Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Islam Is Patriarchal

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Another issue in which the Qur’an and the Bible disagree is the issue of women bearing witness. It is true that the Qur’an has instructed the believers dealing in financial transactions to get two mal

Well it is true, however: some have explained it by saying that the court is not a place a woman should be because bearing witness may put her in danger from opposing parties — women being seen

Let’s say that this verse came to benefit women and aid in their “liberation” from the constraints of an unjust society and therefore needed to gradually implement their position within the community.

  • Advanced Member

Well I wonder if it is true that a woman's testimony is considered half of that of a man's in court of countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Well I wonder if it is true that a woman's testimony is considered half of that of a man's in court of countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Well it is true, however:

  • some have explained it by saying that the court is not a place a woman should be because bearing witness may put her in danger from opposing parties — women being seen as a free creation of God and exempt from numerous responsibilities that men must do, such as jihad or the provision of food and clothing to the family. Women also being seen as something to be protected within traditional societies. Hence, another woman is necessary for her support. This is especially considering that the Jahiliyyah arabs were aggressive and women had just been given the right to testify in Islam. 
  • others have explained it by saying that women were uneducated in terms of commercial matters during the time this verse was revealed, and that the verse in question refers to those matters (although this view is not really supported by Shiite jurisprudence). Traditionally, women did not go out and engage in trade but rather they acted as nurturers within their home. Further, for women’s related issues a man’s testimony could be half a woman’s testimony from what I have read.
  • Yet still others have (tried to) justify it by saying that a woman is more likely to forget, and that this is either because of the way God created us or because a woman may get more nervous in court. If we take this interpretation it does not mean man is superior to woman as the superior one has the most taqwa (God consciousness) as per the Qur’an.
  • The Quran says that the mechanism for accusing one’s wife of adultery is testifying 4 times that she did it (and the wife needs to swear 4 times that she did not commit adultery to save herself from the punishment). Here the wife’s testimony can outweigh the man’s testimony,
Edited by Ejaz
Made some corrections and added because. Note these views are not mine but what I have heard from my studies.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Well I wonder if it is true that a woman's testimony is considered half of that of a man's in court of countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Another issue in which the Qur’an and the Bible disagree is the issue of women bearing witness. It is true that the Qur’an has instructed the believers dealing in financial transactions to get two male witnesses or one male and two females:

“…and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other…” (2:282).

However, it is also true that the Qur’an in other situations accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man. In fact the woman's testimony can even invalidate the man's.

If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, he is required by the Qur’an to solemnly swear five times as evidence of the wife's guilt. If the wife denies and swears similarly five times, she is not considered guilty and in either case the marriage is dissolved:

And (as for) those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, the evidence of one of these (should be taken) four times, bearing Allah to witness that he is most surely of the truthful ones. And the fifth (time) that the curse of Allah be on him if he is one of the liars. And it shall avert the chastisement from her if she testify four times, bearing Allah to witness that he is most surely one of the liars; And the fifth (time) that the wrath of Allah be on her if he is one of the truthful. And were it not for Allah's grace upon you and His mercy-- and that Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), Wise! Surely they who concocted the lie are a party from among you. Do not regard it an evil to you; nay, it is good for you. Every man of them shall have what he has earned of sin; and (as for) him who took upon himself the main part thereof, he shall have a grievous chastisement.(24:6-11)

On the other hand, women were not allowed to bear witness in early Jewish society.1 The Rabbis counted women's not being able to bear witness among the nine curses inflicted upon all women because of the Fall (see the "Eve's Legacy" section). Women in today's Israel are not allowed to give evidence in Rabbinical courts2. The Rabbis justify why women cannot bear witness by citing Genesis 18:9-16, where it is stated that Sara, Abraham's wife had lied.

“Where is your wife Sarah?" they asked him. "There in the tent," he replied. One of them said, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah will then have a son." Sarah was listening at the entrance of the tent, just behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years, and Sarah had stopped having her womanly periods. So Sarah laughed to herself and said, "Now that I am so withered and my husband is so old, am I still to have sexual pleasure?" But the LORD said to Abraham: "Why did Sarah laugh and say, 'Shall I really bear a child, old as I am?' Is anything too marvelous for the LORD to do? At the appointed time, about this time next year, I will return to you, and Sarah will have a son." Because she was afraid, Sarah dissembled, saying, "I didn't laugh." But he said, "Yes you did."”

The Rabbis use this incident as evidence that women are unqualified to bear witness. It should be noted here that this story narrated in Genesis 18:9-16 has been mentioned more than once in the Qur’an without any hint of lies by Sara:

“And certainly Our messengers came to Ibrahim with good news. They said: Peace. Peace, said he, and he made no delay in bringing a roasted calf. But when he saw that their hands were not extended towards it, he deemed them strange and conceived fear of them. . They said: Fear not, surely we are sent to Lut's people. And his wife was standing (by), so she laughed, then We gave her the good news of Ishaq and after Ishaq of (a son's son) Yaqoub. She said: O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Most surely this is a wonderful thing. They said: Do you wonder at Allah's bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house, surely He is Praised, Glorious. So when fear had gone away from Ibrahim and good news came to him, he began to plead with Us for Lut's people”. (11:69-74)

Has there come to you information about the honored guests of Ibrahim? When they entered upon him, they said: Peace. Peace, said he, a strange people. Then he turned aside to his family secretly and brought a fat (roasted) calf, so he brought it near them. He said: What! Will you not eat? So he conceived in his mind a fear on account of them. They said: Fear not. And they gave him the good news of a boy possessing knowledge. Then his wife came up in great grief, and she struck her face and said: An old barren woman! They said: Thus says your Lord: Surely He is the Wise, the Knowing.” (51:24-30).

In the Christian West, both ecclesiastical and civil law debarred women from giving testimony until late last century3.

If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, her testimony will not be considered at all according to the Bible. The accused wife has to be subjected to a trial by ordeal. In this trial, the wife faces a complex and humiliating ritual which was supposed to prove her guilt or innocence:

The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and tell them: If a man's wife goes astray and becomes unfaithful to him by having intercourse with another man, though her husband has not sufficient evidence of the fact, so that her impurity remains unproved for lack of a witness who might have caught her in the act; or if a man is overcome by a feeling of jealousy that makes him suspect his wife, whether she was actually impure or not: he shall bring his wife to the priest and shall take along as an offering for her a tenth of an ephah of barley meal. However, he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense over it, since it is a cereal offering of jealousy, a cereal offering for an appeal in a question of guilt. "The priest shall first have the woman come forward and stand before the LORD. In an earthen vessel he shall meanwhile put some holy water, as well as some dust that he has taken from the floor of the Dwelling. Then, as the woman stands before the LORD, the priest shall uncover her head and place in her hands the cereal offering of her appeal, that is, the cereal offering of jealousy, while he himself shall hold the bitter water that brings a curse. Then he shall adjure the woman, saying to her, 'If no other man has had intercourse with you, and you have not gone astray by impurity while under the authority of your husband, be immune to the curse brought by this bitter water. But if you have gone astray while under the authority of your husband and have acted impurely by letting a man other than your husband have intercourse with you'-- so shall the priest adjure the woman with this oath of imprecation--'may the LORD make you an example of malediction and imprecation among your people by causing your thighs to waste away and your belly to swell! May this water, then, that brings a curse, enter your body to make your belly swell and your thighs waste away!' And the woman shall say, 'Amen, amen!' The priest shall put these imprecations in writing and shall then wash them off into the bitter water, which he is to have the woman drink, so that it may go into her with all its bitter curse. But first he shall take the cereal offering of jealousy from the woman's hand, and having waved this offering before the LORD, shall put it near the altar, where he shall take a handful of the cereal offering as its token offering and burn it on the altar. Only then shall he have the woman drink the water. Once she has done so, if she has been impure and unfaithful to her husband, this bitter water that brings a curse will go into her, and her belly will swell and her thighs will waste away, so that she will become an example of imprecation among her people. If, however, the woman has not defiled herself, but is still pure, she will be immune and will still be able to bear children. "This, then, is the law for jealousy: When a woman goes astray while under the authority of her husband and acts impurely, or when such a feeling of jealousy comes over a man that he becomes suspicious of his wife, he shall have her stand before the LORD, and the priest shall apply this law in full to her. The man shall be free from guilt, but the woman shall bear such guilt as she may have." (Num. 5:11-31)

If she is found guilty after this ordeal, she will be sentenced to death. If she is found not guilty, her husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing.

Besides, if a man takes a woman as a wife and then accuses her of not being a virgin, her own testimony will not count. Her parents had to bring evidence of her virginity before the elders of the town. If the parents could not prove the innocence of their daughter, she would be stoned to death on her father's doorsteps. If the parents were able to prove her innocence, the husband would only be fined one hundred shekels of silver and he could not divorce his wife as long as he lived:

"If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,' then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said I did not find your daughter to be a virgin. But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.' Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of the town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

https://www.al-islam.org/women-islam-versus-women-judaeo-christian-tradition-myth-reality-sherif-muhammad-abdel-azeem/bearing

  • 1.Swinder, op. cit., p. 115.
  • 2.Lesley Hazelton, Israeli Women. The Reality Behind the Myths. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1977), p. 41.
  • 3.Matilda J. Gage, Woman, Church and State (New York: Truth Seeker Company, 1983) p. 142.
  •  
Edited by Mohammad313Ali
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
4 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, he is required by the Qur’an to solemnly swear five times as evidence of the wife's guilt

Can a woman accuse her husband of unchastity through the same method?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
Just now, Ejaz said:

Can a woman accuse her husband of unchastity through the same method?

If it were used conversely the same matter can be addressed through an equal methodology as  [24:6-11] does not seem to differentiate. Allah knows best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

Well it is true, however:

  • some have explained it by saying that the court is not a place a woman should be, and that bearing witness may put her in danger from opposing parties — women being seen as a free creation of God and exempt from numerous responsibilities that men must do, such as jihad or the provision of food and clothing to the family. Hence another woman is necessary for her support. This is especially considering that the Jahiliyyah arabs were aggressive and women had just been given the right to testify in Islam. 
  • others have explained it by saying that women were uneducated in terms of commercial matters, and that the verse in question refers to those matters (although this view is not really supported by Shiite jurisprudence). Further, for women’s related issues a man’s testimony could be half a woman’s testimony from what I have read.
  • still others have justified it by saying that a woman is more likely to forget, and that this is just the way God created us, although this does not mean man is superior to woman as the superior one has the most taqwa (God consciousness).
  • The Quran says that the mechanism for accusing one’s spouse of adultery is testifying 4 times that they did it (and the defendant needs to swear 4 times that they did not commit adultery to save themselves from the punishment). This is the same for both men and women.

Let's look at your key points here^

1. some have explained it by saying that the court is not a place a woman should be.

2. others have explained it by saying that women were uneducated in terms of commercial matters.

3. still others have justified it by saying that a woman is more likely to forget, and that this is just the way God created us.

 

Your words, not mine. 

I like to think of this as a sort of Donald Trump syndrome, where people can find excuses for anything and everything. Build a wall around Mexico? Well it's to keep out rapists. Ban Muslims from entering the US? Well it's to keep out terrorists of course. Leave the JPCOA agreement? Well, because Iran was conducting the covert Amad program. Post a video of someone yelling "white power" on Twitter? Well, he just didn't hear that part. Sanction China? Well, they are stealing intellectual property. Trump says "we want deal" in broken English? He was just making a joke about Asians.

People can most certainly come up with reasons for the way they act. 

But at the end of the day, if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck etc., At some point you just have to conclude that it's a duck and you have to settle on the fact that Trump has racist tendencies.

And so when we look at some of these ideas in Islam, we can come up with explanations. Well maybe women are intellectually inferior and just forget more than men. Maybe they just aren't well educated.

Or maybe these are patriarchal sexist tendencies (even if just a slight bit), in this understanding.

 

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
8 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

If it were used conversely the same matter can be addressed through an equal methodology as  [24:6-11] does not seem to differentiate. Allah knows best.

Ah fair enough. But sometimes the Qur’an refers to both men and women using the masculine terms, like in Surah Muminokn.
Also, do you think the Qur’an is saying women are more likely to forget / err? Does modern neuroscience support this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
3 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

Ah fair enough. But sometimes the Qur’an refers to both men and women using the masculine terms, like in Surah Muminokn.
Also, do you think the Qur’an is saying women are more likely to forget / err? Does modern neuroscience support this?

The application of verses tends to change with time, therefore, we must seek the modern application of this verse. If anything this verse isn't demeaning to Muslim women rather in the eyes of those who see men and women equal in every aspect - a matter which is unfair to men, considering women get an extra aid in their testimonial case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

The application of verses tends to change with time, therefore, we must seek the modern application of this verse. If anything this verse isn't demeaning to Muslim women rather in the eyes of those who see men and women equal in every aspect - a matter which is unfair to men, considering women get an extra aid in their testimonial case.

But changing the application should not come at the cost of sugarcoating. The verse clearly says “so that if one of the two errs”. So maybe that interpretation is valid. Or maybe it’s because the women during that time may get nervous, newly being given the right to testify.

And Allah knows best,

Edited by Ejaz
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
6 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

maybe

In Islam what you are required to reach a level of certainty in is the Usool Al-Deen, once you are able to reach certainty in this matter a Muslim would then submit to the will of Allah and not allow his deficient 'maybes' trump what has been ordained by the creator.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was and am sure there is scientific evidence that supported this position, however, it wouldn't suit the agenda being pushed by secularism and would undoubtedly be brushed under the rug. I will just say any individual with a sense of intellectual honesty can concede that men and women are different and better then each other in certain areas.

 

9 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

patriarchal sexist tendencies

  Tendencies are from man, not God.

Patriarchal laws aren't necessarily bad the goal of a Muslim is to serve God in the best manner that they can to become pious, we are moving away from the goal of piety and drifting towards this illusion of eqaulity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
3 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

“so that if one of the two errs”. So maybe that interpretation is valid. Or maybe it’s because the women during that time may get nervous, newly being given the right to testify.

This is an interesting point, I will definitely look into this matter, however, we can be safe when giving the benefit of the doubt to the creator of women not the creators of doubt. Alhamdulilah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

@iCenozoic

Quote

Indeed, the submitting (Muslim) men and submitting (Muslim) women, the believing men and believing women, the obedient men and obedient women, the truthful men and truthful women, the patient men and patient women, the humble men and humble women, the charitable men and charitable women, the fasting men and fasting women, the men who guard their private parts and the women who do so, and the men who remember Allah often and the women who do so - for them Allah has prepared forgiveness and a great reward. 33:35

Are there similar verses in the Bible? 

Edited by Ejaz
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
14 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

@iCenozoic I have made some edits to my post so it’s clearer to understand

I don't think your edits really make a difference.

1. the court is not a place a woman should be

2. others have explained it by saying that women were uneducated in terms of commercial matters

3. still others have justified it by saying that a woman is more likely to forget

 

These are all red flags. Weak or vulnerable, uneducated, forgetful. This is what your answer is saying about women.

Like I said, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck etc., Sometimes you just have to call it a duck.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
Just now, iCenozoic said:

These are all red flags. Weak or vulnerable, uneducated, forgetful. This is what your answer is saying about women.

Like I said, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck etc., Sometimes you just have to call it a duck.

 

The duck is a mere illusion 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

@iCenozoic

Are there similar verses in the Bible? 

This is just hand waving. Like you're trying to run away from one thing by pointing out another.

I remember one time, when I was in the 2nd or 3rd grade, I got a D on my report card. And someone said "hey, you got a D! That stinks!". And I responded by saying, "yea but I got an A in my other class, so the D doesn't count."

It never really settled the issue, it was just putting a bandaid on a wound.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
7 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Weak or vulnerable, uneducated, forgetful

No. I said women were uneducated in terms of commercial matters (trying to apply the verse in its context). Generally, women are physically “weak” in terms of muscle strength, thus making them more “vulnerable”. Both of these were statements of fact.

As for “forgetful”, this was not my opinion but “a” opinion that I heard. 

Here was an answer from al-Islam.org:

Quote

To start with, it should be mentioned that it is not always to take the witness of a woman as half of the witness of a man. In many cases, the witness of woman is equal to the witness of man, especially in matters related to the personal life of the woman herself.

Allah, The Most Merciful knows the abilities of His creatures. Women are delicate human beings because life needs them to be delicate to provide love and sympathy to her husband and children. Testimony is usually a challenge because it is countering another party who claims something different. In many cases, man is able to face this challenge alone but a woman needs another woman to share with her facing the challenge.

This is not the full reason but just to try to analyze the situation.

Allah The Glorious knows the full wisdom. All rules in Islam are based on The Absolute Knowledge, Wisdom and Mercy of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

Wassalam.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

No. I said women were uneducated in terms of commercial matters (trying to apply the verse in its context). Generally, women are physically “weak” in terms of muscle strength, thus making them more “vulnerable”. Both of these were statements of fact.

As for “forgetful”, this was not my opinion but “a” opinion that I heard. 

Here was an answer from al-Islam.org:

 

Sure, women can be uneducated in a subject, or they can be educated as well.

And yes, women can be physically weaker, but they can also be physically stronger as well. 

And yes, women can be forgetful, and they can also remember things as well, just as any man.

All of the above are facts. But what we see is this leaning toward women generally just being uneducated, weak, forgetful etc. As if this is the default and therefore it's justified if their legal rights in some matters are of lesser value to men's, based on these particular ideas.

You're just digging a pit. You're trying to stick Band-Aids over a wound rather than just addressing the deeper issue 

And of course women being forgetful is just an opinion. The question is, which way do we see these opinions leaning?

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

Let me quote the feminist Simone de Beauvoir

Quote

Woman is weaker than man, she has less muscular strength, fewer red blood corpuscles, less lung capacity, she runs more slowly, can lift less heavy weights, can compete with man in hardly any sport; she cannot stand up to him in a fight. To all this weakness must be added the instability, the lack of control, and the fragility already discussed: these are facts. Her grasp on the world is thus more restricted; she has less firmness and less steadiness available for projects that in general she is less capable of carrying out. In other words, her individual life is less rich than man’s.

Quote

On the average she is shorter than the male and lighter, her skeleton is more delicate, and the pelvis is larger in adaptation to the functions of pregnancy and childbirth; her connective tissues accumulate fat and her contours are thus more rounded than those of the male. Appearance in general – structure, skin, hair – is distinctly different in the two sexes. Muscular strength is much less in woman, about two thirds that of man; she has less respiratory capacity, the lungs and trachea being smaller. The larynx is relatively smaller, and in consequence the female voice is higher. The specific gravity of the blood is lower in woman and there is less haemoglobin; women are therefore less robust and more disposed to anaemia than are males. Their pulse is more rapid, the vascular system less stable, with ready blushing. Instability is strikingly characteristic of woman’s organisation in general; among other things, man shows greater stability in the metabolism of calcium, woman fixing much less of this material and losing a good deal during menstruation and pregnancy. It would seem that in regard to calcium the ovaries exert a catabolic action, with resulting instability that brings on difficulties in the ovaries and in the thyroid, which is more developed in woman than in man. Irregularities in the endocrine secretions react on the sympathetic nervous system, and nervous and muscular control is uncertain. This lack in stability and control underlies woman’s emotionalism, which is bound up with circulatory fluctuations palpitation of the heart, blushing, and so forth – and on this account women are subject to such displays of agitation as tears, hysterical laughter, and nervous crises.

And despite this, do you still think men and women should have identical roles within society? They should be equal in every aspect of society? Men and women should both me forced to fight in (defensive) wars?

If a male firefighter can save an innocent life faster than a woman should the woman be recruited to fill up some gender quota?

 

Edited by Ejaz
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
6 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

No. I said women were uneducated in terms of commercial matters (trying to apply the verse in its context). Generally, women are physically “weak” in terms of muscle strength, thus making them more “vulnerable”. Both of these were statements of fact.

This is an excellent point, it is critical to note that laws change with the era and not every verse or edict can be implemented in the same way it was 1400 years ago as conditions change, therefore when addressing this verse we need to seek the practical implementation of it in modern times - instead of like the brother arguing against it from a modern worldview and system when it was introduced to a very difficult Arab society. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
3 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Sure, women can be uneducated in a subject, or they can be educated as well.

And yes, women can be physically weaker, but they can also be physically stronger as well. 

And yes, women can be forgetful, and they can also remember things as well, just as any man.

All of the above are facts. But what we see is this leaning toward women generally just being uneducated, weak, forgetful etc. As if this is the default and therefore it's justified if their legal rights in some matters are of lesser value to men's, based on these particular ideas.

You're just digging a pit. You're trying to stick Band-Aids over a wound rather than just addressing the deeper issue 

 

Regarding that time and era, I think apples and oranges are being mixed and that is why Ducks are starting to quack. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

You're just digging a pit. You're trying to stick Band-Aids over a wound rather than just addressing the deeper issue 

Well, no. I was trying to imply that if the basis of the law is eliminated then so too can the law.

Hope that makes more sense. What do you think about my question above^?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

Let me quote the feminist Simone de Beauvoir

And despite this, do you still think men and women should have identical roles within society?

Some women are physically stronger than some men. 

Therefore, law should not differentiate based on physical stature. Or laws should be amended to give women more legal power in cases where they're physically stronger than the associated men.

Either of the above options would be more sensible, if rights truly came down to physical stature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
1 minute ago, iCenozoic said:

laws should be amended to give women more legal power in cases where they're physically stronger than the associated men.

So two women testifying against one man isn’t more legal power :sorry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

Well, no. I was trying to imply that if the basis of the law is eliminated then so too can the law.

Hope that makes more sense. What do you think about my question above^?

I agree that if a woman is stronger than a man (the basis of the law has been eliminated), then so too should the law (that a man might have more legal sway than a woman).

A woman should be able to do anything she wants. If a woman can bench press 300 pounds and she has a dream of working hard labor at a coal mine, if that's what that woman dreams of doing and wants to do, then she should be free to do it.

And honestly, even if a woman is small and physically weak, they should be able to pursue any career or dream they want. If the job results in danger to their health, obviously that would grant justification for not hiring that individual, but of course this would apply to men as well who are smaller or weaker men. 

There shouldn't be any broad or sweeping laws that just assume a woman is frail or uneducated. Because we know that this isn't always true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
5 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

law should not differentiate based on physical stature

So let me give you an example. If there was a war and the US had to fight China. Should the US busy itself with trying to determine which women were strong enough to fight or should it just send the men to fight?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 minute ago, iCenozoic said:

woman should be able to do anything she wants

In all cases?

1 minute ago, Ejaz said:

So let me give you an example. If there was a war and the US had to fight China. Should the US busy itself with trying to determine which women were strong enough to fight or should it just send the men to fight?

15 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

If a male firefighter can save an innocent life faster than a woman should the woman be recruited to fill up some gender quota?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

So let me give you an example. If there was a war and the US had to fight China. Should the US busy itself with trying to determine which women were strong enough to fight or should it just send the men to fight?

Well, we busy ourselves with determining which are strong enough to fight. That's why we have boot camp and training. That's what the purpose of boot camp and trainings are, if you're too weak, you get put in non-fighting positions or discharged.

And we have women soldiers, my mother  was a female soldier and let me tell you, she could most certainly have broken many men with her strength, and in fact she did.

But I think I meant to say that the law's shouldn't assume physical statures based on sex, because, as noted above, sex doesn't mandate certain physical traits.

And we all know this.

 

A woman can be stronger than a man, therefore it follows that a law shouldn't exist in which a woman can't get a job simply because she is female, on the basis that females in a more broad sense are smaller and weaker than men.

Now obviously men can't give birth, so we shouldn't expect men to have the right to a job of giving birth, but we aren't talking about having birth. We're just talking about general jobs that require physical strength.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Islam is matriarchal, if you consider Sunni as Muslims. I present to you the example of Lady Ayesha.

She:

- Lead the war of Jamal.

- Her testimony is so sufficient she narrated like half of Sunni hadiths, second only to the legendary Abu Huraira.

- Gave fatwa of takfir of Uthman the 3rd caliph which got him killed.

- Is fiercely revered to this day and remembered as "the mother of believers".

 

How can some knowledgeable ignore this elephant in the room?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

In all cases?

 

And regarding the firefighter example, how would you know that a male could save someone in a fire faster than a woman?

Let's say we have a man, 100 pounds soaking wet, scrawny, somewhat weak. And let's say we have some Amazonian/Viking woman who can bench press that man with her pinky. 

I would want that woman to save my life, before giving the opportunity to that man. Because the woman in this case, were stronger.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

We went from testifying in court to bench pressing, SubhanAllah.

Women can work any profession, as long as they respect their hijab and can abide by Islamic guidelines. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I rest my case (pun intended), ejaz you may have the last word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...