people being comfortable with a primary teacher turning up naked in class if he’s a naturist. Presumably, if you were a Turkish secularist, you might have similar feelings about veiling. That said, in our context, it’s probably only veils covering the face (which generally do not seem to be mandated by Islam) that we’d regard as equivalent to exposing children to fetish wear.
All of which long and wandering reasoning still leaves me trying to express that idea that, for productive discussion, statements need to be solidly grounded and not amplified beyond what they are. For the sake of argument, it is absolutely true that many Islamic scholars justify a death penalty for apostasy. It’s also true that some Islamic countries have a death penalty on their statute books to that effect. However, it’s also true that some countries that would equally regard themselves as Muslim don’t have such a penalty, and that it’s rarely applied in practice – although, presumably, that’s because people don’t particularly advertise the fact they no longer regard themselves as Muslim if there’s a prospect of execution. But the point is to focus on what the factual position is, rather than address arguments as if every day atheists were being slaughtered by the dozen.
By the same token, the fact that the Quran, as commonly understood, permits a husband to hit a disobedient wife should not be stretched beyond that meaning. You might still have a problem with that conception of gender relations – but that's another matter entirely.
I think here you are on firmer ground, but bear in mind that Islam sees no problem with sex when its lawful. Lawful sex can include multiple wives, slave girls and women captives taken in battle. On the face of it, there’s no logical problem if it includes such partners as you might be given in paradise – it’s just another category of lawful partner.By this logic this would seem to make paradise a place of full sexual liberty for both men and women.
Why id it then that sex on earth is so repulsive to god, yet in paradise or heaven it is freely available.
That just don't figure.
To me such glaring contradictions and double standards simply show religions are all made made, and without any basis in fact.0 -
I think you're on your way to heaven.MeditationMom wrote: »I also think that heaven and hell is the same, but how we experience it is what makes it heaven or hell to us. As in - what is a prison cell to a murderer is a sanctuary to a monk. What do you think?
Can I come?0 -
MeditationMom wrote: »Normar - I'll try to explain. Heaven is absolute contentment, infinite bliss and eternal life. Would you agree?
If, when you get to heaven and for one instant have a thought about lets say virgin number 64.972 who has become boring and you think you are ready for virgin number 64,973 - or if for a moment you think now you would like to eat a sandwich - you destroy "absolute contentment and infinite bliss as well as eternal life" Even the idea of eternal life could fill you with dread of infinite boredom.
So learning to be here, now with no thought of past or future - is important to learn before getting to heaven. Maybe it is a silly idea.
Sounds a lot more likely that heaven wouldn't have time at all0 -
By the same token, the fact that the Quran, as commonly understood, permits a husband to hit a disobedient wife should not be stretched beyond that meaning.....
......I think here you are on firmer ground, but bear in mind that Islam sees no problem with sex when its lawful. Lawful sex can include multiple wives, slave girls and women captives taken in battle. On the face of it, there’s no logical problem if it includes such partners as you might be given in paradise – it’s just another category of lawful partner.
I could never accept that beating a woman under any circumstances is permissable. That a "perfect" religious text allows it as "permissible" because men may "fear" disobedience, not just actual disobedience, blows me away.
In our Democracy the beating of a woman is a criminal offence, and very rightly so. And there are no "excuses" allowed.
As to " Lawful sex can include multiple wives, slave girls and women captives taken in battle." That applies only to men. Women can be and are stoned to death for multiple partners in some Islamic countries. That is some Lawful
You say "On the face of it, there’s no logical problem if it includes such partners as you might be given in paradise". The problem arises because the Qur'an only mentions the voluptious women who are available for the righteous in paradise.
So if there is " no logical problem if it includes such partners as you might be given in paradise" why can't Islamic " voluptious women " have multiple partners on earth?
..0 -
I’d suggest you could make much the same statement, but actually stick to how the text is understood – presumably you would be equally ‘blown away’ by the notion that it is permissible for a husband to hit an unrepentant wife for repeated disobedience once he has clearly signalled his displeasure by non-violent means? If you express it this way, you avoid a whole load of pointless ‘but that’s not what it says’ stuff and actually get to engage on what I think is the issue you want to talk about.I could never accept that beating a woman under any circumstances is permissable. That a "perfect" religious text allows it as "permissible" because men may "fear" disobedience, not just actual disobedience, blows me away.
I don’t know if there are any excuses allowed – seriously, I’m not aware of the legalities of the situation. But boxing seems to be a legal sport, as are various forms of martial arts. Women are certainly active in martial arts and I’ve a vague memory of seeing a news item about a womens’ boxing club in Trinity College.In our Democracy the beating of a woman is a criminal offence, and very rightly so. And there are no "excuses" allowed.
I’m also not aware of people who practice bondage having any legal issues. I don’t see how this is qualitatively different to a couple who feel that one has a right to hit the other for disobedience on religious grounds. The only issue I can see is that both would have to share that view of marriage. Clearly, a marriage where only the husband feels he has this right is an accident waiting to happen.
Just to clarify, I think any adulterer will be punished under Islamic law. But, absolutely, men are allowed multiple wives and (while of limited value in the modern world) potential lawful access to other partners like slaves and captives. But, then, Islam holds that men and women are different, and only promises a sort of parity of esteem. The problem you see only emerges if we feel men and women should have substantially the same rights.As to " Lawful sex can include multiple wives, slave girls and women captives taken in battle." That applies only to men. Women can be and are stoned to death for multiple partners in some Islamic countries. That is some Lawful
Indeed, and maybe the women get nothing voluptuous in paradise. I take the_new_mr’s comment to be purely speculative. But, again, if the role of men and women in this life is seen as different, there’s nothing illogical about seeing those differences maintained in the next life.You say "On the face of it, there’s no logical problem if it includes such partners as you might be given in paradise". The problem arises because the Qur'an only mentions the voluptious women who are available for the righteous in paradise.
But surely you can see there’s no conflict at all here – maybe women are allowed multiple voluptuous partners in heaven and not in this life. Maybe they don’t get multiple voluptuous partners in heaven, and have much the same gig as here. It’s only illogical if you expect men and women to have substantially the same rights.So if there is " no logical problem if it includes such partners as you might be given in paradise" why can't Islamic " voluptious women " have multiple partners on earth?0 -
Please forgive me normar for expressing some frustration at the fact that no matter how many times I (or someone else) clarifies a particular verse or text, we find you right back where you started making out that Islam condones wife-beating etc. I shall ask people to go back and read the previous posts on this subject instead of repeating myself here. I remember someone once telling me that if you feel the need to constantly repeat yourself in a discussion then your points are already rock-solid.
As Schuhart has already touched upon, sex in Islam is considered a beautiful thing if it's done lawfully. It's not to be frowned upon and is not considered just for procreational reasons as some other religions view it to be. I haven't had the privilege of experiencing it yet but my understanding is that it's an experience to be treasured when with someone you love. As someone once told me, the problem is not with Islam's view of sex, it's mainly with peoples' view of sex.
And one other thing I do feel compelled to discuss though is the point of slave girls/captives. I decided to prepare by reading first but decided that the link itself does a better job than I ever could.
Sex with slaves: What's the deal?
Please pay particular attention to the mention of the gradual eradication as opposed to the system done in America that was the main cause of the American civil war.0 -
While its a separate issue, I'd have to pick you up on a few things on the slavery issue, as slavery is such a terrible injustice. First off slavery is unacceptable and should be abolished where ever it still exists.
While the ending of slaving in the US was very problematic, sudden and and with very little support for the slaves after freedom - its still better to be free than a slave. A better planned system was what happened in Russia, where the freeing of the serfs was debated and planned for decades before it happened (but still not ideal). But Russia was more of an autocracy which could enforce this changes. America was a democracy that split over the issue.
While the Islamic world is not a single entity like a nation state, I'd dispute the idea that there was a planned gradual end to slavery. There had been shifts in Islamic thought towards more liberal views on slavery, but it was mainly the British Navy that ended much of the Islamic slave trade in the 19th c (e.g. Zanzibar in 1897). It could be argued that it was the abolition of slavery in all Western states in the 19th c that led to most states in the Islamic world to re-examine the issue. The Saudis (always behind the curve), kept internal slavery going until 1962, when it was finally abolished and the slave owners receiving government compensation. The slaves didn't fare as well.0 -
– presumably you would be equally ‘blown away’ by the notion that it is permissible for a husband to hit an unrepentant wife for repeated disobedience once he has clearly signalled his displeasure by non-violent means? .
Yes I absolutely would consider it an abhorrance.–
I’m not aware of the legalities of the situation. But boxing seems to be a legal sport, as are various forms of martial arts. Women are certainly active in martial arts and I’ve a vague memory of seeing a news item about a womens’ boxing club in Trinity College.
This is some comparison you make.
That the beating of a wife against her will is similar to recognised voluntary sports like boxing and martial arts.
As to the bondage thing, what consenting adults do in thier own homes and clubs is their own business. Note I say consenting adults.
[/QUOTE]
....sex in Islam is considered a beautiful thing if it's done lawfully.
The_New _Mr.
[/QUOTE]
That would depend of what the lawmakers consider lawful. Sex with a slave girl is considered lawful in Islam as in Christianity ( Numbers. Old Testament). But it is still an ugly criminal attack on another human being in my reasoning.
But you dont answer my question, the_new_mr.
If various sexual activity is lawful in paradise (where one assumes there can be no sin) why can't it be lawful on earth? If its not a sin in paradise it can't really be a sin on earth.
The question can be put generally: can anything thats allowed in heaven be considered a sin on earth?
.0 -
I’m afraid you’re answering a point you wish I’d made, rather than any point I actually made. In case there is some confusion, allow me to explain:normar wrote:This is some comparison you make. That the beating of a wife against her will is similar to recognised voluntary sports like boxing and martial arts.
You said
I’m pointing out that there do seem to be excuses allowed. Participation in violent sporting contests seems to be a valid excuse for beating a woman. You are absolutely right that a sporting contest is not the same as a husband disciplining a wife, particularly if she contests his right to do so. But, then, I’m not saying it is.normar wrote:In our Democracy the beating of a woman is a criminal offence, and very rightly so. And there are no "excuses" allowed.
However, a couple engaging in bondage are in exactly the same situation as a couple who believe their marriage includes a right of the husband to discipline a wife. In fact, the bondage practitioners could well be engaged in more painful activities than those described in the Quran, and doing it more frequently. So it would seem that activities directly comparable to those at issue are legal. Hence, you seem to be simply wrong when you say beating a woman is always a criminal offence.
Cutting to the chase, what I think you needed to say is beating a woman against her will is a criminal offence. 'Against her will' being the key point.
Note that I also say consenting adults, although perhaps my comment was too obliquenormar wrote:As to the bondage thing, what consenting adults do in thier own homes and clubs is their own business. Note I say consenting adults.
In other words, if two people freely contract a marriage on the basis that one must submit to the authority of the other and expect to be disciplined if they disobey, then it is presumably entirely their affair.schuhart wrote:The only issue I can see is that both would have to share that view of marriage. Clearly, a marriage where only the husband feels he has this right is an accident waiting to happen.
Which, I think, means your argument has rather run out of steam.
I’m not sure you are really confronting that issue of consent. No woman in Ireland can be forced into a marriage that obliges her to submit to her husband and accept his discipline. No woman in Ireland can be forced to follow her parents religion if she decides to leave it. This would be more of an issue in countries that apply the Sharia. A Muslim cannot leave the faith, and a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man. Hence, the option of contracting a marriage where the Quran is irrelevant is not open to her. That’s really where the issue sits, as I see it.
However, before banging on about apostasy I suggest that you actually read and digest some material on the topic. These articles, written by scholars with different views of the situation, have been linked here before. Taken together, they provide a 'warts and all' account of the matter.0 -
Advertisement
-
Do many muslim women in such countries not get married, I wonder?Schuhart wrote:A Muslim cannot leave the faith, and a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man. Hence, the option of contracting a marriage where the Quran is irrelevant is not open to her.0
Advertisement