Mariam highlighted a very disturbing report (in Arabic) published on al-Arabiya’s website that says over 80% of Jordanian women support wife-beating! I’m not sure if this has even a smidgen of truth to it but the figures, released by Jordan’s National Family Council, are quite alarming and disturbing.
According to the report:
- 83% of Jordanian women approve of wife beating if the woman cheats on her husband
- 60% approve of wife beating in cases where the wife burns a meal she’s cooking
- 52% approve of wife beating in case where she’s refused to follow the husband’s orders
I’m quite skeptical, as the figures are very alarming! If this proves true, then a major awareness campaign should take place among Jordanian women as soon as possible! Oh my, the world is going down the drain!
“Nas, Muhammad starts off by saying that “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” Upon being asked why, he says that because you’re half-wits. Now think about it, if he means to state a fact in Islam that women are “deficient in responsibility in matters pertaining to intellect and religion,” why would he connect it with women being the hell-dwellers? Why would Allah send women to hell because of something he has decreed? Surely women could still fast during their cycle, they also can give equal testimony. There is nothing inheritly deficient about them, it’s just a decree. Muhammad’s saying you’re more inclined to go to hell because you’re naturally stupid and make trouble for yourselves and your husbands. Afterall, the ayah in the Qu’ran makes it clear that “women have bad memory”. I see no reason to believe otherwise, he could have easily said something else and avoid referring to the issue of intelligence, like this: Oh women! If you continue to make trouble for your husbands you will go to hell. For Allah likes his women obedient like a herd of sheep!”
I have given u the explination of what he said based on a direct translation rather than giving my opinion or making something up as uve chosen to do. the prophet pbuh is saying to these women they have a defeciency in responsibilities of religion and therefore shud strive to make gains from it. This is clear to all who read it in its original form and context.
“Furthermore, Muhammad says that he has seen hell and it’s feminine. Since according to the Islamic tradition the dead wait in limbo for the Judgement Day, he must have seen into future when the people are judged and the fires of hell are making the divine Lover proud. So, he is making a factual statement, that you women will make it to hell and its because you’re deficient in intelligence; i.e. he’s making an indicative rather than a subjunctive statement”
lol now you’ve brought a totally different hadith to support your first claim because you’ve seen how faulty it obviously is. So let us examine it now that u mention it:
The prophet pbuh said: “I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful.” It was asked, “Do they disbelieve in Allah?” (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, “They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, ‘I have never received any good from you.”
Again let us look at the context of which he has said this, a historical context of which you’ve for the second time chosen to ignore. The prophet pbuh said this on the joyous occassion of Eid as an address to the muslim women, hence he is giving it in the nature of advice and not as a passing insult. so he is warning women (when they asked him why) that they should never deny kindness in a marital situation. Hence in the context of both ahadith the Prophet pbuh is issuing a warning to them in a fatherly manner, for them to avoid this destiny. That they should always be grateful for what Allah swt has given them in religious repsonsibilites as well as the kindness their husbands offer to them. He then continues within that same context to suggest they show kindness in return and give charity.
You must’ve err..forgot..to include that part.
“Women can’t be judges in Islam, I didn’t comment about other positions. When a women’s testimony is counted as half of a man’s, you’d be hard pressed to find a mofasser who’d favour such a position for woman. And don’t forget the 1400 years of history”
I asked you to bring me a decree from Allah swt, simply a verse from the quran, that prohibits women from being judges or other such positions. I’m not sure about judges in Jordan but it does serve as an example of a country who’s state religion is officially Islam following shari3a yet has had several (currently 3 or 4) female Ministers, let alone judges.
“Again, why the 1/2 ratio? Why ignore the possibility of a female head of household? Is it so impossible to have a case where due to whatever reasons a woman would provide for the family? Why doesn’t the formula say whoever happens to provide for other members should get the bigger share? And what better guarantee to preserve women’s well-being by actually giving them the money in equal shares?”
Again, the women’s share comes with no obligiations. Now if I won the lottery and I split it with my sisters equally…they could spend their share on bubble gum within the hour and i would use my share to provide for them. this is how it is in islam inheritance…the male in the family uses his share to provide for them and not on himself…the man is actually getting the raw deal here. This is also a way to keep families in tact after the death of a father for example who takes care of his family. The males in the family take up roles of responsibilities, this happens in all cultures. the financial obligations of the man tend to exceed that of a womans’. this thus ensures the financial security of a woman in an islamic society.
Furthermore, I believe (upon ure insistance of saying 1/2) that you dont know that every situation is different and its not necessarily 1/2, in most cases its not. There are fractions handed out depending on the scenerio and the family make up (i.e. one mother and two daughters, no mother, 1 daughter 1 son, etc)
Compare these rights to those in the jewish or christian religions
“Your unchanging nature? Arabs are made this way? Look at Scandinavia, and compare them with the ME. And this is just after less than 200 years of fighting for equal rights. If the wacky vikings can change so much, what’s there to stop you? How can you make such an unfounded statement? In addition, assigning the same roles doesn’t work for everyone. A woman wants to be independent, an other wants to settle down and keep the house. Khadijah was independent, was she an anomaly? She pretty much financed Muhammad’s little adventures. Don’t degrade yourself and Arabs at large.”
I have not degraded myself nor my ethnic brothers and sisters, on the contrary im pointing out that the male and female roles in the hunter-getherer sense of the words have remained relativly unchanged throughout time. This is because families have not changed as much either. Women are still capable of giving birth and men capable of impregnating them, at least the last time i checked. Most of the world still gets married, there is still the role of a husband and that of a wife. People still have children and still have families. The numbers have changed but the family unit is nevertheless an infite by-product of God’s creation, and as such Islamic doctrine is designed around the family unit and its preservation. The woman can be indpendent as she likes, theres nothing in Islam that says she must be chained to a house and never see daylight, many if not most of the females in my family are independent working women. the idea that Islam is against them is one you’ve either dreamt up or have concluded based on your conclusions of social and cultural elements throughout the arab or the islamic world.
So your homework assignment arash is as follows:
1) Attempt to finish reading the ahadith and the verses before customizing them to suit my arguement, or lack there of.
2) Attempt to understand ahadith in the context of which they were said.
3) Produce a verse from the quran for Nas that proves my (arash) point that women in Islam are not allowed to be judges or to hold these high positions.
4) Read up on inheritance laws and how they are devided from an authentic source (ihateislam.com is not considered reliable)
5) Find a 9th grade biology and discover the wonders of the human reproductive system and how it has remained unchanged since the dawn of mankind.
Sure you can always work (can you?), but so what? So can that bugger with twice the money as you.
Do you agree that sharing the inheritance based on actual responsibilities is better than sharing it based on arbitrary rules like the one Islam has?
That still wouldn’t be a help of equal value, and well, what if the government is just mighty poor? Many Islamic countries hardly have any wealth, look at Mauritania for example, where slavery is still rampant and many people struggle to survive. That is no Sweden.
And again, what’s with the ½ ratio?
Well, let’s look at Jeff’s favorite example, a normal distribution curve. Sure females can be more emotional on average, but they all fit on a curve. Imagine a graph with two extremes and a centre where the curve climaxes. Let’s say the male curve is centred to the left of the female curve, that doesn’t mean every men is less emotional than every women. It just means that the average female is more emotional than the average male. Now, apply the same to the amount of responsibilities, or the “materialness” of people. If we agree on the premises that these qualities disadvantage people when it comes to the practice of law, which I disagree, it would only mean that less women will qualify for such positions. There is still a vetting process, not just anyone can become a judge. So if you claim women are deficient in this regard, why even worry? Surely less will pass the requirements and no harm will be done. On the other hand, if the vetting system is flawed, both disqualified men and women will be chosen. Thus, gender-based discrimination for this matter makes absolutely no sense.
Besides, women are successful judges the world over. Surely Islam can learn a thing or two from their experiences.
I’m not a Muslim, my value system isn’t based on carrots and sticks. It’s a purely selfless act, I tell you what 😉
That’s not working backward Nas, I mentioned Bukhari last. You’re moving in order. But I’ll go backwards just for the sake of it.
Nas, Muhammad starts off by saying that “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” Upon being asked why, he says that because you’re half-wits. Now think about it, if he means to state a fact in Islam that women are “deficient in responsibility in matters pertaining to intellect and religion,” why would he connect it with women being the hell-dwellers? Why would Allah send women to hell because of something he has decreed? Surely women could still fast during their cycle, they also can give equal testimony. There is nothing inheritly deficient about them, it’s just a decree. Muhammad’s saying you’re more inclined to go to hell because you’re naturally stupid and make trouble for yourselves and your husbands. Afterall, the ayah in the Qu’ran makes it clear that “women have bad memory”. I see no reason to believe otherwise, he could have easily said something else and avoid referring to the issue of intelligence, like this: Oh women! If you continue to make trouble for your husbands you will go to hell. For Allah likes his women obedient like a herd of sheep!
Furthermore, Muhammad says that he has seen hell and it’s feminine. Since according to the Islamic tradition the dead wait in limbo for the Judgement Day, he must have seen into future when the people are judged and the fires of hell are making the divine Lover proud. So, he is making a factual statement, that you women will make it to hell and its because you’re deficient in intelligence; i.e. he’s making an indicative rather than a subjunctive statement.
And your conclusion is rather odd:
What are you talking about?
Women can’t be judges in Islam, I didn’t comment about other positions. When a women’s testimony is counted as half of a man’s, you’d be hard pressed to find a mofasser who’d favour such a position for woman. And don’t forget the 1400 years of history.
Again, why the 1/2 ratio? Why ignore the possibility of a female head of household? Is it so impossible to have a case where due to whatever reasons a woman would provide for the family? Why doesn’t the formula say whoever happens to provide for other members should get the bigger share? And what better guarantee to preserve women’s well-being by actually giving them the money in equal shares?
Your unchanging nature? Arabs are made this way? Look at Scandinavia, and compare them with the ME. And this is just after less than 200 years of fighting for equal rights. If the wacky vikings can change so much, what’s there to stop you? How can you make such an unfounded statement? In addition, assigning the same roles doesn’t work for everyone. A woman wants to be independent, an other wants to settle down and keep the house. Khadijah was independent, was she an anomaly? She pretty much financed Muhammad’s little adventures. Don’t degrade yourself and Arabs at large.
lol
Well, I believe in Allah and Allah asked us to defend his name, who asked you to defend Muslim women? btw, I’ve just read Nas’s reply, he said it all.
you can be funny sometimes 😀
As I said, assume I’m a widow I will have to cover my personal expenses, how? If i’m living with a good family males in the family will provide me with the money I need. Also, the late husband’s family, its my right to get money from them if I have kids. If its not enough or I have no one to help me I can always work, actually I can always work whther or not I needed the money. There is nothing that says I can’t take care of myself!
If we’re living under an Islamic system the government is obliged to aid her financially.
As for Judicial roles, Its because often women have like thousands of things to think and worry about and its true for most of women. you can not make a general rule based on the exceptions you know, if some women can remember and notice everything at all times we can not generalize. Imagine a wife, a mother and also a worker isn’t it possible that she forgets and errs unintentionally? while when they are two they can remind each other. I want you to read the verse but I have to look for it in english, mean while other muslims can assure you the same thing. It isn’t because a woman is counted always as half the man, its because a woman has lots of things to take care of and most of those things require her full attention, not to mention the emotional nature of women that make them more involved than men. Needless to say, things are different with men, they are less emotional (the majority of them), they are more material than women and hence their recognition (or whatever you wanna call it) is more accurate and more valid.
we’re talking about people’s rights
here…
Lool. I got a good laugh today. So let me work backwards first and leave the bukhari statement for last, its more fun this way.
So this is what you said to SC:
“Besides even within that framework things aren’t fair. You get half the inheritance than your brother because husbands are supposed to provide for material needs. Well, what if you’re widowed? Can’t marry? Don’t want to marry? How about judicial roles, why a women’s account is counted as half of a man’s? Why can’t woman become judges? And so on.”
first, who says they cant be judges or hold official positions? Show me something in the quran that says women are prohibited from holding such positions.
second, if they are widowed, divorced, they are still provided for. Islam centers around a doctrine of preserving the social fabric (i.e. the ummah) by preserving the institution of family. if a father leaves behind an inheritance the son will get more because his share of the wealth MUST BE SPENT ON THE FEMALE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY. As for their share, they have no obligations whatsoever and can burn it for all anyone cares, their brother or whoever, must still provide for them.
third, the institutions of familiar roles today are more or less the same despite the advancement of women in social roles. they are still well gaurded and protected by their husbands and their brothers and their fathers, especially in arabian cultures, be they muslim or christian or jew. anyone who denies this is blind to this utterly obvious obersvation. thee are roles that shall never change. ever here of the cliche its a man’s world? Hence Allah swt is not taking anything away or turning a blind eye to social devolopment of the masses over a long period of time, but rather acknowledging the mere fact that because of our varying physiologoy we are thus assigned different roles in family life and social life to help keep them in tact. hence because of our unchanging natures we are thus aligned with unchanging social structures.
ah, now the fun part…enter bukhari
First, this is an authentic hadith so no one has refuted it here except u saying that we have, which is odd because its the first time i see it posted here. What is unreliable is the translation, unreliable and unauthentic are two different words in the dictionary. You can say something in arabic and i can translate it in english to which it takes on a whole other meaning in understanding. Any translator will tell you this.
Second, defeciency in intellegence and religion as the Prophet pbuh is attributed to his explination but im guessing you probably stopped reading before you got to that.
In this narrative of the Prophet pbuh according to a normal principle of classical Arabic, some words have been obviously suppressed and hopefully you’ve read and understood the correct arabic words before you decided to go with its varying English translation. The words “Naqisa’tul `aql wal-deen” are translated as: “deficient in intellect and religion” which as you can see have the noun “umu’r” suppressed. The complete phrase is: “Naqisa’tu umu’ril-`aql wal-di’n” or “Naqisa’t fi’ umu’ril-`aql wal-di’n” i.e. “deficient in responsibility in matters pertaining to intellect and religion.
To prove this we can see from the arabic words that the Prophet pbuh was expressing his suprise that even though women have less responsibilities in Islam they still have such a huge impact on their husbands. This is to say, that what they lack in religion is their responsibilities as ordered by Allah swt. For example, we discussed inheritance, men are obliged to spend their share on their sisters, women are not. Men are obliged to attend the friday prayers at the mosque, women are not. Men because of their physiology can fast more days in ramadan where as a women is interuppted by her menstral cycle. Do you find it distrubing that the menstral cycle is discussed in Islam, is it intolerent to discuss such matters? Should it instead say that women should fast all 30 days of ramadan despite their inability to do so and if they dont they will go to hell?
The Prophet pbuh in acknowledging what Allah swt says about women, is suggesting to them in this hadith that they should give charity to try and make up for it even though their rewards are the same. He is giving them an option not available to men to earn bonus points so to speak. This is something muslim men wish they had.
But who cares right?
Because I suppose every hadith that “ridicules” Islam must be authentic and all the other ones are “unreliable”. Rest assured, in your attempt to pick one that you think “ridicules” Islam, you’ve actually chosen one that validates it even more! 😀
Going back to the beating issue, this might be of interest to this topic:
I wasn’t previously familiar with this hadith to be honest, Bukhari isn’t really popular with the Shi’as. But I see where Ali had gotten his ideas for the sermon I posted a while back. This hadith pretty much explains the ayah 2:282. A very good uncensored online version of Bukhari is here, with a whole freaky part devoted to menstrual periods! Subhan Allah! And I don’t mean any offence btw, but when our friends here pick and choose sections from Bukhari, I get a tad bit uneasy. I suppose every narrative that ridicules Islam is unreliable and those that put it in a positive light are rock-solid.
Pulling a late-nighter Nas? I feel you 🙂
I do know what the prominent excuse is, I just discussed it with SC up there. Anything I missed?
Now Nas, that’s a minor issue of perspective. If I believed an invisible fellow has decreed these laws, and he’s going to be pissed (contrary to his infinite kindness) about not following them, I wouldn’t be having this discussion with you. Although, I would still argue that a rational god wouldn’t buy into the existing social structures of that time. I mean we know that there was a time when power lied with the woman, that she controlled the means of production and supported the man. In fact, it wasn’t until the advancement of farming that we get real patriarchal societies. And even then different societies had different gender-relation customs. But Allah seems to be innocently unaware of all these. Just dictating a very male-centred doctrine that very much reflected the then dogmas of Hijaz. That’s a bit odd for an all-knowing God, don’t you think? But let’s not get into that.
I don’t see the conflict on my part. I’m saying that Islam is intolerant towards us, and thus we have to be intolerant toward Islam. I’m not saying we should round up Muslims and force them into submission. It’s a concept-people approach, not a people-people one. In fact it would be dandy if Muslims fought the concepts they do not like instead of harming those who adhere to those concepts.
I’m not sure what you’re asking me. SC made the point the discrimination here is a valid one, and I offered some reasons why it isn’t. If you’re asking for my personal opinion, I think Muhammad was influenced by the Jewish laws of inheritance where males take precedence over female family members. Thankfully, when Yahweh morphed into Allah he changed his mind and gave females half the share of men, which is a positive step on His divine part. But, like many of his other designs falls short of the expectations 😉
Arash, you’ve brought up inheritance, yet you dont even know why its part of islamic doctrine to devide it in such a manner. In addition you said this proves that Mohammad pbuh “did indeed consider women to be literally worth half-a-man”….when it wasnt sayidna Mohammad pbuh that made this law, it was decreed by Allah swt in the quran. The Prophet did not invent any laws in Islam, they are all there in the quran.
See how ironic it is, when you say you’re standing up for the truth and women’s rights and tolerance….when Islam preaches all of these things, and in your campaign against it you’ve proven you have none of the latter…tolerance. Thats what I love about you people…your love in pointing out how “intolerent” Islam is by BEING intolerent. It’s quite funny actually.
Exaplain to us all, Enlighten us all, about the logic (or lack thereof) in the inheritance law as an example…hopefully you can offer something other than the lines of “it’s descriminatory”.
Didn’t I already address that somewhere? So many parallel discussions, I’m getting forgetful 🙂
Oh here:
I should expand on that by adding that there is no similarity b/w a husband’s ongoing wage and a one-time inheritance. And where do you get the 1/2 rate? Why not 1/4, 3/4, better yet, a variable rate based on your husband’s income? It seems to me that Muhammad did indeed consider women to be literally worth half-a-man. You know, especially when you look at the bigger picture, with so many other discriminations set exactly on the half mark.
Also, did you read my discussion of Equal Rights a number of posts up? Do you follow my logic, that socially imposed roles are a hurdle to emancipation (of both male and females)?
Have you read that J.S. Mill’s book? I’ve mentioned it before, it’s called “The Subjection of Women”. It’s written during the 19th century England, and the arguments for discrimination against women are eeringly similar to those of contemporary Muslims. Mill is a very inspiring philosopher, and his books are short and readable. There are free versions online in both Persian and English, but it’s nice to have an annotated version to get the context of the story.
It’s nice that you follow the discussion with genuine interest, Nas and Eman think that like the Quraishi Arabs, Allah “hath set a seal on [my heart] and [hearing], and on [my eyes] is a veil.” Which is a curious matter, if Allah was so frustrated with the unbending “Jaahil”s (those buggers really wouldn’t buy into it) and wanted to act proactively, he could at least give them a good microscope to see through threads of the “veil” and bask in the oh-so-very-shiny-light of Ture Islam™.
For the same reason that you react to “blasphemy”, people get a good feeling when they stand up for the Truth. In anycase, you can’t stay away from Islam, it’s not a minor cult, it practically runs the Middle East. Oh, and you kill the apostates 😉