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

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

But it's not the shias responsibility to disprove the wahabi ideology.

It is their responsibility then they(the opposition) would have to reconsider their claim or bring forth their evidence this is were the debate starts.

Edited by THREE1THREE
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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.

  • Veteran Member

I think that whoever is making a positive claim should back up their claim (in the realm of polemics). 

Even the atheist who says “There is no God” needs to substantiate this.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
19 hours 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?

The american millitarry in a study they did of a few hundred litterally said that their 25% strongest women in the study were as strong as the 25% of the weakest men, they litterally said that 85% of men are stronger then all women in the study, to add insult to injury I saw another report that a lot of the millitary injuries had been reported by women even when they only constitute 15% of the millitary and the research also reported that all male units did way better then mixed units in combat.

If you also read the comments in the reddit post many solders say that women constantly complain about broken hip issues.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.reddit.com/r/news/comments/3kfehv/us_marine_corps_study_allmale_combat_units/&ved=2ahUKEwiBrLKKyKTrAhXEwFkKHdoQCZoQFjAHegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw3smndQstSLNalow4z39ByS&cshid=1597747369520

 

this study is not conclusive on all the millitary but it gives a general idea and even the study has had a fair share of critisizm but again it gives an idea, it's the closest they did to a full study between the diffirences which is what you kind of asked, so it isnt really possible.

Edited by HusseinAbbas
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 8/18/2020 at 6:54 AM, HusseinAbbas said:

The american millitarry in a study they did of a few hundred litterally said that their 25% strongest women in the study were as strong as the 25% of the weakest men, they litterally said that 85% of men are stronger then all women in the study, to add insult to injury I saw another report that a lot of the millitary injuries had been reported by women even when they only constitute 15% of the millitary and the research also reported that all male units did way better then mixed units in combat.

If you also read the comments in the reddit post many solders say that women constantly complain about broken hip issues.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.reddit.com/r/news/comments/3kfehv/us_marine_corps_study_allmale_combat_units/&ved=2ahUKEwiBrLKKyKTrAhXEwFkKHdoQCZoQFjAHegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw3smndQstSLNalow4z39ByS&cshid=1597747369520

 

this study is not conclusive on all the millitary but it gives a general idea and even the study has had a fair share of critisizm but again it gives an idea, it's the closest they did to a full study between the diffirences which is what you kind of asked, so it isnt really possible.

I think this post brings justification to my position.

The US military has over a million soldiers. If 25% of women, physically, were equally strong as 25% men, in a military of 1,000,000+ soldiers, this would suggest some 250,000 women, who are equally strong as 250,000 men.

But further:

In layman's life experience, these 250,000 women, are likely to be stronger than perhaps 90% of lay civilians who aren't working out all the time and eating high protein diets.

Meaning that women can be, without questions, stronger than men.

Imagine if a woman of the top 25% of her class, leaves the marine corps. She is now physically stronger than probably every single civilian male in her town. If not, surely the vast majority.

But what if someone said "you cannot have this job because you're a woman and women are weaker than men", while simultaneously hiring men who are physically weaker than the marine woman?

This is hypothetical, but it just adds support to the suggestion that in some cases (even if in a minority of cases) women can be stronger than men. And thus, it would be unreasonable to impose laws preventing women from getting certain jobs based on criteria of sex.

And thus, no law should prohibit women from doing something based on their sex, given that sex is the prerequisit to the assignment. With respect to a person's physical strength that is.

And even just with respect to the marine corps, why should the weakest man be allowed in the Marines, but not the strongest woman, on the basis that the man is male and the woman is female? It just doesn't make sense.

I just noticed some faulty math above. If the military had 1,000,000 soldiers, if the military were 50/50 male and female, then there would be something like 125,000 female soldiers equal to or stronger than 125,000 men.

Anyway, the numbers aren't as relevant as the logic.

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

I think this post brings justification to my position.

The US military has over a million soldiers. If 25% of women, physically, were equally strong as 25% men, in a military of 1,000,000+ soldiers, this would suggest some 250,000 women, who are equally strong as 250,000 men.

But further:

In layman's life experience, these 250,000 women, are likely to be stronger than perhaps 90% of lay civilians who aren't working out all the time and eating high protein diets.

Meaning that women can be, without questions, stronger than men.

Imagine if a woman of the top 25% of her class, leaves the marine corps. She is now physically stronger than probably every single civilian male in her town. If not, surely the vast majority.

But what if someone said "you cannot have this job because you're a woman and women are weaker than men", while simultaneously hiring men who are physically weaker than the marine woman?

This is hypothetical, but it just adds support to the suggestion that in some cases (even if in a minority of cases) women can be stronger than men. And thus, it would be unreasonable to impose laws preventing women from getting certain jobs based on criteria of sex.

And thus, no law should prohibit women from doing something based on their sex, given that sex is the prerequisit to the assignment. With respect to a person's physical strength that is.

And even just with respect to the marine corps, why should the weakest man be allowed in the Marines, but not the strongest woman, on the basis that the man is male and the woman is female? It just doesn't make sense.

 

Intresting thoughts.

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

Now if I want to be on topic and not talk about WMD and syria, this devolved quickly:hahaha:, Islam is defenetly patriarchal when it comes to familly names for example, the men lead, the reason why I accept it is because it was commanded by Allah(stw) if Allah(stw) said the opposite I would still obey, now there might be some wisdom behind it like people here argue but only Allah(stw) knows, I know my answer is boring but it is what it is, this life is temporary and I am not willing to start arguing with Allah(stw) internally when I am certain of the religion. I have done that before and it lead somewhere in places but in other areas it lead nowhere, I came to accept that I wont understand everything to the atom in life and I can only speculate about the wisdom, now when it comes to asking questions like what religion is true? How consistent is it? etc... That I defenetly take years to ponder on and I exhaust my mind to these thoughts.

Edited by HusseinAbbas
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Members

The principle of Islam concerning women is چادر اور چاردیواری

If this is tantamount to patriarchy, then so be it. Traditional gender roles were really only significantly challenged in the previous century with the rise of second wave feminism and the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

Matriarchal societies have a strong connection to earth religion and paganism. The concept of "mother goddess" "mother Earth", and veneration of the feminine is a major theme in pagan, polytheistic religion. There is no such concept in our monotheistic, Abrahamic tradition of spirituality. I mean if you look at Christianity, they literally worship the masculine (God the Father, God the Son - no mother or daughter. God incarnated into a man not a woman). Of course, in our belief God has no gender/sex, as that is a binary that only applies to creation.

Islam strongly emphasizes sexual dimorphism and curses androgyny. There's even a Hadith where the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم encouraged ladies to color their hands when henna so that even their hands are distinguishable from a man's hands. The Quran even implies that women are meant to wear anklets. According to our Hanafi madhhab, women are forbidden from cutting their hair below shoulder length, they are meant to keep lengthy hair.

Another difference between Islam or the Abrahamic tradition, and earth religion especially paganism (and pagan influenced mysticism), is that in our tradition putting on more clothing is associated with spirituality and nearness to God, whereas in their tradition nudity is praiseworthy and tied with spirituality. So you have the Naga Sadhus in Hinduism and practice of "skyclad" in various Dharmic and Pagan religions, like the Jains, Wiccans/Neopagans respectively.

But religions like Islam and Judaism have gone in the opposite direction and declared that the more you cover up the better, especially in the case of women. I already explained on another thread that the purpose of hijab is actually twofold, it is of course primarily for the purpose of modesty, but it also serves a functional purpose of visibly identifying a lady to be a Muslim. It is a mark of identity, like the skullcap is a visible mark of identity for Muslim men and boys.

 

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...