Why Is Patriarchy Seen As A Bad Thing?

[SalimBhai]

10 Countries with the Least Gender Equality (and Largest Gender Gaps):
Afghanistan — 44.4%
Yemen — 49.2%
Iraq — 53.5%
Pakistan — 55.6%
Syria — 56.8%
DR Congo — 57.6%
Iran — 58.2%
Mali — 59.1%
Chad — 59.3%
Saudi Arabia — 60.3%

 

[Technics 1210]

One cannot reason with someone who believes there is no biological difference between a man and a woman.

Said people will use nature to justify Homosexuality, but refuse to use nature to justify Patriarchy.

 

[SalimBhai]

One cannot reason with someone who believes there is no biological difference between a man and a woman.

Said people will use nature to justify Homosexuality, but refuse to use nature to justify Patriarchy.

I dont think anybody is denying difference in man and women regarding biology. I have not read one post that says that. We dont live in the caves anymore. We live in a modern world. Women are more than capable of making their own decisions. I will leave the homosexuality topic for another thread

 

[Abel Reames]

One cannot reason with someone who believes there is no biological difference between a man and a woman.

Said people will use nature to justify Homosexuality, but refuse to use nature to justify Patriarchy.

Of course there are biological differences but that doesn't mean patriarchy is the ideal system.

I guess you may have a point if _all_ men were superior physically and mentally than women but that is not the case.

As to appealing to nature I give you the example of chimpanzees and bonobos who are equally as closely related to humans.

Chimpanzees run on patriarchal system whereas bonobos run on matriarchal line. Chimpanzees are aggressive, territorial and war like. Bonobos the conplete opposite.

A mix of patriarchal/matriarchal would be best.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Of course there are biological differences but that doesn't mean patriarchy is the ideal system.

I guess you may have a point if _all_ men were superior physically and mentally than women but that is not the case.

As to appealing to nature I give you the example of chimpanzees and bonobos who are equally as closely related to humans.

Chimpanzees run on patriarchal system whereas bonobos run on matriarchal line. Chimpanzees are aggressive, territorial and war like. Bonobos the conplete opposite.

A mix of patriarchal/matriarchal would be best.

Or may be the most talented individual must lead and make decisions instead of defaulting it to a man.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I am an American. Not Indian. I was born in India. I am a cultural Hindu.

Never brought up Islam. I was only point out the cultural aspect of Asian countries where in spite of money, women still cannot do anything without the men telling them what to do.

Until recently Saudi Arabia did not even let women drive. That is patriarchy.

Your blatherings about Saudi Arabia are not incorrect, but you bring them up for a reason my culturally Hindu Indian American friend.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

This topic could have 34 pages and you would never be able to convince one or the other.

Inherently, all Abrahamic religions are patriarchic, not just limited to Islam. In addition to the fact of the matter is Islam has never had a female prophet tells all you need to know about "Islam" as imparting equal rights to women.

Islam has never been about "EQUAL rights to women since the time of Muhammad. Equitable, perhaps. And that is even debatable. but never equal.

It has been more about "giving more rights than the Arab pagan nations who used to bury their females alive and other dastardly acts".

At the time of 500 to 600 AD, the women were mostly considered objects for "sexual pleasure" and they had no rights to minimum rights in most of the Arab world.

Islam changed all that and gave them part of inheritance, gave them a position of respect by asking them to be covered in a proper attire so that immediately people will recognize the "hidden woman" as a woman of religion and also gave them a chance to live.

Extrapolate that into the 21st century, and we have a problem.

1. It has been promised by Allah that Islam is the final religion and the best religion for mankind.

2. Women are more independent now then 1400 years ago and they have developed over the ages as something more than mere "reproductive species".

Here is the conundrum for most religious men.

How do you tell the world that Islam is the best religion with the most rights for women, when clearly Islam only INCREASED the rights at that time to something much better for that particular time and definitely not for 2000 years down the line? (You may disagree those rights were forever but that is a separate argument and not for this patriarchy argument).

This is how:

You start picking on women who sleep around telling they are immoral, you start talking about AIDS and problems with homosexuality, you portray that Muslim women are the most respected species (despite a lot of contrary evidence), and you try to prove to the people that it is the WEST which is highly immoral and the Islamic principles of jurisprudence which give large amount of autonomy to a man are indeed the path of success.

You really have no choice in this.

Either you have to argue that Islam is infallible and make up some stuff about how West is fraud and a "degenerate" society to sing with the tune that "Islam is best".

Otherwise, you are arguing Islam messed up which is not possible if you are a religious person and believe in one true religion.

Now all the scientific people on this forum are arguing against all the religious people about the inherent problems of patriarchy.



My take on this is very simple.

This battle cannot be won

Because no matter what angle you take, religion has an element of bias in it. You listen to what the Prophets and Messengers have told you and then structure your assumptions and evidence to suit "The message they have given".

It is IMPOSSIBLE, I REPEAT , IMPOSSIBLE for a religious person to be unbiased in any scientific thesis or discussion.

Simply because of historical bias.

Are you telling me with a straight face if the Prophet or the Quran had unequivocally said that women are supposed to hunt and men to take care of the child, that the same hordes of people wouldn't have suddenly shifted the argument in favor of matriarchy?

I am not saying religious people are wrong.

I am saying that if you have a religious bias, you cannot have a sensible debate on this topic.

I support patriarchy (not this benevolent **** which has been introduced but the actual male being head of the house).

The male has to lead the house and the female has to take care of the children in his absence or while he is working to provide.

But I am the first to admit I support this because I believe my religion is the truth.

I am not looking for any scientific proof that "a female can't do the job better". She probably can. Maybe better than me.

But that is not what Allah has ordained for me so I am not going to let her lead my house and my territory.

The same will go on for my daughters.

I am already telling them to respect the elders and male head of the society because that is what Allah commands us to do.

Don't hide behind science and pretend to be intelligent.

Religion asks us to believe in the unseen.

Science doesn't.

It is just as simple as that.

 

[Robert]

One wonders if the OP would see anything wrong with a concept called “Benevolent Racism”.

 

[sweep_shot]

One wonders if the OP would see anything wrong with a concept called “Benevolent Racism”.

Not the same thing.

Racism is always bad. Patriarchy is not automatically bad.

 

[sweep_shot]

This topic could have 34 pages and you would never be able to convince one or the other.

Inherently, all Abrahamic religions are patriarchic, not just limited to Islam. In addition to the fact of the matter is Islam has never had a female prophet tells all you need to know about "Islam" as imparting equal rights to women.

Islam has never been about "EQUAL rights to women since the time of Muhammad. Equitable, perhaps. And that is even debatable. but never equal.

It has been more about "giving more rights than the Arab pagan nations who used to bury their females alive and other dastardly acts".

At the time of 500 to 600 AD, the women were mostly considered objects for "sexual pleasure" and they had no rights to minimum rights in most of the Arab world.

Islam changed all that and gave them part of inheritance, gave them a position of respect by asking them to be covered in a proper attire so that immediately people will recognize the "hidden woman" as a woman of religion and also gave them a chance to live.

Extrapolate that into the 21st century, and we have a problem.

1. It has been promised by Allah that Islam is the final religion and the best religion for mankind.

2. Women are more independent now then 1400 years ago and they have developed over the ages as something more than mere "reproductive species".

Here is the conundrum for most religious men.

How do you tell the world that Islam is the best religion with the most rights for women, when clearly Islam only INCREASED the rights at that time to something much better for that particular time and definitely not for 2000 years down the line? (You may disagree those rights were forever but that is a separate argument and not for this patriarchy argument).

This is how:

You start picking on women who sleep around telling they are immoral, you start talking about AIDS and problems with homosexuality, you portray that Muslim women are the most respected species (despite a lot of contrary evidence), and you try to prove to the people that it is the WEST which is highly immoral and the Islamic principles of jurisprudence which give large amount of autonomy to a man are indeed the path of success.

You really have no choice in this.

Either you have to argue that Islam is infallible and make up some stuff about how West is fraud and a "degenerate" society to sing with the tune that "Islam is best".

Otherwise, you are arguing Islam messed up which is not possible if you are a religious person and believe in one true religion.

Now all the scientific people on this forum are arguing against all the religious people about the inherent problems of patriarchy.



My take on this is very simple.

This battle cannot be won

Because no matter what angle you take, religion has an element of bias in it. You listen to what the Prophets and Messengers have told you and then structure your assumptions and evidence to suit "The message they have given".

It is IMPOSSIBLE, I REPEAT , IMPOSSIBLE for a religious person to be unbiased in any scientific thesis or discussion.

Simply because of historical bias.

Are you telling me with a straight face if the Prophet or the Quran had unequivocally said that women are supposed to hunt and men to take care of the child, that the same hordes of people wouldn't have suddenly shifted the argument in favor of matriarchy?

I am not saying religious people are wrong.

I am saying that if you have a religious bias, you cannot have a sensible debate on this topic.

I support patriarchy (not this benevolent **** which has been introduced but the actual male being head of the house).

The male has to lead the house and the female has to take care of the children in his absence or while he is working to provide.

But I am the first to admit I support this because I believe my religion is the truth.

I am not looking for any scientific proof that "a female can't do the job better". She probably can. Maybe better than me.

But that is not what Allah has ordained for me so I am not going to let her lead my house and my territory.

The same will go on for my daughters.

I am already telling them to respect the elders and male head of the society because that is what Allah commands us to do.

Don't hide behind science and pretend to be intelligent.

Religion asks us to believe in the unseen.

Science doesn't.

It is just as simple as that.

I agree with you. Good post.

As a Muslim, I believe and support whatever Islam says regarding this topic.

But, when I made this thread, I didn't have religion in mind. It was made to discuss patriarchy in general.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

One wonders if the OP would see anything wrong with a concept called “Benevolent Racism”.

He wouldn't be able to because Islam doesn't condone any form of racism.

Similarly, he wouldn't be able to condone "Benevolent Homosexuality" because Islam explicitly forbids it.

The only reason the OP is condoning "patriarchy" is because his religion told him that "male figures are the leaders of the house".

I have a topic you might ask the OP if you are interested.

"Benevolent Striking of Women" if they don't adhere to the male demands.

That's where you will get your answer.

 

[Robert]

Not the same thing.

Racism is always bad. Patriarchy is not automatically bad.

Both are the elevation of one group of people over another group, therefore equally bad.

 

[Robert]

I have a topic you might ask the OP if you are interested.

"Benevolent Striking of Women" if they don't adhere to the male demands.

That's where you will get your answer.

Over to you [MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION]…

 

[Madplayer]

Benevolent patriarchy is the only system that works well in the world. This means that after due discussions and debates on any matter with people of both genders, the final say has to be of the man. And this is in line with the natural order of things (might is right, survival of the fittest etc). Going against it almost always causes chaos and degeneracy in the society. By benevolent i mean that the collective society should act as a check and balance if any man tries to transgress the limits and dwells into the realm of injustice. For muslims these limits are given by Islam.

A lot of people try to present such a system as something disastrous for women. It's not. Every system has pros and cons but it's about finding the one that works best.

 

[sweep_shot]

Benevolent patriarchy is the only system that works well in the world. This means that after due discussions and debates on any matter with people of both genders, the final say has to be of the man. And this is in line with the natural order of things (might is right, survival of the fittest etc). Going against it almost always causes chaos and degeneracy in the society. By benevolent i mean that the collective society should act as a check and balance if any man tries to transgress the limits and dwells into the realm of injustice. For muslims these limits are given by Islam.

A lot of people try to present such a system as something disastrous for women. It's not. Every system has pros and cons but it's about finding the one that works best.

This.

Your post pretty much sums up my view. I have this same view throughout the whole thread.

People who disagree with me are generally the ones who want to see women sleeping around and being in questionable clothing. In other words, people who oppose me are driven by worldly desires.

 

[sweep_shot]

Over to you [MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION]…

Actually, that's not the topic of the thread. So, I have to pass.

Also, this is one of those deeper topics in Islam. I honestly don't have sufficient knowledge to discuss this particular topic. You need to visit some legitimate Islamic websites (IslamQA is pretty good) or talk to an imam.

 

[Robert]

Actually, that's not the topic of the thread. So, I have to pass.

Also, this is one of those deeper topics in Islam. I honestly don't have sufficient knowledge to discuss this particular topic. You need to visit some legitimate Islamic websites (IslamQA is pretty good) or talk to an imam.

The thread is about patriarchy and you have just avoided an awkward question about patriarchy.

 

[Madplayer]

This.

Your post pretty much sums up my view. I have this same view throughout the whole thread.

People who disagree with me are generally the ones who want to see women sleeping around and being in questionable clothing. In other words, people who oppose me are driven by worldly desires.

Look it's understandable that some non-religious people try to look for solutions to the human predicaments outside of religion. However, a lot times there is a bit of dishonesty in their critique of the systems prescribed by religions.

Their common trait is that they magnify the small(ish) "issues" in religious systems which could be considered problematic in modern terms and they present them as if these features are the be all end all of the system. At the same time, they dont approach the secular-liberal systems the same way.

Another trait is that these people take exceptions and equate them with the general rules/trends to prove some points. This is again a fallible approach bordering on dishonesty.

Finally, there is no objective source of their morality which means that it's all whims and fancies that can change based on someone's mood, heard based on who has the loudest microphone and implemented based on who has the biggest stick in his hand.

 

[Madplayer]

The thread is about patriarchy and you have just avoided an awkward question about patriarchy.

Violence against women is not allowed in Islam. The Prophet ﷺ once said that the best of muslims are those who are best to their wives.

The soft striking in question, from what i know, is in context of a married woman committing adutery. This is to limit a man's rage in that moment so that he doesnt hurt the woman and this is extremely practical. Practical solutions that deal with emotional situations, when put under a microscope, can often look controversial. But only a human that has been in that situation knows what he feels.

And to present this one small, miniscule aspect of the Islamic system as if this is all there is to it is quite manipulative. This is something that muslim men or women never even talk about in their daily lives.

There are countless verses and sayings in Islam that ask men to treat women kindly, have patience with them etc. To ignore them and harp on about one small thing is not an honest approach.

 

[Robert]

Violence against women is not allowed in Islam. The Prophet ﷺ once said that the best of muslims are those who are best to their wives.

The soft striking in question, from what i know, is in context of a married woman committing adutery. This is to limit a man's rage in that moment so that he doesnt hurt the woman and this is extremely practical. Practical solutions that deal with emotional situations, when put under a microscope, can often look controversial. But only a human that has been in that situation knows what he feels.

And to present this one small, miniscule aspect of the Islamic system as if this is all there is to it is quite manipulative. This is something that muslim men or women never even talk about in their daily lives.

There are countless verses and sayings in Islam that ask men to treat women kindly, have patience with them etc. To ignore them and harp on about one small thing is not an honest approach.

If the husband commits adultery, can the wife soft strike him ?

 

[sweep_shot]

Violence against women is not allowed in Islam. The Prophet ﷺ once said that the best of muslims are those who are best to their wives.

The soft striking in question, from what i know, is in context of a married woman committing adutery. This is to limit a man's rage in that moment so that he doesnt hurt the woman and this is extremely practical. Practical solutions that deal with emotional situations, when put under a microscope, can often look controversial. But only a human that has been in that situation knows what he feels.

And to present this one small, miniscule aspect of the Islamic system as if this is all there is to it is quite manipulative. This is something that muslim men or women never even talk about in their daily lives.

There are countless verses and sayings in Islam that ask men to treat women kindly, have patience with them etc. To ignore them and harp on about one small thing is not an honest approach.

Very good post. I agree.

Atheists often like to make simple things complex.

 

[Abel Reames]

Their common trait is that they magnify the small(ish) "issues" in religious systems which could be considered problematic in modern terms and they present them as if these features are the be all end all of the system. At the same time, they dont approach the secular-liberal systems the same way.

That is not restricted to secular-liberals. Religious people use the same tactics. For instance sweep_shot posting a video of a person who thinks they are a wolf to try and debunk the whole canon of gender studies.

 

[Technics 1210]

Genesis 3:16

"To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

As much as the haters want to make this about Islam, go read the Bible first.

 

[Technics 1210]

Leviticus 21:9

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the [harlot], she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."

This is from the Bible. The haters love to nit pick Islam, lets talk about the Bible, which Christians claim to be a peace loving ideology.

Women are treated far worse in the Bible, than in any religious book on the planet.

 

[sweep_shot]

That is not restricted to secular-liberals. Religious people use the same tactics. For instance sweep_shot posting a video of a person who thinks they are a wolf to try and debunk the whole canon of gender studies.

I didn't do that at all. It seems like you haven't seen many of the circus shows from gender studies. Anyway. We are going off-topic.

 

[Technics 1210]

Corinthians 11:7

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

 

[SalimBhai]

Corinthians 11:7

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

I don’t see a single post someone championing womens Rights in Christianity. However most Christian countries in Europe don’t follow then bible really. You know that. …..

 

[Abel Reames]

It has been more about "giving more rights than the Arab pagan nations who used to bury their females alive and other dastardly acts".

It can't have been that bad. Wasn't the Prophet's first wife a successful business woman in her own right prior to Islam. How could that be if what you say is true about pagan Arab times?

 

[Madplayer]

If the husband commits adultery, can the wife soft strike him ?

Men and women aren't the same. A man needs to be restrained when there is a chance of physical altercation with a woman. Such a rule is aimed at restraining a man more than "allowing" him to strike. In any case, allowing something doesnt mean it's an obligation. You can always teach people to be patient or walk away.

 

[Robert]

Men and women aren't the same. A man needs to be restrained when there is a chance of physical altercation with a woman. Such a rule is aimed at restraining a man more than "allowing" him to strike. In any case, allowing something doesnt mean it's an obligation. You can always teach people to be patient or walk away.

There are plenty of women capable of physically harming plenty of men.

I’m not attacking Islam here. I’m attacking this notion that patriarchy can be benevolent.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

There are plenty of women capable of physically harming plenty of men.

I’m not attacking Islam here. I’m attacking this notion that patriarchy can be benevolent.

You wont find any answer here because there simply isnt.

Islam puts man on a higher pedestal than woman.

There are verses to prove this.

Regarding hitting of a woman, Islam allows this when the woman disobeys the husband. There is no condition of "adultery" here.

Read the verse 4:34 of Quran to simply get an idea of how much elevation man is given over here.

There are numerous Hadiths on this topic also, the most infamous being

"If the man asks his wife to come to his bed and she declines, the angels will keep cursing her until the morning."


However, no such leverage is given to a woman.

The social setup of Islam gives man everything even the inheritance is distributed 2:1 what to talk of anything else.

The inherent problem is not Islam itself. The problem is if the religion gives such a power to man, the abuser element comes into play.

Which is what we see in South Asian countries where uneducated males treat their wives as a plaything.



I dont blame @sweep shot or @Techics in this case.

When the religion is giving man the superiority, how can they champion women being leaders and rulers over men?

Personally, there is absolutely NO CHOICE HERE.

I accept that the religion I follow treats men better than woman because of the inherent patriarchal element in Abrahamic religions.

But I believe there is wisdom in this which we dont realize which is why Allah knows best.

Rest is all hogwash trying to pretend Islam is giving as many rights as the West.

It doesnt and never will.

 

[Abel Reames]

You wont find any answer here because there simply isnt.

Islam puts man on a higher pedestal than woman.

There are verses to prove this.

Regarding hitting of a woman, Islam allows this when the woman disobeys the husband. There is no condition of "adultery" here.

Read the verse 4:34 of Quran to simply get an idea of how much elevation man is given over here.

There are numerous Hadiths on this topic also, the most infamous being

"If the man asks his wife to come to his bed and she declines, the angels will keep cursing her until the morning."


However, no such leverage is given to a woman.

The social setup of Islam gives man everything even the inheritance is distributed 2:1 what to talk of anything else.

The inherent problem is not Islam itself. The problem is if the religion gives such a power to man, the abuser element comes into play.

Which is what we see in South Asian countries where uneducated males treat their wives as a plaything.



I dont blame @sweep shot or @Techics in this case.

When the religion is giving man the superiority, how can they champion women being leaders and rulers over men?

Personally, there is absolutely NO CHOICE HERE.

I accept that the religion I follow treats men better than woman because of the inherent patriarchal element in Abrahamic religions.

But I believe there is wisdom in this which we dont realize which is why Allah knows best.

Rest is all hogwash trying to pretend Islam is giving as many rights as the West.

It doesnt and never will.

Refreshing to read the non-sugarcoated version.

 

[Abel Reames]

Their common trait is that they magnify the small(ish) "issues" in religious systems which could be considered problematic in modern terms and they present them as if these features are the be all end all of the system. At the same time, they dont approach the secular-liberal systems the same way.

Also secular-liberal systems don't profess to be infallible or the divine word of God.

 

[Abel Reames]

Finally, there is no objective source of their morality which means that it's all whims and fancies that can change based on someone's mood, heard based on who has the loudest microphone and implemented based on who has the biggest stick in his hand.

If today God came to Earth to specifically say all religion was false, it wouldn't mean that tomorrow you would be doing immoral acts. People would generally carry on what they were doing the day before moral or immoral. I guess the Golden or Platinum Rule would suffice even someone needs rules to behave themselves.

 

[Madplayer]

There are plenty of women capable of physically harming plenty of men.

I’m not attacking Islam here. I’m attacking this notion that patriarchy can be benevolent.

You cannot take exceptions and equate them with the norms. In fact this is the exact thing i've talked about earlier in this thread.

 

[Madplayer]

You wont find any answer here because there simply isnt.

Islam puts man on a higher pedestal than woman.

There are verses to prove this.

I think you have fallen prey to the western definitions of what men and women should be like. You are speaking from a completely different framework than what Islam uses. Islam says women and men arent same and hence, their roles cannot be the same if you want to maintain a sound family system. In Islam, the traditional role of the women is not inferior to men. Such a role being inferior is infact the western perception and you are speaking from this position. Ofcourse, muslims dont claim to give the same rights to women as the secular-liberal systems because we have set limits for both men and women which we believe are better for people.

Regarding hitting of a woman, Islam allows this when the woman disobeys the husband. There is no condition of "adultery" here.

Read the verse 4:34 of Quran to simply get an idea of how much elevation man is given over here.

As muslims who fear Allah, we need to tread very carefully lest we would end up misleading others. Watch this video for better understanding of what you are referring to :

https://youtu.be/1azySjz4edk

Also, go a little further in the surah that you are referring to (An-Nisa) and read that in status, men and women are equal in front of Allah.

"But those who do good—whether male or female—and have faith will enter Paradise and will never be wronged ˹even as much as˺ the speck on a date stone" (4:124)

There are numerous Hadiths on this topic also, the most infamous being

"If the man asks his wife to come to his bed and she declines, the angels will keep cursing her until the morning."


However, no such leverage is given to a woman.

The social setup of Islam gives man everything even the inheritance is distributed 2:1 what to talk of anything else.

This is just gish-galloping and knit picking. These issues have been dealt with extensively.

The inherent problem is not Islam itself. The problem is if the religion gives such a power to man, the abuser element comes into play.

Which is what we see in South Asian countries where uneducated males treat their wives as a plaything.

This i can agree to some extent. But the major problem is uneducation itself. However, generally speaking it is an indictment of our overall state. Muslims in general aren't doing as well as they should in this era and that seeps into social and personal life too.

 

[Madplayer]

If today God came to Earth to specifically say all religion was false, it wouldn't mean that tomorrow you would be doing immoral acts. People would generally carry on what they were doing the day before moral or immoral. I guess the Golden or Platinum Rule would suffice even someone needs rules to behave themselves.

I think all of us will only partially follow the current morality if that happens. We'd start doing a lot of things that are considered immoral today. But then again, even now a lot of people have subjective morality.

 

[Robert]

I think you have fallen prey to the western definitions of what men and women should be like. You are speaking from a completely different framework than what Islam uses. Islam says women and men arent same and hence, their roles cannot be the same if you want to maintain a sound family system. In Islam, the traditional role of the women is not inferior to men. Such a role being inferior is infact the western perception and you are speaking from this position. Ofcourse, muslims dont claim to give the same rights to women as the secular-liberal systems because we have set limits for both men and women which we believe are better for people.

As muslims who fear Allah, we need to tread very carefully lest we would end up misleading others. Watch this video for better understanding of what you are referring to :

https://youtu.be/1azySjz4edk

Also, go a little further in the surah that you are referring to (An-Nisa) and read that in status, men and women are equal in front of Allah.

"But those who do good—whether male or female—and have faith will enter Paradise and will never be wronged ˹even as much as˺ the speck on a date stone" (4:124)

This is just gish-galloping and knit picking. These issues have been dealt with extensively.

This i can agree to some extent. But the major problem is uneducation itself. However, generally speaking it is an indictment of our overall state. Muslims in general aren't doing as well as they should in this era and that seeps into social and personal life too.

Howe many female Caliphs have there been?

 

[Theanonymousone]

Thread: why is patriarchy seen as a bad thing?

Argument: Women are born physically, mentally different and for an efficient society, man needs to be in charge

I am surprised how one can support this stupid argument….cant one really understand that 50% of humans by default are seen as second grade citizens by this logic?

And this thread has gone 11 pages long only cuz the OP is going on in circles and circles

 

[Madplayer]

Howe many female Caliphs have there been?

As many as the female US presidents.

 

[sweep_shot]

I think you have fallen prey to the western definitions of what men and women should be like. You are speaking from a completely different framework than what Islam uses. Islam says women and men arent same and hence, their roles cannot be the same if you want to maintain a sound family system. In Islam, the traditional role of the women is not inferior to men. Such a role being inferior is infact the western perception and you are speaking from this position. Ofcourse, muslims dont claim to give the same rights to women as the secular-liberal systems because we have set limits for both men and women which we believe are better for people.



As muslims who fear Allah, we need to tread very carefully lest we would end up misleading others. Watch this video for better understanding of what you are referring to :

https://youtu.be/1azySjz4edk

Also, go a little further in the surah that you are referring to (An-Nisa) and read that in status, men and women are equal in front of Allah.

"But those who do good—whether male or female—and have faith will enter Paradise and will never be wronged ˹even as much as˺ the speck on a date stone" (4:124)



This is just gish-galloping and knit picking. These issues have been dealt with extensively.




This i can agree to some extent. But the major problem is uneducation itself. However, generally speaking it is an indictment of our overall state. Muslims in general aren't doing as well as they should in this era and that seeps into social and personal life too.

Very good post. I agree.

A lot of people (including many desi ones) have this viewpoint that western ways should be the benchmarks for whole world. That's not the case at all.

Either way, as Muslims, we should follow what's in Quran and Sunnah.

 

[sweep_shot]

Thread: why is patriarchy seen as a bad thing?

Argument: Women are born physically, mentally different and for an efficient society, man needs to be in charge

I am surprised how one can support this stupid argument….cant one really understand that 50% of humans by default are seen as second grade citizens by this logic?

And this thread has gone 11 pages long only cuz the OP is going on in circles and circles��😂

Women are not second class citizens in a benevolent patriarchy. These have been discussed a lot. You can go back and read.

I didn't go in circles on my own. I was responding to people (like you) who kept on saying the same things.

 

[Theanonymousone]

Women are not second class citizens in a benevolent patriarchy. These have been discussed a lot. You can go back and read.

I didn't go in circles on my own. I was responding to people (like you) who kept on saying the same things.

Benevolent??
I mean why does anyone have to depend on others for their basic self respect??

Discussed? Where is the discussion?? Whenever people gave reasoning, your response is the same….”Benevolent patriarchy is the successful system” as if this is a proven fact

Doesn't matter what religion, as humans, self-respect has to be the most important thing for humans.

 

[sweep_shot]

Benevolent??
I mean why does anyone have to depend on others for their basic self respect??

Discussed? Where is the discussion?? Whenever people gave reasoning, your response is the same….�Benevolent patriarchy is the successful system� as if this is a proven fact

Doesn't matter what religion, as humans, self-respect has to be the most important thing for humans.

No. I have written more than that. Looks like you didn't read everything.

Anyway. You can always go back and read.

There is nothing wrong if a dad/brother/husband advises his daughter/sister/wife to do the right thing. That's what benevolent patriarchy is.

Self-respect doesn't mean you can't be advised.

 

[Sidilicious]

What I find really interesting (combining this is with the agr thread) is that the older amongst us (closer to Gen X) are more liberal and seem to be more open to understanding others.

Generally, I was expecting that the older we get the more conservative, but I have been pleasantly surprised.

Unfortunately, it’s the Gen Y that seem to be more conservative and dogmatic, and less tolerant of others. I am just a little older than the OP, but tend to agree with the more wiser posters on this forum

 

[SalimBhai]

What I find really interesting (combining this is with the agr thread) is that the older amongst us (closer to Gen X) are more liberal and seem to be more open to understanding others.

Generally, I was expecting that the older we get the more conservative, but I have been pleasantly surprised.

Unfortunately, it’s the Gen Y that seem to be more conservative and dogmatic, and less tolerant of others. I am just a little older than the OP, but tend to agree with the more wiser posters on this forum

Interesting point. I am 48 and I have nephews who are 25-30. They and their friends are very conservative in their thinking. As opposed to people from 40-48.

 

[sweep_shot]

What I find really interesting (combining this is with the agr thread) is that the older amongst us (closer to Gen X) are more liberal and seem to be more open to understanding others.

Generally, I was expecting that the older we get the more conservative, but I have been pleasantly surprised.

Unfortunately, it’s the Gen Y that seem to be more conservative and dogmatic, and less tolerant of others. I am just a little older than the OP, but tend to agree with the more wiser posters on this forum

Interesting point. I am 48 and I have nephews who are 25-30. They and their friends are very conservative in their thinking. As opposed to people from 40-48.

I find boomer generation very materialistic. Most of them only seem to care about money, property, status etc. I can be wrong but that's the vibe I get.

I used to be a liberal before 2015. But, I became more and more conservative due to cringy leftists. Also, as I grew older (I am 32 now), I started to take my faith seriously. I realized this world is quite meaningless without God and His laws.

 

[SalimBhai]

I find boomer generation very materialistic. Most of them only seem to care about money, property, status etc. I can be wrong but that's the vibe I get.

I used to be a liberal before 2015. But, I became more and more conservative due to cringy leftists. Also, as I grew older (I am 32 now), I started to take my faith seriously. I realized this world is quite meaningless without God and His laws.

What age group is boomer?

 

[Abel Reames]

Women are not second class citizens in a benevolent patriarchy. These have been discussed a lot. You can go back and read.

If not second class citizens that are treated like children. Both women and children need to be advised.

 

[Abel Reames]

There is nothing wrong if a dad/brother/husband advises his daughter/sister/wife to do the right thing.

And what happens if they don't take advise?

 

[sweep_shot]

What age group is boomer?

As per Google, baby boomer is a term used to describe a person who was born between 1946 and 1964.

But, I think it should include till 1975.

 

[Abel Reames]

I think all of us will only partially follow the current morality if that happens. We'd start doing a lot of things that are considered immoral today. But then again, even now a lot of people have subjective morality.

I guess God and His laws are the only thing keeping sweep_shot from carving through the ladies around him, breaking their hearts.

 

[sweep_shot]

I guess God and His laws are the only thing keeping sweep_shot from carving through the ladies around him, breaking their hearts.

You want to insult me, it doesn't bother me. I don't want to lower myself down to your level. There are many words/adjectives I can use to describe modern day liberals like yourself.

Anyway. I try to lower my gaze. That's the right thing to do. One less sin for me.

 

[sweep_shot]

I guess God and His laws are the only thing keeping sweep_shot from carving through the ladies around him, breaking their hearts.

I think you are trying to imply I am ugly. That's okay with me. I am not a woman and hence I do not care about my look. I only care about my financial condition and physical condition (both are in great shapes currently; alhamdulillah).

Whatever God says, we Muslims try to follow. Hypothetical scenarios do not matter.

I wouldn't want a girlfriend even if I am offered 1-billion bucks. So, heartbreak is not applicable to me. I want a wife who prays 5 times, fast during Ramadan, and do the things she's supposed to do. If she doesn't pray, she can't remain my wife.

What I am trying to say is priorities of Muslims are different.

 

[SalimBhai]

As per Google, baby boomer is a term used to describe a person who was born between 1946 and 1964.

But, I think it should include till 1975.

Nobody thinks it should include till 1975. We have nothing in common with that group

 

[Robert]

As per Google, baby boomer is a term used to describe a person who was born between 1946 and 1964.

But, I think it should include till 1975.

Why? The baby boom finished in 1964. Generation X began as birth rates fell. Full employment ended. The optimism of the postwar manufacturing boom gave way to cynicism with the OPEC Crisis and the growth of international terrorism.

 

[Robert]

As many as the female US presidents.

Nil, then. Why?

 

[sweep_shot]

Nil, then. Why?

Competency issue? There hasn't been a single competent female leader yet.

Kamala Harris seems to be VP due to feminism and gender quota.

 

[Junaids]

I find boomer generation very materialistic. Most of them only seem to care about money, property, status etc. I can be wrong but that's the vibe I get.

I used to be a liberal before 2015. But, I became more and more conservative due to cringy leftists. Also, as I grew older (I am 32 now), I started to take my faith seriously. I realized this world is quite meaningless without God and His laws.

Even your definitions are the definitions of the ultra-conservative hard-right.

You are doing what the hard-right often does - substituting the word "liberal" for two different dimensions, one of which is social progressiveness and the other is some imaginary leftist position on a political scale of left-wing to right-wing.

And so every comment that you ever make about "liberals" always makes you sound confused and ignorant.

1. Liberalism in terms of social conservatism or progressiveness
This is a baffling area.

We have seen in the USA and Brazil, Israel and some Islamic countries that social conservatism can be treated with respect, usually by religious zealots.

It does not matter at all whether those religious zealots are Born-Again Christians, Ultra-Orthodox Jews or Islamic Fundamentalists. They share an unchallengeable belief that they are doing what God directed and that everyone else is wrong. In fact, all three groups are interchangeable and parrot one another's beliefs and values.

Everywhere else, even people like myself on the right of the political spectrum are horrified by social conservatism - well over 80% of people with university level education consider it to be backward, regressive and highly damaging to society in general but to women and minorities in particular.

I consider literal interpretation of religious doctrine and social conservatism to be the most poisonous, damaging influence of all to society. America's appalling death numbers from Covid can be directly traced to religious nutjobs refusing to get vaccinated, leaving their safety to their Messiah who predictably let them down.

To us in other advanced countries, social conservatism is exactly what the name suggests - a means for those people who enjoy power, wealth and influence to retain it, and to obstruct other people from being able to acquire it. And it relies on an ignorant bunch of religious zealots to maintain that social conservatism.


2. Liberalism on a left-to-right political continuum
In the UK the Liberals are the centrist party, with Labour on the left as a socialist party and the Conservatives on the Right.

In Australia the Liberals are the right-wing party, with Labor on the left.

In Canada the Liberals are a centre-left party, with the Conservatives on the right.

What is remarkable is that at worst Liberals politically are absolutely in the centre politically. The only people who view Liberals as "leftists" are people who are so far to the right that they cannot even conceive of genuinely socialist parties running the country at times (as is currently the case in Australia and New Zealand) and so these hard-right extremists view Liberals in the centre as being terrifyingly left-wing.

You probably need to be much more specific about what you mean by the word Liberal - whether you mean socially progressive or politically in the centre. Because an awful lot of your posts echo the incoherently vacuous and imprecise "Own the Libs" slogans used by the hard-right which conflates social pgrogessiveness and socialism and somehow misuses the word "Liberal" as a label for the non-existent merged concept.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I think you have fallen prey to the western definitions of what men and women should be like. You are speaking from a completely different framework than what Islam uses. Islam says women and men arent same and hence, their roles cannot be the same if you want to maintain a sound family system. In Islam, the traditional role of the women is not inferior to men. Such a role being inferior is infact the western perception and you are speaking from this position. Ofcourse, muslims dont claim to give the same rights to women as the secular-liberal systems because we have set limits for both men and women which we believe are better for people.



As muslims who fear Allah, we need to tread very carefully lest we would end up misleading others. Watch this video for better understanding of what you are referring to :

https://youtu.be/1azySjz4edk

Also, go a little further in the surah that you are referring to (An-Nisa) and read that in status, men and women are equal in front of Allah.

"But those who do good—whether male or female—and have faith will enter Paradise and will never be wronged ˹even as much as˺ the speck on a date stone" (4:124)



This is just gish-galloping and knit picking. These issues have been dealt with extensively.




This i can agree to some extent. But the major problem is uneducation itself. However, generally speaking it is an indictment of our overall state. Muslims in general aren't doing as well as they should in this era and that seeps into social and personal life too.

There is no point arguing over context.

If a thing has been said, it is said. Now you can argue semantics and try to logically argue that it was said for "adulterous females" only.

My point remains.

1. Men have a degree over women. Quranic ayahs. (There is no ayah saying women have a degree over men).

2. Inheritance gets divided 2:1. Simply because of XX and XY chromosome.

3. Men are allowed to strike an adulterous women but women are not allowed to touch an adulterous man?

4. Angels curse women. Who without a valid excuse does not perform sex for the husband.

5. If there was a SAJDA which was valid it would be women prostration in front of her husband.


I ask you sir, if this is not a system of male dominated patriarch religion, then what else is?


You are forced to accept it because there is no other choice.

Your arguments have devolved from first accepting Islam and then trying to establish scientifically why the world must accept Islam.

Forget all that.

This is a religion that allows males to have war prisoners perform sexual favors for men.

And you say with a straight face, women are treated same as men in Islam?

 

[Dr_Bassim]

As many as the female US presidents.

False equivalence.

Women are not allowed to lead the state as per Islam.

A female is ALLOWED to be the President of USA and the fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it is illegal

 

[Champ_Pal]

As many as the female US presidents.

Why only US? Why not Euro countries? They are West too.

At least women can run for President in US. There is no chance of a Female Caliph ever.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I don’t see a single post someone championing womens Rights in Christianity. However most Christian countries in Europe don’t follow then bible really. You know that. …..

West has moved away from Christianity several decades ago. Some have moved away centuries ago. They realized the futility of religion as it does not give solutions to modern day problems. It can offer some sweet words to the suffering. But no real solution to the Earthly problems.

 

[sweep_shot]

Why only US? Why not Euro countries? They are West too.

That's like saying Sri Lanka should be counted with India just because they are both in subcontinent.

 

[Junaids]

There is no point arguing over context.

If a thing has been said, it is said. Now you can argue semantics and try to logically argue that it was said for "adulterous females" only.

My point remains.

1. Men have a degree over women. Quranic ayahs. (There is no ayah saying women have a degree over men).

2. Inheritance gets divided 2:1. Simply because of XX and XY chromosome.

3. Men are allowed to strike an adulterous women but women are not allowed to touch an adulterous man?

4. Angels curse women. Who without a valid excuse does not perform sex for the husband.

5. If there was a SAJDA which was valid it would be women prostration in front of her husband.


I ask you sir, if this is not a system of male dominated patriarch religion, then what else is?


You are forced to accept it because there is no other choice.

Your arguments have devolved from first accepting Islam and then trying to establish scientifically why the world must accept Islam.

Forget all that.

This is a religion that allows males to have war prisoners perform sexual favors for men.

And you say with a straight face, women are treated same as men in Islam?

I think that there is a variation on this going on with the OP.

He believes that ancient religious doctrines must be strictly adhered to, and is faced with the problem that patriarchy is an unacceptable, bad and evil doctrine which was the price that had to be paid to get ancient males to accept any religion.

The OP cannot accept that Islam - and other religions - are only morally good if you understand and recognise the context of what was taught in ancient times and why, and dismiss the bad parts which have no place in the modern world.

An obvious example to me is pork. It made sense in the days of untreatable tapeworm to teach Jews and Muslims not to eat pork. It was a sound direction then, made for the obvious betterment of ancient humans in a world before proper medicine and farming technology.

But advances in those areas mean that there is no longer any actual benefit from not eating pork - it is a just a tradition that many members of two religions choose to retain - even though people like Jinnah ignored it.

The OPs response to outdated and bad parts of Islamic theology is that you have to accept everything, regardless of the context. Fundamentalist Christians are the same.

But they then come up with complex arguments as to why bad is good, and why black is white.

And this thread has basically been 12 pages of the OP losing every argument about patriarchy, and then either criticising the arguments that he has just lost to, or simply saying "I have won, patriarchy is the best system."

It's like the captain of a cricket team that concedes 600 runs and then is bowled out twice for less than 100 in both innings, to lose by an Innings and 400 runs. Only to say "we played superbly, and I think we come out of this match in better shape than the opposition".

 

[sweep_shot]

I think that there is a variation on this going on with the OP.

He believes that ancient religious doctrines must be strictly adhered to, and is faced with the problem that patriarchy is an unacceptable, bad and evil doctrine which was the price that had to be paid to get ancient males to accept any religion.

The OP cannot accept that Islam - and other religions - are only morally good if you understand and recognise the context of what was taught in ancient times and why, and dismiss the bad parts which have no place in the modern world.

An obvious example to me is pork. It made sense in the days of untreatable tapeworm to teach Jews and Muslims not to eat pork. It was a sound direction then, made for the obvious betterment of ancient humans in a world before proper medicine and farming technology.

But advances in those areas mean that there is no longer any actual benefit from not eating pork - it is a just a tradition that many members of two religions choose to retain - even though people like Jinnah ignored it.

The OPs response to outdated and bad parts of Islamic theology is that you have to accept everything, regardless of the context. Fundamentalist Christians are the same.

But they then come up with complex arguments as to why bad is good, and why black is white.

And this thread has basically been 12 pages of the OP losing every argument about patriarchy, and then either criticising the arguments that he has just lost to, or simply saying "I have won, patriarchy is the best system."

It's like the captain of a cricket team that concedes 600 runs and then is bowled out twice for less than 100 in both innings, to lose by an Innings and 400 runs. Only to say "we played superbly, and I think we come out of this match in better shape than the opposition".

You are basically asking Jews and Muslims to abandon their traditional/mainstream beliefs. You are saying Muslims should eat pork which of course is unlikely to happen.

Only a radical liberal would say I have lost the argument because my views challenge their lawless agendas (i.e. unlimited freedom).

I didn't make this thread with religion in mind. But, it later on turned into one.

Anyway. I just want to say that patriarchy is essential when there are a large number of leftists (like it is now). Without patriarchy and social conservatism, you can see moral decline and degeneracy like we are seeing in the west now.

 

[sweep_shot]

After interacting with various radical liberals on this thread, my support for benevolent patriarchy has gotten stronger than before.

Just to reiterate yet again, here are my positions when it comes to patriarchy:

- I support benevolent patriarchy. I do not support oppression of women. Women should get the tools/resources to succeed under a benevolent patriarchic system.

- Patriarchy on its own is not automatically a bad thing. If a woman is oppressed, it is the fault of that particular man. Not the patriarchic system itself.

- A lot of the times women fail due to their own faults (bad attitude, laziness, lack of skills etc.). There were many women in the past who succeeded despite living in patriarchies. So, blaming patriarchy is simply intellectual laziness.

- Finally, a husband/father/brother has an obligation to ensure his wife/daughter/sister is on the right track. There is nothing wrong with meaningful advisements. It doesn't automatically become "mansplaining".

 

[Junaids]

You are basically asking Jews and Muslims to abandon their traditional/mainstream beliefs. You are saying Muslims should eat pork which of course is unlikely to happen.

Only a radical liberal would say I have lost the argument because my views challenge their lawless agendas (i.e. unlimited freedom).

I didn't make this thread with religion in mind. But, it later on turned into one.

Anyway. I just want to say that patriarchy is essential when there are a large number of leftists (like it is now). Without patriarchy and social conservatism, you can see moral decline and degeneracy like we are seeing in the west now.

You have just done it again.

There is no such thing as a Radical Liberal.

Liberals are the people who are bang in the middle of the political spectrum, who are moderate and the least extreme people of all.

The moment that either a socialist or a conservative calls a liberal “extreme” is the moment that they discredit themself as an extremist.

 

[Junaids]

After interacting with various radical liberals on this thread, my support for benevolent patriarchy has gotten stronger than before.

Just to reiterate yet again, here are my positions when it comes to patriarchy:

- I support benevolent patriarchy. I do not support oppression of women. Women should get the tools/resources to succeed under a benevolent patriarchic system.

- Patriarchy on its own is not automatically a bad thing. If a woman is oppressed, it is the fault of that particular man. Not the patriarchic system itself. This is something radical liberals refuse to understand.

- A lot of the times women fail due to their own faults (bad attitude, laziness, lack of skills etc.). There were many women in the past who succeeded despite living in patriarchies. So, blaming patriarchy is simply intellectual laziness.

- Finally, a husband/father/brother has an obligation to ensure his wife/daughter/sister is on the right track. There is nothing wrong with meaningful advisements. It doesn't automatically become "mansplaining".

Firstly, you are back to the comical “Radical Liberal” label, which is like branding your own forehead with a tattoo saying “I AM SO EXTREME IN MY HARD RIGHT VIEWS THAT I THINK THAT PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SPECTRUM ARE CRAZY LEFTIES”.

Of course you support the oppression of women. This thread is literally littered with posts in which you say “it is enough that a woman can go outside and go to school.”

Lastly, it’s a shame no woman managed to correct your own morally suspect opinions when you were younger.

 

[sweep_shot]

You have just done it again.

There is no such thing as a Radical Liberal.

Liberals are the people who are bang in the middle of the political spectrum, who are moderate and the least extreme people of all.

The moment that either a socialist or a conservative calls a liberal “extreme” is the moment that they discredit themself as an extremist.

There is no difference between a socialist and a liberal in today's age. Both fall under same group.

Liberalism has been hijacked by Marxists, radical feminists, and various other lunatic groups. Liberalism has been infected by these viruses and is now compromised.

 

[sweep_shot]

Of course you support the oppression of women. This thread is literally littered with posts in which you say “it is enough that a woman can go outside and go to school.”

I do not support oppression of women.

I support these:

- Women having voting rights.
- Women getting educations.
- Women having employments.
- Women driving.
- Women going outside.

What I do not support:

- Women committing fornication and adultery.
- Women showing too much skin.
- Women falsely accusing (i.e. Amber Heard).
- Women having non-emergency abortions.

I don't think I am supporting any oppression here. These are reasonable views.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I do not support oppression of women.

I support these:

- Women having voting rights.
- Women getting educations.
- Women having employments.
- Women driving.
- Women going outside.

What I do not support:

- Women committing fornication and adultery.
- Women showing too much skin.
- Women falsely accusing (i.e. Amber Heard).
- Women having non-emergency abortions.

I don't think I am supporting any oppression here. These are reasonable views.

The question you must ask yourself is why does the above need a "patriarchal system" ?

I mean if you support what you support, why does it need to be controlled by a male ?

Simple question.

 

[sweep_shot]

The question you must ask yourself is why does the above need a "patriarchal system" ?

I mean if you support what you support, why does it need to be controlled by a male ?

Simple question.

Why is it a problem if it is controlled by a male? Why is patriarchy seen as automatically a bad thing?

 

[Junaids]

I do not support oppression of women.

I support these:

- Women having voting rights.
- Women getting educations.
- Women having employments.
- Women driving.
- Women going outside.

What I do not support:

- Women committing fornication and adultery.
- Women showing too much skin.
- Women falsely accusing (i.e. Amber Heard).
- Women having non-emergency abortions.

I don't think I am supporting any oppression here. These are reasonable views.

White South Africans would have said that about blacks while they were obstructing blacks from those rights during Apartheid. But today of the four major nations in the English speaking world, 2 have male heads of government and 2 have female.


Your answers are too vague, or perhaps evasive, to assess.

So here are the questions. Keep your replies to YES or NO only - any "NO" Responses will be proof that you do support the oppression of women by men.

Q1: Do you accept women having EQUAL democratic rights?

Q2: If so, do you accept that if they do not get a reasonable proportion (over 35%) of cabinet, ministerial and head of government positions, there should be affirmative action to ensure equitable representation?

Q3: Do you accept women having EQUAL employment rights?

Q4: If so, if they occupy a disproportionate high share of junior and unskilled positions, and low share of senior and executive positions, do you accept that affirmative action should exist to correct those errors?

Q5: Do you accept that every adult woman has the right to determine where she goes, and when, without needing the permission or agreement of a male?

Q6: Do you accept that no male has the right to tell a single female over the age of consent whom she may or may not wear particular types of clothes in front of?

Q7: Do you accept that no male has the right to tell a single female over the age of consent whom she may or may not have sex with?

Q8: Do you accept that no male ever has the right to tell an adult female what contraception if any she may use, or whether she may or may not terminate a pregnancy?

Q9: Do you accept that "falsely accusing" is by no means a "female problem"?

Q10: Do you now recognise that the US court made findings against BOTH Depp and Heard? Do you recognise that a British court of law has found that Depp physically abused Heard?

These questions will basically tell us whether do or do not support the oppression of women by men. We will see whether you support theoretical but impossible to deliver rights for women, or whether you believe in women enjoying equal rights.

 

[sweep_shot]

White South Africans would have said that about blacks while they were obstructing blacks from those rights during Apartheid. But today of the four major nations in the English speaking world, 2 have male heads of government and 2 have female.


Your answers are too vague, or perhaps evasive, to assess.

So here are the questions. Keep your replies to YES or NO only - any "NO" Responses will be proof that you do support the oppression of women by men.

Q1: Do you accept women having EQUAL democratic rights?

Q2: If so, do you accept that if they do not get a reasonable proportion (over 35%) of cabinet, ministerial and head of government positions, there should be affirmative action to ensure equitable representation?

Q3: Do you accept women having EQUAL employment rights?

Q4: If so, if they occupy a disproportionate high share of junior and unskilled positions, and low share of senior and executive positions, do you accept that affirmative action should exist to correct those errors?

Q5: Do you accept that every adult woman has the right to determine where she goes, and when, without needing the permission or agreement of a male?

Q6: Do you accept that no male has the right to tell a single female over the age of consent whom she may or may not wear particular types of clothes in front of?

Q7: Do you accept that no male has the right to tell a single female over the age of consent whom she may or may not have sex with?

Q8: Do you accept that no male ever has the right to tell an adult female what contraception if any she may use, or whether she may or may not terminate a pregnancy?

Q9: Do you accept that "falsely accusing" is by no means a "female problem"?

Q10: Do you now recognise that the US court made findings against BOTH Depp and Heard? Do you recognise that a British court of law has found that Depp physically abused Heard?

These questions will basically tell us whether do or do not support the oppression of women by men. We will see whether you support theoretical but impossible to deliver rights for women, or whether you believe in women enjoying equal rights.

There is no comparison between patriarchy and apartheid. Fact of the matter is, most societies in the world are patriarchic societies (that includes many non-Muslim societies). It shows that patriarchy is something that comes naturally.

Now, let's answer your questions. I don't want to simply say yes or no because some answers need explanations to avoid misunderstandings.

Q1: If you mean voting rights, then yes. I have already mentioned women should be able to vote.

Q2: Big no. I do not believe gender quota is fair. It is discriminatory. This is how Kamala Haris possibly became VP. People should be elected based on merits and not due to being females.

Q3: Yes for most cases.

Q4: What do you mean by affirmative actions? Are you referring to gender quota? In that case, nope. I do not support any quota system.

Q5: I believe there should be checks and balances. If a woman says she wants to approach a grizzly bear, that shouldn't be entertained, for example.

Q6: Dad definitely has the right to tell his daughter what to wear. That is a no-brainer.

Q7: Premarital sex is pure degeneracy and a dad has the right to tell his daughter to not engage in this activity.

Q8: I am against non-emergency abortion. I want to thank Donald Trump for banning abortion in United States; this saved lives of many babies.

Q9: Falsely accusation is not a direct female problem. However, it is the byproduct of a toxic feminist movement called #MeToo. Many women may use this movement to frame men.

Q10: British justice system is often biased toward women. Nothing to see. Please see this: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/02/johnny-depp-amber-heard-libel-outcomes-differ-us-uk.

As you can see, I do not support oppression of women. I support common sense approach.

You, on the other hand, want unlimited freedom for women which is unrealistic and dangerous.

 

[Junaids]

Without patriarchy and social conservatism, you can see moral decline and degeneracy like we are seeing in the west now.

What we all see is whatever affirms our pre-existing views.

You believe in a fundamentalist approach to religion. To your credit you treat Christianity and Judaism the same as Islam - you think that either you believe it all, or you are a fake adherent.

I believe in scientific analysis of everything, from swing bowling to religion. I believe that religions were set up to make people behave with better morals for that time in history, but I believe that literal application of ancient religions is evil and creates bad societies.

I believe that the USA is the worse for having a Supreme Court full of Christian fundamentalists who have banned abortion.

I believe that Islamic countries are the worse for failing to contextualise religious teaching on gender and sex, with the result that the female half of the population is oppressed.

This thread really only exists because it suits a lot of Muslim men to award themselves more rights than women, and to use religion as the pretext for oppressing women.

 

[Junaids]

There is no comparison between patriarchy and apartheid.

Q10: British justice system is often biased toward women. Nothing to see. Please see this: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/02/johnny-depp-amber-heard-libel-outcomes-differ-us-uk.

As you can see, I do not support oppression of women. I support common sense approach.

You, on the other hand, want unlimited freedom for women which is unrealistic and dangerous.

Firstly, patriarchy is Apartheid - gender Apartheid.

Secondly, the British justice system is most certainly NOT skewed towards women: only 1.6% of rapists get charged, let alone convicted! Source: https://www.theguardian.com/society...-60-cases-lead-to-charge-in-england-and-wales

Thirdly, what is "unrealistic" or "dangerous" about unlimited freedom for women?

As I showed you pages ago, western women live longer, healthier, happier, wealthier more educated lives than women in Islamic patriarchies.

And even though they have sex with a lot more men, they are far less likely to be killed by sex, either in terms of childbirth or conditions like cervical cancer caused by Muslim husbands who felt no such restrictions on sex for males.

 

[sweep_shot]

Firstly, patriarchy is Apartheid - gender Apartheid.

Secondly, the British justice system is most certainly NOT skewed towards women: only 1.6% of rapists get charged, let alone convicted! Source: https://www.theguardian.com/society...-60-cases-lead-to-charge-in-england-and-wales

Thirdly, what is "unrealistic" or "dangerous" about unlimited freedom for women?

As I showed you pages ago, western women live longer, healthier, happier, wealthier more educated lives than women in Islamic patriarchies.

And even though they have sex with a lot more men, they are far less likely to be killed by sex, either in terms of childbirth or conditions like cervical cancer caused by Muslim husbands who felt no such restrictions on sex for males.

Calling patriarchy apartheid is laughable.

Are you going to call nature apartheid/racist too? Males have more physical strengths than females but females tend to be more empathic. Female can get pregnant while a male cannot.

Males and females are not equal. They are just different. They compliment one another.

 

[sweep_shot]

What we all see is whatever affirms our pre-existing views.

You believe in a fundamentalist approach to religion. To your credit you treat Christianity and Judaism the same as Islam - you think that either you believe it all, or you are a fake adherent.

I believe in scientific analysis of everything, from swing bowling to religion. I believe that religions were set up to make people behave with better morals for that time in history, but I believe that literal application of ancient religions is evil and creates bad societies.

I believe that the USA is the worse for having a Supreme Court full of Christian fundamentalists who have banned abortion.

I believe that Islamic countries are the worse for failing to contextualise religious teaching on gender and sex, with the result that the female half of the population is oppressed.

This thread really only exists because it suits a lot of Muslim men to award themselves more rights than women, and to use religion as the pretext for oppressing women.

There is nothing scientific about your approach here. You basically want to follow your whims and desires. You support men and women sleeping around like wild animals. It is a shame really.

This thread has shown how blind radical liberals are. They do not realize western civilization is declining and the reason behind their decline is abandonment of social conservatism.

I personally believe you are a simp like most radical liberals and it is why you oppose benevolent patriarchy.

 

[Madplayer]

There is no point arguing over context.

If a thing has been said, it is said. Now you can argue semantics and try to logically argue that it was said for "adulterous females" only.

There is a point. Context changes everything. Kindly explain what "Bad thing" Allah said? (Nauzubillah).

What you have demonstrated in this post is textbook gish galloping even when I made clear that Islam doesn't give the "same" rights to men and women because they are seen as having different characteristics.

My point remains.

1. Men have a degree over women. Quranic ayahs. (There is no ayah saying women have a degree over men).

In worldly affairs, men are expected to do more than women. Are they not? This has been in fact demonstrated throughout history as something natural to men. If you think otherwise, then you are disregarding history and simply speaking from emotions that you've taken from the contemporary woke ideology.

2. Inheritance gets divided 2:1. Simply because of XX and XY chromosome.

The man has to provide for the woman forever. Is he his slave then? The woman gets Mahr and the man gets nothing. The woman gets a share from her husband's property while the husband doesn't have any right over his wife's possessions.
It is unbelievable how people only like to see what they want to see.

3. Men are allowed to strike an adulterous women but women are not allowed to touch an adulterous man?

Read my earlier replies explaining this. I've explained it already. There is no need to restrain a woman against her adulterous husband for reasons i've explained earlier.

4. Angels curse women. Who without a valid excuse does not perform sex for the husband.

The woman who doesn't perform her duties as a wife when she has no valid reason to avoid them, of which sexual duties are an important part, she will be cursed by the angels. She entered a marriage contract knowing her duties well. No man wants to be married to a woman who he cannot have sex with. That's like living in the same house with a friend. In fact, most divorces happen due to sex-less marriages.

5. If there was a SAJDA which was valid it would be women prostration in front of her husband.

It is to highlight the importance of a man. And the sajda IS NOT even allowed. What about Jannah lies beneath the feet of the mother? This is FOR SURE. Not good enough for you doc?

I ask you sir, if this is not a system of male dominated patriarch religion, then what else is?

In worldly affairs it is male dominated to some degree. I never claimed otherwise. However, like i said earlier, the gender roles that women play are not seen as inferior in Islam. That's a western position and you are speaking from that position. For muslims, the role of a stay at home mother, for example, is of astounding importance.

You are forced to accept it because there is no other choice.

For both men and women. Men are restricted in numerous ways too.

Your arguments have devolved from first accepting Islam and then trying to establish scientifically why the world must accept Islam.

Our job is to propagate the message.

This is a religion that allows males to have war prisoners perform sexual favors for men.

Taking extra-ordinary circumstances which maybe happen once in two lifetimes and presenting them as norms is a characteristic trait of Islam bashers. Not surprised.

And you say with a straight face, women are treated same as men in Islam?

Never said that.