Is Islam Right About Women? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is Islam Right About Women?

1. Yes, Islam is right about women
5
21%
2. No, Islam is not right about women
16
67%
3. Other
3
13%
#15036084
What is the position of something as abstract as Islam in regards to women?
Are we to adopt the position of holy texts communicating the one God's design for life or can it be interpreted in terms of the social position of a people at a particular point in time.

Because my impression is that in recent years extremely reactionary forces have taken over a lot of parts of the middle east and as such their restrictions on women are similarly as such.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/1994/xx/islam.htm
Such movements tend to confuse matters by moving from any real struggle against imperialism to a purely ideological struggle against what they see as its cultural effects. “Cultural imperialism”, rather than material exploitation, is identified as the source of everything that is wrong. The fight is then not directed against forces really involved in impoverishing people, but rather against those who speak “foreign” languages, accept “alien” religions or reject allegedly “traditional” lifestyles. This is very convenient for certain sections of local capital who find it easy to practice the “indigenous culture”, at least in public. It is also of direct material interest to sections of the middle class who can advance their own careers by purging others from their jobs. But it limits the dangers such movements present to imperialism as a system.

Islamism, then, both mobilises popular bitterness and paralyses it; both builds up people’s feelings that something must be done and directs those feelings into blind alleys; both destabilises the state and limits the real struggle against the state.

The contradictory character of Islamism follows from the class base of its core cadres. The petty bourgeoisie as a class cannot follow a consistent, independent policy of its own. This has always been true of the traditional petty bourgeoisie – the small shopkeepers, traders and self employed professionals. They have always been caught between a conservative hankering for security that looks to the past and a hope that they individually will gain from radical change. It is just as true of the impoverished new middle class – or the even more impoverished would-be new middle class of unemployed ex-students – in the less economically advanced countries today. They can hanker after an allegedly golden past. They can see their futures as tied up with general social advance through revolutionary change. Or they can blame the frustration of their aspirations on other sections of the population who have got an “unfair” grip on middle class jobs: the religious and ethnic minorities, those with a different language, women working in an “untraditional” way.

And I would likely disagree with the probable explanations that seek to legitimize such norms by appeals to an extra-mundane God or some sort of appeal to the natural state of things.
#15036216
SolarCross wrote:Someone told me that Islam is right about women. Is this true?

What that at 9 years old, girls are ready to be raped?

Or are you crediting them with a more sophisticated hypothesis on men / women / gender differences. I mean I tend to agree with Al Qaeda and ISIS that there are only 2 genders with inherent biological differences.
#15036248
Rich wrote:What that at 9 years old, girls are ready to be raped?

Or are you crediting them with a more sophisticated hypothesis on men / women / gender differences. I mean I tend to agree with Al Qaeda and ISIS that there are only 2 genders with inherent biological differences.


My libtard ideological handlers are prompting me to repeat the word "Islamophobia" at this point. What does that word mean? Oh my libtard commissars are saying it means "racism". Sad to see so much racism in this thread.
#15036334
I tend to be somewhat critical of the crude generalizations of populations one likely has little knowledge of and so characterizes broad groups by very few abstractions. The lack of nuance being an issue of not really having much content/knowledge about a group and so makes it easy to reduce many to simple determinations. I mean even the abstract generalization of Islam is so abstract as to implicitly erase distinctions between many populations as if the Muslims in South Ease Asia are the same as in the Middle East that are the same across class and so on.

For example, the emphasis on child marriage, a point could be made whether child marriage as a problem is essential to Islam or is it a broader problem which one simply ties to something inessential.
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1224&context=yjlh/
A second pair of contrasting cases echoes these findings and yields additional observations. In May 1998, a sixteen-year-old in Utah, forced by her father to marry her thirty-two-year-old uncle as his fifteenth wife, called 911 for help." The uncle, David Kingston, was charged with incest and sexual conduct with a minor, both third degree felonies,56 and received a ten-year jail sentence. Her father, John Daniel Kingston, the leader of a large polygamist clan, pled guilty to felony child abuse for beating her into unconsciousness when she tried to run away. In Utah-as in Texas-parental consent or a court order allow marriage at an age younger than eighteen. 9 Until May 1999, marriages were only prohibited when the male or female was under fourteen years of age.' Since that time, the age of consent has been raised to sixteen, but fifteen-year-olds may still marry with parental consent and authorization from a judge.61 Before the law was amended, every year about 800 girls aged fourteen through seventeen were reported to marry in Utah.62

Rumors of coerced arranged marriages and children sold by their parents had led to repeated attempts to enact legislation that would outlaw marriages of fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds. A bill was withdrawn in 1997 under pressure from legislators who believed child marriage prevents teen promiscuity.63 Legislators also expressed concern that such legislation would be unfairly aimed at the state's polygamists.' While the practice of plural marriage was renounced by the Mormon Church in 1890, it has persisted among religious splinter groups65 and has not been prosecuted by the state for several decades.' The Governor of Utah, a descendent of polygamists, refused to condemn polygamy at a news conference, suggesting that it may be protected as a religious freedom.67 His comments were quickly condemned by an organization of women who have abandoned polygamous relationships. They denounce the practice as abusive toward women and children, both inherently and as it is practiced.' Subsequently, the Women's Religious Liberties Union (WRLU) was founded by a woman in a polygamous relationship who asserted that polygamy appropriately channels men's sexuality. The WRLU called for a repeal of the state law banning plural marriage.69

The months after the sixteen-year-old's phone call led to a "raft of questions" about "Utah's dirty little secret."'7 Allegations included evidence of large-scale welfare fraud by women in plural marriages claiming to be single mothers, rampant incest and child abuse, and girls as young as ten forced into arranged marriages. The media described the polygamists as a community of people who live as "societal ciphers," with no birth certificates or driver's licenses, who do not pay taxes or vote."

There has been a discourse of condemnation surrounding both the Kingston case and polygamous Mormon splinter groups more generally.' Historically, Mormons have been subjected to a campaign against polygamy couched in terms of national morality and even national survival,73 rhetoric not unlike that directed against communities of color today. But the current discourse does not include accusations that Mormons, with their failure to assimilate, their failure to Americanize, threaten longstanding American values.74 No one asserts that statewide acceptance of these diverse cultural practices is symptomatic of multiculturalism run amok. Nor does anyone characterize this as a collision between multiculturalism and feminism.75

In my state, New Mexico, I believe the age of consent used to be as young as 14 until few decades ago. Which lead to some weird court cases at later dates where previous relationships became illegal but may have been viewed by a Judge as unproblematic due to a lack of charges or conviction although there was a history of what is now criminal.

The implicit framing of them as degenerate cultures who all agree to such standards whilst we're treated as a hegemonic whole that is enlightened in contrast is a crude manner of thinking about a country.

The supposed attention given to harm done to women can't be accepted purely at face value, in that I thinkthere is reason to be critical of some attempts to mark crude impressions of progressive views around women as basis of attack on another culture. Which in itself isn't to be simply dismissed either, just that many use it as a means to legitimize problematic interventions.
https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=164968
I guess its easy to make generalizations about groups more so when there isn't actually a specific group of people we talk about as identifaible in their laws, or practices. For which we would still need to show the validity of the generalization less we for example generalize the case of people in Utah to all American's views and values as a whole. A nation which is the size of Europe and just as diverse.

But don't mistake my knee jerk hesitation to accept crudeness as a wholesale acceptance and denial of wrong doings and wrongs of such standards.
As I don't subscribe to a cultural relativism as I retain the notion of moral progress, but such progress isn't derived from the extra-mundane God but in challenging and changing the actual conditions of life. Which is why places like Afghanistan can show pictures of women at universities and what seem rather western fashion with skirts, high heels, because the state of the country was different to when religious reactionaries were provided support and able to establish power.
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/womens-rights-afghanistan-history
The moral progress has regressed because the state of the society had lost a lot of the infrastructure and ways of living that allowed such norms to prevail.

So yeah, damn the reactionaries those that played a part in destroying a nation, resulting in a significant cultural regress.
And in such a regression, progressive forces should be supported without presuming the benevolence of many state actors that wish to intervene, especially if with military action.
Rather groups that arise within a country with a critical voice of the way of living become the means of change, not as external to society but part of it.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/sen-critical-voice.pdf
This concept of critical voice is thus the fifth in a series of determinations of advantage: wealth, functioning, capability, voice and finally, critical voice. Critical voice is the capacity of a person living “inside” a society to form views available from a position “outside” that society:

“... virtually every society tends to have dissenters, and even the most repressive fundamentalist regimes can ‒ and typically do ‒ have dissenters .... Even if the perspective of the dissenters is influenced by their reading of foreign authors, the viewpoints and critical perspectives of these members are still ‘internal’ to the society.” (Sen 2002a, p. 476-77.)

Critical agency is thus “not only to the freedom to act but also to the freedom to question and reassess.” The answer to the question Sen asked in 1980 ‒ Equality of what? ‒ seems increasingly to be “critical voice.” This does not imply that the demand for equality of critical voice necessarily has traction as a normative demand, any more than does equality of wealth. But “critical voice” does more truly determine the essence of human need and is the true measure of inequality in a society.

It is the freedom to not simply choose within set coordinates, but to change the very coordinates of choice and this comes from a criticism from the status quo of every day living.
#15038866
You pays your money and you takes you choice.

Islam allows women to freely access an abortion up to 20-22 weeks gestation, which is more than some crackpot Christians would do.
#15038870
I would like to say that the Shi'ites would also follow the texts of Ali ibn Abi Talib, and that if you read the collection of his sayings, a lot of it sounds extremely progressive. It permits, of course, the teachings of the Koran, but it is careful to qualify everything and emphasize the husband and father'[s duty to his own women.

I would not be surprised to hear that there is plenty of material in the Sunni tradition that likewise does that.

But I think that it must be resolutely stated that anyone who believes that the Islamic tradition actually does support some sort of rote equality between the sexes that would actually be really palatable to the average Bernie voter (lol) is ignorant or ridiculous.

Wellsy wrote:What is the position of something as abstract as Islam in regards to women?
Are we to adopt the position of holy texts communicating the one God's design for life or can it be interpreted in terms of the social position of a people at a particular point in time.


I do not accept this answer for my own religion -- that sacred words are supposed to be interpreted in the light of the profane world.

I cannot argue with a Muslim if they tell me that the Koran and the Hadiths should not be taken seriously in regards to women, but I would venture to say that the majority of Muslims not in the Westernized world do not accept such a stance, and, historically, no one was rushing to dismiss the sacred scriptures.

These sentences are truly spoken as a secularist and a humanist who, to defend a religion, diminishes its importance & meaning into something that he prefers it to represent.
#15038957
Verv wrote:I do not accept this answer for my own religion -- that sacred words are supposed to be interpreted in the light of the profane world.

I cannot argue with a Muslim if they tell me that the Koran and the Hadiths should not be taken seriously in regards to women, but I would venture to say that the majority of Muslims not in the Westernized world do not accept such a stance, and, historically, no one was rushing to dismiss the sacred scriptures.

These sentences are truly spoken as a secularist and a humanist who, to defend a religion, diminishes its importance & meaning into something that he prefers it to represent.

Indeed, it is the position of someone who is external to a faith rather than adopting the position of one with faith.
It's a bit like how we describe the ancient Greek and Roman gods as myths. They were as real as the value of our currency in their time, but now that such a way of life and their corresponding Gods are history, they're unbelievable.

And it's not a defense of Islam in itself, but a criticism of the crudeness in which certain beliefs are discerned.
It seems too vague to say that such views and values originate strictly from a text without having it correspond to real world relations even if one does believe in God. The question itself speaks of Islam in the abstract and thus doesn't have to contend with any real world conflicts over interpretation, it's taken as a given. And such interpretations have real world effect upon the lives of woman of course, it's not purely a matter of belief but also can be reflected in the actualized state of affairs in many countries. Such that one's legitimization of such things is often an appeal to the status quo of what already exists.
But can see divergences in interpretation based on differences in ways of life.

I don't dismiss out of hand that many religions having originated so long ago do maintain patriarchal ideals and only get challenged upon the weakening of religion's dominance. The issue is what is the supposed essential belief, it's left unstated and it should take a historical perspective such that one can contend with not with just presently exists in the middle east way of life but as it has in the past and it's forms across the world.
Basically, making more concrete the variances on ideas of what is expected of women.
Because religion isn't so homogeneous, it is as conflict ridden and with different social basis even if all should appeal to their interpretation as the truer reflection of God's will or whatever.
#15039155
Wellsy wrote:Indeed, it is the position of someone who is external to a faith rather than adopting the position of one with faith.
It's a bit like how we describe the ancient Greek and Roman gods as myths. They were as real as the value of our currency in their time, but now that such a way of life and their corresponding Gods are history, they're unbelievable.

And it's not a defense of Islam in itself, but a criticism of the crudeness in which certain beliefs are discerned.
It seems too vague to say that such views and values originate strictly from a text without having it correspond to real world relations even if one does believe in God. The question itself speaks of Islam in the abstract and thus doesn't have to contend with any real world conflicts over interpretation, it's taken as a given. And such interpretations have real world effect upon the lives of woman of course, it's not purely a matter of belief but also can be reflected in the actualized state of affairs in many countries. Such that one's legitimization of such things is often an appeal to the status quo of what already exists.
But can see divergences in interpretation based on differences in ways of life.

I don't dismiss out of hand that many religions having originated so long ago do maintain patriarchal ideals and only get challenged upon the weakening of religion's dominance. The issue is what is the supposed essential belief, it's left unstated and it should take a historical perspective such that one can contend with not with just presently exists in the middle east way of life but as it has in the past and it's forms across the world.
Basically, making more concrete the variances on ideas of what is expected of women.
Because religion isn't so homogeneous, it is as conflict ridden and with different social basis even if all should appeal to their interpretation as the truer reflection of God's will or whatever.


What a great response (no sarcasm), thank you. I read too far into what you said.

I would say that... I respect Islam because I respect Muslims, even though I consider Islam to be quite wrong in some very important ways... And part of that respect actually involves me drawing upon the Islamic concepts of reality, right, of men & women and our differences, and seeing them as favorable compared to liberal Western modernity in some very important ways.

Let me go so far as to say that if it were not for the degeneration of the West, I'd view Islam in regards to women very differently. The ability for them to look reasonable on this issue is entirely contingent on our own insanity :lol: .
#15039243
Yeah, this meme is hilarious.

It's not so much that Islam is right about women (it is) but rather that it is right about people. Not that I am a Muslim but I am referring instead to the traditional ideas that Islam used to be only one part of, yet it is one of the only real representatives today. Sad!

It's difficult to cope with but society is primarily self-interested people trying to get others to be held to moral standards for their own benefit. The inability to accept this leads to the dissolution of a civilization and its replacement by one that can accept that. Islam, for all its many failings today, is not in any danger of dissolution or replacement by things like western liberalism.
#15040449
Rich wrote:What that at 9 years old, girls are ready to be raped?
.


When you take in account Hadiths who were 200 Years later written.

According Quran (who was written in the lifetime of Mohammed) Aisha was 10 at Hijjra and 6 Years later married Mohammed. They had 3 Years later sex. Therefore the conference of Islamabad said the minimum Age for wedding is 16.


This time was not so woman friendly, The Archbishop of Alexandria gave Palmyra as an present.


Today have woman too much rights...
#15040470
SaddamHuseinovic wrote:When you take in account Hadiths who were 200 Years later written.

According Quran (who was written in the lifetime of Mohammed) Aisha was 10 at Hijjra and 6 Years later married Mohammed. They had 3 Years later sex. Therefore the conference of Islamabad said the minimum Age for wedding is 16.


This time was not so woman friendly, The Archbishop of Alexandria gave Palmyra as an present.


Today have woman too much rights...


doesn't really matter

Mohammad was still a rapist murderer and a looter
#15041047
Zionist Nationalist wrote:doesn't really matter

Mohammad was still a rapist murderer and a looter


According to Quran was Jesus the most merciful prophet (He was at most quoted in Quran)

All prophets who had political power were by todays means brutal




I can recomend this movie


it is also used in religous schools as education

If it was a private phone call, how did you manag[…]

Canada has a long history of being a genocidal m[…]

Ukrainegate

Softie at heart? He is an unpredictable fool Blac[…]

Grumble Grumble Grumble ... Leftist, rightist ...[…]