posted
Woman between the honouring of Islam and the humiliation of Jaahiliyyah Question No 21010 Question: The west accuses Islam of oppressing women. What is the status of woman in Islam?
Answer: Praise be to Allaah.
In Islam, woman has a high status which no past nation ever achieved and which no subsequent nation has been able to attain, because the honour which Islam gives to humanity includes men and women equally. They are equal before the rulings of Allaah in this world and they will be equal with regard to His reward and punishment in the Hereafter. Allaah says (interpretation of the meanings):
“And indeed We have honoured the Children of Adam”
[al-Isra’ 17:70]
“There is a share for men and a share for women from what is left by parents and those nearest related”
[al-Nisa’ 4:7]
“And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living expenses) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable”
[al-Baqarah 2:228]
“The believers, men and women, are Awliya’ (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one another”
[al-Tawbah 9:71]
“And your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him. And that you be dutiful to your parents. If one of them or both of them attain old age in your life, say not to them a word of disrespect, nor shout at them but address them in terms of honour.
And lower unto them the wing of submission and humility through mercy, and say: ‘My Lord! Bestow on them Your Mercy as they did bring me up when I was young’”
[al-Isra’ 17:23-24]
And Allaah says (interpretation of the meanings):
“So their Lord accepted of them (their supplication and answered them), “Never will I allow to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female”
[Aal ‘Imraan 3:195]
“Whoever works righteousness — whether male or female — while he (or she) is a true believer (of Islamic Monotheism) verily, to him We will give a good life (in this world with respect, contentment and lawful provision), and We shall pay them certainly a reward in proportion to the best of what they used to do (i.e. Paradise in the Hereafter)”
[al-Nahl 16:97]
“And whoever does righteous good deeds, male or female, and is a (true) believer [in the Oneness of Allaah (Muslim)], such will enter Paradise and not the least injustice, even to the size of a Naqeera (speck on the back of a date stone), will be done to them”
[al-Nisa’ 4:124]
There is nothing in any other religion, nation or law that can compare to the honour which woman gains in Islam. The Roman civilization decreed that woman was a slave who belonged to man, and had no rights at all. In Rome a major synod met to discuss the case of woman, and decided that she was a being who had no soul, and that therefore she would not inherit life in the Hereafter, and that she was evil.
In Athens women were regarded as chattels; they were bought and sold, and were regarded as evil, the handiwork of the devil.
The ancient laws of India state that disease, death, Hell, snake venom and fire were all better than woman. Her right to life came to an end when her husband’s – or master’s – life ended. When she saw his body burning she would throw herself into the flames; if she did not do so, she would be subject to curses.
With regard to woman in Judaism, the ruling on her in the Old Testament is as follows:
“So I turned my mind to understand,
to investigate and to search out wisdom and the scheme of things
and to understand the stupidity of wickedness
and the madness of folly.
I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare,
whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains…”
(Ecclesiastes 7:25-26 – New International Version)
It is known that the Old Testament is venerated and believed by both Jews and Christians.
This was the situation of woman in ancient times. With regard to her situation in the Middle Ages and in modern times, this will be explained by the following:
The Danish writer Wieth Kordsten explained the view of the Catholic Church towards women. He said: “During the Middle Ages very little care was given to women, following the teaching of the Catholic church which regarded woman as a second class creation.” In France, a council in 586 CE decided to research the case of woman and whether she was to be counted as human or not. After some discussion, they decided that woman was human, but she was created to serve man.
The 217th clause of the French law states the following: “A married woman – even if her marriage is based on the condition of separating what belongs to her and what belongs to her husband – is not permitted to give anything as a gift or to transfer any of her property or use it as collateral, or to take possession of anything whether in return for payment or otherwise, without her husband being a party to the contract or agreeing to it in writing.”
In England, Henry VIII forbade the English woman to read the Bible. Until 1850 CE women were not counted as citizens, and until 1882 CE they did not have any personal rights.
(Silsilat Maqaarinah al-Adyaan, by Dr. Ahmad Shalaby, vol. 3, p. 210-213)
As for contemporary woman in Europe, America and other industrial nations, she is a creature which is degraded and abused for commercial purposes. She is a feature of advertising campaigns, and things have reached a stage where she takes off her clothes in order to advertise products on posters, and she sells and displays her body according to systems devised by men, so that she is no more than an object of pleasure for them in every place.
Woman is cared for so long as she is able to give and contribute physically or mentally. When she becomes old and cannot give any more, society – individuals and institutions – forsakes her and she lives alone in her house or in a mental hospital.
Compare this – and there is no comparison – with the teachings of the Noble Qur’aan, in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“The believers, men and women, are Awliya’ (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one another”
[al-Tawbah 9:71]
“And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living expenses) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable”
[al-Baqarah 2:228]
“And your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him. And that you be dutiful to your parents. If one of them or both of them attain old age in your life, say not to them a word of disrespect, nor shout at them but address them in terms of honour.
And lower unto them the wing of submission and humility through mercy, and say: ‘My Lord! Bestow on them Your Mercy as they did bring me up when I was young’”
[al-Isra’ 17:23-24]
Since her Lord has honoured her in this way, it is clear to all of mankind that He has created her to be a mother, a wife, a daughter and a sister, so He prescribed laws which apply exclusively to women and not men.
From al-Islam Usooluhu wa Mabaadi’uhu by Dr. Muhammad ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Saalih al-Sahyeem
________________________________________________
She is asking about the rights of women in Islam Question No 70042 Question: What are the women rights like under Islam/ and how have they changed since Islams golden age (from mid 8th century until 12th century) if they have changed?.
Answer: Praise be to Allaah.
Islam honours women greatly. It honours women as mothers who must be respected, obeyed and treated with kindness. Pleasing one's mother is regarded as part of pleasing Allaah. Islam tells us that Paradise lies at the mother’s feet, i.e. that the best way to reach Paradise is through one's mother. And Islam forbids disobeying one’s mother or making her angry, even by saying a mild word of disrespect. The mother’s rights are greater than those of the father, and the duty to take care of her grows greater as the mother grows older and weaker. All of that is mentioned in many texts of the Qur'aan and Sunnah.
For example, Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And We have enjoined on man to be dutiful and kind to his parents”
[al-Ahqaaf 46:15]
“And your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him. And that you be dutiful to your parents. If one of them or both of them attain old age in your life, say not to them a word of disrespect, nor shout at them but address them in terms of honour.
24. And lower unto them the wing of submission and humility through mercy, and say: ‘My Lord! Bestow on them Your Mercy as they did bring me up when I was young’”
[al-Isra’ 17:23, 24]
Ibn Maajah (2781) narrated that Mu’aawiyah ibn Jaahimiah al-Sulami (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said: O Messenger of Allaah, I want to go for jihad with you, seeking thereby the Face of Allaah and the Hereafter. He said, “Woe to you! Is your mother still alive?” I said, Yes. He said, “Go back and honour her.” Then I approached him from the other side and said: O Messenger of Allaah, I want to go for jihad with you, seeking thereby the Face of Allaah and the Hereafter. He said, “Woe to you! Is your mother still alive?” I said, Yes. He said, “Go back and honour her.” Then I approached him from in front and said, O Messenger of Allaah, I want to go for jihad with you, seeking thereby the Face of Allaah and the Hereafter. He said, “Woe to you! Is your mother still alive?” I said, Yes. He said, “Go back and honour her (lit. stay by her feet), for there is Paradise.”
Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah. It was also narrated by al-Nasaa’i with the words: “Stay with her for Paradise is beneath her feet.”
Al-Bukhaari (5971) and Muslim (2548) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: A man came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said: “O Messenger of Allaah, who is most deserving of my good company?” He said: “Your mother.” He said: “Then who?” He said: “Your mother.” He said: “Then who?” He said: “Your mother.” He said: “Then who?” He said: “Then your father.”
And there are other texts which we do not have room to mention here.
One of the rights which Islam gives to the mother is that her son should spend on her if she needs that support, so long as he is able and can afford it. Hence for many centuries it was unheard of among the people of Islam for a mother to be left in an old-people’s home or for a son to kick her out of the house, or for her sons to refuse to spend on her, or for her to need to work in order to eat and drink if her sons were present.
Islam also honours women as wives. Islam urges the husband to treat his wife in a good and kind manner, and says that the wife has rights over the husband like his rights over her, except that he has a degree over her, because of his responsibility of spending and taking care of the family’s affairs. Islam states that the best of the Muslim men is the one who treats his wife in the best manner, and the man is forbidden to take his wife’s money without her consent. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“and live with them honourably”
[al-Nisa’ 4:19]
“And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living expenses) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable, but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them. And Allaah is All-Mighty, All-Wise”
[al-Baqarah 2:228]
And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I urge you to treat women well.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 331; Muslim, 1468.
And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The best of you is the one who is best to his wife, and I am the best of you to my wives.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 3895; Ibn Maajah, 1977; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
And Islam honours women as daughters, and encourages us to raise them well and educate them. Islam states that raising daughters will bring a great reward. For example, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever takes care of two girls until they reach adulthood, he and I will come like this on the Day of Resurrection,” and he held his fingers together. Narrated by Muslim, 2631.
Ibn Maajah (3669) narrated that ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Aamir (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever has three daughters and is patient towards them, and feeds them, gives them to drink and clothes them from his riches, they will be a shield for him from the Fire on the Day of Resurrection.” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah.
Islam honours woman as sisters and as aunts. Islam enjoins upholding the ties of kinship and forbids severing those ties in many texts. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “O people! Spread (the greeting of) salaam, offer food (to the needy), uphold the ties of kinship, and pray at night when people are sleeping, and you will enter Paradise in peace.” Narrated by Ibn Maajah, 3251; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah.
Al-Bukhaari (5988) narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah, may He be exalted, said to the ties of kinship: ‘Whoever upholds you, I will support him, and whoever breaks you, I will cut him off.’”
All of these qualities may co-exist in a single woman: she may be a wife, a daughter, a mother, a sister, an aunt, so she may be honoured in all these ways.
To conclude: Islam raised the status of women, and made them equal with men in most rulings. So women, like men, are commanded to believe in Allaah and to worship Him. And women are made equal to men in terms of reward in the Hereafter. Women have the right to express themselves, to give sincere advice, to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, and to call people to Allaah. Women have the right to own property, to buy and sell, to inherit, to give charity and to give gifts. It is not permissible for anyone to take a woman’s wealth without her consent. Women have the right to a decent life, without facing aggression or being wronged. Women have the right to be educated; in fact it is obligatory to teach them what they need to know about their religion.
Anyone who compares the rights of women in Islam with their situation during the Jaahiliyyah or in other civilizations will understand that what we are saying is true. In fact we are certain that women are given the greatest honour in Islam.
There is no need for us to mention the situation of women in Greek, Persian or Jewish society, but even Christian societies had a bad attitude towards women. The theologians even gathered at the Council of Macon to discuss whether woman was merely a body or a body with a soul. They thought it most likely that women did not have a soul that could be saved, and they made an exception only in the case of Mary (Maryam – peace be upon her).
The French held a conference in 586 CE to discuss whether women had souls or not, and if they had souls, were these souls animal or human? In the end, they decided that they were human! But they were created to serve men only.
During the time of Henry VIII, the English Parliament issued a decree forbidding women to read the New Testament because they were regarded as impure.
Until 1805, English law allowed a man to sell his wife, and set a wife’s price at six pennies.
In the modern age, women were kicked out of the house at the age of eighteen so that they could start working to earn a bite to eat. If a woman wanted to stay in the house, she had to pay her parents rent for her room and pay for her food and laundry.
See ‘Awdat al-Hijaab, 2/47-56.
How can this compare to Islam which enjoins honouring and kind treatment of women, and spending on them?
Secondly:
With regard to the changes in these rights throughout the ages, the basic principles have not changed, but with regard to the application of these principles, there can be no doubt that during the golden age of Islam, the Muslims applied the sharee’ah of their Lord more, and the rulings of this sharee’ah include honouring one’s mother and treating one’s wife, daughter, sister and women in general in a kind manner. The weaker religious commitment grew, the more these rights were neglected, but until the Day of Resurrection there will continue to be a group who adheres to their religion and applies the sharee’ah of their Lord. These are the people who honour women the most and grant them their rights.
Despite the weakness of religious commitment among many Muslims nowadays, women still enjoy a high status, whether as daughters, wives or sisters, whilst we acknowledge that there are shortcomings, wrongdoing and neglect of women’s rights among some people, but each one will be answerable for himself. Islam Q&A
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ):
My point is that Quran said that God make Man More perfect tham women
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ):
The emam was explaining a quranic verse that mention that men are better than men and superior than woman.
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ):
what will harm a devoted woman who believe and have good deeds if most of her gender is inferior than other gender or not??
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ):
what's wrong with that . isnt that real?
Scientific and specialized studies have shown that men's minds are more perfect than those of women, and reality and experience bear witness to that."
the gender of men is more perfect than the gender of women.
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ):
As a general rule ( I'm not talking about exceptions), who is stronger ,more reliable and more reasoning?? man or woman??
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ):
Sadly many women are pleased with this situation, I mean gathering between working outside the house to support herself and her natural duties of pregnancy and child birth and breast feeding. This is because of her desire for amusement and to boast; not because there is any real human or moral value in her working outside the home. Unlike what is claimed, women’s work has no real value boosting the economy. Rather the truth is that by competing with men for jobs outside the home, women are a cause in the spread of unemployment and an increase in the useless consumption of cosmetics, clothes, and perfumes that have all become necessary items for women working outside the home. Furthermore every woman that works outside the home is in most occasions a cause for denying an opportunity for a man who could work in her place.
posted
i was thinking the same Dalia, bit contradictory.
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ): The Roman civilization decreed that woman was a slave who belonged to man, and had no rights at all.
And on the site this text is taken from some scholars claim that a woman can be *owned* by a man and that it's ok to rape female prisoners of war!
Question: At the present time, is it Halal to have a sexual intercourse with your Loundi (a female prisoner of war) without getting married to her?
Answer: Praise be to Allaah.
It is not permissible for a man to have intercourse with anyone except his wife or his female slave (concubine). A wife becomes permissible after shar’i marriage and a concubine becomes permissible to the man who owns her. She may originally be a prisoner of war, and a Muslim may obtain a concubine from the ruler or commander if he took part in fighting in jihad, or if he buys her from her owner. She becomes permissible for him by virtue of his ownership after it is established that she is not pregnant by waiting for one menstrual cycle, or until she has given birth if she is pregnant.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts) 6. Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands posses, for then, they are free from blame” [al-Mu’minoon 23:5-6]
It was narrated that Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, concerning the prisoners of Awtaas: “Do not have intercourse with a pregnant woman until she gives birth, or with one who is not pregnant until she has menstruated once.” Narrated by Abu Dawood, 2157. This hadeeth was classed as saheeh by Shaykh al-Albaani in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel, 187.
In the answer to question no. 10382 we have stated that Islam permits a man to have intercourse with his slave woman whether he has one or more wives or he is not married.
In the answers to questions no. 5707 and 12562 it states that female prisoners of war may be distributed by the commander in jihad, because he has the choice of either distributing them, or ransoming them or setting them free.
posted
your argument is not a shame in Islam. Islam gives prisoners of war what they deserve . Compared to what would be performed on muslim prisoners in War, Islam is a mercy. -Take a look to the origin of slavery and know who perform the first end of it( If you find A RIGHT source)
I don't have time now to get into a discussion.
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps the best example I can provide regarding Laws developing gradually in the Noble Quran is the ending of the Judeo-Christians' and Pagans' slavery in Arabia. Let us look at the following Noble Verses:
Slavery seems to be allowed:
Note: "Right hand possession" are the human-captives of war who lived as slaves among Muslims. "Serve God, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For God loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious;- (The Noble Quran, 4:36)"
"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. (The Noble Quran, 4:3)"
"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. (The Noble Quran, 4:24)"
"If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And God hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 4:25)"
Freeing of slaves is Commanded by Allah Almighty: "It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-fearing. (The Noble Quran, 2:177)"
"Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to God: for God hath all knowledge and all wisdom. (The Noble Quran, 4:92)"
"God will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth God make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful. (The Noble Quran, 5:89)"
"But those who divorce their wives by Zihar, then wish to go back on the words they uttered, (It is ordained that such a one) should free a slave before they touch each other: Thus are ye admonished to perform: and God is well-acquainted with (all) that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 58:3)"
Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)"
Narrated Asma: "No doubt the Prophet ordered people to manumit slaves during the solar eclipse. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Eclipses, Volume 2, Book 18, Number 163)"
"'Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that 'Umar b. Khattab asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) as he was at ji'rana (a town near Mecca) on his way back from Ta'if: Messenger of Allah, I had taken a vow during the days of Ignorance that I would observe I'tikaf for one day in the Sacred Mosque. So what is your opinion? He said: Go and observe I'tikaf for a day. And Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave him a slave girl out of the one-fifth (of the spoils of war meant for the Holy Prophet). And when Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) set the war prisoners free. 'Umar b. Khattab heard their voice as they were saying: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) has set us free. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: What is this? They said: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) has set free the prisoners of war (which had fallen to the lot of people). Thereupon he (Hadrat 'Umar) said: Abdullah, go to that slave-girl and set her free. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4074)"
If a slave requests his freedom from the Muslim master, he can get it:
First, it is important to know that thousands of years ago life was different than today. Today, people wouldn't accept slavery for any reason. The reason for this is because people are a lot more independent both financially, education wise, mentally, etc... But people back then were different. When a tribe or a group of people lose a major battle and their money is mostly, if not all, is taken as war booty by the other side, then people could and would accept being slaves for the following reasons:
1- Both financial and social security. When their country or tribe lost the war, they also lost most or all of their money as war booty. Being out of money and food, it becomes necessary for an individual to find the means for basic survival in life. Living as a slave would provide this.
2- Protection from hostile individuals. Even under the Islamic rule, you can still find hostile individuals who violate the Law and take matters into their own hands. An enemy family can be sometime in danger if they don't have a "protector".
3- Widows, Orphans, and the extremely poor of the enemy side need the financial and social protection from a Master. Back then, there were no governments with good social system that protects everyone. Slavery back then was that social system in special cases.
There are probably more points I can add, but I think these are sufficient enough. Let us now see the Islamic System toward Slaves:
Yes slaves were taken from the blood-thirsty and hostile enemies, but they were also given the right to get their freedom when ever they want. The Noble Quran not only allows slaves to request their freedom from their Muslim masters, but also orders the Muslim masters to pay the slaves money to help them stand on their feet and to be able to face life with a good jump start.
Let us look at Noble Verse 24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)," In this Noble Verse, we see that if a slave requests his freedom from his Muslim master, then his master not only must help him earn his freedom if there is good in the Slave, but also pay him money so the slave can have a good start in his free life.
"The law of slavery in the legal sense of the term is now obsolete. While it had any meaning, Islam made the slave's lot as easy as possible. A slave, male or female, could ask for conditional manumission by a written deed fixing the amount required for manumission and allowing the slave meanwhile to earn money by lawful means and perhaps marry and bring up a family. Such a deed was not to be refused if the request was genuine and the slave had character. Not only that, but the master is directed to help with money out of his own resources in order to enable the slave to earn his or her own liberty." [3] Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said:
Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)"
The Bottom line is:
The bottom line is that in order for the Muslims to remain as a purified and GOD Almighty-fearing and obeying society, one of the requirements that they had to accomplish was to gradually and completely eliminate slavery - the same slavery that was at its peak during the Jews', Christians' and Pagans' times.
The story of Abraham and the smashing of the idols has similar Divine Wisdom:
This is in a way similar to Abraham's story (peace be upon him) when he smashed all of the little idols and only kept the grand one standing with the ax that he used put next to it. When he was asked who smashed the little idols, he responded by saying that the grand one did it. His purpose was to tell the brainless pagans back then that their idols are both helpless and worthless. He wanted to help them realize and figure out that the grand idol had no power to smash the little ones!
"We bestowed aforetime on Abraham his rectitude of conduct, and well were We acquainted with him. Behold! he said to his father and his people, "What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?" They said, "We found our fathers worshipping them." He said, "Indeed ye have been in manifest error - ye and your fathers." They said, "Have you brought us the Truth, or are you one of those who jest?" He said, "Nay, your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, He Who created them (from nothing): and I am a witness to this (Truth). "And by God, I have a plan for your idols - after ye go away and turn your backs".. So he broke them to pieces, (all) but the biggest of them, that they might turn (and address themselves) to it. They said, "Who has done this to our gods? He must indeed be some man of impiety!" They said, "We heard a youth talk of them: He is called Abraham." They said, "Then bring him before the eyes of the people, that they may bear witness." They said, "Art thou the one that did this with our gods, O Abraham?" He said: "Nay, this was done by - this is their biggest one! ask them, if they can speak intelligently!" So they turned to themselves and said, "Surely ye are the ones in the wrong!" Then were they confounded with shame: (they said), "Thou knowest full well that these (idols) do not speak!" (Abraham) said, "Do ye then worship, besides God, things that can neither be of any good to you nor do you harm? "Fie upon you, and upon the things that ye worship besides God! Have ye no sense?".. They said, "Burn him and protect your gods, If ye do (anything at all)!" We said, "O Fire! be thou cool, and (a means of) safety for Abraham!" Then they sought a stratagem against him: but We made them the ones that lost most! (The Noble Quran, 21:51-70)"
Have Abraham, peace be upon him, smashed all of the idols at once (including the grand one), that would've been a mistake, because he would then have upset all of the pagans without perhaps helping them realize that the idols can neither interact with each others nor with any human, nor can their grand idol find and ax, pick it up and smash the little idols with it. Abraham's partial smashing of the idols carried in it a much better Wisdom.
The success of the Divine Fruits of Islam ultimately meant:
1- Freeing all the people from idol worship and turning them to the True Worship of the True One and Living GOD Almighty.
2- Freeing of all slaves.
3- Liberating women and lifting their status, and so many more Fruits.
When the Islamic ruling was fully established in Al-Madinah, the Noble Quran's Laws started becoming more complete. That is why we have Noble Verses 2:219 and 5:90-91
They ask thee concerning wine (al-khamri) and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, AND SOME PROFIT, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: "What is beyond your needs." Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider. S. 2:219
O ye who believe! Intoxicants (al-khamru) and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are AN ABOMINATION,- OF SATAN’S HANDWORK: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants (al-khamri) and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain? S. 5:90-91
The meaning of "great sin" and "some profit" of alcohol in Noble Verse 2:219:
As we clearly see in Noble Verses 5:90-91, alcohol and gambling are clearly prohibited for the Muslims. The quote "...eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants (al-khamri) and gambling,..." unquestionably makes the prohibition crystal clear.
But what about Noble Verse 2:219 above? "great sin" is clearly understood, but what about "some profit"? Doesn't that confuse the matter and suggest that Muslims can drink and gamble? Absolutely not!
"some profit" here in Arabic is "manafi'a", which is derived from the root Arabic word "manfa'aa", which means:
1- Benefits, as in medical benefits.
2- Gains, as in financial or materialistic gains.
It is important to know that beer did not exist back then. Wine, which was made out of fruits, is what Noble Verse 2:219 is referring to. Wine does have great benefits for curing diseases. In many times, it is prescribed as medicine even in some Muslim countries. But like medicine, it must not be taken all the time. You don't just drink any medicine as you drink water, do you? The same thing with wine. If it's prescribed by doctors, then it is permissible. Otherwise, it is forbidden. Many doctors believe that wine has some cure for the heart and does help in preventing heart attacks.
Certainly wine was completely prohibited 1,500 years ago by Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him:
"Narrated Anas: Allah's Apostle said, "From among the portents of the Hour are (the following):
1. Religious knowledge will be taken away (by the death of Religious learned men). 2. (Religious) ignorance will prevail. 3. Drinking of Alcoholic drinks (will be very common). 4. There will be prevalence of open illegal sexual intercourse. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Knowledge, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 80)"
"Narrated Anas: I was the butler of the people in the house of Abu Talha, and in those days drinks were prepared from dates. Allah's Apostle ordered somebody to announce that alcoholic drinks had been prohibited. Abu Talha ordered me to go out and spill the wine. I went out and spilled it, and it flowed in the streets of Medina. Some people said, "Some people were killed and wine was still in their stomachs." On that the Divine revelation came:-- "On those who believe And do good deeds There is no blame For what they ate (in the past)." (5.93) (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Oppressions, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 644)"
"Narrated Aisha: When the last Verses of Surat al- Baqara were revealed, the Prophet recited them in the mosque and proclaimed the trade of alcohol as illegal. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Sales and Trade, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 297)"
"Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "When an adulterer commits illegal sexual intercourse, then he is not a believer at the time he is doing it; and when somebody drinks an alcoholic drink, then he is not believer at the time of drinking, and when a thief steals, he is not a believer at the time when he is stealing; and when a robber robs and the people look at him, then he is not a believer at the time of doing it." Abu Huraira in another narration, narrated the same from the Prophet with the exclusion of robbery. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Limits and Punishments set by Allah (Hudood), Volume 8, Book 81, Number 763)"
But because the Noble Quran is truly Divine and is truly for all times and all places, the good that exists in wine was in fact revealed in the Noble Quran! The Noble Quran did not just bury the goodness of wine forever. Allah Almighty did recognize its good, and the perfect interpretation Noble Verse 2:219 TODAY is like I said, wine can be prescribed by doctors as medicine as needed.
As to gambling, while the Noble Quran's Arabic Word "manafi'a" was interpreted as medical benefits for wine, but it definitely means just monetary gains and nothing else for gambling. And it is not a praise for gambling either, but rather just a negative recognition to its existence. The quote "...but the sin is greater than the profit..." clearly proves that.
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why did Allah Almighty make lawful for Muslim men to have sexual intercourse with the married women from the captives?
Let us look at the following Noble Verses from the Noble Quran: "Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;-
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. (The Noble Quran, 4:23-24)"
The definition of the term "right hands possess" is "Captives of war". Those from among the population of the tribes who fought the Muslims are considered "right hand possessions" if their tribe is defeated and captured.
We first need to understand that back 1400 years ago, when Islam was growing among the Pagan Arab Tribes, the Muslims were at constant wars with the Pagans. The Pagan tribes highly objected to the presence and the rapid growth of Islam, and they all united to fight Islam and finish it once and for all.
During those days, the Muslims did not have any government. Governments provide welfare and protection to people. Back then, and when there was no Islamic Government yet, the Muslims were their own country and were their own government. Everyone had to share in the responsibility DIRECTLY by sheltering the captives of wars at their homes.
Can a Muslim man rape his slave woman?
Below are three English translations to the Noble Verse where Allah Almighty commands the Muslim men to not force their slave women into sex.
Translation: Yusufali: "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them), (The Noble Quran, 24:33)"
Translation: Pickthall: "And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 24:33)"
Translation: Shakir: "And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 24:33)"
In all three translations, we clearly see that if the slave woman desires to keep chaste, then her Muslim master must not compel her into sex. It might sound odd to us today, but pagans back then were used to having sex with and raping their slave girls, even the ones who were married:
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: "Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity). (24:33)" (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Divorce (Kitab Al-Talaq), Book 12, Number 2304)"
In Islam, men are not allowed to rape their slave-girls. Allah Almighty clearly prohibited it in Noble Verse 24:33. In Islam, slavery is also not allowed. Please visit The liberation of slaves in Islam, to see how Islam gradually ended the Judeo-Christian and pagan slavery.
I was told by a Muslim scholar before along time ago that the Arab pagans used to sometimes offer their wives for several nights to the rich and powerful men in the tribe to win their support and make them become more secured in the monopolizing and unmerciful pagan society.
So to women back then, it was something normal for a married slave woman to sleep with her master. It was something normal in the society at that time.
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran not only allows for the slave man or woman to earn their freedom from their Muslim master, and receive money from their Muslim master to help them start their free life, but also commands the Muslim men to not compel their slave women into sex.
Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him also said:
Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)"
Islam came to liberate all slaves and to end the Judeo-Christian and Pagan slavery that was practiced before Islam. When Allah Almighty made lawful for the Muslim men to have sex with their slave women, He did it to keep the Islamic society back then during Islam's weak, partial and venerable times under control.
Also, if any compulsion was made unto the slave woman, then Allah Almighty will add more mercy and forgiveness unto her in the Day of Judgement. Below is the commentary on this exact section and point in Noble Verse 24:33 by Minister (Sheikh) Abdullah Yusuf Ali; may Allah Almighty rest his soul:
"The poor unfortunate girls, who are victims of such a nefarious trade (i.e., slave trade), will yet find mercy from Allah, whose bounties extend to the lowest of His creatures." [2]
There are other Noble Verses in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty grants forgiveness and mercy to those who had been forced into illegal things:
"He hath only forbidden you Dead meat, and blood, And the flesh of swine, And that on which Any other name hath been invoked Besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, Without willful disobedience, Nor transgressing due limits -- Then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 2:173)"
"Why should ye not Eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been Pronounced, when He hath Explained to you in detail What is forbidden to you -- Except under compulsion Of necessity? But many do mislead (men) By their appetites unchecked By knowledge. Thy Lord Knoweth best those who transgress. (The Noble Quran, 6:119)" So the answer to the question is: No, the Muslim man can not rape his slave woman according to the commands of Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran. Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ): The Roman civilization decreed that woman was a slave who belonged to man, and had no rights at all.
And on the site this text is taken from some scholars claim that a woman can be *owned* by a man and that it's ok to rape female prisoners of war!
Question: At the present time, is it Halal to have a sexual intercourse with your Loundi (a female prisoner of war) without getting married to her?
Answer: Praise be to Allaah.
It is not permissible for a man to have intercourse with anyone except his wife or his female slave (concubine). A wife becomes permissible after shar’i marriage and a concubine becomes permissible to the man who owns her. She may originally be a prisoner of war, and a Muslim may obtain a concubine from the ruler or commander if he took part in fighting in jihad, or if he buys her from her owner. She becomes permissible for him by virtue of his ownership after it is established that she is not pregnant by waiting for one menstrual cycle, or until she has given birth if she is pregnant.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts) 6. Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands posses, for then, they are free from blame” [al-Mu’minoon 23:5-6]
It was narrated that Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, concerning the prisoners of Awtaas: “Do not have intercourse with a pregnant woman until she gives birth, or with one who is not pregnant until she has menstruated once.” Narrated by Abu Dawood, 2157. This hadeeth was classed as saheeh by Shaykh al-Albaani in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel, 187.
In the answer to question no. 10382 we have stated that Islam permits a man to have intercourse with his slave woman whether he has one or more wives or he is not married.
In the answers to questions no. 5707 and 12562 it states that female prisoners of war may be distributed by the commander in jihad, because he has the choice of either distributing them, or ransoming them or setting them free.
33. Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them), Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding of the above verse is a bit differ than most of the tafseer, for instance most of tafseer I have seen don't get why the word chasity is used, and the above translation they used the word prostitution for the arabic word "البغاء", my understanding for this is that you don't force your slaves "to sleep with you or anyone" if they want chasity and if you did that for them god will forgive them, that's my understanding for the verse. Yet to note that before islam a slave women would have no right but to compel to her masters orders also in islam if a slave women got pregnanet from her master she gets her freedom. Slaves were not whom are captured in war only there was slaves that are bought. Thank god slavery has ended from the world and for sure islam have had hands with it, to note that in islamic arabic world slavery was forbidden so easily and it was accepted with people quite easy and there is no one in Egypt whom is spoken upon low because he have any slaves ancestor none that I heard about, unlike most of the other civilizations
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ): your argument is not a shame in Islam.
Yeah, right. Someone like you who regards women as little more than animals surely wouldn't be able to see any shame in speaking of *owning*, *distributing* and raping, oh, excuse me – *having religiously sanctified intercourse* – with them.
I just don't get it. Women's rights, feelings, concerns and opinions are clearly the last thing on earth you're interested in, so I don't understand why you keep starting all those threads on women ... Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, God knows that My Post about women is for her sake. Thank You Dalia*
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dalia, it is fact that religion and specially islam had gave women rights that they never have had at the time, for instance in islam, it has limited the number of polygamy when other religions "even christianity at the that time" haven't limited it, islam have gave women the right to inherit and have there own money and trade at the time when women haven't had that right, islam have never accused women that god have cursed them because they was the reason for Adam's sin or that women of some lower specie, islam have forbid girls killing which was accustomed in aljazeerah, islam have ownered mothers in many ways far more than fathers. Islam have encouraged women to go to military forces if they wish, and most of all it is declared explicitly that there is no difference between men and women infront of god Just to note that if it wasn't for these morals of equality, the islamic world would have never accepted many of women's rights noting that most of the people in the area are religious in general, more to note that women was the weak specie for a long time when human were judged upon there strength and without religion women would have never been able to claim such rights at that time. also many of the rights of women have been oppressed due to culturios issues, and for more than a thousand years islam have been accused by the west of giving women more than there rights. More to note islam have gave slaves rights that they have never had before, actually the above issues shows why women and slaves were among the first whom had believe in islam
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bibo, why are you telling me all this? It has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.
My issue is not the rights of women or slaves; I believe that Islam gives all humans equal rights. I'm surprised you haven't noticed this because it's a point I have repeatedly made over the years.
I you had understood my posts properly you would have noticed that I'm not criticizing religion, I'm criticizing people who try to take the God-given rights away from women in the name of religion! This, btw, is the point of many of my posts, I thought that was pretty obvious.
The poster who started this thread is not in the least interested in what women want or feel. He is not able to take their ideas, thoughts or concerns seriously and he certainly has no respect for them at all. The only thing he is interested in is making them conform to his personal idea of what women should be like. He thinks there is nothing wrong with forcing women to live the way he and some of the sheikhs he keeps quoting regard as appropriate.
Most of the stuff he has been posting about women has ranged from disrespectful to downright abysmal. He has been promoting female genital mutilation, defended marital rape; he's been claiming that women are basically emotional and legal minors, that their brains are inferior and that they should not be allowed to decide for themselves how to lead their life. He also tried to tell women that it's their *religous duty* not to object to their husband taking a second wife because *suffering is a test for Muslim women* and so on.
Most of his copy and pastes are very patronizing and condescending towards women. And he gets lots of his ideas from Islam-QA which is one of the most disgusting sites I've ever read – and I've read a lot on there. What those scholars say about women is unbelievable, it's deeply insulting and degrading. If it was up to the scholars who write on there women would have no rights at all. I don't know about you, but to me claiming that female prisoners of war can be *owned* and that it's legal to rape them in this day and time is outrageous and it clearly shows the mindset of the sheikhs who come up with stuff like that. So why don't you address those scholars and their twisted and mysoginistic interpretations instead of trying to educate me about Islamic basics? Why are you shying away and distracting from this issue? I noticed the same thing in other threads, btw, you disappear, change the subject or accuse me of misunderstanding whenever this topic is raised.
So my point was that a person like the one who started this thread should be choking on his own words every time he's using the expression "women's rights".
Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dalia, I am not distracting, and I agree in every single word you just said especially that it is outragous to think that women could be owned from wars, this is not what our islam is about. You were the one whom brought the issue of women slaves here and I have tried to explain it, and to add this comment about religion in general so no one would get that religion came to degrade women which is not true as you have said, I even noted that women rights were forbidden culturiously "if there is a word like this", do I believe that women and men have duties and rights? yes. I also believe that islamic culture was oppressed and many of women rights were taken, I guess I noted this many times before and you should try to understand me like I am trying to understand you, I don't like to offend you nor do I have any feeling against you or/and most of people here whom are intellegent enough to go to a debate without disputing. More to note I don't think that this topic was raised before, and if I disappear sometimes it is because I don't have the time or that there is nothin to say or the issue has turned to a dispute. and when I leave a subject and come back to find a hundered post usually I don't read it especially when it becomes uninteresting.
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bibo1978: Dalia, I am not distracting, and I agree in every single word you just said especially that it is outragous to think that women could be owned from wars, this is not what our islam is about. You were the one whom brought the issue of women slaves here and I have tried to explain it, and to add this comment about religion in general so no one would get that religion came to degrade women which is not true as you have said, I even noted that women rights were forbidden culturiously "if there is a word like this", do I believe that women and men have duties and rights? yes. I also believe that islamic culture was oppressed and many of women rights were taken, I guess I noted this many times before and you should try to understand me like I am trying to understand you, I don't like to offend you nor do I have any feeling against you or/and most of people here whom are intellegent enough to go to a debate without disputing. More to note I don't think that this topic was raised before, and if I disappear sometimes it is because I don't have the time or that there is nothin to say or the issue has turned to a dispute. and when I leave a subject and come back to find a hundered post usually I don't read it especially when it becomes uninteresting.
Why then did the Final Prophet (PBUH) allow the practice of dividing the spoils of war, including women sold into slavery for the mere purpose of sexual companionship? Or any type of slavery?
This is what is so difficult for me. I can't understand the reasoning behind this. Either the populace converts to Islam to avoid slavery (if the commander of the army doesn't believe that Jews and Christians are believers) or if the commander believes that Jews and Christians are believers then convert to Judiasm or Christianity to avoid slavery.
And its not required for slave owners to free a slave when the slave becomes a Muslim. Nor is it required for a slave owner to free a Christian or Jewish slave, even upon death of the slave owner.
I just can't understand why the Final Prophet (PBUH) let loose end go. It allows slavery to continue indefinately.
And in order for many Arab and North African countries to join organizations like the UN they had to outlaw slavery. Which is the only reason why slavery was outlawed.
Why is that?
Posts: 3168 | From: If you don't like it, don't look or read it! | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samira, your question is quite logical to our preception today, yet slavery was a usual practice by humans then for more than 3 thousand years, it was a normal practice then islam didn't forbid it because this would have been hardly accepted in such a society, however islam among other religion have encouraged human behavior to accept demolishin of such behavior, same as with polygamy, more to say it have given slaves equal rights regarding islamic culture for instance islam have never divide mosques to slaves and non slaves mosques, actually there is no problem that a slave leads the praying and it had happened quite often, also islam has encouraged slaves freeing for god forgivness or as repentace for some sins or for equivlation of some deed that a man can't do (for instance if someone have medical issues that forbid them from fasting then they should free slaves if they can as equivelance "if they have slaves or money or if there is slaves")
To note also that not all arabic and north african country outlawed slavery to enter UN for instance Egypt have outlawed slavery before many of the europian countries in the early of the ninteenth century I guess around 1820, this is far before the united nation birth.
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Firstly, Dalia* lacks a lot of basics to make her understand answers in IslamQA Website( This is the reason for her description of The web site)
Secondly, She repeats the same points in most of her posts and this is dull.
Lastly, She has her own biased opinions and She doesnt seem to accept any neutral scientific opinions. Moreover, she doesnt analyse the topics or deeply contemplate in Their ability to occur. I noticed she removed the rating details after she lost some stars.
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ): Let me make some points clear for you
Firstly, Dalia* lacks a lot of basics to make her understand answers in IslamQA Website( This is the reason for her description of The web site)
Secondly, She repeats the same points in most of her posts and this is dull.
Lastly, She has her own biased opinions and She doesnt seem to accept any neutral scientific opinions. Moreover, she doesnt analyse the topics or deeply contemplate in Their ability to occur. I noticed she removed the rating details after she lost some stars.
though I dont like to judge people but I agree with you
Posts: 1201 | From: Egypt | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samarra, I forgot to note that in islamic culture slaves have ruled some countries what is known as "Mamaleek era" , to note that they weren't females at all. Sultan everybody has the right to say his opinion and you have the right to accept or reject, I try to appreciate your opinions though I might not agree at some of it same happens with Dalia I try to appreciate her opinion even if I don't agree with some of it, yet I hope we will never judge anyone, and if you have some issue with someone try to confront him directly to learn about him more, I hope we will try not to mock from somebody for having a different opinion "except if he has something racial or some fairy story", I hope that we all learn and listen knowing that we are different and try to figure the wisdom in our judgements. i mean no offense to anybody with this. Sultan or Dalia please don't understand me wrong
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ): I noticed she removed the rating details after she lost some stars.
I find your feeble attempts to attack me quite amusing.
That's the best you can come up with – childish comments about popularity? That's even more ridiculous than your statement that my opinions should not be taken seriously because I "defend homosexuals".
I couldn't care less how many stars I have, this is a discussion board, not a popularity contest, which is exactly why I disabled the rating. It's quite impossible for you to have "noticed" that I "lost some stars" prior to that though, because I haven't, so you're either lying or there's something wrong with your eyesight. But if you like I can display my rating again and you can ask some buddies to vote against me in order to remove any stars, if that makes your small ego happy.
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ): Firstly, Dalia* lacks a lot of basics to make her understand answers in IslamQA Website( This is the reason for her description of The web site)
Right. And now that you've cleared that up nobody will believe my evaluation of that site anymore.
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ): Secondly, She repeats the same points in most of her posts and this is dull.
As long as you keeep making the same points I will reply making the same points, and I don't care in the least whether that's dull or not. Fair game.
I said this in another thread – as long as you keep advocating the abuse of women and children and as long as you keep posting texts from sheikhs who claim women are inferior human beings I will keep pointing out your hypocrisy whenever you pretend you're in any way interested in womens rights.
As long as you keep posting texts claiming that cutting off the genitals of newborn girls is a religious duty I will keep commenting on your posts, whether you like it or not.
You don't even try to show the slightest bit of respect for women; not only have you described your non-veiled Muslim sisters as "stupid", but all of your comments towards women are patronizing at best and de-humanizing at worst. So who do you think you're fooling when you talk about *womens rights*? It's obvious you're posting those texts because they always contain a fair amount of West- and Christianity-bashing which you enjoy.
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ): Lastly, She has her own biased opinions and She doesnt seem to accept any neutral scientific opinions. Moreover, she doesnt analyse the topics or deeply contemplate in Their ability to occur.
There is no such thing as a "neutral scientific opinion", that's an oxymoron.
I suggest you work on your English skills, proper use of language might be useful if you're trying to appear intelligent. But then your mingled grammar and poor spelling make your attempts at being snide even more embarrassing.
Secondly, you're switching arguments as you please. You've repeatedly said in other threads that you don't accept scientific research; for example you dismissed all WHO and other studies on FGM with the argument that "religion knows better than science".
Thirdly, I think someone who tries to tell people that "uncircumcized women need ten men to please their lust" and are in danger of "giving birth to encephalic babies" or "becoming lesbians" should better not talk about science or contemplation of facts unless he wants to make a complete and utter fool out of himself.
And btw, I was always under the impression that *deep contemplation* is not something you favour:
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ): if God wants us to use our brain in religion, why did he send us the sacred books and prophets??
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ): In Islam, woman has a high status which no past nation ever achieved and which no subsequent nation has been able to attain, because the honour which Islam gives to humanity includes men and women equally.
Allaah has made men superior to women
men are better than women, because the masculine is honour and perfection, whereas the feminine naturally has something lacking physically.
they are superior in physical nature, attitude, status, obedience to the commands of Allaah, spending, taking care of interests, and virtue, in this world and in the Hereafter
men are better than women in and of themselves
men excel women because they have more powers of reason and religious commitment
Part of the greatness of men’s rights over women is that sharee’ah almost commanded women to prostrate to men
Men’s religion is more complete
Men are more intelligent and have a better ability to distinguish right from wrong.
Men have the advantage of being more wise and more capable of management
The position of judge requires a high level of intelligence, insight and reason, and women have less of these qualities than men
Women are imperfect
The husband is the master (sayyid) according to the Book of Allaah
her husband has the right to set her straight and discipline her.
The husband is physically stronger and is more wise than the wife.
he is stronger and more able to earn a living
he is more perfect in rational thinking than her in most cases
a woman is like a slave or prisoner of her husband, and she cannot go out of his house except with his permission, whether her father, her mother or anyone else tells her to do that, according to the consensus of the imams.
It is not permissible for her to rebel against him or to withhold herself from him, rather if she refuses him and persists in doing so, he may hit her
Whether the husband wants to discipline his wife, or forgive her, or take another wife, or divorce her, this is all up to him to choose. Let the woman beware of incurring her husband’s wrath because this will lead to Allaah’s being angry with her.
The Hanafis mentioned four situations in which a husband is permitted to discipline his wife by hitting her. These are: not adorning herself when he wants her to; not responding when he calls her to bed and she is taahirah (pure, i.e., not menstruating); not praying; and going out of the house without his permission.
Going out of the house without the husband’s permission is a haraam action; Allaah has even forbidden women who are revocably divorced (first or second talaaq) from going out of their houses
she does not have the right to visit (even) her sick father except with the permission of her husband, and he has the right to prevent her from doing that… because obedience to the husband is obligatory
posted
Cancelling the right of Man is not of Islam. Islam gives man rights Typically as It gives Women their rights. I tried to explain the above Fatwa to you before but you misunderstand me. When I have time inshaAllah I will repeat my explanation again in a way by which I hope you get it. Good Night
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Despite the evidence to the contrary, some argue that in Islam women cannot or should not hold positions of leadership. This argument is based primarily on the interpretation given to one hadith and to two Quranic verses. The hadith, related by Abu Bakra, states "God has benefited me from a word I heard from the Prophet (PBUH) on the day of the Camel, after I had been about to join the ranks of the people of the Camel. [Abu Bakra] said ‘When the Prophet was informed that the people of Persia had crowned the daughter of Kisra as their ruler, he said: No people will ever succeed if they hand their affairs to a woman.’" (Sahih al-Bukhari, trans. by M.M. Khan, Kazi Publications, 1983, vol. 5, p. 508, no. 508; vol. 9, p. 170-171, no. 219.)
Ibn Hazm understood the hadith to mean that a woman can hold any position of leadership other than actually being the head of state. (Muhammad al-Ghazali, Sunna al-Nabawiya Bayna Ahl al-Fiqh wa Ahl al-Hadith, Dar al-Shuruq, 1989, p.56.) Muhammad al-Ghazali states that this hadith must be closely scrutinized and while he has no particular desire to have a woman act as head of state, he is adamant that the state be headed by the most capable person. (Muhammad al-Ghazali, Sunna al-Nabawiya Bayna Ahl al-Fiqh wa Ahl al-Hadith, Dar al-Shuruq, 1989, p.56.)
Al-Ghazali also argued that narrowly interpreting this hadith would contradict historical realities, e.g. England under Queen Victoria, India under Indira Ghandi, and Israel under Golda Meir. (Muhammad al-Ghazali, Sunna al-Nabawiya Bayna Ahl al-Fiqh wa Ahl al-Hadith, Dar al-Shuruq, 1989, p.58.) Al-Ghazali also argues that femininity or masculinity is irrelevant in this regard and he goes on to state that a pious woman is better than a bearded man who has gone astray. (Ibid).
A Quranic verse used to justify excluding women from political leadership states: "And the divorced women shall undergo, without remarrying, a waiting period of three monthly courses: for it is not lawful for them to conceal what God may have created in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And during this period their husbands are fully entitled to take them back, if they desire reconciliation; but, in accordance with justice, the rights of the wives with regard to their husbands are equal to the husbands’ rights with regard to them, although men have a degree (darajah) over them. And God is almighty, wise. (Quran 2:228).
Imam al-Tabari argued that the degree referred to in this verse exhorts men to treat their wives better than they expect to be treated; in other words, the husband should not require his wife to fulfill all of her obligations to him, but he should still fulfill all of his obligations to her. (M.H. Sherif, The Muslim Woman Between the Truth of Sharia and the Fallacy of Falsification, Dar al-Marifa al-Jamiyiya, 1987, p. 141 (citing al-Tabari, Tafsir, 1954, vol. 2, p. 454).)
The view held by Imam al-Tabari, that husbands should treat their wives better than they expect to be treated by them, was apparently the interpretation given to this verse in the early years of Islam. Abdullah ibn Abbas (d. 788 A.D./ 69 A.H.), the Prophet’s cousin, said: "I adorn myself for my wife as she adorns herself for me, and I would not like to exact all my rights that she owes me, so that she also would not claim all what is due to her...The ‘degree’ is a cue to invite men to pleasant cohabitation and to extend to women more money and good manners, because the one with more gifts should impose more upon himself." (M.H. Sherif, "Women and Political Power in Muslim Thought", Lecture, Cornell University, 1987 (citing al-Tabari, Tafsir, 1954, vol. 2, p. 454).)
In later years, scholars began to view the "degree" as equivalent to the advantages of men and linked the alleged superiority to men’s advantages in jihad, inheritance, and whatever else men had in abundance over women. M.H. Sherif, "Women and Political Power in Muslim Thought", Lecture, Cornell University, 1987 (citing al-Tabari, Tafsir, 1954, vol. 2, p. 454).
This supposed superiority was then used as the basis for the argument that wives must obey their husbands. (Ibid). Sayyid Qutb argues that this verse relates to the divorce context where the husband, who has initiated the divorce, has the right to reconcile with his wife during the waiting period. Sayyid Qutb further states: "The nature of the situation imposes this right and the degree is restricted to this situation and cannot be construed as of a general nature, as many misunderstand and then adduce it to situations in which it is not applicable." (M.H. Sherif, "Women and Political Power in Muslim Thought", Lecture, Cornell University, 1987 (citing Sayyid Qutb, Fi Dhilal al-Quran, 1973, vol. 2, pp. 246-247).)
Another argument, again restricting this verse to the divorce setting, holds that the degree or advantage men have is the ability to pronounce divorce without the need for arbitration. (Amina Wadud-Muhsin, Quran and Woman, Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd., 1992, p.68.) Thus, based on the above, this verse need not be interpreted to hold that all men are superior to all women in all situations, thereby denying women political roles.
The other often quoted verse used to justify the subjugation of women states: "Men shall take full care (qawamuna) of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly[preferred] (faddala) on some of the former than on some of the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has ordained to be guarded." (Quran 4:34).
This verse states a conditional proposition. Men are to take full care of women if two conditions are met: first, if the man’s bounties are more abundant than the woman’s and second, if the man supports the woman from his means. (Amina Wadud-Muhsin, Quran and Woman, Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd., 1992, p.70.) In terms of more abundant material bounties, the only Quranic reference where men receive a greater share than women is inheritance (Quran 4:7). Thus, men are responsible to spend of their property on women and so they are given a larger share in inheritance. (Amina Wadud-Muhsin, Quran and Woman, Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd., 1992, p.71.)
The verse gives no indication of men’s superiority over women in regards to intelligence, piety, or any other attribute; therefore, it makes little sense to interpret this verse to mean that men are superior to women. Furthermore, the verse states that some have been given more bounties than some; thus, men as a class are not quawamuna over women as a class. (Amina Wadud-Muhsin, Quran and Woman, Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd., 1992, p.71 (citing Aziza al-Hibri, "A Study of Islamic Herstory", Women and Islam: Women’s Studies International Forum Magazine, 1982, 5:218).)
To fully understand the import of the interpretation of this verse in the subjugation of women, one must look at the various interpretations given to qawamuna. Various translations render it as "in charge of", "in charge of the affairs of", or "managers of the affairs of." (Amina Wadud-Muhsin, Quran and Woman, Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd., 1992, p.71.) Another plausible interpretation is "in charge of the service of" because the word quwamuna includes the concepts of taking care of another, maintaining another, and moral responsibility for another (Muhammad Asad, The Mesage of the Quran, Dar Al-Andalus, 1980, p. 109, nt. 42); taken together, these concepts refer to meeting the needs of another. Whether the concept of qawamuna applies only in the family setting or whether it applies to society as a whole is an issue of debate among scholars. (Id. at p. 72).
Some argue that the concept applies to the family setting, specifically, it addresses the responsibility of the man to ensure that the woman is not burdened with other responsibilities while she is fulfilling her child-bearing function, thereby equalizing their responsibilities to the family. (Id. at p. 73). Thus, this verse does not hold that men have authority over women or that all men are superior to all women; therefore, it cannot be used as a categorical justification to deprive women of political involvement.
Conclusion
The Quran, sunnah, and Islamic history provide ample evidence of women undertaking various forms of political involvement from the bai’ah to fighting in battles to influencing political decisions. Ignoring the contributions of Muslim women deprives our Islamic heritage of valuable role models while continuing the stagnation of Islamic thought. To exclude women from political involvement simply because they are women is an act of tribalism based on gender. The Prophet stated: "He is not of us who proclaims the cause of tribal partisanship ..." (Muhammad Asad, The Principles of State and Government in Islam, Dar Al-Andalus, 1980, p. 32 (citing Abu Dawud).)
The role of woman, her position and status in society, and her nature have been issues of debate and discussion informed by religion, tradition and culture, misogyny, feminism and – many times – downright ignorance and bigotry.
I am a Muslim and Muslims seek guidance from Allah through his book, the Qur'an, and His messenger Mohammed (pbuh). Muslims believe that the word of Allah is supreme and takes precedence over all traditions cultures.
The Muslim Youth Movement in its struggle towards realising its goals of establishing a just order based on the Divine Will and promoting the values and principles of Islam felt that the area of gender needed redressing. We therefore established the Gender Desk.
As the head of the MYM Gender Desk and on the many campaigns we undertake - like getting women to the mosques, struggling for a just Muslim Family Law system or simply insisting that the woman's voice be heard - I am often asked by people who are not Muslim why I do what I do; why struggle for the rights of women - and particularly Muslim women. What happened in my past that drove me to this?
The answer is simple: we respond to the injunction of the Qur'an to "enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong", as we did when faced with the terrible injustices of apartheid and oppression on the basis of race and class.
In discussing the role of women in contemporary society I have divided my talk into three parts:
1. The perceptions of woman within contemporary Muslim societies. 2. The status, position and role of woman in the Qur'an and in early Islam from where we derive our aspirations. 3. Some of the challenges facing us in contemporary society - more specifically, in South Africa.
You might have heard at some time or the other that Islam teaches that women are "inferior" and "unequal" to men. Women are described as weak, inferior, inherently evil (it is the nature of woman to promote fitnah (mischief)), we have deficient intellectual capabilities and are spiritually lacking. Furthermore, these evaluations have been used to claim that women are unsuitable for performing certain tasks, or for functioning in some ways in society.
Thus women are barred from mosques and excluded from other Muslim institutions. The "intermingling of the sexes" is frowned upon on the basis that women create fitnah. The Muslim identity of a woman is restricted and limited to her dress code.
Specific functions and roles have been attributed to each sex; the function of woman is often confined to her reproductive ability. It is known that her primary function is to be mother and wife. And that she would be lacking in her Islamic duty if she in any way did not fulfil this role in accordance with how society defines it.
Since it is the responsibility of males to provide for females, women are liberated from all social, political and economic obligations. They are freed from all these burdens so they can enjoy the joys of housework and child-bearing and caring. And this is regarded as the special status that Islam has accorded woman, thus liberating her from oppression and suppression over 1400 years ago.
Some traditionalists are of the opinion that "according to strict Islamic injunctions, it is not obligatory for a woman to cook food for her husband or children or wash their clothes or even suckle the infants. A woman may refuse to do all these things without this being made ground for legal complaint against her. If she undertakes these duties it is out of sheer grace." Nevertheless, they stress that man and woman's roles are complementary and the most important role the women plays is in the family unit.
The same traditionalists also believe that her primary role is that of a mother and wife and that she needs not venture from the home and the darkest corners of her home are best for her. They also limit her freedom to exercise her will and choice.
It is ironical that all of them claim that Islam liberated women 1400 years ago. They claim that Islam gave women the right to equal education and civil and economic rights, but at the end of their analysis they come to the conclusion that a woman's place is in her husband's home and that she should be obedient to him and the male elite.
How on earth can she enjoy any liberty if she lacks knowledge, is confined to her home and has minimal control over her life.
We need to ask: Are these the teachings of Islam or have they been concocted by some people in order to maintain control over a sector of society so that they alone can benefit optimally. It is our duty as Muslims to refresh people's memories and look to our Glorious Qur'an and our glorious past. Let us look at the status and position and role of women in Qur'an and early Islam.
The fundamental principle of Islam is Tauhid - the unity of the human race under the sovereignty of the One and Only, Universal Divine Allah. Islam's message of peace affirms the equality of all human beings, and rejects all discrimination on the basis of race, class and gender.
Yes, Allah is the Sovereign and we succumb to Him and put aside our preferences, prejudices, and traditions and culture which are secondary to Allah's injunctions.
The Qur'an declares the absolute moral and spiritual equality of men and women.
"For Muslim men and Muslim women, for believing men and believing women, for devout men and devout women, for true men and true women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise, for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward." (Sura 33:35)
This passage makes a clear statement about the absolute equality of the human moral condition and identical spiritual and moral obligations placed on all individuals regardless of sex. Incidentally, this is one of the passages that addresses women directly. It is related that the women asked the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) about why the Qur'an addressed only men when women too accepted God and His prophet. This question occasioned the revelation of the Qur'anic verses explicitly addressing women as well as men - a response that unequivocally shows Muhammad's (pbuh) and Allah's readiness to hear women. Thereafter the Qur'an explicitly addressed women a number of times.
I would like to read Sura 3:195 to you:
"And their Lord has accepted of them, and answered them: 'Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, male or female. You are members, one of another: Those who have left their homes, or been driven out therefrom, or suffered harm in My Cause, or fought or been slain, verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into gardens with rivers flowing beneath. A reward from the presence of Allah, and from His presence is the best of rewards.'"
Allah clearly tells us here that we are members of one and the same human race, and therefore equal to one another.
We read in the Qur'an that taqwa (God-consciousness) is the only distinguishing factor between human beings.
"O humankind! We created you from a single (pair of a) male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (not that you may despise each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous (or God-conscious) of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)." (Sura 49:13)
And taqwa – "God consciousness" – is definitely not determined by gender!
Another interesting fact about women in the Qur'an is that Allah relates instances when woman received wahy (revelation). Oftentime the assertion is made that there has never been a female prophet. To that I say that there is no conclusive evidence that there did not exist a woman prophet. And yes, women have received wahy. Allah sent a messenger who carried Allah's message to Mary (pbuh):
"She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: 'I seek refuge in The Most Gracious from you: (come not near) if you are conscious of Allah.' He said: 'No, I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a holy son.'" (Sura 19:17-19)
Allah also "spoke" to the mother of Musa:
"And We revealed to Musa's mother, saying: 'Give him suck, then when you fear for him, cast him into the river and do not fear nor grieve; surely We will bring him back to you and make him one of the messengers.'" (Sura 28:7).
And, in the Qur'an we read the story of Bilqis, the Queen of Sheba. Most Muslims hold leadership as improper for women. The Qur'an uses no terms to imply that leadership is inappropriate for a woman. On the contrary, the Qur'anic story of Bilqis celebrates both her political and religious practices:
"But the Hoopoe tarried not far: he (came up and) said: 'I have compassed (territory) which you have not compassed, and I have come to you from Sheba with tidings true. I found (there) a woman ruling over them and provided with every requisite; and she has a magnificent throne..." (Sura 27:22-23).
These verses and the verses following them tell us of a wise woman; a woman who recognises the goodness in the Propeht Sulaiman (Solomon) just from his letter to her; a woman who rules her people through consultation; a woman who readily recognises and accepts the Truth when Solomon presents it to her.
What is interesting is that Allah, The Most Wise, has not specified any particular role for all men or all women. The Qur'an does not propose or support a singular role or single definition of a set of roles, exclusively, for each gender across every culture.
This thus allows individuals the freedom to decide on their functions and roles best suited to their contexts. This must, of course, be done by maintaining fairness and equality through mutual consultation, mercy, consideration and compassion between those affected by the decision.
Women do have a special and exclusive function; and that is procreation. The Qur'an elevates this special function in Sura 4 Verse 1:
"O humankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord... reverence Allah, through whom you demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (that bore you)."
Another aspect that engenders the equal worth of individuals is that the Qur'an does not set value for particular deeds between men and women. Note verse 195 in Sura 3:
"Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, male or female. You are members, one of another."
In contemporary society this is not so. Much more value is attached to the work that men do. Domestic work is not less of a good deed than going out of the house to work. I believe that there is space in Islam to actually attach monetary value to domestic work done by wives. Indeed, some classical scholars have stated that women should be paid even for breastfeeding their own children! And if the criteria for valuing any function is monetary value then we should insist that all these functions should also have monetary values attached to them.
History
Let us now take a step back into our history and look at the various roles our sheroes played in the societies they lived in. I admit I will be focusing on and emphasising the active and assertive roles they played. We have been taught well about what is traditionally considered to be pious about our early Muslim sisters. But what about the other roles they played?
Women were actively involved in warfare.
Umm 'Umara was known for her effectiveness with weapons. The Prophet (pbuh) commented that she was better than many men. Umm 'Umara fought in many battles and she lost her hand in one of them.
Umm Hakim single handedly disposed of seven Byzantine soldiers in the battle of Marj al- Saffar.
In one expedition against a Persian seaport the women, led by Azdah bint al-Harith turned their veils into flags, marching in martial array to the battlefield. They were mistaken for fresh reinforcements, which struck fear into the hearts of the enemy, and this contributed - at a critical moment - to the victory of the Muslims.
Religion
Women of the first Muslim community attended the mosque, took part in religious services on feast days, and listened to Muhammad's (pbuh) discourses. They were not just passive listeners and docile followers, but actively participated in discussion and questioned, confronted and challenged.
This practice continued even in 'Umar's time - when he was caliph. It is reported that when 'Umar attempted to limit the dowry in a khutbah in the mosque, a woman challenged his ruling and 'Umar conceded that "the woman is correct and 'Umar is wrong".
Talking about the mighty 'Umar, strong-headed and strong-willed... He never forbade his own wife to attend the mosque because he knew that this was a betrayal of the Prophet's teaching. In fact, he tried some dubious means to discourage her. He once hid in an alley and frightened her to illustrate the danger of women being harassed by the hypocrites while they were going to mosque. He was not successful; his wife continued on her way to the mosque!
Woman participated in political activities.
When Makkah was recaptured by the Muslims (Fath Makkah) many woman came to give their allegiance to Islam. They refused to offer their allegiance to 'Umar and insisted that they wanted to give it to the Prophet (pbuh) himself. The Prophet conceded and this was at a public assembly of men and women.
Women like Asma bint Abu Bakr were active in the workforce. She shared the responsibility of supporting her family with her husband by working away from her home.
Women were given the responsibility of running the affairs of the State. A woman - Shifa bint 'abd Allah - was appointed controller of the market of Madinah by the Prophet. She was reappointed by 'Umar when he became caliph.
The Prophet left it in the hands of his wife Umm Salamah to advise the Muslims to forgo the haj and to rather sign the treaty of Hudaibiyya.
'Aisha, the prophet's wife, was a reporter of many of the Prophet's traditions. She also addressed the congregation at the mosque and led an army in battle.
In the private domain women also exercised their rights.
They enjoyed the freedom of stipulating their demands in their marriage contract. An illustrious example is the story of Sukayna, the great-grand-daughter of the Prophet, daughter of Husayn. In her marriage contract she stipulated that she would not obey her husband and denied her husbands had the right to practise polygamy. She brought a case against one of her husbands who had violated her rule of monogamy. The judge was obliged to hear her case.
Yet when we attempt to assert ourselves as Muslim women we are accused of being influenced by the West, and attempting to cause divisions and putting Muslims and Islam to disrepute.
The renowned author Fatima Mernissi, says in Women and Islam that such a person is "one who misunderstands his own cultural heritage. The vast and inspiring records of Muslim history so brilliantly completed for us by scholars such as Ibn Hisham, Ibn Hajar, Ibn Sa'ad and Tabari speak to the contrary.
"We Muslim women can walk into the modern world with pride, knowing that the quest for dignity, democracy, and human rights, for full participation in the political and social affairs of our country, stems from no imported Western values, but is a true part of Muslim tradition.
"Women fled aristocratic tribal Mecca by the thousands to enter Medina, the Prophet's city in the 7th century, because Islam promised equality and dignity for all, for men and women, masters and servants. Every woman who came to Medina when the Prophet was the political leader of the Muslims could gain access to full citizenship, the status of sahabi, companion of the Prophet. Muslims can take pride that in their language they have the feminine of that word, sahabiyat, women who enjoyed the right to enter into the councils of the Muslim umma, to speak freely to its Prophet-leader, to dispute with men, to fight for their happiness, and to be involved in the management of military and political affairs. The evidence is there in the works of religious? history, in the biographical details of sahabiyyat by the thousands who built Muslim society side by side with their male counterparts."
This is the true Islam. This is the result of the freedom to think and reflect in a free thinking society.
Posts: 407 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
My eyes are hurting me. Can you concentrate your point? I read bits of your articles but I didn't find anything contradicting my article of IslamQA.
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ): My eyes are hurting me. Can you concentrate your point?
May I ask what you do if you have to read a whole BOOK? You keep talking about how important knowledge and studying is, but a text that takes ten minutes to read and contemplate on makes your eyes hurt and is too much for you to grasp?
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ): I read bits of your articles but I didn't find anything contradicting my article of IslamQA.
ROFL!!! Both of my articles contradict just about every claim you've made on here on the issue of women. It also contradicts the excerpts from fatwas which I posted above.
I know you're not particularly blessed with intellectual skills or a proper education. But that you're not even able to grasp the basic message of a simple text surprises me.
But, hey, if you see no contradiction, I'm sure you agree with the following passages and we can end this discussion.
The verse gives no indication of men’s superiority over women in regards to intelligence, piety, or any other attribute; therefore, it makes little sense to interpret this verse to mean that men are superior to women.
The Qur'an uses no terms to imply that leadership is inappropriate for a woman. On the contrary, the Qur'anic story of Bilqis celebrates both her political and religious practices ...
Allah, The Most Wise, has not specified any particular role for all men or all women. The Qur'an does not propose or support a singular role or single definition of a set of roles, exclusively, for each gender across every culture.
This thus allows individuals the freedom to decide on their functions and roles best suited to their contexts.Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ): Cancelling the right of Man is not of Islam. Islam gives man rights Typically as It gives Women their rights.
Taking away womens God-given rights and trying to rob them of their dignity by reducing them to the status of legal minors and slaves to their husbands and by calling them mentally and morally defective isn't Islam either! Those things have nothing whatsoever to do with *what God wants* or *rights of men* – they are the sick ideas of some people who live very, very deep in jahiliyah!
The fact that you so desperately want to believe this sort of stuff says a lot about you though ...
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ): I tried to explain the above Fatwa to you before but you misunderstand me.
No. You didn't "explain" anything, you tried to justify and find excuses for this mysoginist crap which made it even worse. You claimed that this blabber about women being inferior and their brains being less capable is supposed to be a *scientific fact*.
You were not able to "explain" why those imams come to conclusions that are not backed by logic, science, common sense or the Qur'an itself. In fact, you ignored very valid questions and comments.
I noticed that when I or someone else asks you a more comprehensive question about some of the texts you're posting or about one of those insane fatwas you never reply, even if the question is posed to you repeatedly. You never answer if the question needs some of your own thinking and can't be answered with another copy and paste. If anything illogical, contradictory or factually wrong in your postings is pointed out to you, you either quietly disappear from the thread or turn to insults.
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka not here ): When I have time inshaAllah I will repeat my explanation again in a way by which I hope you get it.
Thank you very much, I don't need another "explanation" about womens supposed deficiencies. Why don't you just answer the question you've repeatedly avoided although I posted it to you about three of four times? Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is my everyday Breakfast that I used to
Dalia, Before I reply to your post. I am searching for a way to address what I want to say.
Tell me your answers to these Questions. Can you tell me why it's obligatory for a man to satisfy the family( children, living), wife needs ( financial),daughters and his single ex-wife in Islam ? Why is it the responsibility of a husband in front of God in the Judgment day to the whole family errors and weak upbringing?
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The madness of the Sharia Law. An absolute demented derranged constituent of a lunatic religion calibrated to deceive the most feeble of minds with the lowest of intellect. Islam is as bad as a testicular tantrium.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The delimma will never be solved if each gender claims that he is superior or equal to the other, they should know that they are different and that this difference is actually or should be for some cause, actually knowing this and understanding our main features, purpose and cause of life along will lead eventually to a better situation where we could develop a better community, just to be clear here I will repeat some of my words, I have reapetedly said women over time have been deppressed, yet still women are not men, niether is men women. That put loads and obligations on both of the genders, there is no generalization here that some gender is superior than the other yet there is an obvious physical differences between the two genders, this differences actually is there so that each gender should complete the other according to our religion and build a healthier society "that's my opnion", and if so for me this comes with obligations on both genders. Obligations that is made by our own physical structure and I am not talking about men have more muscles than women, men having more mathematical capabilities then women, woemn having more verbal capabilities than men or more observation capabilities then men because generally this can't be true even if it is in average true, it can't be true in general because for sure there are women that are stronger than men and there are women whom have more mathematical capabilities than men, and there are men whom are more observative than women and men whom have more verbal capabilities than women. Which comes with the question what are the physical difference I am talking about, it is that women have the physical structure to hold and raise human's, also due to this physical structure babies "in general" are fully dependent on there mothers for living at least for the first couple of years, plus there is an undeniable effect of the child-mother relation on the children and on there behavior with there parents even if they become old (especially) "I have brought this before in ES there are some researches about that on the internet", man on the other hand have among the years and naturally should be responsible for this "women pregnancy", and because women should take care of the children "in general" at least for some period of time man are obligated to be responsible for there act on women, and should be fully supportive for women and the children at least for this period of time, to note that there is some rule changes for instance one century earlier most of human work were physical work that needs endurance so most of the human labor were men because of there average superior physical powers, now it is not that intense as human work recently have been more dependent on intellectual capabilities and it is undeniable that men where the developers for most of the current prosperity through there inventions not that women doesn't have a rule yet there rule was behind the scenes as for sure they were the raisers of most of the inventors and scientests at that ages and now they actually contribute in this by thereselves because of the current development which have led for them to have both of the worlds, in my opnion the physical role of woman does not defy her self-esteem which means that women have full right to do whatever work if they fulfil the other rule of life "that's my opnion", yet which one of these rules in life is more important than the other is actually an individual aspect and woman is responsibile for that, still this can differ from one to another,however in my opinion the motherhood is more important than the other part and actually I have clarified this to my wife as a landmark. Obviously there can be a large culturious gap, for instance in our islamic culture we were raised on an axiom that adultry is forbidden and that family is the building unit of society, childern should feel gratitude to there parents whom have raised them, yet in other societies this mustn't be the rule "in all situations but I think in general it is still till the moment" which can lead to some other observations other than what I have introduced here, women in such a society might need other needs or look at there physical creation with other aspect, which society is better is what will be shown over the time "my opinion", yet as for me it is more serene with this culture, I feel it is more secure for both members in the relation and if there is something wrong then the divorce can work it out, to note that this is my own point of view to the subject and for me the grass is greener in my garden and it is going to be more prosper, and I need to defend this also I hope that clarifies it all. May allah do the best
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
RESCUE US FROM THIS TOWN: CONFRONTING THE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN IN MUSLIM SOCIETY
By Shabana Mir
We often tell ourselves, “why rock the boat on the issue of empowering women when XYZ political issue is obviously far more important?" Well, now it's clear that this isn't a minor issue after all. As the recent MWU! coverage of the recent conference on AIDS that took place in Malaysia indicates, it's a life and death matter.
My purpose here isn’t to establish an individual as the ultimate authority on Islam. We are all free to agree or disagree with Dr. Amina Wadud. And when we discuss Islam, we are essentially “trying” to reach the Truth. As such, humility and courtesy are necessary guiding factors in any dialogue about these matters.
What is also essential is a seeking of the betterment of God's servants. So seeking to improve the plight of women is a religious endeavor, not just a secular, anti-religious one. Strange, is it not, that “women’s rights” has become a dirty phrase in the world of Islamist discourse.
There are too many unfortunate realities in Muslim communities and countries. It’s time to overcome our fear of facing those realities, and it’s time to work to change those realities. That work isn't only about getting men jobs and getting people to pray and fast more.
A lot of that work is very uncomfortable work, which entails us feeling guilty, angry, and ashamed about our larger Muslim family. None of us wants to see our family behave in cruel, bad, and shameful ways. Most of us will react with disbelief if we are told that our family members have behaved in these ways. But in order to correct them, we must face up to their actions.
In Pakistan and many other Muslim countries, for example, it is commonly believed, and not just by uneducated people, that a husband is a wife's 'majazi khuda'—that he is her ‘god’ in a sense. Reported sayings of the Prophet like "If a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses and he spends the night angry at her, the angels curse her until the morning" and "If I were to order anyone to prostrate himself before another, I would order a woman to prostrate herself before her husband" are famous, more famous than many of the other traditions contained in the canonical Hadith collections. This tells you something about the reality of patriarchal Muslim societies and the way religiosity can easily play into the hands of power.
This isn't something that will change easily, because the truth is, too many Muslims are invested in a belief in the superiority and the authority of men over women. Generally, this belief is part of the socialization process of Muslim children. Muslim men all over the world are the ones who receive religious education; religious seminaries (jami'ahs and madrasas) are generally open only to men.
And the religious seminaries, incidentally, don’t attract the most educated men. The most educated males enter high-status professions such as the civil service, medicine, engineering, etc.
So when the maulvi or the mullah tells the man he is supposed to be dominant over women, and he tells the woman she must obey and please her husband in all matters, we don't have to be overly imaginative to know what the results will be.
There are no women “mullahs” or--perish the thought--progressive mullahs, to suggest that there might be exceptions to the tradition admonishing wives against disobeying a husband’s desire for sexual relations, such as a husband being promiscuous, or being infected with a sexually transmitted disease, etc. And since most young girls at marriage are desperately unaware of sex and their bodies, marriage ends up becoming a form of rape to far too many of them. “Respectable girls are innocent” said my friend’s mother. So what do you think is going to happen with girls who have grown up with the necessity of obedience drilled into them from birth? Who have grown up with constraints upon their movements, their speech, their thoughts? Who have grown up with guilt about their bodies?
When she gets married, and if her husband is promiscuous, it's easy for us North Americans to legalistically claim that a woman can leave him if he isn't pious. All is still well in our jurisprudence. But the fact is, she usually has no means of supporting herself. Society (including her own family) abhors a divorced woman, and her children will be ruined. She's never been taught to see herself as an agent with the power to critically observe and evaluate things for herself. So all the authorities she has always looked to tell her she is duty bound -- as well as stuck -- with obeying her husband, whether he's over-sexed, promiscuous, bi-sexual, addicted to strange and unhealthy fetishes, or anything else you can think of.
That’s exactly what happened in the case of one educated Pakistani middle-class woman I know, married to a doctor, with 3 children. Her husband became romantically involved with a female colleague. The “religious” (Islamist) and educated in-laws all stood by the man. When she refused to stand by powerlessly, they supported his beating of her, for after all, she was disobedient to him. When she took a taxicab to visit him at work, all the in-laws threw a fit about her leaving the house. When she dared expressed her anger about his involvement, he beat her, and his purdah-observing “religious” sister supported him: “If you cuss him, what’ll he do? Of course he’ll hit you!”
The husband's sexuality was not questioned; her actions were blamed. Generally his promiscuity or unfaithfulness may be blamed upon his wife (did she make herself adequately available to him? How does she behave?). The tahajjud-praying mother-in-law of the woman blamed her for the man's waywardness and told her it was her responsibility to fix the situation. She must make the best of a bad situation by complete compliance, or she will be blamed for all of his actions.
Easy for us to say a woman can work, make a new life for herself, support her children. This woman could not support herself because she couldn’t make enough money school-teaching. She lacked societal support for her “rebellion.” Everyone wanted to blame her, to prove that she would never be able to make it. No one wanted to marry her and take another man’s children in (children are very much a “man’s children” in patriarchal societies). The ex-husband, on the other hand, quickly married a far younger woman. The children suffered the consequences of being practically fatherless. No alimony or child support materialized.
Not until the woman re-married and handed over the children to the father was she given societal approval. She lives the dilemma of a torn woman today, trying to be a good wife to her second husband and yearning to see her children. The father and the stepmother do not allow her letters to go through to them, or their letters to go to her. She calls; they hang up. When she protests to “family elders,” they tell her she should be patient.
This is a very typical story of a middle class educated woman from a respected family. There are thousands and thousands of stories that are far worse. Those of working class illiterate women are far worse.
So while we can talk legalistically about whether a wife is obliged to obey a promiscuous husband, the reality of Muslim societies is that she must obey him. She must comply with his demands, and if she does not, she receives no support from anyone.
When the Pakistani woman I speak of so much as prayed istikhara to decide what to do, the “religious” in-laws threw a fit when they found out and cut her off from communicating with her family. When they discovered she had consulted a lawyer, they locked the front gate. In Pakistan, you cannot counter such measures unless you are sure you are willing to take drastic action.
Unfortunately, maybe the only support she receives -- if she is lucky -- is from secular feminist lawyers because they are willing to speak the truth about the injustice that is being committed, and to rock the boat.
So all those utopian ideas about how “Islam” in theory will protect an obedient wife, and how “practicing” Muslims will defend the “righteous one”, and that men are responsible for women and good men will do good by women, otherwise it’s their fault,--do not benefit any women out there today who will contract AIDS or who will be beaten to death or who will be raped with a stick.
Those who have religious knowledge generally support the man because he is relatively powerful. They are usually men too, after all, and it is to their advantage to maintain the status quo. (Women who have some religious knowledge or status know that their status lies in supporting the status quo too).
The religion has been hijacked because these practices are not rare ones -- they are epidemics in Muslim communities and societies. Even the protest against this hijacking has been hijacked and “kafir-ized”, and labeled “secular”, “irreligious”, “anti-Islamic”, and “feminist.” It's impossible to stand by and be silent. If we allow the hijackers to be the authorities on Islam, we are allowing them to continue with their violence and their sanctioning of violence. And if they continue to be the authorities, we no longer have the right to explain away the prevailing beliefs in majazi khuda, unconditional sexual compliance, and wife beating in case of “disobedience.”
Conscientious Muslims can’t just engage in theoretical discussions at Sunday morning interfaith meetings and claim that they’re on the side of peace and justice and equality. We have to confront power. And that's uncomfortable, messy, nasty stuff that embroils us in rhetorical battles. It makes me anxious and extremely uncomfortable! But I also feel good about speaking out -- here in the comfort of my North American home, far away from the realities I'm talking about, the realities you and I have escaped.
But sometimes it seems so meaningless to get into verbal arguments about these things, when millions of women are suffering silently.
I'm reminded of a verse regarding jihad: “How can you not fight in the cause of God and of the oppressed men, women, and children, who call out: ‘Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from your presence one who will protect; and raise for us from your presence one who will help!’" (Qur’an 4:75)
posted
Bibo 1978: The delimma will never be solved if each gender claims that he is superior or equal to the other, they should know that they are different and that this difference is actually or should be for some cause, actually knowing this and understanding our main features, purpose and cause of life along will lead eventually to a better situation where we could develop a better community, just to be clear here I will repeat some of my words, I have reapetedly said women over time have been deppressed, yet still women are not men, niether is men women
Bibo1978, is that a rather long way of saying that men and women are different but equal? Or are you really saying that women's physical attributes mean they have to accept lesser opportunities or have different rights in society than men? The dilemma will never be solved if men claim women are not equal.
I think all of us are more than aware that women and men are physically different. That part needs no clarification. Men and women should have equal rights, regardless of any physical differences between them. Both are human. Both can then choose how they apply equal rights to their lives. Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SayWhatYouSee: Bibo1978, is that a rather long way of saying that men and women are different but equal? Or are you really saying that women's physical attributes mean they have to accept lesser opportunities or have different rights in society than men? The dilemma will never be solved if men claim women are not equal.
I think all of us are more than aware that women and men are physically different. That part needs no clarification. Men and women should have equal rights, regardless of any physical differences between them. Both are human. Both can then choose how they apply equal rights to their lives.
SWYS, I think what Bido is saying is that the notion of TRUE equality between men and women is just as ridiculous a concept as the superiority of men over women, or vice versa.
And he's right I think.
The physical and mental differences between men and women make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to have any real equality between them in Society.
There is no equality among men, let alone between men and women.
The mere fact that women can give birth, and men cannot, is enough to discredit the concept of equality among men and women.
What we have now in our Society, is the PRETENSE of equality; and this can be very damaging in and of itself because it's built upon a foundation of lies and deception.
Instead of ignoring biology, Society should focus on the inherent strengths of both men and women, and uphold the masculine aswell as the feminine.
In the past (and even the present), the masculine was always upheld, and the feminine degraded, resulting in women being perceived as weak and feeble, which isn't true..
This was a terrible injustice against not only women, but men aswell, because men exist only in relation to women, and vice versa.
If men harm women, they harm themselves; even if they can't see it.
But the solution should not be a mummer's farce, where we pretend that men and women are equal..
This "band-aid" can serve for only so long, before it starts to cause problems of it's own.
This can already be observed by the rapidly falling birth rates amongst Western Democratic nations, and the disintegrating family structure.
quote: The 217th clause of the French law states the following: “A married woman – even if her marriage is based on the condition of separating what belongs to her and what belongs to her husband – is not permitted to give anything as a gift or to transfer any of her property or use it as collateral, or to take possession of anything whether in return for payment or otherwise, without her husband being a party to the contract or agreeing to it in writing.”
In England, Henry VIII forbade the English woman to read the Bible. Until 1850 CE women were not counted as citizens, and until 1882 CE they did not have any personal rights.
(Silsilat Maqaarinah al-Adyaan, by Dr. Ahmad Shalaby, vol. 3, p. 210-213)
As for contemporary woman in Europe, America and other industrial nations, she is a creature which is degraded and abused for commercial purposes. She is a feature of advertising campaigns, and things have reached a stage where she takes off her clothes in order to advertise products on posters, and she sells and displays her body according to systems devised by men, so that she is no more than an object of pleasure for them in every place.
posted
Alistair, it is not about perceptions of equality. It is about access to equal rights and opportunities. That is the best we can strive for, surely? No one is arguing that there aren't differences between men and women. Those differences should not allow one gender to flourish at the expense of the other. I care about the rights of men and women. Society will never be perfectly balanced or perfect in any respect. The best we can do is try to address the imbalances and recognise the needs of both genders.
I think Bibo1978 is saying something quite different to you. He stated above: ''The delimma will never be solved if each gender claims that he is superior or equal to the other''. I have asked him to clarify this point, outwith the obvious biological differences. Your argument, seems to concentrate around the competing and sometimes conflicting needs of men and women, in a society coming to terms with the impact of social change. Bibo's argument seems to want to restrict women within the boundaries of religious obligations and his perceptions of gender roles. I may be giving you too much credit here and may have misunderstood Bibo's point. Of course, you and Bibo1978 may also be exactly alike, in your views on women.
I don't get your point on pretence. The rights of men and women are at least enshrined in law, in the society I live in. People are constantly challenging inequality and perceived injustices. This is an ongoing struggle for both sexes. Are you saying that this is not worth doing? Your point on biology is moot, as we all know that there are physical differences between men and women.
I agree absolutely that the strengths of both genders should be celebrated and built upon. It is for each individual to choose the path they want in life. It is not for society to try to block that path, on the basis of gender.
Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: In France, a council in 586 CE decided to research the case of woman and whether she was to be counted as human or not. After some discussion, they decided that woman was human, but she was created to serve man.
posted
Someone shoud tell Ahmed that it is now 2007! I hope the news doesn't kill him. Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for contemporary woman in Europe, America and other industrial nations, she is a creature which is degraded and abused for commercial purposes. She is a feature of advertising campaigns, and things have reached a stage where she takes off her clothes in order to advertise products on posters, and she sells and displays her body according to systems devised by men, so that she is no more than an object of pleasure for them in every place.
Yuck
Very big yuck. Insulting European women in order to make a point is more than disgusting indeed.
Comments like that are quite revealing and show that, contrarory to what he claims, the writer has very litle respect for women
If someone starts off by telling me I'm an *abused and degraded creature* I am not likely to take anything he writes seriously. Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SayWhatYouSee: [QB] Alistair, it is not about perceptions of equality. It is about access to equal rights and opportunities. That is the best we can strive for, surely? No one is arguing that there aren't differences between men and women. Those differences should not allow one gender to flourish at the expense of the other. I care about the rights of men and women. Society will never be perfectly balanced or perfect in any respect. The best we can do is try to address the imbalances and recognise the needs of both genders.
But thats what I'm saying SWYS..
How can there ever be equal rights, or equal opportunity between men and women, when the equality itself is an ILLUSION.
Striving for equal rights and equal opportunities is a misguided and futile attempt to fix the real source of the problem.
Case in point, the vast majority of Engineers, Physicists, Mathematicians, Chemists, Programmers, Policemen, Fire Fighters, Soldiers etc are male..
So what does our Society do to remedy this?
They start prescribing quotas and programs, saying that there MUST be a certain amount of women in these career fields or there'll be hell to pay ie discrmination lawsuit.
Because, since men and women are really "equal," there must be equal representation in these important and prestigious fields..
But, they don't understand WHY women will NEVER compromise a significant, let alone an equal amount of the workers in these fields.
They've been trying to sign women up in these careers for years in significant numbers, yet they fail every time.
Why? Because women as a group, simply aren't attracted to these fields.
BUT MEN ARE!
Tell me, is there a movement to inject men into career fields dominated by women?
Where is the equality? THERE IS NONE!
So, due to men and women's natural inclinations, there will always be disparities in the career fields they enter..
So knowing this, why do we persist in attempting to forcefully inject women into male dominated careers?
And, why do we continue to uphold the pretense of equality, and therefore, the pretense of equal rights and oppurtunity?
quote:Your point on biology is moot, as we all know that there are physical differences between men and women.
It's not moot. Yes, people understand that there are physical (and mental) differences between men and women, but they DON'T understand the DEPTH to which these differences influence Society.
Why does the woman nearly always get custody of the kids after a divorce?
Why do men commit most of the violence in the World?
Why do women receive less jail time for commiting the same offense as a male?
Why will most people in the Military always be male?
The answer to every one of these questions has it's answer in the "moot" biological differences between man and woman.
quote:As for contemporary woman in Europe, America and other industrial nations, she is a creature which is degraded and abused for commercial purposes. She is a feature of advertising campaigns, and things have reached a stage where she takes off her clothes in order to advertise products on posters, and she sells and displays her body according to systems devised by men, so that she is no more than an object of pleasure for them in every place.
Yuck
Very big yuck. Insulting European women in order to make a point is more than disgusting indeed.
Comments like that are quite revealing and show that, contrarory to what he claims, the writer has very litle respect for women
If someone starts off by telling me I'm an *abused and degraded creature* I am not likely to take anything he writes seriously.
quote: RESCUE US FROM THIS TOWN: CONFRONTING THE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN IN MUSLIM SOCIETY
You replied the same way.
Posts: 94 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ahmed online: You replied the same way.
No, I didn't. You should have read and thought about the article before replying. Nowhere does it make a negative or patronizing statement about Muslim women as the the one you quoted does about Western women.
Naming, addressing and discussing issues of oppression - whether they occur in the West or in the East - is one thing and it's important. Trying to make yourself look good by making derogatory blanket statements about a whole group of people is a whole different matter though and not a good starting point for dialogue.
Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SayWhatYouSee: [QB] Alistair, it is not about perceptions of equality. It is about access to equal rights and opportunities. That is the best we can strive for, surely? No one is arguing that there aren't differences between men and women. Those differences should not allow one gender to flourish at the expense of the other. I care about the rights of men and women. Society will never be perfectly balanced or perfect in any respect. The best we can do is try to address the imbalances and recognise the needs of both genders.
But thats what I'm saying SWYS..
How can there ever be equal rights, or equal opportunity between men and women, when the equality itself is an ILLUSION.
Striving for equal rights and equal opportunities is a misguided and futile attempt to fix the real source of the problem.
Case in point, the vast majority of Engineers, Physicists, Mathematicians, Chemists, Programmers, Policemen, Fire Fighters, Soldiers etc are male..
So what does our Society do to remedy this?
They start prescribing quotas and programs, saying that there MUST be a certain amount of women in these career fields or there'll be hell to pay ie discrmination lawsuit.
Because, since men and women are really "equal," there must be equal representation in these important and prestigious fields..
But, they don't understand WHY women will NEVER compromise a significant, let alone an equal amount of the workers in these fields.
They've been trying to sign women up in these careers for years in significant numbers, yet they fail every time.
Why? Because women as a group, simply aren't attracted to these fields.
BUT MEN ARE!
Tell me, is there a movement to inject men into career fields dominated by women?
Where is the equality? THERE IS NONE!
So, due to men and women's natural inclinations, there will always be disparities in the career fields they enter..
So knowing this, why do we persist in attempting to forcefully inject women into male dominated careers?
And, why do we continue to uphold the pretense of equality, and therefore, the pretense of equal rights and oppurtunity?
quote:Your point on biology is moot, as we all know that there are physical differences between men and women.
It's not moot. Yes, people understand that there are physical (and mental) differences between men and women, but they DON'T understand the DEPTH to which these differences influence Society.
Why does the woman nearly always get custody of the kids after a divorce?
Why do men commit most of the violence in the World?
Why do women receive less jail time for commiting the same offense as a male?
Why will most people in the Military always be male?
The answer to every one of these questions has it's answer in the "moot" biological differences between man and woman.
~Alistair
Alistair, you appear to be using the inequalities in society to argue that discrimination and restriction on the basis of gender is acceptable. It isn't. On one hand, you acknowledge that women have had to struggle to win rights in society, yet on the other, you appear to want to take them away, on the basis that some proactive measures have been implemented to promote equality. The precise reason why gender quotas have sometimes been implemented is to try and correct the huge imbalances between the sexes. One could argue that time should have been allowed to sort this out but if you truly believe that women have a valuable contribution to make, why not accelerate this process? In the UK, many more women are now in parliament, thanks to the very measures you are so against. At the time, it was argued, on the basis of merit, that men were discriminated against, using such measures but how long do you want to wait, to benefit from a more balanced contribution from women in society?
Women have and are beginning to make huge strides forward into traditionally male dominated areas. Is this really the issue? Are some men afraid that they are being displaced from their traditional roles in the work place and home? I suspect that is the case and I have some sympathy with the confusion that has arisen because of this. What should we then do? Turn back the clock a mere century or so...and remove the voting rights of western women? Would that give men more time to prepare for and catch up with the notion of equality of access to opportunities?
Alistair ''Tell me, is there a movement to inject men into career fields dominated by women?'' Your logical male brain should tell you why this appears so, Alistair. The truth is simply that women have traditionally been allocated the worst jobs, pay levels and opportunities. Why would men demand access to less equal opportunity? On a more serious note, equality of opportunity is for men and women. Both have rights, in western society. There may be career differences and disparities. That doesn't justify restricting one person on the basis of gender. Girls have proven to be adept at maths and science. So much so that concerns have been expressed about the performance of boys in this area of schooling, in recent years. Striving for equality of opportunity has nothing to do with the homogenisation of the sexes. That is a key flaw in your argument and peculiarly, one often made by men.
Your closing questions have nothing to do with denying equality of access to opportunities. Some have to do with perceived injustices (e.g. in the UK, my understanding is that women get longer sentences, on average than men. I don't know about the USA.) Gender preferences in jobs are not static. You can have gender preferences and equality, Alistair. One doesn't exclude the other. It is about the ability to do a job, not the gender of the employee. The last century has illustrated that women can, do and are capable of doing jobs that were once thought the exclusive preserve of men. Why is that a problem? Surely if men commit the most violence in the world that is more reason to involve women at every level of society? The world might very well be a better place then.
Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa lady, you got me all wrong. What I am saying has nothing to do with taking away, or even granting women their "rights."
It has to do with the basis of these rights, and the reasoning behind them.
This is the last post I'll make for now, as I have to go and do something in a bit.
quote:Originally posted by SayWhatYouSee: [QB]Alistair, you appear to be using the inequalities in society to argue that discrimination and restriction on the basis of gender is acceptable.
Ugh! This is why arguing on the internet can be so frustrating. It's difficult to get your message across undistorted.
Your comment is absolutely incorrect.
I am not justifying discrmination in any way, shape or form.
What I am saying, is that "discrimination" may not be discrimination at all.
Instead, it could be that men and women are naturally drawn to certain behaviour patterns and endeavors, which influences what careers and jobs they enter, and how they place themselves in Society.
quote:It isn't. On one hand, you acknowledge that women have had to struggle to win rights in society, yet on the other, you appear to want to take them away, on the basis that some proactive measures have been implemented to promote equality.
When did I say anything about taking away women's rights? You speak to me as if I'm one step above Batman or some other neanderthal.
Have you ever read any of my posts on women's rights?
Apparently not.
quote:The precise reason why gender quotas have sometimes been implemented is to try and correct the huge imbalances between the sexes.
And this is where you and I differ. You think this imbalance is caused by discrimination.. This may have been true at one point, but not anymore.
Feminism and liberal policies has seen to this..
In my opinion, these imbalances today are mostly caused by the fact that men and women are naturally drawn to certain behaviours, which then influences their endeavors.
Case in point, the Military will always remain male dominated no matter what you do..
Why? Because men are naturally drawn to such things, while women aren't.
quote:One could argue that time should have been allowed to sort this out but if you truly believe that women have a valuable contribution to make, why not accelerate this process? In the UK, many more women are now in parliament, thanks to the very measures you are so against.
I was under the impression that you had to be voted into Parliament, and you could not be shoe horned in?
Regardless, I have no problem with women being in high places. It's the methods I disagree with..
quote:Again, it could be temporarily argued, on the basis of merit, that men were discriminated against, using such measures but how long do you want to wait, to benefit from a more balanced contribution from women in society?
You erroneously believe that such measures could "balance" Society, or that balancing Society in such a way is even possible.
I disagree with both concepts..
And this is what you don't understand SWYS..
You claim to understand the biological differences between men and women, but you don't REALLY understand..
If you did, you'd know that quotas, and other attempts at balancing are futile.
How long have quotas and other methods designed to place women in careers or avenues that are male dominated been around?
Decades..
And still, there is no balance, and there never will be unless you FORCE women into these careers and positions and have one woman for every man.
quote:Women have and are beginning to make huge strides forward into traditionally male dominated areas. Is this really the issue? Are some men afraid that they are being displaced from their traditional roles in the work place and home? I suspect that is the case and I have some sympathy with the confusion that has arisen because of this.
Define male dominated.. Do you mean Firemen, Policemen, Physicists, Mathematicians, Military, Engineers etc...?
If so, then you're wrong. While there are far more women in these careers, they still remain overwhelmingly male dominated, and they always will most likely.
Despite the fact that in some institutions like Law Enforcement, Fire Fighting and the Military, the physical standards have been lowered to accomodate more women..
Is this what equal opportunity is about?
quote:Alistair ''Tell me, is there a movement to inject men into career fields dominated by women?'' Your logical male brain should tell you why this appears so, Alistair. The truth is simply that women have traditionally been allocated the worst jobs, pay levels and opportunities.
Really? Which sex comprises the majority of garbage disposers, sewer cleaners, chimney sweepers, miners, janitors etc...?
Guess what, it ain't women. Actually, I've never seen a female garbage disposer in my entire life..
The fact is, men comprise the majority of workers in the most dangerous and hazardous professions, of which many are low paying.
quote:Why would men demand access to less equal opportunity? On a more serious note, equality of opportunity is for men and women. Both have rights, in western society.
I am certainly not against equal opportunity. If you have what it takes, then by all means, go for it. What I am saying, is that the methods involved, leave much to be desired.
When you prescribe quotas and what not, that isn't exactly "equal opportunity."
quote:There may be career differences and disparities. That doesn't justify restricting one person on the basis of gender.
Which is worse, restricting someone based on gender, or hiring someone based on their gender?
quote:Girls have proven to be adept at maths and science. So much so that concerns have been expressed about the performance of boys in this area of schooling, in recent years.
I am well aware that girls are outstripping boys in school. This has been going on for decades.
Females are far more academically astute than males for a number of reasons, but not because they are more intelligent.
quote:Striving for equality of opportunity has nothing to do with the homogenisation of the sexes. That is a key flaw in your argument and peculiarly, one often made by men.
You claim that striving for equal opportunity is important, and that it has nothing to do with the "homogenization of the sexes."
Yet, equal opportunity usually means quotas and affirmative action, which attempt to equalize the sexes by balancing their numbers, often using brute force tactics.
quote:Your closing questions have nothing to do with denying equality of access to opportunities. Some have to do with perceived injustices (e.g. in the UK, my understanding is that women get longer sentences, on average than men. I don't know about the USA.)
Those questions were rhetorical, and designed to make you wonder why they are..
And this debate goes far beyond equal opportunity. It's about the equality, or supposed equality of the sexes and whether it's something Society can attain.
As such, the questions are relevant in my mind.
Also, I'd like to see some evidence which suggests women get longer jail sentences than men in the U.K..
I highly doubt thats true, but to answer your question, men definitely receive longer sentences, and more severe punishments than women in the U.S..
quote:Gender preferences in jobs are not static. You can have gender preferences and equality, Alistair.
What? How can you have equality when you practice gender preference?
quote:One doesn't exclude the other. It is about the ability to do a job, not the gender of the employee.
If this is true, why has the U.S (and probably the British Military aswell) reduced the standard to accomodate more women into the Military?
The same goes for numerous Police and Fire Depts all over the nation.
quote:The last century has illustrated that women can, do and are capable of doing jobs that were once thought the exclusive preserve of men. Why is that a problem? Surely if men commit the most violence in the world that is more reason to involve women at every level of society? The world might very well be a better place then.
Again SWYS, I have ZERO PROBLEMS with allowing women to do what they want to do in life.
My questions are, whether TRUE equality can be achieved, and if so, how to go about doing it.
Insofar, my answer is that equality is impossible to achieve between men and women, due to the striking physical and mental differences between them which influences their behaviour pattern, and that attempts at "balancing" will prove futile.
quote: When did I say anything about taking away women's rights? You speak to me as if I'm one step above Batman or some other neandertha
i opened this discussion i couldnot think my name is here but i am shocked to find my name here
Now u are not one step above me , u r such a male whore dude. but u just ignore this fact every day coming among females talking about your sememen that is not a real semen but it was just a saliva.
Dont mentione my name u whore again or I will sell you in the slave market
Posts: 2728 | From: جمهورية مصر العربية | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Batman, I'm surprised that you can actually read
And don't make idle threats against me. You have no idea what kind of person I am, so unless you're willing to fly all the way over to the U.S, just STFU.
Everyone knows you're an impotent, sex starved piece of sh*t who couldn't get laid in a whore house.
And yes, I am and always will be above you. You are a f*cking neanderthal pig, whereas I'm a man.
Have a good day, and K.O..
~Alistair
-------------------- Lies fade like smoke when uncovered..but Truth, burns like fire. Posts: 1221 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
bITCHY LOSER FUCKIN a$$hole doN'T FORGET TO WIPE YOUR bLOOD COMING FROM UR HOLE
Posts: 2728 | From: جمهورية مصر العربية | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic