Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Gods Servant

Wife Beating

Recommended Posts

Hi AHMAD_73

 

You are wrong I’m afraid.  Sure women don’t play football at the elite level but there is no rule which says that they can’t, at least there isn’t here.  It’s actually illegal to make such a rule in this country as it breaches our anti-discrimination laws.  Women don’t compete in elite football in this country for the same reason that quadriplegics don’t or even people like me who are just too slow to compete.  If you can’t beat the best around you don’t get a guernsey.  Look it up if you don’t believe me.  As I said in the lower levels of the sport where they can be competitive women do play football in Australia.

 

Next you said “and what, men will beat women!!, where are the Judges, legislators, and the whole society?!”.  Are you really trying to suggest that we should legislate that men must throw the matches and allow the women to win?  That’s not sport is it?  Sport is about the competition of the best of the best not about throwing matches.  Who’d want to watch that?  Who’d want to play?

 

Maybe you don’t believe we can protect people in isolated areas but the fact is that the problems encountered, while far too high, are nowhere near as severe as you paint them.  I’ve been through the statics for the Australian Human Rights Commission who deal with such matters and none of their surveys come anywhere near the levels you quoted for the US.  The fact is that the average working woman will never have to deal with sexual harassment much less sexual assault.  That latter is very rare indeed and it is dealt with very harshly in our court system.  Unlike your system the word of the assaulted woman carries as much weight as the words of the accused man and it is the balance of probability rule that determines guilt.

 

I know you’d like to blow the issues around AIDS out of all proportion but lets get back to facts here.  The figure you quoted, if true, are a terrible toll but the fact remains that if you take a few simple precautions you can avoid AIDS while having sex with a different partner every night of the week.  If you get AIDS you have failed to follow a few very simple rules that everyone must know today given the information and advertising campaigns we’ve been bombarded with about this issue.  You claim we have no answers but we’ve had condoms for quite a while now and they are, if correctly used, virtually a 100% guarantee against contracting AIDS.  What about that does not look like an answer to you?

 

Yes I gathered from your last post that you don’t understand AIDS or STD’s or maybe you don’t understand what adultery is.  Let me explain.  Adultery is a married person having sex with someone other than their partner.  Now you’ll have to see if you can find any statistics to show that that has anything significant to do with AIDS or STD’s because I haven’t been able to find it.  Sex among unmarried people, which is not adultery, is a far more common cause of both problems though I’m sure adultery plays a part.  These days the most common cause I’m aware of for AIDS is actually not sexual at all, its shared needles among drug users.  In this country we have a needle swap system which is designed to combat this issue and it is very though not completely effective.  Our new infection rate in this country is around 900 per year and the death rate from AIDS is a little under 100 people per year.  That’s AIDS from all causes not just sexually transmitted.

 

As for your claim that we would not exist if this problem existed 50 years ago I guess that shows again that you don’t understand the statistics you are discussing.  In the US the figure you quoted amounts to a little under 0.5%.  No disease that affects such a small percentage of the population is a threat to that population.

 

The australian figure is around 0.0003% of the population contract AIDS per year and around 0.00002% of the population dies from the diseas.

 

So what’s the dilemma if we return back to a no sex outside marriage lifestyle?  That’s an interesting question and I think it bears very clearly on this issue.  Basically if we did in the US we could prevent 0.5% of the population, who did not abide by a few simple rules, from catching AIDS while at the same time prevent the remaining 99.5% of the population from having as good a life as they could otherwise.  The Australian figures are even more compelling, if we did return to the lifestyle you are suggesting we could save 0.003% of the population from contracting AIDS per year while preventing the remaining 99.997% from leading the best lives they can.  Driving cars kills way more people, should we stop?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

hello, Russell

Hi AHMAD_73

 

You are wrong I’m afraid. Sure women don’t play football at the elite level but there is no rule which says that they can’t, at least there isn’t here. It’s actually illegal to make such a rule in this country as it breaches our anti-discrimination laws. Women don’t compete in elite football in this country for the same reason that quadriplegics don’t or even people like me who are just too slow to compete. If you can’t beat the best around you don’t get a guernsey. Look it up if you don’t believe me. As I said in the lower levels of the sport where they can be competitive women do play football in Australia.

surprising, It's allowed for women to get into the men world, and that what they kept dreaming of for miliniums, and when Australia gives them that right, yet NOT A SINGLE WOMAN, among thousands of men, through decades, generation after generation, see herself able to get into that?!!!! how can you see this ?! I believe there are dozens of teams and thousands of men in each league, yet not one woman!!!...I wonder if we arranged the Australian population from number one to the end, where will be the first woman, 100,001?!!

 

I still doubt what you mentioned about the woman right to get into men teams!!

first, from practical point of view, there is no such case??!! even for media purpose to convince other cultures

second, even the soft sports, is divided in an forced way, It features men's and women's singles; men's, women's, and mixed doubles....you see, the women are not allowed to get in front of men....not a man against woman or double or open who ever against who ever. even in the king's sport, there is discrimination..

 

BTW, relating to what you mentioned about it's illegal to differentiate between the two sexes, is the WC, the rest rooms in the public places are designated "MEN" and "WOMEN" or you can't see such sign?!! if so, are you planning to equate between them in such field or you accept such differentiation?

 

H

Maybe you don’t believe we can protect people in isolated areas but the fact is that the problems encountered, while far too high, are nowhere near as severe as you paint them. I’ve been through the statics for the Australian Human Rights Commission who deal with such matters and none of their surveys come anywhere near the levels you quoted for the US. The fact is that the average working woman will never have to deal with sexual harassment much less sexual assault. That latter is very rare indeed and it is dealt with very harshly in our court system. Unlike your system the word of the assaulted woman carries as much weight as the words of the accused man and it is the balance of probability rule that determines guilt.

Adultery, you need to convince us also, besides the law rates of sexual assaults in Australia, there are low rates of adultery, although I believe that if the woman and man in such far private place had sex they will call some place to tell it to have statistics.

it seems you have no idea about ours,In our system, it's not arguable, the man who rapes a women will be punished by death, you can relate the other crimes to that according to severity (what is it in yours?!). the woman will be free innocent and should be finantially compensated as well.

 

 

Hi AHMAD_73

Yes I gathered from your last post that you don’t understand AIDS or STD’s or maybe you don’t understand what adultery is. Let me explain. Adultery is a married person having sex with someone other than their partner. Now you’ll have to see if you can find any statistics to show that that has anything significant to do with AIDS or STD’s because I haven’t been able to find it. Sex among unmarried people, which is not adultery, is a far more common cause of both problems though I’m sure adultery plays a part. These days the most common cause I’m aware of for AIDS is actually not sexual at all, its shared needles among drug users. In this country we have a needle swap system which is designed to combat this issue and it is very though not completely effective. Our new infection rate in this country is around 900 per year and the death rate from AIDS is a little under 100 people per year. That’s AIDS from all causes not just sexually transmitted.

Adultery, is if any one have sex out of marriage . I'm sure I know what is adultery means for westerners, let me tell you that even the westerners have a different identifications and some among them tells that's an OBSOLETE term just like CHASITY, it's just a man made limitations while nature have another opinion, even about INCEST.. HWY do you think we should accept your or any others definitions?!!

 

second I know that AIDS have many causes, while the dominant and the most effective is adultery,

 

Hi AHMAD_73

 

As for your claim that we would not exist if this problem existed 50 years ago I guess that shows again that you don’t understand the statistics you are discussing.

you didn't consider the effect of the protective methods that you claim it should stop AIDS 100%?? let's say it really prevented 90% of it...that wasn't there 50 years ago, also the diagnoses and treatments wasn't there. so the rate of infected people should increase in a chain divergent way with time.....should you loose have of your population at least.

 

Hi AHMAD_73

In the US the figure you quoted amounts to a little under 0.5%. No disease that affects such a small percentage of the population is a threat to that population.

 

The australian figure is around 0.0003% of the population contract AIDS per year and around 0.00002% of the population dies from the diseas.

 

So what’s the dilemma if we return back to a no sex outside marriage lifestyle? That’s an interesting question and I think it bears very clearly on this issue. Basically if we did in the US we could prevent 0.5% of the population, who did not abide by a few simple rules, from catching AIDS while at the same time prevent the remaining 99.5% of the population from having as good a life as they could otherwise. The Australian figures are even more compelling, if we did return to the lifestyle you are suggesting we could save 0.003% of the population from contracting AIDS per year while preventing the remaining 99.997% from leading the best lives they can. Driving cars kills way more people, should we stop?

 

Russell

first off: in Australia as I see in many sites it's about 40,000, cases AIDS/HIV at 2011, which is about 0.2% not less

second, you should calculate a sort of society sadness, the families + friends + neighbors + mates +...

third, from economical point of view the money that will be spent curing + diagnosing + researching...... shouldn't been spent in human happiness

forth, there are another 30 STDs diseases related to that sex, what about them, what are there percentages, 50,000,000 ?!!!

5th, Cancers, what are their causes?!! 15,000,000 in the USA 5% of population, shouldn't you slow down to see what are the causes, especially it relates proportionally to the counties which have higher rates of adultery.

is it about percentages only, the numbers have no effect to you, to have 150,000 new dead alive persons every year is nothing to you?!!

 

you are not saving only .5% in the states, but you save most of them....

 

to control your, the westerners, desires 5 minutes twice weakly is an un-acheivable sacrifice!? All over the history man did this sacrifice without knowing he is protecting himself and his lineage. not a delima at all...

 

 

what do you think about the care' safety belts, I personally don't like it, it constrains me, and it shared in many killing cases by preventing people from escaping. although this to save a couple of hundreds or thousands, the west applied it to every one all the time, hours and hours a day. and whenever you been caught not wearing it you will be harshely punished, how do you see this??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi AHMAD

 

Life is full of risks and let’s face it, we are all on a one way ride to the grave.  We only have one chance at life so in my humble opinion we should make the most of our time here and not be scared to get out there and experience what life has to offer.  Driving a car could kill you, walking down the street could kill you, a plane could crash on you while you sleep, there’s no way to avoid risk completely and if you try you won’t experience life.  Some people will die trying to get the most out of their lives but for each one who does the majority will have far better lives for the trying.

 

I’m not sure why it would surprize you that no women play football at the elite level.  You do understand that human abilities fall on a bell curve and that for some attributes, physical size and strength being among them, the male curve is slightly to the right of the female curve.  That’s well known so I don’t know why that would surprize you.  Now if the two curves fall slightly apart that means that if you select the top 200 people to play football they will all be male.  That doesn’t mean that the women are very far behind the men, a precent or two maybe but that’s all that it takes at the elite level to rule you out. As I said there are women in the lower leagues but not at the top level simply due to the placement of those bell curves.

 

If we lined up the Australian population from best to worst where would you find the first women. Interesting question.  If you were judging people by their abilities to drive trucks the women would be right up there with the men, probably first.  If you were judging intelligence then again women would be right up there with the men but if you were to judge them on physical strength women would be further down the list for simple genetic reasons.  If any of that surprizes you then I think you need to do some more reading.

 

LOL yes toilets are differentiated but that is not discrimination, the rule applies equally to men and women, men don’t get an advantage over women by being directed to the left while the women are directed to the right.  I’m not sure many women would feel hard done by when they are not given urinals so there is no advantage here.  That is not true in the society you paint of course.

 

What is adultery?  In the English language adultery is one married person having sex with someone other than their partner.  I gather you see adultery as something bigger, you seem to paint it as any sex outside marriage, is that how you are defining it?  When talking on an English forum we need to be careful to use English words as they are defined in the dictionary.  I’m not sure there is an English word for what you are referring too, you’d need to string a few words together to capture that concept.  Maybe just “unmarried or adulterous sex” would do.  Does that make sense?

 

I don’t know if we have low rates of adultery, I suspect that our rates are average for a free country.  I don’t see adultery as the crime you seem to see it as.  Adultery is a breach of trust between two people and for that it should not happen though there are exceptions of course, the example I gave where the couple agreed to sex outside the marriage for example.  That would technically count as adultery but it was done with the full permission of both parties so I don’t see that as an issue.  Not how I would live but it apparently works for some people.  I suspect that it’s possible to get reasonable statistics on adultery as if the survey is confidential there’s no reason not to tell the truth but I’m no researcher.

 

My understanding is that a man who rapes a woman will be severely punished in your country but proving that he raped her, unless there are independent witnesses, is virtually impossible so the punishment won’t often occur and that is a serious issue.  Is it not true that if a man and a woman stand up in court, she claims rape and he claims otherwise, he’ll win unless there is an independent witness?  The punishment will never include the death penalty here as we don’t accept that penalty for any crime but a recent case saw the perpetrator locked up for life plus 1000 years.  Most rapes don’t get that sever a penalty with the average being around 10 years in prison.  The big difference is that proof of rape is far simpler in our system as the woman’s testimony counts exactly the same as the man’s so it comes down to whose stories is more consistent and believable.  Raped women often prove their case in court with no corroborating evidence.

 

Compensation is a civil matter, the woman is free to sue the man for money once he is convicted and such cases are usually successful given that he has already been proven guilty before they start.

 

Yes adultery and marriage, arranged marriages etc are human invented concepts not natural ideas as nature has no such thing.

 

Chastity is a term we understand but it’s not something that most westerners put much value in.  The idea of chastity is a religious concept with no natural value but if you want to get worked up about it then that’s fine by me.  Don’t expect me to care however.

 

Incest is another story, incest has been shown to have natural consequences if children are produced.  Genetically the products of incest are far more likely to have genetic defects than other people.  If there are no children then I see nothing wrong with incest so long as the people involved are truly free to make that choice and there is no coercion involved.  That’s a tall order as there are usually power gradients in such relationships, parent’s have power over children and siblings have a pecking order so again power from one to another so that makes it a difficult thing but not inherently wrong if no children are produced.

 

So you are discussing how AIDS would progress if there were no modern medicine or preventative measures is that correct.  In that case AIDS is a very hard disease to catch so it’s progress would be slow but it might indeed cause us problems.  We have seen the appearance of people who are naturally resistant to it over quite a few years so that would mean that no population would go extinct but they would certainly be reduced in number over time.  Would we lose half our population?  I don’t think we know enough about it to be sure but it’s not impossible.

 

You’ll note that I gave figures for Australian annual infection rates not overall infections.  I stated that clearly in my earlier response.  Yes we have around 40000 cases and a death rate per year of around 100 people.  The disease is now treatable so it has become a chronic condition rather than a death sentence in this country.  Yes the families of those 100 people will be very sad at their deaths, that’s true for any death and not specific to AIDs.  We would decrease the overall sadness significantly if we stopped driving cars as that kills far more people than AIDS in this country.

 

Yes there are other STD’s out there and they cause their share or problems. They are far more common than AIDs but most can be cured with little more trouble than we expend on curing the infection you get from cutting your finger.  In proportion to all the medical issues we have in our society they are not a significant problem.

 

There is only one cancer that I am aware of that is passed on through sex and we now have a vaccine for its cause so that’s a solved problem.  There will be residual issues for some years because the vaccine can only help people who have not already contracted the virus but it can stop the spread of this disease in its tracks from today.

 

Are there 150000 AIDs deaths in the US, is that the figure you’re quoting?  That sounds very high but I’ve never looked into their statistics.  I know the Australian figure is far better than that so it’s possible with a little work to do better without stopping people leading good lives.

 

5 minutes twice a week, I think you need to learn how sex is done properly man!!!!  Remember what I said above about people missing out by not experiencing life.  This is a clear example.  I’m sure I’ve had sex in 5 minutes but not often.  We’d have to be in a hurry for some specific reason to rush things that much.  Please get out there and learn what sex can be!  You are really missing out on one of life’s true joy’s.

 

In the end I have no problem with you deciding that you wish to remain celibate till marriage to a celibate woman and keep yourself safe that way.  You can live in my society and do exactly that if that is what you desire but I have a problem with anyone who wishes to decide what is best for me.  If I choose to take risks because I enjoy the experience why should you prevent me?  I could be riding a motorcycle in a race, I could be flying an aeroplane or white water rafting or yes having sex just for fun without marriage, these are all risky behaviours and, so long as we know the risks and we know what to do to minimize them we should all be free to make those choices.

 

LOL why should I care to protect my lineage unless that makes me feel good?

 

Seat belts are a good example of what I’m talking about.  Driving is inherently dangerous but science has shown that you have a far lower chance of dying or being injured if you wear a seatbelt.  Seatbelts don’t constrain you any more than wearing a condom does so why should we stop driving or having sex, despite the risks, when there are simple measures we can take to minimize those risks.  I know lots of people who have had sex outside of marriage, not one of them has ever contracted an STD.  Sure I understand that it happens all too often but it’s not common.  I know a number of people who’ve been injured and six people who were killed in car accidents.  Dying from STD’s is virtually unheard of these days but dying in a car accident is common.  Why don’t you have a problem with people driving?  If you were really concerned about deaths that would be your focus but you focus rather on a way for people to have demonstrably healthy fun.  Yes the science is clear, sexual activity is good for you, it’s good cardiovascular exercise, it prevents testicular cancer and people who have good sex lives are happier and healthier overall than those who abstain.  Your focus makes no sense from a purely science based perspective.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you see arrogance? There is no arrogance that I can see, and no one said there is no domestic violence in America. Keep in mind American is full of people from every religion and that includes Islam.

The point is that it is not taught in our holy books only in yours!

Peace be to you

Because I have discussed this issue with many Americans and they start the conversation in arrogant way and show that they have no understanding of how widespread domestic abuse is in the world and especially their own country. They confine it a lot of the time to a Middle Eastern problem.

 

You know you are exactly the type of person that brings people down because you tell a Muslim and in particular a female how she is treated. I really do not like people like you because you do not know the condition of a Muslim woman. I really doubt people like you understand anything about a Muslim woman and how she feels. I can tell you I am really happy of my status in Islam and I do not feel in any way abused or disadvantaged. You just make accusations like oh your book allows women to bet up. You don't understand Islam at all if that is what you think. Really you don't. There are many religious Muslim women out there who are fighting against domestic violence. This is something you do not want to accept because you view Islam through a foggy lense. There are so many sayings of the prophet that show how women should be treated, but you can continue to ignore them. Ignorance is bliss for some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ParadiseLost

 

There are two sides to these discussions it appears to me and that is critical.  I only know what life is like in Muslim society because you people at these forums describe it to me.  I’ve never lived in a Muslim country and have only a few Muslim friends.

 

Firstly there is the way Muslims live.  I believe, from what I’ve read, that most Muslim men treat their women very well.  Very few commit domestic violence against them, very few rape them or beat them or force them into doing things they don’t want to do.  It’s normal human behaviour to act this way for most people so that’s not really a very interesting discussion in my humble opinion.  I believe the levels of violence etc is higher in Muslim society than in the west but it’s a problem on both sides of the fence as far as I can see.  That difference in levels is an interesting discussion point.

 

Then there is the way Muslims are taught to behave by the quran.  From what people here have described that is a very different thing.  I am lead to understand that women are treated as second class in this system.  Sure men are taught to protect and look after their women but they are also taught that women should not be free to do many of the things that they might want to do.  Women are not supposed to go out in public on their own and be themselves.  They have to hide their bodies and they have to avoid associating with men outside their family.  In the marriage the two are equal but the man has the casting vote in all things so there is never a situation in which the husband and wife could disagree and the woman can overrule the man while the man can always overrule the woman.  All of these things are sexist and so wrong.

 

None of that changes the fact that most Muslim men treat their women very well but the quran says that they don’t have to.

 

Then we have the social system in which arranged marriages are considered a good idea.  That men and women are incapable of going out there and meeting people, finding someone who suits them and deciding to marry them.  That too is evil in my opinion.

 

This sexual phobia that you present is also a very bad idea I’d have to suggest.  Because of all the taboos you live under you can’t go out and play the field, have sex with a number of people so that you have some idea what you like sexually and you have some idea if you are compatible with the person you will marry before you are married.  That too is a bad idea.

 

Then we have the homophobic sentiments expressed by many Muslims here which, in the end, can only be justified by the “God don’t like it” idea but no logic or rational evidence has yet been presented to support this idea.

 

Humanism says that we should make rules that encourage people to be as happy as they can be, if that means for you being celibate till marriage then that’s fine but if that means you heading out and playing the field with all the risks that entails that too should be fine so long as it is a truly informed choice.

 

Islam teaches you that the place you occupy as a woman, and so as the lesser partner in marriage and society, is what you deserve and, believing that, you feel happy.  It doesn’t worry you that you can’t go out and become a truck driver or a fighter pilot.  Most women would feel the same as you but there’s a percentage who won’t be happy living as you do but your system says that they don’t have that choice.

 

In the end I believe that to be a truly fair society all rules must be applied to people not to women or men.  There must be no discrimination.  In the end many women will choose to be conventional, stay at home, mothers and house wives but the ones who don’t want that should be free to make other choices.  Your system treats all people as if there is a mould they should fit into but there are always going to be people who would be happier out of the mould, men and women.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redeemed I am not replying to any of your post because every time your reply is full of things about Paul and how Jesus is the savior. I am not wasting my time in discussions with people like you.

 

Russell I do agree with some things you say but I also disagree with other things you say. 

 

I do think you have little knowledge about the Islamic rulings on the condition of a woman. However, you are here to learn so I would like to tell you a bit more. Like you said :

 

Women are not supposed to go out in public on their own 

This isn't true. Women are allowed to go about their daily needs. When their husband is working who do you think goes and buys the shopping or brings the children to school? Or maybe she wants to go to the local Masjid to pray. Maybe she wants to visit her family who live nearby or maybe she has a sick relative in hospital she wants to visit. What about if she is studying do you think her husband must sit beside her in class? Do you really think that a womans husband goes with her everywhere and she has to wait until he is home from work in order to do something outside the home? That is just not the way it is. I think what a lot of non Muslims confuse is that there is only restrictions when the woman wants to travel really far from her local area, then she needs a mahram with her. You may view this as a bad thing but for me it isn't. I think it is a good thing that Muslim men care about the location of their women and want to ensure they are safe. 

The prophet encouraged married people to strike a balance. The woman should inform her husband of where she will go alone and he should not restrict her from going about her daily needs. There is a famous saying of the prophet in which he told men not to prohibit women from going to the Masjid. The prophets wives were involved in the local community they were not prisoners in their home 24/7. That said I do acknowledge there are men who do isolate women at home and even refuse for them to visit their own parents. But I want you to know that this is not right in Islam. The prophet didn't teach men to be cruel like this to women. He encouraged them to work within the boundaries of the Islamic law. 

 

 

They have to hide their bodies 

Yes modesty is highly valued in Islam. Some women choose to cover their whole body, others choose to cover all their body except their face, others just to cover the body but not their hair. There are differences in opinions over modesty in Islam. But generally most women in Islam tend to wear loose clothing and may cover their hair. I do not see anything wrong with this. I respect a woman who covers her whole face as much as a woman who just chooses to cover her body with loose clothing. Maybe not you but most men have the nature that they are attracted by a woman. And if her body is clearly on show then the man can become more attracted and cannot help but stare at her due to his nature. Therefore in Islam we place emphasis on keeping our bodies for our husband. I can assure you that if a woman who is covered up was standing beside a woman who was wearing revealing clothes, it is the latter that will be stared at more. Now you may think staring is not a big deal and in fact some women like the attention but in Islam our values are different. We don't want to be subject to the thoughts of men, and be in a situation where men make comments about our body. 

And I would just like to note that there are also conditions of modesty for men in Islam. Both men and women are required to lower their gaze i.e. not stare at the opposite sex.

 

 

and they have to avoid associating with men outside their family.

This is true to an extend but it depends on what you mean by associating. If you mean making a close friend with the opposite sex well this is considered not a good thing in Islam. However there are situations in life where a woman must interact with men. Maybe she goes to the hospital and the doctor is a man. Maybe the teacher of her child is a man and she needs to talk with him about how her child is getting on in school. Maybe the shopkeeper at the local grocers is a man and she needs to ask if they have an item in stock. Maybe the bus driver is a man and she needs to ask where a certain location is. It is not like a woman spends her whole life only talking with men in her family there are times when she has to talk with other men. There are requirements in Islam about how this is done for example the woman shouldn't be alone with the man and there shouldn't be physical contact. The best example again is of the prophet for us. He encouraged us to be modest and respectful to one another. 

 

 

None of that changes the fact that most Muslim men treat their women very well but the quran says that they don’t have to.
This is completely untrue. There is absolutely nothing in the quran or sayings of the prophet that says do not treat your wives well. There are so many rulings in the quran directed at men in how they should treat their wives. The prophet said the best among you are those who are best to their wives. Read the following if you want more knowledge on the topic:

http://www.Islam-qa.com/en/41199

 

 

Then we have the social system in which arranged marriages are considered a good idea. 

I would just like to say that this sort of system is more prevalent in some muslim countries than it is in others. It is not specifically an Islamic thing. There are a lot of muslims out there who criticise arranged marriages. I am one of them. I know a muslim woman who is married and it was an arranged marriage. They have been married years but she is still unhappy. He is not violent, he gives her money but there is no love. She is not happy with him. I think that these situations are very dangerous because you are sentencing a woman to unhappiness and an environment like this has a great effect on children. 

I am also really critical of how some families arrange marriages between people and the two people barely know each other. I don't think it is a good thing because when they get married they may realise how different they are and how much they don't like each other. Plus in some cultures they frown upon a divorced woman even though this is not right in Islam.

However, I still do not agree with the type of system you propose. i don't think we need our women to go out and be involved in sexual relations with every man she thinks could be a potential husband. No way would I agree to this. I think it is a disgusting advice really. Islam is the balance between these two extremes. A woman should be allowed to get to know the man within a setting she is not alone with him. They should be a given sufficient amount of time to understand each other. And a lot of Muslims follow this system. Believe it or not there are love marriages that happen between muslims. 

 

Then we have the homophobic sentiments expressed by many Muslims here which, in the end, can only be justified by the “God don’t like it” idea but no logic or rational evidence has yet been presented to support this idea.

Are you talking about our view on gay people. I don't think it fits into this topic but a short answer it is not allowed in Islam. 

 

I think the main thing that you don't see that we see is that men and women were created differently. And therefore we cannot have a system in which a woman and a man have the same duties and rights. Islam gives them the duties and rights that suit their nature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paradise Lost

 

You are right that I know little of Islam and how it works, most of what I know or think I know I’ve learned from reading this and a few other Islamic forums.  Definitely a sketchy way of learning about a belief system though it’s interesting to see what the believers of Islam actually believe and especially the contradictions between believers.

 

Firstly let me say that I see the picture you paint as sexist and discriminatory but I understand where you are coming from.

 

What you say about women going out to do the shopping etc makes sense.  It would be hard to live if you weren’t allowed out at all so being able to go to the market or the doctors etc is reasonable.  As with pretty much all of my objections to your system it’s not what you are allowed to do that bothers me it’s what you are not allowed to do.  My wife took three of our children on a bush walk two weeks ago.  They were away for seven nights in the bush with limited communications.  She met a number of men along the way and chatted with them at some length even camped with them and I’ve heard all about their stories.  One was a muslim school teacher who was an interesting guy by the sounds of it.  They overtook his group a couple of times when he stopped to pray.  Me I see nothing wrong with her travelling alone and unaccompanied like this but I gather you would not think this was appropriate.  She has also travelled in the past to the other side of the world on business on her own to countries which did not speak our language.  Again I have no problems with this.

 

I understand that horrible things might happen to her in these circumstances, they might happen to me if I was the one traveling, but life is full of risks so I don’t see any issues with her choosing to take some risks to get the most out of her life.  Don’t get me wrong I care very much about her safety but I also want her to enjoy her life as fully as possible so I accept the danger of her traveling a long distance and on her own because she gets so much from the trips and it’s impractical to arrange to have someone escort her when she does such trips.  Also I think having someone tagging along when she travels would take a great deal of the enjoyment of it away from her.  The challenges she meets on her own along the way are part of the excitement for her.  What it all finally boils down to is that, even though I’d love to be there to look after her all the way I trust her to be a fully capable human being, to be capable of looking after herself and to be capable of behaving herself while she’s away without me being there to look after her or keep an eye on her.

 

You say you are supposed to strike a balance, the woman should tell her husband where she’s going and he should not restrict her from going about her daily needs.  Read that very carefully.  Firstly it is one sided, only the woman has these restrictions I gather and secondly it only says he should not interfere with her “daily needs”.  My wife’s overseas trips or that bush walking trip are not daily needs and she was far from home and unescorted so both would be a problem to you I gather.  Why should the husband be allowed to do these things while the wife is not?  Why doesn’t he have to inform her where he’s going and seek her permission?

 

I guess I’m still teasing out what Islamic law says on these questions but so far it appears sexist and restrictive to me to no good end.  That last is critical.  I see no problems with restrictions if they serve a real purpose.  Preventing people from doing things which will harm them or society in general is what the law is all about and we need laws.

 

Modesty is an interesting question.  I’ve discussed this with others in our society and the question of the hijab came up.  In our society it’s seen as antisocial to hide yourself away like that, not just covering the hair but covering the face and it’s actually illegal in banks and other secure areas.  I explained however that if you were raised to believe that that was the correct way to dress you’d feel much the same as we would feel if we visited a culture that said we were not allowed to wear pants.  We would all feel embarrassed and naked in that situation.  Removing the face covering for someone who’s learned that this is the way to live would make them feel the same way.  That being said I don’t believe it is right that anyone should be forced to cover up at all.  It’s considered improper to wear a bikini to a formal setting in our society but it’s not illegal nor considered immoral.  Many women like to wear modest clothing, to cover their bodies with loose layers so that you can’t see too much but many women want to show off, they like the power they feel when men look at them and\or they enjoy the compliment that is implied when they are admired.  In our society that’s about all they are likely to get by showing off in this way.  It would be different if they lived in a society where they were likely to be sexually harassed or raped for showing of as a number of Muslims have told me they’d deserve and receive in your society.  I saw a current affairs article recently in which a camera crew travelled with some women who did not wear the hijab and they filmed the harassment they received along the way because if it.

 

It is fair when the restriction is placed on both men and women to be modest. I don’t believe that is a good way to live, it is denying what we are, mammals, but so long as both parties live under the same rules it is at least not sexist or discriminatory.  I have no problems if a woman wants to look at me by the way.

 

Yes I was talking about social associations and friendships between men and women.  Most social organizations in my society are mixed sex.  Often they have a bias towards one sex or the other but that is a matter of preference rather than rule.  Men are more likely to be interested in fishing or racing cars than women but women do get involved.  Women are more likely to be interested in cake baking or needle work but again men do get involved.  That’s normal in my society and healthy I would suggest.  Deep friendships are less common for many reasons but social friendships are common.  My wife has a number of male friends and I have a number of female friends among my circle.  That’s again perfectly normal and healthy.

 

The biggest thing that makes all this work is trust.  I trust my wife to have male friends and to keep those friendships as just that. I trust her not to go further with any of her male friends and to be open about what they do and she trusts me in the same way.  It wouldn’t work if I didn’t trust her but I do.

 

Having male friends for women or female friends for men broadens your outlook.  We both get to hear the points of view of a wider range of people this way and that’s a good learning experience.  We can better judge the world and the ideas and actions of those around us if we understand better what the community around us thinks.  Segregation between the sexes would restrict that.

 

I said that I believe that the majority of Muslim men treat their wives very well and I’d heard that the Quran tells them that they should do so but it also says, as I’ve been lead to understand, that if a wife and husband have a dispute the husband gets the casting vote.  Look at that position mathematically for a moment.  There are two people on this committee so that means there are two possible outcomes of any disagreement, either they talk about it and come to an agreement where they both vote the same way or the husband gets his way because he has the casting vote.  I understand that most men would not do this but it means that there is never a situation in which the wife can outvote the husband even if she really really wants some specific outcome but the husband can always outvote the wife and get what he wants.  Because that casting vote is assigned to the male and never to the female that is a sexist system.  Women are treated as inferior.  Is that fair?

 

It sounds like we are agreed on arranged marriage.  I understand that it does work at times but all of the arranged marriages I have personally seen have been mediocre to loveless.  The couple often become attached but are never truly madly deeply in love.  They may work as a couple, producing and raising children but that spark that makes marriage truly special is not there.  It’s really sad to realise just how many people have missed out on the opportunity to be really happy in a relationship because of this system.

 

I’ve seen evidence that showed clearly that children of separated parents are far healthier mentally than children of parents who stayed together just for the children when they did not work as a couple.  It’s likely to be the same for arranged marriages, children would be far better off if their parents were not forced to be together against their wills.

 

I think a country with a reasonable divorce rate is a sign of a healthy system.  Ideally we would all find our perfect match for life the first time so there would be a zero divorce rate but that’s never going to happen in practice.  Therefore there should be no stigma to divorce for men or women.  There isn’t in my country and that’s a good thing.  In practice if a country has no divorce that probably means that the people are prevented from divorcing even though they want to.  It’s human nature to change over time and not always in the same direction as your partner.  There are going to be a percentage of people who, while perfectly suited to start with, will drift apart and become unsuitable as time goes on.  In a really healthy society such people must be allowed to divorce and move on with their lives without stigma.

 

I understand that the sex before marriage idea is a challenge to Muslims but I’ll stand up and defend it in some depth if you are willing to discuss it.  There are many areas of compatibility that need to work between two people for them to be successful as a married couple.  You need similar or complimentary outlooks and ideas on areas from religion and morals to holidays and housing.  Compatibility is the key to a successful marriage and sexual compatibility is a crucial part of that.  If you are not sexually compatible how can you ever form a lasting relationship?  If you hate the things he wants to do in bed or he hates the things you love you are not going to be happy.  How will you ever know what you like and don’t like if you’ve never done these things?  How can you understand what works for you sexually as a virgin?

 

I have no problems with your system where it accepts such ideas as love marriages.  I think that is the only way a marriage should ever be formed.  People who feel the need for arranged marriages appear to me to be too cowardly to go out and meet people on their own and that’s unhealthy.

 

Yes I was talking about your views on homosexual relationships.  I understand that it is not allowed in Islam but the question I have is, as always, other than the “god does not like it” idea why is this a problem?  For homosexuals this is what makes them happy, it does not hurt you or me, it does not hurt them and it makes them happy so why should anyone have a problem with it?

 

From what I can see human traits basically all fall on bell curves.  Some few people at the extremes in any trait well away from the average but the majority in the middle forming the bump in the curve.  The average man is stronger than the average women because the bell curves are separated based on sex with women lower down than men but I’ve met women who are far stronger than I am so this is not an absolute just a genetic average.  Mental abilities also fall on a bell curve and in this case the curves for males and females are indistinguishable, women are just as capable mentally as men.  That’s true for many characteristics.  I’ve met women who want to be truck drivers in the mining industry and I’ve met men who want to be house husbands.  Why should these people be forced to live within your rules when they want something else?  In the end your system seems to treat all men and all women as if the human race were created out of two distinct moulds, all men like X and all women like Y so you’ve framed your society around that idea.  One thing we learn from the bell curves is that people at the extremes don’t fit into those moulds.  They will be happier if they can live lives that contradict your idea of the perfect society.  I think we should let those women who want to drive trucks or fly fast jets do so and those men who want to do needle craft or look after children do so.  Maybe most people would fit into the moulds you have for them but what about those people who don’t?  Why should they be forced to live by rules that make them unhappy?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

Maybe the majority could be happy living under sharia law, it’s possible.  I suspect that a large minority would not be happy and I suspect that the vast majority could be happier under another system and that’s the most important point.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Russell

 

There is a lot to go through in your post and I must say we have wandered a bit off the original topic which I why I think it is a good idea we set up a different thread related to women in Islam perhaps vs women in the west or other cultures of course. Anyway I will go through most of your most but lets agree that we won't go off topic here again. 

 

See I really believe you are not taking into account the fundamental differences between men and women. I think you like to use facts and statistics so I would also like to include these.

 

With regards to your wife going to the bush for a few days and you trusting her that is great. It is a lovely thing in a marriage to trust your spouse. In fact it is an essential thing to a happy marriage. However, non Muslims often feel that the muslim husband does not trust his wife and therefore makes restrictions on where she goes. However it is not about not trusting the wife it is about not trusting the people in society she could interact with. So with regards to the situation of your wife Muslims wouldn't criticise you for trusting your wife they would praise you for this but they would criticise you for trusting strangers who you do not know with your wife. The fact is women are more subject to sexual assaults compared to men. If you look at worldwide statistics of rape and sexual assault or violence against women and compare it to men the differences speak volumes. 

According to the WHO 1 in 5 women will suffer rape or attempted rape in their life. That is a huge statistic to think about! In Islam it is not about restricting the woman from her freedom but rather about restricting the situations in which a woman could be hurt. To you maybe this is strange but to me it is strange that a man doesn't care where his wife goes and doesn't ask. It is actually a sign of love that a man cares about the situations his wife goes to. And you are right life is full of risks but in our life we do many things to prevent risks. People who care about their health don't smoke to lessen their chances of getting lung cancer. There are countless examples that we make everyday in our life to reduce the risks of ourselves being put in dangerous situations. You will find a lot of Islam is about preventing problem before it happens and that can be related to this issue. 

 

With regards to the original topic that is why there is a strict 3 step guideline to help a husband show his wife he is not happy with her behaviour. If a woman is making a problem for her husband and he wants to deal with this problem well Islam does not say beat your wife up and then she will learn a lesson. Rather it outlines a preventive 3 step guideline.

 

Islam does strike a balance though. See you fail to realise that in Islam the man is the provider. It isn't even an option for the man he has to provide. He was given that greater responsibility by God. It interests me why you equality people do not criticise this you are always concerned about the status of women in Islam. I actually think in Islam women are pretty priveleged. Their father firstly has to provide for them, when she gets married she has to be given a mahr, her husband must provide for her and in the event they have children he must care for them. Now you will say but why can't the woman be the provider. The woman has been given a special role in life that makes her extremely different from the man. She can carry life. She can give birth. This is something really that differentiates a man and woman. And I will discuss the biological and psychological implications of this later. The primary role given to the woman is that of being a mother. It is a really valued thing in Islam and mothers have a high place in Islamic society.

 

And I really do believe there are places in the workforce where it is essential we have women. But I still criticise the system by the west and more importantly the capitalist system which has forced women to work. There are many women who miss out on the chance of seeing their child grow up because their child spends most of the day in a daycare. The woman is not equal to the man when she works like she does in the west. She actually becomes more unequal. Why? Because it is the women who will work and it is the woman who will still look after the children and her husband. It is really rare when the man stays at home while his wife works. Yes there are cases but you must admit that on the whole the woman is working and taking care of the children. Therefore the workload of the woman is doubled while the workload of the man is the same. Where is the equality in that. I don't want to sound like I am making basic statements here because there are cases when unfortunately women have no option but to work. They may have no man to support them or they may be experiencing financial problems and I really believe we must help women in these situations. Anyway I could go on and on about the workforce of the west and why I think it has failed women but I would prefer we did it in a separate topic where we can go into detail. 

 

Anyway onto your statement about is it fair to say women are inferior in Islam. I disagree with the word inferior because it can be used in a lot of wrong ways. It can give the impression the woman is inferior as a whole. This is not the case because in Islam women are equal to man with regards to how they can reach Allah. A womans prayer is as equally valid as a man's prayer. A woman's fast is as equally valid as a mans fast. There is the ability of a woman to excel a man in terms of spirituality just as a man can equally excel a woman in spirituality. So I don't like when I hear non Muslims say women are inferior in Islam because I certainly do not feel inferior. What I would agree to is that women are different from men. Some things women excel at in life and in other things men excel at in life. 

 

One thing that is very different between men and women is biological and psychological differences. Like I said earlier a woman can give birth which a man cannot do. This is because the hormonal system of a woman is different from that of a man. And if you have ever studied in this area you will know that hormones have an effect on the psychology as well as biological effects. The two main hormones of a woman are estrogen and progesterone. These hormones have a huge effect on the female body as every month they cause her to menstruate. I don't think it was in this topic but brother dot posted some info about the problems women can experience due to their hormonal system such as pms. There are sayings in most societies or attitudes that show that people know it is that time of month and not to annoy a woman. I am sure you have heard such comments before. Anyway what I want to underline here is that you must acknowledge that these biological differences have an effect on our lives. I should know myself. Now I just want to know what you think of the following statistics:

 

Women are more likely to have been treated for a mental health problem than men (29% compared to 17%). (Better Or Worse: A Longitudinal Study Of The Mental Health Of Adults In Great Britain, National Statistics, 2003)

 

Depression is more common in women than men. 1 in 4 women will require treatment for depression at some time, compared to 1 in 10 men. (National Institute For Clinical Excellence, 2003)

·        
Women are twice as likely to experience anxiety as men. Of people with phobias or OCD about 60% are female.  (The Office for National
Statistics Psychiatric Morbidity report, 2001)

 

In the United States 51% of people treated in mental health facilities were women while 29% were men (WHO Mental Health Atlas 2011)

 

In Russia 43% of people treated in mental health facilities were women while 22% were men (WHO 2011)

 

What are your reactions to these. I just have a few here but if you look at statistics worldwide there is a common trend in that woman are more likely to suffer from mental health issues compared to men. It isn't a specific area of the world but a worldwide statistic. Now there is excellent research out there that makes connections between hormones and mental health. You should look into if you are interested. So what I am saying is you cannot force men and women to be equal when they were created differently. We have scientific evidence of their differences. I don't want to come across as saying women are crazy and therefore they are inferior or something like this. I wouldn't want to put that across but what I am saying is that women at times in their life are very emotional unstable such as during pregnancy and after pregnancy. Menopause of course also has effects on women. These are conditions men do not have to put up with. But to me it isn't a bad thing that as females we have such a biology because Allah gave us the primary role of being a mother and therefore our nature is very special in rearing children. And it is really a gift from Allah to have such a responsibility in carrying a life and nurturing a life. 

 

I realise there are some comments in your post I have not touched upon such as divorce rates, homosexuality, etc but I hope you can make seperate topics about these and I will engage with you there. I am not really willing to discuss sexual issues other than the effects of the type of system you promote. But I wouldn't want to get in any sort of detailed discussion regards sexual relations, I hope you understand. Well I hope we can discuss more but as I said we have really gone off topic from the original post here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ParadiseLost

 

LOL yes we have wandered a bit off topic and we’ve certainly gone deep into some of these issues so there is a lot to go through but I don’t mind that if you don’t.  I think the points you made deserved in-depth answers.

 

If you want to start another thread for some of this discussion then that’s fine just post a link here and I’ll follow you there.

 

I accept that the average woman and the average man are different in many ways.  Obviously we are physically different and not just in our direct sexual differences but in our average body size strength and mental makeup but the point it seems that you won’t accept is that not all women want the things you suggest they should.  Many women and many men will fit into a mould such as you are suggesting but there are some who don’t fit.  Why do we need to force people into moulds?  If they want to live as you suggest, male = breadwinner female = child raiser, then in an open and free society such as I’m suggesting they will choose to do so.  In fact many in my society do choose this as my wife and I have done.

 

I discussed quite a few of the ideas presented here with my wife and she laughed at the idea that any significant number of women would want to live under a system which prevented them from doing what they wanted with their lives.  I think her viewpoint is common in the west among women who’ve had the chance to live lives of autonomy and self-determination.  I can’t see many women from this culture deciding to give up their freedoms for the restrictive lifestyle you suggest that all women should live under.  I’ve never lived in a society in which men had the final say in marriages and neither has she but I think we can easily enough imagine what that would be like and it certainly doesn’t suit me or her.

 

I do trust my wife to travel unescorted, I trust her to behave reasonably and I understand that muslim men might also trust their wives the difference is that I accept the risk that she might be attacked while understanding that it’s a very small risk in our society.  It would be horrible if it happened but I don’t actually know anyone to whom it has happened even though all of my friends live this way and even though I’ve seen it in the news so I know that it does go on.  So in the end I know that the risk is tiny compared to the benefit she gains from these adventures and I know that she is a strong and capable woman, she’s only half an inch shorter than me and I’m not short and I know that any man who tried anything with her would be in for a serious fight and she is virtually as strong as I am so the outcome of that fight could never be certain.

 

I understand that women are far more likely to suffer from sexual attacks of one form or another than men but I also know that such attacks are very very rare in this community and that the perpetrators of such attacks are hunted down and punished severely for their crimes so the risks, while they do exist, are probably lower than the risk of serious injury she takes on when she drives her car somewhere.  You seem to blow the risks out of all proportion or maybe you live in a far more horrible society than I do in which case your caution may be justified but here it is not.

 

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not about not caring, I always find out where she’s going and she always finds out where I’m going.  On that last trip I dove them to the start of and picked them up from the end of the walk and they carried a satellite tracker so I knew where they were and that they had not run into any trouble all of the time.  It’s about balance, even though that one in five statistic is horrible the picture you paint would limit all women for all of their lives to avoid a one in five chance that once in their lives they’d have a problem.  Surely that should be up to the women involved to decide.  What if she was willing to take that risk?  Shouldn’t she be allowed to take on the risk for the benefits she can gain from doing these things?  Do you have any idea how much can be gained from doing trips such as these?  From striking out on your own, looking after yourself in the wild for a week?  It’s an amazing thing.  I’m really sorry that I had to work so I couldn’t go with them this time.

 

I suspect that the one in five statistic does not apply in this country.  From my experience the figure here is far far lower but there certainly is still a risk.  Of course most of those attacks are from men the women know not from strangers met while traveling.  Last I heard the odds were something like 90% of these attacks were committed by me know to the woman involved and only something less than 10% were from strangers so travel is not really the problem here.

 

I understand that there is a three step guide in Islam to teaching your wife what she is doing wrong but it is one sided, as far as I’ve heard no such process exists for a woman who is having trouble with her husband not behaving as she would want.  Why is it only the man who gets such instruction?  Why is it assumed that the man will need to teach his wife how to behave as if men aren’t just as often the problem?  It’s commendable to tell men not to beat up their wives but I’ve heard quite a few instances of women beating up their husbands so this is not a one way street though men are far more of a problem on average.  Surely that advice should be given to both men and women.  Surely the Quran should teach people not to beat people up rather to talk about their issues rationally and forget totally the sex’s involved because violence occurs between females, between males and from male to female and female to male.

 

Yes I understand that Islam says that the man must be the provider and I have criticised that before.  I have an acquaintance who is a house husband and his wife is a very successful lawyer.  She makes far more money than he could and he is a far better ‘mother’ than she could be.  This arrangement works for them and their children but Islam tries to push people into those two boxes regardless of what actually works for them.  That is the crucial fault I see in your system.  It’s not that most men aren’t happy to be the provider and are probably better at it but the fact that this is not always the case and your system paints people as if they should always fit into those two boxes regardless of what actually works for the people involved.

 

My wife has worked in the past but she’s not at the moment, I’m the bread winner and she is at home running our household.  In a way that is a privileged position but it is how we currently chose to live our lives.  At times in the past she has worked because we ‘needed the money’ but to some extent that is how we chose to live our lives.  We could have chosen a smaller house and cheaper cars etc and we could have survived on one wage but the extra money meant we could have a better lifestyle so she worked. With that money we’ve managed to take a number of extended trips away with the kids to some really amazing places so it was a very strong positive experience for all of us.  And I have no problem with people who chose to live as you suggest with the husband as provider and the wife as homemaker but I’ve seen many examples of people who live differently and for how that difference makes their lives so much better and your system rules that out and that’s a very serious negative I’d have to suggest.

 

The idea that the woman still has to run the house hold and raise the children and look after her husband when she is working is false at least among my family and among the people I know.  When she was working we both ran the household and I’ve always been a big part of raising our children.  There are chores that she is better at than me but equally there are things around the house that I am better at so we share the load and put in similar amounts of time running the household when we are both working.  When I’m working and she isn’t obviously she gets to put in more time at home than I do while I’m at work.

 

Yes I agree that it is rare to find a house husband and a working woman but you can’t rule them out because they are rare, for some people this arrangement works far better than the more normal alternative.

 

I can’t say much about the merit of your equality when praying, as an atheist I’m sure you understand how much value I place on prayer.

 

I agree that on average men and women are different and men do, on average, excel at certain things while women excel at others but again we get back to the two box’s idea which I have a problem with.  This is true on average but it is not true always and the two box’s approach treats all people as if they must fit into those box’s and that’s unreasonable because it is not always true.  One of our richest people is a woman who runs a mining company here.  She is tough headed and she is the one who actually makes the decisions day to day in that company.  She is worth far more money than the vast majority of men in this country.  Why should she be treated as if her husband, who she supports, is the one running her household and supporting her when she is clearly the better of the two at this role?

 

In the more down to earth side women are clearly better at some roles traditionally given to men for example in the mining industry it’s been discovered that trucks have fewer technical problems, last longer and use less fuel if they are driven by women.  Time and again we see those box’s simply don’t work in the real world even if most people will fit into them.

 

The inferiority I am talking about is shown in your statements about my wife traveling on her own.  You say it shows caring that a muslim man would prevent his wife from traveling into danger but that suggests that his opinions on her traveling should carry more weight than hers.  Why should she be prevented from taking that risk if she wants to?  Why should his opinion carry more weight than hers as if she were a child and he was the adult in the relationship?  That’s the inequality I see in this situation.

 

It’s more than just hormones but you are right, biologically we are given roles in reproduction that we can’t transcend at least not at this stage.  Who knows what science may be able to achieve one day.  Yes PMS is a female only problem though I saw a scientific study that suggested that it was actually an invention not an actual problem for women but I tend to believe it does indeed affect women’s moods to some extent.

 

What you’ve shown with your statistics is that women are a bit more likely, even a lot more likely to be treated for mental health issues.  The most interesting question is how many people suffer from these conditions.  Men are not keen at all to admit weakness and to seek treatment while women run to the doctor far easier.  In Australia the suicide rates are higher for men than women while women are more likely to seek treatment and so avoid this outcome so the figures you quote are interesting but not definitive.  To me these statistics, even taken at face value, show us that we all have mental health issues so placing your trust only in males or only in females won’t help, either road leads to problems so we’d better learn to deal with the fact that we are fallible and human rather than singling out one sex as the ‘weaker’ and one sex as the ‘stronger’.  Your statistics show that the majority of women never have any mental health issues and the same goes for men.

 

On a side note did you notice that the WHO Mental Health Atlas 2011 lists 51% female and 29% male treated in mental health facilities.  What I want to know is what were the other 20% who were neither?  Where they treating rocks?  In Russia there were 35% who were neither men or women.  Interesting statistics!

 

I agree by the way that we should never try to force men and women to be the same but I’ve never argued for that, what I argue against is your scheme which paints all men as fitting into one box and all women as fitting into another while we know that there are women who just don’t fit those moulds and there are men who likewise don’t fit.  If most women want to live inside your box’s then that’s fine by me, they can do that in my society and no one will have any problems with it but what about the women who want something else?  Why should they be prevented from doing the things that will make them truly happy?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

I have to agree that a far better message would be that no one should beat anyone, that no husband is more important or has more power than his wife but I’d go further.  All of these rules should be spelled out to people, not to him or her.  People should not beat people, it should not matter what sex the two parties are or what their relationship.  Any rule that makes one side of a marriage more important or powerful than the other, just as the christians and the muslims do, is wrong.  Women have minds just as important as men’s and just as capable of being right or wrong as men’s.  Sex does not determine right ever and any system that suggests that it does is simply wrong.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

I’m not sure the bible means that men and women are equal when it says there’s no male of female in Christ, the bible certainly spells out a sexist system in which the male has the casting vote in a marriage for example which is pretty much the same rule the muslims apply and if you count the characters in the bible women are hardly mentioned at all.  The bias is clearly there.  The point being made was probably not that everyone is equal but that jesus was different in that he did not have the drives of a man or a woman.  Let’s face it such drives are shown as leading to sin and he’s supposed to be without sin so that makes sense in context.  He was definitely male from everything I’ve read but as far as the bible is concerned he didn’t have a girlfriend or wife though some other texts from that time dispute that so I guess we’ll never really know that’s assuming he actually existed which is also a questionable point.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

Yes there are physical differences between men and women and intellectual differences but to claim that men are superior is not supported by evidence.  Intellectual capacity, when tested, appears to be equal between the sexes when educational levels are controlled for.  To suggest that a man should be ‘head of the house’ is there for not supported by evidence but rather it is just a chauvinistic view of the world.  I’m not the head of my household and this system works very well but then we are compatible and so can work things out between us.  I’ve met households which work perfectly well where it’s clear that the woman is the head I even have one acquaintance where the man is the househusband and his very successful lawyer wife is the bread winner.  He seems perfectly capable of raising the children and running the household but he’s one of the most masculine blokes I’ve ever met.

 

As I’ve said before what you paint may indeed work for many people but not for all and by insisting on these rules you are not taking into account all of humanity but rather you are trying to force all of us into a couple of box’s, male roles and female roles, based on an average rather than taking into account all of the richness that is humanity.

 

As for why I still open doors for my wife it’s because I think she’s amazing and I always want to do things for her from making tea for her in the evenings to doing the dishes and yes opening doors and pulling out chairs.  It’s about being good to the one I love more than anything.  Mind you I open doors for strangers and that’s probably just about showing that I’m a nice and considerate person.  I do it for people I don’t know and will never know and have no interest in ever knowing so it’s more than just about looking after my wife.  Mind you I’ve had women open doors for me too so it’s not exclusively a male to female thing in our society though that is more common.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslims claim that Islam is a logical and reasonable religion, and they are taught how to beat their wives in such a way that it is insignificant of how light a touch it is so as not to leave a mark, but isn't it more logical and reasonable to teach men not to beat their wives to avoid the abuse we can see?

Spousal abuse happens in every religion and all over the world, but at least the Bible teaches us to love our wives (not beat them or withhold ourselves from them) like Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. Where is that love in the Quran for the our wives?

Oh my God Redeemed do not talk like Christianity has an equal system for women. You no as well as I know that is not the case. At least us Muslims admit our system treats women and men differently. 

 

[at]Russell I will start a new topic where we can continue shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ParadiseLost

 

I’ve seen that muslims are indeed quite open about the differences in treatment of men and women which is refreshing.  I did get some strong objections when I applied the word sexist to that but that is the English dictionary again not me.  The problem I have with the muslim approach is not that you may not be able to make most people happy with a sexist system because men and women are different on average but that you will cut off the people who don’t fit the average and want something else.  Not all of us will fit into the boxes your system creates for us.  I know I wouldn’t and my wife wouldn’t for example.  If your system restricts people to boxes that don’t fit everyone then it is going to make people less happy than an alternative which does not restrict them and I value happiness.

 

Russell

 

P.S. can you post a link to that new thread once you've created it.  I don't get out and look at all the threads here very often.  Don't get time with all the traffic on these threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×