Woman's rights in Islam and the West (blood, choice, America)

[Fatihah]

[quote=kai;1489254]

Originally Posted by Fatihah

at last! and your interpretation of this is what? what do you think women should wear , as there is no true Islamic state for us to use as a guide which of these do you think is "Islamic" for a women out in Public.



Burqa




Chador






Niqab






Headscarf



which of the interpretations of the quotations you posted dictate what women should wear when out in public?
Which one does your brand of Islam require?
Muslims, most of all, should distinguish between what is religion and what is culture, what is Qur’anic and what is traditional, what is textual and what is customary, what is scriptural and what is superfluous to Islam. Then maybe we non Muslims might have a clue about what is Islam and what isnt.



Just one thought , in the west it is against the law to harrass women whatever they wear.

Response: All of the above are permissible.

[Fatihah]

Originally Posted by gnostic

The Qur'an keep stressing that a woman must obey her husband, because according to the Qur'an, Allah made men superior than woman:



And so if a woman continuously disobey him, then he has the right to beat:



We have covered such subjects in another thread.

The fact that the Qur'an say that a woman must submit and obey her husband is the clearest indication that the Muslim marital relationship is based on inequality.

Am I am wrong that Muslim wives have to submit and obey her husbands?

What parts of "submission" and "obedience" that you don't understand?

The two words - "submission" and "obedience" precisely the words that are commonly used to stressed the status between master and slave. In term of status, one is "superior", over the other, who is "inferior". Hence the inferiors or slaves are not equal to the superiors or masters. Hence, in Islamic term, husband is superior and master, so a wife is inferior, and since she needs to obey her husband like a slave, she is clearly not his equal.

Sure, she doesn't have to work outside of her home or financially provide for the family, but like a slave who must keep the house tidy, make his dinner, wash his clothes, works that slaves have done.

So an even important question I'll put to you:

What part of the word - equality - that you don't understand?

Equality (in regards to relationship) means shared responsibility and shared authority. There's no rooms for "superior" and "inferior" in equality.

Let me give you example, in regards to that Qur'anic verse with real world application.

Let just say a Muslim couple, have different view on how something should be done and they have been quarrelling. And let's say that the wife is far smarter than her husband, and she knew the right procedure on how to do that something, and her husband is wrong.

The wife steadfast maintained about using the right procedure instead of the wrong one, so she used this right procedure. But the husband refused to recognise that she being right, and being superior (man of the house), he beat her for disobeying him, and because that stupid your Qur'anic verse give him to right to do so, if she disobey him.

Do you not see the inherent flaws in the logic of the Qur'an?

Response: What exactly is wrong with submission and obedience? And why would you put your own words in the qur'an? Where in the qur'an does it say that submission or obedience is the same as a master to a slave? This is your own interpretation, not the words of the qur'an.

If you're going to give meaning to a verse why not keep it in it's context? All the verses before the one you quoted talk about how men are to treat women with kindness, to not inherit them against their will, to give them a dowry,etc. That being said, the verse would clearly mean that a woman should obey the good things her husband says and does for her out of appreciation, not to obey any and everything he says.

[Fatihah]

Originally Posted by gnostic

Is the stupidest thing that I have ever heard - which is women are blamed for half of the rape.

Let demonstrate to you a scenario, so you can see the flaw of logic, by blaming a woman for the half the rape:

You go out to buy something in the store, and like a good citizen you pay for the items. One man see you take out your wallet, take out the cash, which you used to buy some goods.

Are you with me so far?

So this man followed you until he found you alone (with no witnesses), bash your head in and take your wallet.

So my questions to you are, eselam:

• Is the mugger to blame for half of the crime, and you the other half?
• Or is the mugger is to blame for the full mugging and assault?

You had to take out the wallet, when you buying something with cash.

• So did you provide temptation for the mugger to beat you and rob you?
• If so, did you deserve to be bashed and mugged, because you have tempted the mugger?

Your logic of blaming women for half the rape is seriously flawed. Like you, the woman is a victim of the crime. That you would even considered blaming the woman, showed terrible inconsistencies with your attitude towards women, and misogynist double-standard of the Islamic law.

If a robber is to be blame for the whole crime, then shouldn't rapist be arrested, tried and convicted for his crime, instead of placing half the crime upon the victim.

Feel free to answer too, Fatihah, since you seemed to support eselam's argument.

Response: The point I agreed on with eslem is that sex has something to do with rape. YmirGF claims that sex has nothing to do with it. So why this post is directed to me as well is beyond me.

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by Fatihah

Response: In islam, it is condoned that men are to be responsible for taking care of women because by nature men are physically stronger and are not as sensitive as women. Therefore, women are not given much of the inheritance because they don't have to burden the responsibility of taking care of anyone. The men have to take care of everyone.

So we can say that this is one area of distinct inequality then, correct?

Originally Posted by Fatihah

YmirGF claims that sex has nothing to do with it.

You really just don't get it, do you? My advice is that you actually investigate the topic and you will quickly find that what I am saying is correct. The sexual aspect is secondary to gaining power and control which is the primary reason. This is all pretty simple stuff if you actually think about if for more than a split second.

[Gharib]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

Rape apologists are subhuman, and if that sort of misogynistic garbage is actually part of your religion, then your holy scriptures are only useful as toilet paper.

i'm not talking about what the quran is saying, these are purely my views on the matter, i haven't mentioned anything about the quran nor Allah. so to assume that is just pointless.

[Gharib]

Originally Posted by gnostic

Ok, since you are so insistent that women should wear more clothing, then I will provide you with another example.

hang on friend, what about my examples. you say that women do not need to wear more clothes, so answer my examples if you have an answer to them, then we shall speak again, but ignoring my points just shows that you are wrong, and can't face the truth.

like i said in my previous post, i'm not going to be like a non muslim and say to you they have nothing in common, and yet you are doing exactly that. your previous argument had nothing to do with rape so why bring it up, where as my previous examples are very much related to rape, + your examples about money, so once you have answered them, feel free to make another one up, how long will that take, 2 days? i can wait.

[Gharib]

Originally Posted by Fatihah

Response: The point I agreed on with eslem is that sex has something to do with rape. YmirGF claims that sex has nothing to do with it. So why this post is directed to me as well is beyond me.

don't worry what they think, how else are they going to satisfy their hunger to see naked women on the streets, thats why this doesn't bother them. they want women to have freedom, and yet that freedom is the mental force that men have over women. thats the reason behing rapes, to have controll ove the women, so by telling them it is ok to go out naked, they are just controlling their heads even more.

if any non muslim man dissagrees with me on this, then who is man enough to say that they lower their look when a women who is wearing "fashionable clothing" walks by. does anyone on here say "god forgive me", does anyone "look to the ground or turns their head away to not see any of these women who are dressed in short clothing.

anyone brave enough who is telling the truth would come up. is there anyone?
and just to get the list started, some people have alredy admited that they have done things worse than to just look at a woman who passes by, so is there any non muslim man who doesn't look at women when they pass by to satisfy his hunger. please say so, this is the time and place.

[darkendless]

Originally Posted by eselam

don't worry what they think, how else are they going to satisfy their hunger to see naked women on the streets, thats why this doesn't bother them. they want women to have freedom, and yet that freedom is the mental force that men have over women. thats the reason behing rapes, to have controll ove the women, so by telling them it is ok to go out naked, they are just controlling their heads even more.

if any non muslim man dissagrees with me on this, then who is man enough to say that they lower their look when a women who is wearing "fashionable clothing" walks by. does anyone on here say "god forgive me", does anyone "look to the ground or turns their head away to not see any of these women who are dressed in short clothing.

anyone brave enough who is telling the truth would come up. is there anyone?
and just to get the list started, some people have alredy admited that they have done things worse than to just look at a woman who passes by, so is there any non muslim man who doesn't look at women when they pass by to satisfy his hunger. please say so, this is the time and place.

THERE IS NO SHAME IN APPRECIATING A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN

We non-muslims have a code which is its ok to look, but not touch. We're not animals who need to cage up our women to stop us raping them. Why would we need that? We have self control. We know that women are free to wear what they please (if they want to wear a niqap, so be it) but why should those who dont want to be obligated to hide their shame.

[Gharib]

Originally Posted by darkendless

THERE IS NO SHAME IN APPRECIATING A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN

We non-muslims have a code which is its ok to look, but not touch. We're not animals who need to cage up our women to stop us raping them. Why would we need that? We have self control. We know that women are free to wear what they please (if they want to wear a niqap, so be it) but why should those who dont want to be obligated to hide their shame.

look i din't ask you to explain me the "llok and dount touch" thing, i said is the anyone who doesn't look at women when they pass by. simple answer Y/N

funy you speak about the hijab, didn't australians recently say that it is a security risk if a muslim woman walks into a supermarket? or shopping centre, see you guys are way off worse than us, atleast we wan't whats good for women, but you guys like i said, you wan't to satisfy your hunger.

[darkendless]

Originally Posted by eselam

look i din't ask you to explain me the "llok and dount touch" thing, i said is the anyone who doesn't look at women when they pass by. simple answer Y/N

funy you speak about the hijab, didn't australians recently say that it is a security risk if a muslim woman walks into a supermarket? or shopping centre, see you guys are way off worse than us, atleast we wan't whats good for women, but you guys like i said, you wan't to satisfy your hunger.

We do, but whats wrong with that? Your God apparently made us so that we're attracted to females. We're attracted to them, not a slit of eyes.

A radio presenter made that claim. Hes a bloody Islamaphobe. His place is in the bible belt of America.