Treatments of women

[Peace]

Do you think that even Muslims, with even the best intention, also make mistake what's Islamic and what's not Islamic?

Yes, they can make mistakes if they don't have enough knowledge about Islam.

We non-Muslims based on what Muslims say or do, and may not understand what is or is not Islamic, but it would seem that even pious Muslims also mistakes too, which is worse, really.... The reason what I am getting at, being that Muslims also have the tendency to either misunderstand, and hence mis-represent Islam, in some cases, in the worse possible light. Muslims can be Islam's worse enemy.

Yes they can misrepresent Islam if they are not knowledeagble about their religion. They can misrepresent Islam if they cannot distinguish between what is Islamic and what is cultural.
They can misrepresent Islam if they take verses, as some non-muslims do, out of their context and say this is Islam.
You can find a Muslim man bearded and praying the 5 daily prayers at their appointed time and fasts ect... but not having the moral of behavior vis-à-vis others and that's due to his ignorance of Islam. If he is knowledgeable enough he can know that Islam is a religon of good behavior as well, it is a religion of etiquette and that morals and good treatment is part of worship and part of our religion. If he is doing one thing and neglecting the other then his Islam and faith is incomplet.

 

[TashaN]

What is different in Islam is that it doesn't depend only in knowledge and getting formal education. Even a PhD holder in Islam can do so little sometimes compared to others. Striving to go in the path of the Prophets and trying to get Allah's inspiration through cleaning the heart and being so sincere is the true way of being a believer. Note that Muslims can do mistakes too even if they were scholars, just like scholars from any other religion. I agree with you that sometimes, Islam's most dangerous enemy can be the Muslims themselves.

 

[gnostic]

Having the "right" knowledge or education helps. And help in a long way.

Being sincere, is important, without a doubt, but it has a lot more to do with the inner personality or ego of an individual. You need the right balance of personality and knowledge.

A sincere devout person can lead to biased, and worse, violent persecution against others, when they refuse to see or understand the other person's perspective.

 

[TashaN]

Having the "right" knowledge or education helps. And help in a long way.

Being sincere, is important, without a doubt, but it has a lot more to do with the inner personality or ego of an individual. You need the right balance of personality and knowledge.

A sincere devout person can lead to biased, and worse, violent persecution against others, when they refuse to see or understand the other person's perspective.

I totally agree. :yes:

 

[alwayswondering]

To me, it is morally wrong that husband can punish a woman for disobedience, which your Qur'an say it is the privilege of the husband. And it has this stupid nonsense that man is a woman's protector, because he is the "stronger", hence he can boss her around.

If a woman is not in the mood for sex, then she shouldn't have to. They should only have sex when both partners are willing...but when it's not, the husband can use that stupid verse to punish a woman for disobedience. The wife is then virtually a sex slave and breeding cow to her husband. That's not equality....and it's certainly not

Several weeks ago, that stupid Afghan president introduce a law that a woman must have sex with her husband, regardless of what she want. And this law have the full supports of most of conservative Islamic clerics. That mean a husband can punish his wife if she say no to sex, and she will be held responsible for her refusal is the sort of lunacy of Islamic society.

To me, non-consensual sex is rape.

You will never find a marital rape law in an Islamic country. A content sex life is the right of both husbands and wives, not just husbans.

However, and let me point out that I live in Ish2lah-Land (Egypt, where I haven't been in a taxi in ages that wasn't blasting a recitation of the Qu'ran), a place where between 85% and 95% of women have undergone Female Genital Mutilation. This procedure is supposed to protect a woman from herself by diminshing her sex drive. What it really does, though, is eliminate her ability to orgasm.

[There was a law - for a couple of years - prohibiting FGM (only one person was prosecuted for violating the law, and he was freed because he "didn't know it was illegal") but the Muslim religious majority stomped their feet until it was repealed.]

So, what's really happening is Allah gave married women the right to happy sex, but men take it away while retaining their right to beat her if she doesn't give him happy sex as he demands it.

By the way, here in Insh2lah-Land there's what I call the Thursday Night Ritual, that being men make sure they get "it" really good Thursday night so they're free to focus on Friday afternoons at the Mosque. If that means whipping the snot out of her to get "it," that's what he does. With a shoe even. Then, by the time Sunday rolls around and she has to face the people at work, the bruises are light enough to cover with make-up. If not, her "son," and it's always the son, "accidently" hit her in the face while he was moving a large object.

Were there toothbrushes in Mohamed's time?

 

[alwayswondering]

What?

I bring up the subject of FGM and nobody is willing to put their fingers on their keyboards anymore?

Where did the Muslim apologists go? Are they running their Qu'rans through Google's translator to figure out whether it's halal or haram to chop off a girl's parts?

How about taking a look at what Muslim scholars have to say about it: YouTube - Islamic religious experts on female circumcision, then come back and tell us all about how Islam is the best thing to happen to the female gender.

After that, we can talk about not registering the births of daughters and why that happens.

 

[alwayswondering]

Oh, why wait!

Let's talk about girls who's fathers refuse to register their births now!

Here's another youtube (hey, it's free and it's there) clip about that:

YouTube - Witness - Children Who Don't Exist - Part 1

YouTube - Witness - Children Who Don't Exist - Part 2

And folks, just so we all understand, Egyptian family law is ENTIRELY based on Sharia - and it has to have a foundation in the Qu'ran.

Is anyone interested in knowing why this happens? Are you remotely curious about how, if a girl isn't registered, the family doesn't have to send her to school? Does it make sense that if a girl isn't registered there can't be an HONOR KILLING because it's impossible to kill someone who doesn't exist? Nope. These children aren't even PEOPLE.

Anybody?

 

[AbuKhalid]

And folks, just so we all understand, Egyptian family law is ENTIRELY based on Sharia - and it has to have a foundation in the Qu'ran.

So if it is entirely based on Sharia then it will be no problem for you to point to where in the Quran there is justification for this? It will be interesting to hear your reply.

Of course the sources I can find diagree with you:

The legal code is derived largely from the Napoleonic Code. Marriage and personal status are primarily based on the religious law of the individual concerned. Thus, there are three forms of family law in Egypt: Islamic, Christian, and secular (based on the French family laws).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Judicial_System

 

[alwayswondering]

Did you watch the videos and see what the good Sheikh had to say about the subject? As much as I appreciate a good Wiki, it's not the ultimate source for accurate information. Here's an article that discusses the round about personal status laws require, particularly the roll Islam plays in them:


et - Full Story

 

[darkendless]

You will never find a marital rape law in an Islamic country. A content sex life is the right of both husbands and wives, not just husbans.

However, and let me point out that I live in Ish2lah-Land (Egypt, where I haven't been in a taxi in ages that wasn't blasting a recitation of the Qu'ran), a place where between 85% and 95% of women have undergone Female Genital Mutilation. This procedure is supposed to protect a woman from herself by diminshing her sex drive. What it really does, though, is eliminate her ability to orgasm.

[There was a law - for a couple of years - prohibiting FGM (only one person was prosecuted for violating the law, and he was freed because he "didn't know it was illegal") but the Muslim religious majority stomped their feet until it was repealed.]

So, what's really happening is Allah gave married women the right to happy sex, but men take it away while retaining their right to beat her if she doesn't give him happy sex as he demands it.

By the way, here in Insh2lah-Land there's what I call the Thursday Night Ritual, that being men make sure they get "it" really good Thursday night so they're free to focus on Friday afternoons at the Mosque. If that means whipping the snot out of her to get "it," that's what he does. With a shoe even. Then, by the time Sunday rolls around and she has to face the people at work, the bruises are light enough to cover with make-up. If not, her "son," and it's always the son, "accidently" hit her in the face while he was moving a large object.

Were there toothbrushes in Mohamed's time?

I have too much respect for women to do such horrible things. Why would Allah make women capable of orgasming if it was to be taken away. Seems rather stupid to me.

Beating women is pathetic in any language. Demanding sex is pathetic also. Forum rules will not allow me to speak my mind here.

 

[alwayswondering]

Why would Allah make women capable of orgasming if it was to be taken away. Seems rather stupid to me.

Justification is found in five Hadiths:

1.) A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.

Did Mohamed tell her to stop? Did he say Allah forbids it? No. Instead, he only said not to get carried away with it.

2.) Circumcision is an act of Sunnah for men and an honorable act for women.

Did Mohamed say DIShonorable? No. He said it's AN HONORABLE ACT.

3.) (The Hadith) reported by 'Abdullah Ibn Umar that says the women of Al-Ansar practiced female circumcision.

The women of Al-Ansar were supporters of Mohamed. Women who practiced female circumcision were welcomed into Mohamed's fold, not forbidden entry.

4.) If the two organs to be removed by circumcision are met, then performing Ghusl (ritual bathing) is compulsory.

Islam expressly forbids homosexuality. Therefore, the "two organs" cannot be male/male or female/female. They must be male/female.

5.) Acts of natural disposition are five: circumcision, removing the pubic hair, shaving the moustache, cutting the fingernails, and plucking the armpit hair.

This Hadith does not offer choices, nor does it specify whether it is speaking to only men or only women, nor does it say to choose which of the five one prefers because it uses the word "and".

Of course Islamic scholars will dismiss each, individual, Hadith as weak, whether that's because they believe the narrator is unreliable or the chain of narration is unreliable. This, however, poses other problems: If a narrator is unreliable once, he must be unreliable every time and if anyone in a chain of narration is unreliable, every chain they've narrated must also be unreliable. Yet unreliable narrators and chains of narration are never removed from Hadith altogether but they remain, preserved forever because humans determine what is weak Hadith and what is not weak Hadith and there may be a remote chance these are not weak at all.

Again, I ask, where are the Muslim apologists? Why aren't you here, telling me I'm wrong and defending your faith? Actually, what I'm really hoping for is someone to tell me not only that I am wrong, but that this whole thing is wrong. Instead you are silent. Why?

 

[darkendless]

Justification is found in five Hadiths:

1.) A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.

Did Mohamed tell her to stop? Did he say Allah forbids it? No. Instead, he only said not to get carried away with it.

2.) Circumcision is an act of Sunnah for men and an honorable act for women.

Did Mohamed say DIShonorable? No. He said it's AN HONORABLE ACT.

3.) (The Hadith) reported by 'Abdullah Ibn Umar that says the women of Al-Ansar practiced female circumcision.

The women of Al-Ansar were supporters of Mohamed. Women who practiced female circumcision were welcomed into Mohamed's fold, not forbidden entry.

4.) If the two organs to be removed by circumcision are met, then performing Ghusl (ritual bathing) is compulsory.

Islam expressly forbids homosexuality. Therefore, the "two organs" cannot be male/male or female/female. They must be male/female.

5.) Acts of natural disposition are five: circumcision, removing the pubic hair, shaving the moustache, cutting the fingernails, and plucking the armpit hair.

This Hadith does not offer choices, nor does it specify whether it is speaking to only men or only women, nor does it say to choose which of the five one prefers because it uses the word "and".

Of course Islamic scholars will dismiss each, individual, Hadith as weak, whether that's because they believe the narrator is unreliable or the chain of narration is unreliable. This, however, poses other problems: If a narrator is unreliable once, he must be unreliable every time and if anyone in a chain of narration is unreliable, every chain they've narrated must also be unreliable. Yet unreliable narrators and chains of narration are never removed from Hadith altogether but they remain, preserved forever because humans determine what is weak Hadith and what is not weak Hadith and there may be a remote chance these are not weak at all.

Again, I ask, where are the Muslim apologists? Why aren't you here, telling me I'm wrong and defending your faith? Actually, what I'm really hoping for is someone to tell me not only that I am wrong, but that this whole thing is wrong. Instead you are silent. Why?

That didn't really answer my question. Do you have an answer independent of scripture?

From a common sense perspective why would a creator create women capable of orgasm only for them to require surgery to remove it?

 

[alwayswondering]

That didn't really answer my question. Do you have an answer independent of scripture?

From a common sense perspective why would a creator create women capable of orgasm only for them to require surgery to remove it?

I'm not the one to answer your questions. That is for the Muslims, who have continually supported Islam's treatment of women throughout this discussion, to do. However none has come forward. Instead they remain silent. Again, I have to ask WHY?

 

[TashaN]

I'm not the one to answer your questions. That is for the Muslims, who have continually supported Islam's treatment of women throughout this discussion, to do. However none has come forward. Instead they remain silent. Again, I have to ask WHY?

What do you want to know?

 

[alwayswondering]

What do you want to know?

The topic of this debate thread is Islam's treatment of women. It was rather lively until the discussion turned to the application of Islam. Specifically, here is the issue:

Sex is a right of both parties within a marriage. A content sex life is, in fact, a right. The right to a content sex life, specifically given by God, is taken away from women and the basis for this is Hadith. Here's the question: If God makes a content sex life a right of a woman, why does Islam use five weak Hadiths to take it away? How is it possible to take something that is halal away, without God's permission or consent, but because Mohamed didn't object to it and, in fact, approved of it?

 

[Fatihah]

The topic of this debate thread is Islam's treatment of women. It was rather lively until the discussion turned to the application of Islam. Specifically, here is the issue:

Sex is a right of both parties within a marriage. A content sex life is, in fact, a right. The right to a content sex life, specifically given by God, is taken away from women and the basis for this is Hadith. Here's the question: If God makes a content sex life a right of a woman, why does Islam use five weak Hadiths to take it away? How is it possible to take something that is halal away, without God's permission or consent, but because Mohamed didn't object to it and, in fact, approved of it?

Response: What exactly do you mean when you say that islam uses weak hadiths? Islam and weak hadiths don't go together. If the hadith is weak, it has nothing to do with islam. Muhammad (pbuh) never approved of female circumcision.

 

[alwayswondering]

Response: What exactly do you mean when you say that islam uses weak hadiths? Islam and weak hadiths don't go together. If the hadith is weak, it has nothing to do with islam. Muhammad (pbuh) never approved of female circumcision.

Okay then. Have it your way and we'll agree that Islamic religious scholars have it wrong and those five Hadiths I quoted are not weak. Weak, strong, in the middle, it doesn't matter, really.

That said, back to the issue: Why, if God gave women all of the parts to have a happy sex life (with her husband, of course), do human remove part of her parts to prohibit that same happy sex life?

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:alwayswondering]Okay then. Have it your way and we'll agree that Islamic religious scholars have it wrong and those five Hadiths I quoted are not weak. Weak, strong, in the middle, it doesn't matter, really.

That said, back to the issue: Why, if God gave women all of the parts to have a happy sex life (with her husband, of course), do human remove part of her parts to prohibit that same happy sex life?

Response: To be honest, you would have to ask those humans who do so. Many say for health reasons but I am not sure exactly what those health reasons are. You should also know that there is a such thing called circumcision for men as well. Do you take exception to this as well?

But the whole idea of circumcision existed way before islam. It was a cultural practice and unfortunately it is still practiced today. Many try to incorporate religion in it to justify the act. This is not just in islam. I'm sure if you took the time to look at Hinduism and other indian cultures you will see it being practiced as well. I don't say that this is a part of the hindu religion, however you will find hindus, christians, jews,etc., practicing circumcision both on males and females.

 

[TashaN]

Justification is found in five Hadiths:

1.) A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.

Did Mohamed tell her to stop? Did he say Allah forbids it? No. Instead, he only said not to get carried away with it.

2.) Circumcision is an act of Sunnah for men and an honorable act for women.

Did Mohamed say DIShonorable? No. He said it's AN HONORABLE ACT.

3.) (The Hadith) reported by 'Abdullah Ibn Umar that says the women of Al-Ansar practiced female circumcision.

The women of Al-Ansar were supporters of Mohamed. Women who practiced female circumcision were welcomed into Mohamed's fold, not forbidden entry.

4.) If the two organs to be removed by circumcision are met, then performing Ghusl (ritual bathing) is compulsory.

Islam expressly forbids homosexuality. Therefore, the "two organs" cannot be male/male or female/female. They must be male/female.

5.) Acts of natural disposition are five: circumcision, removing the pubic hair, shaving the moustache, cutting the fingernails, and plucking the armpit hair.

This Hadith does not offer choices, nor does it specify whether it is speaking to only men or only women, nor does it say to choose which of the five one prefers because it uses the word "and".

First of all, you need to understand that this is a cultural act, not religious one. Prophet Mohammed was only rejecting from culture what does contradict with Islam.

He came as he said just to complement good manners, not to define from the beginning how people live their lives per se.

For me, i don't know why would people would resort to do that, but that's me. I just hope that i won't find out that my future wife been circumcised. I'm joking of course, because as far as i know, Egypt and Sudan are the only two Muslim countries which still practice this act.

I only hear of this problem in African countries, because most of Muslims don't do it. That's why, most of the scholars who debate this issue are from Egypt "an African country".

Of course Islamic scholars will dismiss each, individual, Hadith as weak, whether that's because they believe the narrator is unreliable or the chain of narration is unreliable. This, however, poses other problems: If a narrator is unreliable once, he must be unreliable every time and if anyone in a chain of narration is unreliable, every chain they've narrated must also be unreliable. Yet unreliable narrators and chains of narration are never removed from Hadith altogether but they remain, preserved forever because humans determine what is weak Hadith and what is not weak Hadith and there may be a remote chance these are not weak at all.

So although Muslims said to you these are weak hadiths, you are trying to say that they are there for some reason? or i misunderstood you?

Again, I ask, where are the Muslim apologists? Why aren't you here, telling me I'm wrong and defending your faith? Actually, what I'm really hoping for is someone to tell me not only that I am wrong, but that this whole thing is wrong. Instead you are silent. Why?

Calm down, i just got here.

 

[gnostic]

To be honest, you would have to ask those humans who do so. Many say for health reasons but I am not sure exactly what those health reasons are. You should also know that there is a such thing called circumcision for men as well.

I don't know if you notice the difference, but there is a huge difference between men and women circumcision.

For one, men's circumcision ONLY remove foreskin from the penis. It is not actually cutting the organ itself; just the skin.

The female's circumcision actually cutting and removing the actual genital organ, which is the clitoris.

Totally different. A skin is one thing, a genital is another. It (female genital circumcision) has absolutely nothing to do with preventing infection or disease; it is mutilation of women's perfectly healthy organs.

It's archaic barbaric and oppressive practice. That it is still practice today among Muslims, showed another example of Islam treatments of women.