Feminine and masculine traits

[Bakir]

7 hours ago, starlight said:

Men still have more financial and social responsibilities according to Islam. 

I don't see them in my family. My brother in law isn't there to provide to my sister so she can stay at home, she also has to work like him and they both contribute. She's not amassing any money. This is the case for most households, because there just isn't enough money to support a family decently. And that only applies in the case you marry.

This law is reasonable and just (when judged holistically) for a society like the one present in early Arabia. Nowaday, it is very situational because women, even if it was halal, cannot choose not to work and stay at home in many cases.

[Soldiers and Saffron]

21 hours ago, Bakir said:

Hmmm, certain differences are based on social responsibilities imposed at the time @IbnSina, such as the case of inheritance. It's not based in any gender trait, but social and economical impositions that are applicable to men and not to women in early Islamic societies. Men had more economical responsibilities and payments to do compared to women, thus, the difference in inheritance was 2:1. In the long run, that balance would economically benefit women in most cases (they earn less, but have less to pay and less responsibilities in money administration).

This, obviously, doesn't work in societies where men and women are equally responsible individuals when it comes to taxes, war obligations, etc.

To put an easy example. If my parents died, my sister and me are going to have the same economical responsibilities. She works as I do, she pays the same taxes I do, and we both have no extra responsibilities in a social or economical sense (e.g. going to war). There are no reasons for her to inherit half the amount I would inherit in such case.

 

Its not me who you are arguing against, its the holy Qur'an, which means your arguing against your own Maker.

I do not believe the holy Qur'an needs to be modified depending on the time you live in, rather it is the opposite way, we need to modify the way we live.

What your talking about is something new, something that barely existed for 30 years and that too only in certain few parts of the world today, before that such a situation have not existed in the entire history of mankind.

This "modern" way of living has brought its own very negative aspects as well of whom few are reflection upon or even consciously acknowledged, because just like cancer, it shows later. The foremost negative consequence is the family structure, having two parents working full time does not go well with raising a family, rather they leave it up to daycares and schools to raise their children. Let's not even get into the spiritual teaching they would teach our kids or the emotional backfire such upbringing would give the child as he/she grows up. I can mention several more and severe negative aspects of it that not only works to destabilize the mental and physical health of a society but also negatively affects it spiritually but I don't really feel like it.

Islam is not a religion that needs adapting to its followers, rather it is the followers who adapt and submit and thus becomes Muslims, I.e. followers of Islam. There is not a single ayah nor a single hadith from Rasulullah(S) or any of the Imams(عليه السلام) who says that we should take the laws of the holy Qur'an depending on where on Earth we live and how the system is there. Rather the opposite, the message and laws of the holy Qur'an are as it says holy, which means eternally correct and all wise, just like its Maker.

[Bakir]

Go and change the capitalist system @IbnSina. You are talking as if the greatest problem of the 21th century is the simplest one and depended on something as pointless as my opinion.

And I'm not arguing against God, but I would ask Him how is this law going to be just in a world where it has no place for a just application. Shall I be a braintard instead, take 50% more than my sister and still live my life normally, without any valid moral reason?

This is not the moral quality for which I would call myself a Muslim, because even an idiot with no education nor light in his heart can identify such obvious injustice.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Bakir

[Laayla]

Brother @Bakir

When you do not agree with the rules of shara3a, does that mean you are questioning is God Just?  If not, then what are you questioning?

Are you looking to "reform" Islam?

 

[notme]

@Bakir someone not following the rules doesn't invalidate the rules. 

[Soldiers and Saffron]

2 hours ago, Bakir said:

Go and change the capitalist system @IbnSina. You are talking as if the greatest problem of the 21th century is the simplest one and depended on something as pointless as my opinion.

And I'm not arguing against God, but I would ask Him how is this law going to be just in a world where it has no place for a just application. Shall I be a braintard instead, take 50% more than my sister and still live my life normally, without any valid moral reason?

This is not the moral quality for which I would call myself a Muslim, because even an idiot with no education nor light in his heart can identify such obvious injustice.

 

Since you are not a "braintard", have you ever thought that maybe it is possible for you to take your 50% according to the holy Qur'an and then give your sister some money because you know she is in need?

Furthermore have you ever reflected that perhaps what you conceive as an unfair advantage might in fact be a trial and a test for you and the rest of us men?

 

We have more responsibility as men for the safeguarding of humanity and the societies we live in and with that responsibility comes accountability. Even if the later will presented to us on Yaumul Qiyamah.

 

Worth to also remember is how what the wife makes is her money but what the husband makes is their money. Keep things in perspective.

Edited March 29, 2019 by IbnSina

[Bakir]

4 hours ago, IbnSina said:

 

Since you are not a "braintard", have you ever thought that maybe it is possible for you to take your 50% according to the holy Qur'an and then give your sister some money because you know she is in need?

Furthermore have you ever reflected that perhaps what you conceive as an unfair advantage might in fact be a trial and a test for you and the rest of us men?

 

We have more responsibility as men for the safeguarding of humanity and the societies we live in and with that responsibility comes accountability. Even if the later will presented to us on Yaumul Qiyamah.

 

Worth to also remember is how what the wife makes is her money but what the husband makes is their money. Keep things in perspective.

I know the details and reasonings of the law, not discussing its validity @IbnSina, for God's sake.

@Laayla, we are debating, just that.

It's not someone, it's the system @notme

My point in this is that the capitalistic system doesn't leave enough space for this rule to correctly apply.

So the thing is, shall I accept the "rewards" but not the "responsibilities"? I can inherit the money, but I'm not responsible of the duties that, within Islam, men were supposed to be responsible of. And this is primarily due to the social configuration and economical system we live in. The thing is that this law, according to our narration, was precisely made for this very reason (you can check by yourself), so when he society is entirely different, what are you supposed to do?

Shall I take the money and obey, as much as I can, a law in which the responsibilities of this money cannot be met? Shall I refuse to take the money due to it being a clash with my moral values?

I understand your suggestion, take the money and give it to my sister. I respect that, and would do it so that my sister gets the same we get. But what about my other siblings. I know for sure one of them won't do this, out of greed.

I'm not looking to reform Islam nor argue with God, but I have some moral principles and reasoning that is not entirely comfortable with this norm in current system.

[notme]

35 minutes ago, Bakir said:

It's not someone, it's the system @notme

My point in this is that the capitalistic system doesn't leave enough space for this rule to correctly apply.

Is there law wrong, or is the current system?

I'm not sure capitalism is compatible with Islam. I'm not sure capitalism is different from feudalism, and I'm not sure it's compatible with human decency. 

[Bakir]

1 hour ago, notme said:

Is there law wrong, or is the current system?

I'm not sure capitalism is compatible with Islam. I'm not sure capitalism is different from feudalism, and I'm not sure it's compatible with human decency. 

Thanks, that was precisely what I was addressing. The current system is unconceivable with humanity in the long term.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Bakir

[Sumerian]

1 hour ago, notme said:

I'm not sure capitalism is compatible with Islam. 

Islam has alot of capitalism in it lol.

[notme]

1 minute ago, Sumerian said:

Islam has alot of capitalism in it lol.

Not entirely. The Islamic financial order involves a social safety net so that nobody is destitute while others are rich, and taxation on excess wealth that people hoard up rather than using to build up the local economy instead of much taxation (any? I'm not sure) on earnings. It isn't communistic or socialistic or capitalistic, but something moderate. 

[notme]

51 minutes ago, Bakir said:

Thanks, that was precisely what I was addressing. The current system is unconceivable with humanity in the long term.

So rather than changing Islam, we need to change the systems which are incompatible, including those which place equal financial burden on women and men. 

[Sumerian]

15 minutes ago, notme said:

Not entirely. The Islamic financial order involves a social safety net so that nobody is destitute while others are rich, and taxation on excess wealth that people hoard up rather than using to build up the local economy instead of much taxation (any? I'm not sure) on earnings. It isn't communistic or socialistic or capitalistic, but something moderate. 

A social safety net is available in basically every single country on the planet, if having a social safety net and a form of taxation disqualifies "capitalism" then there is no capitalist economy in the world, and therefore the system you and @Bakir were just attacking doesn't exist... so? But that sounds nonsensical.

All I mentioned was Islam has capitalism in it, I didn't say Islam = Capitalism. 

Private property, competitive markets, simple contracts and transactions (loans, purchases etc..), private businesses and banks all exist in an Islamic economy. 

And yes, there is also a social safety net and a potential for centralised involvement.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Sumerian

[Bakir]

You aren't seeing capitalism holistically.

[Sumerian]

3 minutes ago, Bakir said:

You aren't seeing capitalism holistically.

So which one is it, does capitalism exist or not? And if it does, does it also exist in Islam? 

[Bakir]

3 hours ago, Sumerian said:

So which one is it, does capitalism exist or not? And if it does, does it also exist in Islam? 

As notme pointed out, so far, it seems that Islam would be a moderate position between the already known economical systems, but it's not in the middle of extremes.

At the same time, one must also note the failure of the Dawa ideology which supposedly inherited as-Sadr Islamic economical vision.

Leaving that aside, if Islam was supposed to support capitalism (which obviously doesn't), it's core fundamentals would be contradictory, and it would be reasonable to assume it is a corrupted religion. Islam has to be seen and applied holistically, that's the issue with this religion. So if an Islamic economical and social system where responsibilities are distributed according to Islamic principles isn't possible, neither the advatanges of such responsibilities (such as 2X inheritance) should be enjoyed, because ultimately, there is no law nor rule to enforce its application. It would be leaving the last word on men merely for being men, and not for being responsible of X duties.

And @IbnSina, I appreciate your point. If such is the case, I should donate that extra to my sister. The thing is that I genuinely doubt this rule was intended to be applied on a corrupted economical system, because I genuinely believe this rule is neither sexist nor unjust, nor a divine trial in any way, but an ease for women in an Islamic society. Leaving the money for me without any rule nor law to enforce Islamic duties that cannot be met in an unislamic society leaves women in a very vulnerable position. Especially knowing what arabs can do for money, and how many cases of stolen inheritances any Arab may have heard of.

This issue is no joke definitely. In my family we all decided to distribute an incoming inheritance in equal parts because there are no grounds to leave my sister with half the money, when she works the most of all of us.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Bakir

[Sumerian]

3 minutes ago, Bakir said:

As notme pointed out, so far, it seems that Islam would be a moderate position between the already known economical systems, but it's not in the middle of extremes.

So how is that different from any developed country in the world that has both a private and public sector and also a distributionist policy and a social safety net? 

5 minutes ago, Bakir said:

At the same time, one must also note the failure of the Dawa ideology which supposedly inherited as-Sadr Islamic economical vision.

Of course they failed. Whoever believed they wouldn't fail is an idiot.

6 minutes ago, Bakir said:

Leaving that aside, if Islam was supposed to support capitalism (which obviously doesn't), it's core fundamentals would be contradictory, and it would be reasonable to assume it is a corrupted religion. 

I never said Islam supported capitalism, I said Islam has capitalism - meaning certain parts of Islamic economics are capitalistic in nature, such as the belief in private property, markets, contracts etc...

7 minutes ago, Bakir said:

Islam has to be seen and applied holistically, that's the issue with this religion. So if an Islamic economical and social system where responsibilities are distributed according to Islamic principles isn't possible, neither the advatanges of such responsibilities (such as 2X inheritance) should be enjoyed, because ultimately, there is no law nor rule to enforce its application. It would be leaving the last word on men merely for being men, and not for being responsible of X duties.

That is an issue with application which I never spoke of, my argument is does Islam have capitalist components. The answer is yes. 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Bakir said:

So the thing is, shall I accept the "rewards" but not the "responsibilities"? I can inherit the money, but I'm not responsible of the duties that, within Islam, men were supposed to be responsible of. And this is primarily due to the social configuration and economical system we live in. 

Shall I take the money and obey, as much as I can, a law in which the responsibilities of this money cannot be met? Shall I refuse to take the money due to it being a clash with my moral values?

Rights whether fulfilled or not doesn't absolve one of their responsibilities. A man no matter what part of the world he is living and what era, is still responsible for the household expenses. If people have chosen to give in to consumerism it's Islam isn't responsible for that. 

I will tell you other side of the story so you know these are laws and it's upto us to obey them or not.Where I live it's quite common to leave the daughters nothing in inheritance.Whatever the father leaves is divided between the sons.It's a fairly common practice across all social classes.  

When it comes to the son inheriting twice the amount as the daughter, won't this help him in the fight against capitalism,giving his wife a chance to stay home while he works? And nothing is stopping him from helping out his struggling relatives. 

 

[Bakir]

1 minute ago, Sumerian said:

So how is that different from any developed country in the world that has both a private and public sector and also a distributionist policy and a social safety net? 

Of course they failed. Whoever believed they wouldn't fail is an idiot.

I never said Islam supported capitalism, I said Islam has capitalism - meaning certain parts of Islamic economics are capitalistic in nature, such as the belief in private property, markets, contracts etc...

That is an issue with application which I never spoke of, my argument is does Islam have capitalist components. The answer is yes. 

Indeed. The reply wasn't just for you hahah. It shouldn't be called capitalism, but liberal components. It gets much more complex than there (monopolies regulation is present in Islamic economy, and that, alone, pretty much dismantles capitalism and its evils, along the ban on Riba).

[Bakir]

7 minutes ago, starlight said:

Rights whether fulfilled or not doesn't absolve one of their responsibilities. A man no matter what part of the world he is living and what era, is still responsible for the household expenses. If people have chosen to give in to consumerism it's Islam isn't responsible for that. 

I will tell you other side of the story so you know these are laws and it's upto us to obey them or not.Where I live it's quite common to leave the daughters nothing in inheritance.Whatever the father leaves is divided between the sons.It's a fairly common practice across all social classes.  

When it comes to the son inheriting twice the amount as the daughter, won't this help him in the fight against capitalism,giving his wife a chance to stay home while he works? And nothing is stopping him from helping out his struggling relatives. 

 

From al Kafi,

Imam Ja’far b. Muhammad as-Sadiq (ع) was asked as to why women take one portion of inheritance when we see that they are weaker than men and they are more in need of help than them? Why is it that a man, who is stronger than a woman and whose body is more powerful than hers should get a double share of inheritance? Imam Ja’far b. Muhammad as-Sadiq (ع) replied that the reason for this is that a man has more responsibilities and he must go to war, enduring many expenses in the process. Aside from his own expenses, a man must also take upon himself the expenses of his spouse and children. What’s more, he must give money to the family of a person accidentally injured by one of his family members.

My siblings and I are not married, have no children, nor have any responsibility to go to war. She's married but she has to contribute equally to the household or otherwise they wouldnt be able to live.

[Reza]

5 hours ago, Sumerian said:

I never said Islam supported capitalism, I said Islam has capitalism - meaning certain parts of Islamic economics are capitalistic in nature, such as the belief in private property, markets, contracts etc...

These are mechanisms that predate the word “capitalism”, and are not exclusive to it. 

Capitalism is not simply private transactions, it’s a social system where the culture is primarily subjected to the forces of capital. 

Anyway, we’re way off topic.

[notme]

5 hours ago, Reza said:

Anyway, we’re way off topic.

We gave up on staying on topic long ago. We're just rolling with it, like free form poetry. 

[Hadeel]

Salam Alaykum

I have an interesting psychology article that may contribute to this topic. I don't like anything that has to do with ''humanist'' extremely atheist Sweden and getting the answers of my religion from there is not something that I approve to either. But I really bursted out in sarcastic laugh(sorry) when I read the article.

The original article is in swedish (https://fof.se/tidning/2019/1/artikel/jamlika-man-och-kvinnor-ar-mer-olika), this one is translated: 

''When people themselves estimate their personalities, the differences between the sexes are greater in equal countries. It is evident from a study in which men and women in 22 countries have had to estimate their personality traits within what is commonly referred to as psychology as "Big Five": openness, conscientiousness, extroversion / introversion, benevolence and emotionality.

The differences between men and women in countries with a high degree of gender equality were greatest. Women in these countries especially rated the characteristics of benevolence and extroversion higher than men.

- We got a relatively strong connection, says Erik Mac Giolla, researcher in psychology at the University of Gothenburg and associate professor at the Högskolan Väst and the main author of the study.

- This is really nothing new - we have seen similar results in several major studies over the past 15 years.

In other studies it has been found that gender differences in the choice of education follow similar patterns.

- In Sweden, for example, there are fewer women in engineering education than in Algeria, says Erik Mac Giolla. This is in line with our results.

Exactly why this is so is difficult to say. It has long been thought that gender differences should decrease with increased gender equality.

- There are theories that the biological differences become clearer when gender equality increases. Others argue that increased gender equality can make the gender identity more important, which can explain that men and women then make different choices, says Erik Mac Giolla.

Repeated studies over time could find the mechanisms behind this. If one can follow countries that become more equal over time, one can see if, and how, men's and women's preferences change.

- At the moment we do not know if this has happened over time, says Erik Mac Giolla. We can only state that more equal countries have greater gender differences in these issues.

How have your results been received?

- As I said, this is nothing new in personality research. I don't think this is controversial, but many social scientists and humanists seem to think so. So it depends on who you ask, but my feeling is that in Sweden many mean that this is controversial. Our study has received great attention internationally, but not in Swedish media.

Why is this controversial do you think?

- I don't know, says Erik Mac Giolla. But I think the results go against some form of consensus on the gender roles.

The results are based on surveys with over 130,000 people aged 19 to 69 in 22 different countries, and are published in the International Journal of Psychology.''

2018-11-03 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

The makinations (it’s a God work from Islamicpulse but is a little harsh & not recommended for children +18]

 

[Hadeel]

Yeah, I've watched The Makinations, it's a good series.  

[Sumerian]

On 3/31/2019 at 12:29 AM, Reza said:

These are mechanisms that predate the word “capitalism”, and are not exclusive to it. 

Capitalism is not simply private transactions, it’s a social system where the culture is primarily subjected to the forces of capital. 

Anyway, we’re way off topic.

"A social and cultural system". All nonsense. Capitalism is simply an economic system.

Merriam-Webster;

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

So yes, these are all components capitalism, whether they predate the existence of the word or not. These mechanisms as you put it would not exist in a completely socialist or communist society. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Sumerian

[notme]

3 hours ago, Sumerian said:

These mechanisms as you put it would not exist in a completely socialist or communist society. 

Such a pure system has never existed and possibly can never exist. As long as there is trade, there will be elements of capitalism. Even if a society is purely socialist or communist, if they engage in trade with neighbor societies, there are elements of capitalism. 

[notme]

Can we bring it back around to how capitalism sells sexuality and sexism? 

[Reza]

3 hours ago, Sumerian said:

"A social and cultural system". All nonsense. Capitalism is simply an economic system.

Where does “economics” end and “social and cultural” begin? 

People engage in economic transactions, but are also part of society. Economics doesn’t exist unless there’s a social container holding it.

Which is why every social transaction can be interpreted as an economic transaction.

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

Listened to this on BBC Radio 4, quite relevant to what was discussed in the thread:

https://www.bbc.co.United Kingdom/sounds/play/m0003tcm

What it means to be a man in today’s world is confusing. There are lots of mixed messages. Men are often portrayed as needing to be the alpha male, remain strong under pressure, to get on and succeed in life but they are also supposed to be loving, caring, sensitive and talk about feelings. So what does it mean to be a man today? How should we define masculinity and what answers and tips can religion give to men today? Joining Ernie Rea to discuss these questions are Rabbi Neil Janes, Congregational Rabbi at the West London Synagogue; Dr. Andrew Boakye, Lecturer in Religions and Theology at the University of Manchester and Assad Zaman, an Imam at several mosques in Manchester. Plus Citizen Khan actor Abdullah Afzal talks about how he juggles with competing pressures on how to be a modern Muslim man.

Next week is Femininity and Religion

[notme]

1 hour ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Men are often portrayed as needing to be the alpha male, remain strong under pressure, to get on and succeed in life but they are also supposed to be loving, caring, sensitive and talk about feelings. 

Shocking. The same expectations upon men as have been upon women since forever. (Among poor women, this always has been the expectation; middle class women, at least since the 1970s.)

Edited April 2, 2019 by notme

[Sumerian]

13 hours ago, Reza said:

Where does “economics” end and “social and cultural” begin? 

People engage in economic transactions, but are also part of society. Economics doesn’t exist unless there’s a social container holding it.

Which is why every social transaction can be interpreted as an economic transaction.

Lol so where do these "mechanisms" fit if not for capitalism?