.
I don't know of any religions though. Certain cultures require men to wear head-coverings, like the Saudis (though usually only in certain circumstances). Sikhs wear turbans, to keep their never-cut hair in place.
For the most part, it's mostly women who are required to cover themselves, because they're the only ones required to be modest, lest they inflame the passions of men.
You can not discuss a religion you don't believe. If you don't believe something then it does not make sense by definition.
1- I think you're confusing equal treatment with identical treatment. I don't think many women would like identical treatment with men. We tend to make adjustment for women so that they are not disadvantaged and so that their differences are recognised and taken into account. Society would not allow women to be forced to work bare chested or to compete in sports against men or to share public toilets with men, to mention just three examples.
2- Since you hint at Islam, I don't think Muslim women would want any drastic changes made to the privileged position accorded to them by Islam as described below:
Islam protects woman from burden. Before her marriage her upkeep is the responsibility of the male members of her family. In marriage it is her husband's responsibility to provide for her upkeep, for the household and for the children, if any. If the wife chooses to work or run a business, her income and wealth are solely hers. She is not obliged to spend on the household, not even the children and even her own upkeep continues to be the responsibility of her husband. If, she chooses to spend on what is her husband's responsibilities it is seen as an act of kindness and carries the reward of a noble charity. Even if a marriage breaks down the protection of the woman from burden continues. The children remain the responsibility of the father to provide for and responsibility for the upkeep of the woman reverts to the male members of her family.
The Church of the Poison Mind
Oh my gosh! Not that horrible song! Thankfully I haven't heard it for quite some time, although I have heard both "Do You Really Want To Hurt Me" and "Karma Chameleon" several times in the last year or so, and those two are even worse.
"Before her marriage her upkeep is the responsibility of the male members of her family. In marriage it is her husband's responsibility to provide for her upkeep, for the household and for the children, if any"
Why should it be the husband's responsibility just because he has a penis? Why should it not be the wife's responsibility just because she has boobs? Those are the basic and obvious differences between men and women that I was taught in school in 1974, those and nothing else. I first heard about Islam the following year but I still didn't learn anything about it that indicated that there were other reasons for the biological differences between men and women apart from the obvious reasons we were taught. Now, after more than 40 years, I have yet to see any evidence that Islam is anything but a way of life that keeps women down. If you can show me at least 100 examples of Islamic women who have overcome the oppression of male dominance for every single one example of the opposite, I might begin to see Islam in a different light. Since you are a self-proclaimed expert on Islam and I am not, I trust that you can succeed in providing the evidence that I ask for. And remember, the evidence you provide must not contain the slightest hint at male dominance. Until then, I will continue to see Islam as a form of male chauvinist piggery.
Meanwhile, what about women who don't want to be "protected from burden" because they are happy to shoulder their own burden, their possession of boobs and lack of a willy notwithstanding? When you are addressing me, it is best to remember to flush traditional gender roles down the toilet where I flushed them myself more than 40 years ago and I am still happy to poo on any lingering traces of traditional gender roles even now. Always keep that in mind when you interact with me.
The thing is, Nevan, I don't like women to be modest, I never did. I much, much, much, much, much prefer women to be fiery and feisty and dominant because that's what does inflame my passions, and I've been like that since quite some time before I was even old enough to have my sexual passions inflamed. The truth of the matter is that I have always liked to be dominated by women since I was in primary school and therefore all that male chauvinist bullsh*ttery has always been a load of boloney to me and it always will be if I am still alive in 100 years' time from now. From that, can you understand where I am coming from when I ask questions like this? Yes, I think you can. :)
That doesn't answer my question, Jewels. Try again.
None that I am aware of.
Not sure if women are required by the Quran or just Hadiths and Islamic law? If there is an obscure line between leniency and harshness on a controversial issue, Islam seems to usually take the harsher route.
Here is what I found (This is a biased site so I recommend to read the verses and ignore the commentary):
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/veils.aspx
QuranQuran (33:59) - "Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them..."Quran (24:31) - "And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known." The woman is not only supposed to cover herself, except with relatives, but to look down, so as to avoid making eye-contact with men. Quran (33:55) - "It shall be no crime in them as to their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their woman, or the slaves which their right hands possess, if they speak to them unveiled" A woman may present herself without a veil only to family and slaves. |
Hadith and SiraSahih Bukhari (6:321) - Muhammad is asked whether it is right for a young woman to leave her house without a veil. He replies, "She should cover herself with the veil of her companion."Sahih Bukhari (60:282) - After Muhammad issued the command (Quran 24:31) for women to cover themselves, the women responded by tearing up sheets to cover their faces. Abu Dawud (32:4092) - The Apostle of Allah... said: "O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands" This was narrated by Aisha. Abu Dawud (2:641) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah does not accept the prayer of a woman who has reached puberty unless she wears a veil. Sahih Bukhari (52:250) - [The Prophet said] "It is not permissible for a man to be alone with a woman, and no lady should travel except with a Muhram (i.e. her husband or a person whom she cannot marry in any case for ever; e.g. her father, brother, etc.)." - Neither is a woman allowed to travel by herself. Sahih Bukhari (8:395): Narrated Umar: "My Lord agreed with me in three things: -1. I said, "O Allah's Messenger, I wish we took the station of Abraham as our praying place (for some of our prayers). So came the Divine Inspiration: And take you (people) the station of Abraham as a place of prayer (for some of your prayers e.g. two rak`at of Tawaf of Ka`ba)". (2.125) -2. And as regards the (verse of) the veiling of the women, I said, 'O Allah's Messenger! I wish you ordered your wives to cover themselves from the men because good and bad ones talk to them.' So the verse of the veiling of the women was revealed. -3. Once the wives of the Prophet made a united front against the Prophet and I said to them, 'It may be if he (the Prophet) divorced you, (all) that his Lord (Allah) will give him instead of you wives better than you.' So this verse (the same as I had said) was revealed." An interesting hadith reveals that Umar was the source of the verse on veils and that "Allah" followed with a concurring verse. Early Muslims were not known for their skepticism. |
Then choose as your soulmate a woman who will arouse your passion by dominating you and being fiery towards you. And let the other women be what they want to be. What's the problem.
your answer JV
AB
When people make statements they are usually addressing what is commonly regarded as the norm. There are of course many varied exceptions to the norm and they cannot all be covered by general statements. Each variation requires to be addressed specifically.
When I am addressing the norm I do not mean to imply that you must conform to those views. Neither is it practical for me to address all possible departures from the norm.
It must be very frustrating for you to come to a forum where the majority are not talking your language or seeing with your eyes.
For those who might not know, the website www.thereligionofpeace.com is an anti Islam and Muslim website. Only those who would go to a fishmonger to find out about the best cuts of beef would go to an anti Muslim website to get objective information about Islam. Not a sign of sound intelligence.
Your reply is one of the problems, CLURT. (1) "And let the other women be what they want to be". That sounds like you think women want to be submissive. The truth of the matter is that the majority of them are actually neither dominant nor submissive. I suspect that you have those outdated fixations of men being dominant and women being submissive, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the reason why you chose Islam as your religion. If I am wrong, why do I get that impression?
(2) My last reply was addressed to Nevan, and instead of letting Nevan answer my questions as addressed to him, you butted in on the thread in the hopes that your comment would influence Nevan's answer in your favour. I see that behaviour as a combination of spam and bad manners, and I don't have much time for either.
CLURT, I don't think this is a case of the majority not talking my language or seeing with my eyes. For your information I AM the norm because everything about me is 100% as my horoscope says it should be, I have never deviated from that. The exceptions to that, i.e. those who deviate from their horoscopes, are the ones who aren't the norm. I don't think I need to say any more.
Texasescimo, why is it a "biased site"? The homepage says the following:
"TROP is a non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom".
"Non-partisan" means exactly the opposite of "biased". At least it did when I first learned of the expression.
1- you have expressed a lot based on pure assumptions and prior judgement. I said "And let the other women be what they want to be". You even quoted me correctly, yet you allege "you think women want to be submissive." and "you have those outdated fixations of men being dominant and women being submissive" and "that's the reason why you chose Islam as your religion" Even a magician couldn't conjure those up from, "And let the other women be what THEY want to be [again] what THEY want to be.... what THEY want to be.... what THEY want to be ".
2- "in the hopes that your comment would influence Nevan's answer in your favour" Seriously? So not only do I want women to be submissive to me I want Nevan to be too. You know too much, eh. How comes you don't know this is an open forum? that anyone who has a relevant comment can join in, that me posting my comments does not stop Nevan from adding his own comments, or anyone else for that matter, that if you want ONLY Nevan's reaction then you shouldn't post on a public forum but send him an email or private message.
Oh dear, CLURT, you still don't get it. I don't believe that millions of women are that submissive by nature, especially when their horoscopes indicate otherwise. If their horoscopes indicate that they do want to be submissive then they are like that naturally (and yes, I do know a few of them) and they don't need an oppressive religion to force them to be that way because they are like that naturally. I don't need to be a magician (or even an astrologer, for that matter) to be sure that the women you are defending were forced to convert to Islam because they were afraid something sinister might happen to them if they refused to convert. How much clearer do I have to make my point?
I'm not a horror-scope man. I think it's superstition. However, each to his/her own.
I leave you to scan your horror-scope and dutifully submit yourself to what it says.
The website says it itself that it's about "the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom". Any intelligent person would be warned by that and the absence of anything positive about Islam.
"If you visit JihadWatch, AtlasShrugs or any of the too numerous to count anti-Muslim hate sites and blogs, you are likely to find on the sidebar a hyperlinked image claiming that “Islamic Terrorists have carried out more than _____ Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11.” The image was created by the anti-Islam hate site, The Religion of Peace (TROP), associated with Islamophobe Daniel Greenfield, aka “SultanKnish,” who you will recall earns a pretty penny from the David Horowitz Freedom Center."
All you will ever achieve from visiting it and any of the numerous sites like it is to increase your confirmation as a supporter of hatred. A huge discredit to yourself and your religion.
CLURT, I am done with this. I will not respond to any more of your comments. My own beliefs remain unchanged.
He's right though. Just because the website says it's nonpartisan doesn't mean anything.
Rpf, if it is not a nonpartisan site then it shouldn't say it is. I would have thought that kind of misrepresentation would have been illegal under the Trades Description Act.
