Women and Islam

[Cracker_Mom]

Then if Muslims just want somewhere to be Islamic, then they ought to go somewhere that wasn’t already populated with non-Muslims.

Yeah, exactly where were the Jews supposed to find a place with only Jews living there?

 

[Sister_Amy]

Then if Muslims just want somewhere to be Islamic, they ought to go somewhere that wasn’t already populated with non-Muslims.

Eh?

 

[Sister_Amy]

Yeah, exactly where were the Jews supposed to find a place with only Jews living there?

Quite the point is that it’s unrealistic–trying to make a Jewish-only state called Israel by expelling and evicting Palestinians, making refugees of an entire nation is not a legitimate course of action. It was wrong for Jews to try that.

The only solution left is a single state that’s open to all the people.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I do have an actual question regarding women in Islam:

Is it part of sharia law or just a “cultural” thing or just a misperception that women need to ask permission from their husband/father/brother/male relative in order to leave the house?

That’s nice… popcorn was more off-topic than Palestine, I’d think.

But this is actually a really good question. Unfortunately the answer is rather murky. Sorry. It’s complicated to answer because it doesn’t really fit in either of the three categories, in the way that you asked it.

You asked only about leaving the home, though, and not traveling (which is a different issue.) So I’m going to stick with just leaving the home for mundane matters.

It’s true that a married couple is supposed to have an agreement about what they do outside of the home, and that they know where the other person is. If a husband is leaving the home, his wife has a right to know where he is, and a husband has a right to know where his wife is when she leaves the home. That’s the real objective, and not keeping a woman locked up inside a house (which is absurdly inhumane!)

So there is a Shari’a basis to the statement, that a woman should have an agreement with her husband about leaving the home, that he knows where she is. It doesn’t mean she has to ask his permission every single time she steps outside. It’s like if they have an agreement she will go to school, and it means she has class twice a week at night, then she’ll be gone all those time, and he knows about it up front so she doesn’t need to “ask permission” each night in order to go to class. That’s pretty silly.

But if she were never to tell her husband where she was, it’d be a problem. Or if he needed her for something during that time and didn’t know where she was (I mean an emergency, like he had to go to the hospital or something.)

So I think that some people really take this to an extreme. In fact, I know some people do. The man will prevent his wife from ever leaving, and he won’t tell her where he goes and he’ll be gone a lot. I’ve seen that happening–and it’s wrong and unfair.

So let’s see… there is a Shari’ah basis, which is frequently misinterpreted by culture. When people see that sort of injustice, I think they perceive it exactly as it is–as injustice, and wrong. But the misperception is more on the people who do it, really. It might be the cases that this is exaggerated even further based on culture, I guess, which could make it cultural too.

And it doesn’t apply for a male relative–she doesn’t need permission of a male relative, it’s just supposed to be an agreement with her husband if she is married.

 

[morning_star777]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Salaam/peace

WOMEN IN ISLAM VERSUS WOMEN IN THE
JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITION:

THE MYTH &
THE REALITY

BY Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem

sultan.org/articles/women.html

For other languages of this book

islamhouse.com/p/191528

Why do you never give any non Muslim link that also support your imaginary claims?Your websites are for bashing Jewish- Christian culture.Fine if you want to prove that Christian culture is more hostile to women than islamic culture then post another thread.Acid terrorism and rape is the major problem in Bangladesh.Girls were never save in Muslim countries.So do not give your false websites.It is useless.No one here trust your website because most of your web addresses are really very irritating and unauthentic.Islam permit taking concubine,wife beating,abusive covering system but still Muslims shout that their religion is the best.But I am not upset with it.It is Just another dark site of Islam.

PS.Since some days I am not posting to much against Islam because it is useless.Muslims will lose but they will not accept defeat.They can not prove anything but when we show the errors then either they give imaginary wrong explanation or ignore those question.Actually Muslims are fond of flattery and it is the nature of Islam.So it is useless arguing with them for long times.Now finally My request,MW,for God’s sake please stop playing the old broken record repeatedly.Do not give Islamic websites to prove your so called history and the references of Sherif Abdel Azeem,Ahmad deedhat,Jakir nayek,Abdur Rahman green and others.Write your own opinion,it will be useful and charming.Good bye.

 

[Jay53]

That’s nice… popcorn was more off-topic than Palestine, I’d think.

But this is actually a really good question. Unfortunately the answer is rather murky. Sorry. It’s complicated to answer because it doesn’t really fit in either of the three categories, in the way that you asked it.

You asked only about leaving the home, though, and not traveling (which is a different issue.) So I’m going to stick with just leaving the home for mundane matters.

It’s true that a married couple is supposed to have an agreement about what they do outside of the home, and that they know where the other person is. If a husband is leaving the home, his wife has a right to know where he is, and a husband has a right to know where his wife is when she leaves the home. That’s the real objective, and not keeping a woman locked up inside a house (which is absurdly inhumane!)

So there is a Shari’a basis to the statement, that a woman should have an agreement with her husband about leaving the home, that he knows where she is. It doesn’t mean she has to ask his permission every single time she steps outside. It’s like if they have an agreement she will go to school, and it means she has class twice a week at night, then she’ll be gone all those time, and he knows about it up front so she doesn’t need to “ask permission” each night in order to go to class. That’s pretty silly.

But if she were never to tell her husband where she was, it’d be a problem. Or if he needed her for something during that time and didn’t know where she was (I mean an emergency, like he had to go to the hospital or something.)

So I think that some people really take this to an extreme. In fact, I know some people do. The man will prevent his wife from ever leaving, and he won’t tell her where he goes and he’ll be gone a lot. I’ve seen that happening–and it’s wrong and unfair.

So let’s see… there is a Shari’ah basis, which is frequently misinterpreted by culture. When people see that sort of injustice, I think they perceive it exactly as it is–as injustice, and wrong. But the misperception is more on the people who do it, really. It might be the cases that this is exaggerated even further based on culture, I guess, which could make it cultural too.

And it doesn’t apply for a male relative–she doesn’t need permission of a male relative, it’s just supposed to be an agreement with her husband if she is married.

I was just asking more of a general everyday errand running/want to get out of the house type situation.

So it’s more of a general “common courtesy” type of thing? If I know I won’t be home *all day *(i.e. going shopping all day) I would let my husband know? But, if I’m just doing errrands or short trips then I wouldn’t have to call him?

So, just for example, I’m at home during the day and I decide I want to go to the gym I would just be able to leave without calling my husband at work to tell him where I’m going? Or then, say I decide in the middle of the afternoon I want to go to the library - I can just go? How far does the sharia basis of the law go?

 

[sedonaman]

Eh?

Don’t give us with the big eyes “Eh?”. Look at a map of the world and you will see that Islamic countries form a wide swath of land from North Africa’s Atlantic coast all the way to Southeast Asia. There’s lots of oil under it. But for some strange reason Muslims can’t do without an itsy-bitsy strip of land [called Israel] right in the middle, with no oil on it. If Muslims truly wanted peace, they would have used a small portion of their land and their vast oil wealth to resettle the so-called Palestinians, instead of buying solid gold palaces, solid silver Rolls Royces, and expensive travel to the West for the men to gamble and drink in exclusive casinos and for the women to shop in Gucci stores. But no. Jordan even threw them out of their country. I’m not talking about asking them to take in people of a different culture, but their own kind – culture, language, and religion. And why won’t they let them in? It is because Islam is all about war, conquest, and death, even if it is their own people who have to suffer. It were as though there isn’t any room in the world for non-Muslims. That’s why “Wherever you have Islam, you will have war.”

And history didn’t start with the Crusades:

632 AD – Mohammed dies
633 – Mesopotamia falls to Muslim invasion, followed by the entire Persian Empire
635 – Damascus falls
638 – Jerusalem capitulates
643 – Alexandria falls, ending 1,000 years of Hellenic civilization
648-49 – Cyprus falls
653 – Rhodes falls
673 – Constantinople attacked
698 – All of North Africa lost
711 – Spain invaded
717 – Muslims attack Constantinople again; repelled by Emperor Leo the Isaurian
721 – Saragossa falls, Muslims sights on southern France
720 – Narbonne falls.
732 – Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt down
732 – Charles Martel and his Frankish army defeat Muslims in October, turning back the Muslim tide
732 – Attacks on France continued
734 – Avignon captured by an Muslim force
743 – Lyons sacked
759 – Arabs driven out of Narbonne.
838 – Marseilles plundered
800 – Muslims incursions into Italy begin, Islands of Ponza and Ischia plundered
813 – Civitavecchia, the port of Rome sacked
826 – Crete falls to Muslim forces
827 – Muslim forces begin to attack Sicily.
837 – Naples repels a Muslim attack
838 – Marseilles taken
840 – Bari falls
842 – Messina captured and Strait of Messina controlled
846 – Muslims squadrons arrived at Ostia, at the Tiber’s mouth, sack Rome and St. Peter’s Basilica
846 – Taranto in Apulia conquered by Muslim forces
849 – Papal forces repel Muslim fleet at the mouth of the Tiber
853-71 – Italian coast from Bari down to Reggio Calabria controlled, Muslims terrorize Southern Italy.
859 – Muslims take control of all Messina
870 – Malta captured by the Muslims.
870 – Bari recaptured from the Muslims by Emperor Louis II
872 – Emperor Louis II defeats a Saracen fleet off Capua
872 – Muslim forces devastate Calabria
878 – Syracuse falls after a nine-month siege
879 – Pope John VIII forced to pay tribute of 25,000 mancuses (AUD$625,000) annually to the Muslims
880 – Byzantine Commanders gain victory over Saracen forces at Naples
881 – Muslims capture fortress near Anzio, plunder surrounding countryside with impunity for forty [40] years.
887 – Muslim armies take Hysela and Amasia, in Asia Minor.
889 – Toulon captured
921 – English pilgrims to Rome crushed to death under rocks rolled down on them by Saracens in the passes of the Alps
902 – Muslim fleets sacked and destroyed Demetrias in Thessaly, Central Greece,
904 – Thessalonica falls to Muslim forces
915 – After three months of blockade, Christian forces victorious against Saracens holed-up in their fortresses north of Naples
934 – Genoa attacked by Muslim forces
935 – Genoa taken
972 – Saracens finally driven from Faxineto
976 – Caliphs of Egypt send fresh Muslim expeditions into southern Italy. Initially the German Emperor Otho II , who had set up his headquarters in Rome, successfully defeated these Saracen forces
977 – Sergius, Archbishop of Damascus, expelled from his See by Muslims
982 – Emperor Otho’s forces ambushed and his army defeated
1003 – Muslims from Spain sack Antibes
1003-09 – Marauding bands of Saracens plunder Italian coast from Pisa to Rome from bases on Sardinia
1005 – Muslims from Spain sack Pisa
1009 – Caliph of Egypt orders destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the Tomb of Jesus
1010 – Saracens seize Cosenza in southern Italy.
1015 – All Sardinia falls
1016 – Muslims from Spain again sack Pisa
1017 – Fleets of Pisa and Genoa sail for Sardinia, find Saracens crucifying Christians, drive Saracen leader out. Saracens try to re-take Sardinia until 1050
1020 – Muslims from Spain sack Narbonne
1095 – The First Crusade.

This is what Muslim conquerors did. They had no right to invade lands that had been Christian for a thousand years. Take Spain and France for example. Christians “lived on it and had a common identity,” as planten says about the Palestinians in Israel. So what makes Muslims right and Christians wrong? Christians had their lands before the Muslims invaded. If we apply planten’s test, Islam can claim no land outside Medina because it is the only place on the whole planet that Mohammad was accepted without force.

 

[sedonaman]

Eh?

And to relate my last to the topic, wherever they went, Muslim conquerors took non-Muslim women as slaves as rewards for “spreading the ‘faith’.”

 

[Sister_Amy]

Don’t give us with the big eyes “Eh?”. Look at a map of the world and you will see that Islamic countries form a wide swath of land from North Africa’s Atlantic coast all the way to Southeast Asia. There’s lots of oil under it. But for some strange reason Muslims can’t do without an itsy-bitsy strip of land [called Israel] right in the middle, with no oil on it. If Muslims truly wanted peace, they would have used a small portion of their land and their vast oil wealth to resettle the so-called Palestinians, instead of buying solid gold palaces, solid silver Rolls Royces, and expensive travel to the West for the men to gamble and drink in exclusive casinos and for the women to shop in Gucci stores. But no. Jordan even threw them out of their country. I’m not talking about asking them to take in people of a different culture, but their own kind – culture, language, and religion. And why won’t they let them in? It is because Islam is all about war, conquest, and death, even if it is their own people who have to suffer. It were as though there isn’t any room in the world for non-Muslims. That’s why “Wherever you have Islam, you will have war.”

And history didn’t start with the Crusades:

632 AD – Mohammed dies
633 – Mesopotamia falls to Muslim invasion, followed by the entire Persian Empire
635 – Damascus falls
638 – Jerusalem capitulates
643 – Alexandria falls, ending 1,000 years of Hellenic civilization
648-49 – Cyprus falls
653 – Rhodes falls
673 – Constantinople attacked
698 – All of North Africa lost
711 – Spain invaded
717 – Muslims attack Constantinople again; repelled by Emperor Leo the Isaurian
721 – Saragossa falls, Muslims sights on southern France
720 – Narbonne falls.
732 – Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt down
732 – Charles Martel and his Frankish army defeat Muslims in October, turning back the Muslim tide
732 – Attacks on France continued
734 – Avignon captured by an Muslim force
743 – Lyons sacked
759 – Arabs driven out of Narbonne.
838 – Marseilles plundered
800 – Muslims incursions into Italy begin, Islands of Ponza and Ischia plundered
813 – Civitavecchia, the port of Rome sacked
826 – Crete falls to Muslim forces
827 – Muslim forces begin to attack Sicily.
837 – Naples repels a Muslim attack
838 – Marseilles taken
840 – Bari falls
842 – Messina captured and Strait of Messina controlled
846 – Muslims squadrons arrived at Ostia, at the Tiber’s mouth, sack Rome and St. Peter’s Basilica
846 – Taranto in Apulia conquered by Muslim forces
849 – Papal forces repel Muslim fleet at the mouth of the Tiber
853-71 – Italian coast from Bari down to Reggio Calabria controlled, Muslims terrorize Southern Italy.
859 – Muslims take control of all Messina
870 – Malta captured by the Muslims.
870 – Bari recaptured from the Muslims by Emperor Louis II
872 – Emperor Louis II defeats a Saracen fleet off Capua
872 – Muslim forces devastate Calabria
878 – Syracuse falls after a nine-month siege
879 – Pope John VIII forced to pay tribute of 25,000 mancuses (AUD$625,000) annually to the Muslims
880 – Byzantine Commanders gain victory over Saracen forces at Naples
881 – Muslims capture fortress near Anzio, plunder surrounding countryside with impunity for forty [40] years.
887 – Muslim armies take Hysela and Amasia, in Asia Minor.
889 – Toulon captured
921 – English pilgrims to Rome crushed to death under rocks rolled down on them by Saracens in the passes of the Alps
902 – Muslim fleets sacked and destroyed Demetrias in Thessaly, Central Greece,
904 – Thessalonica falls to Muslim forces
915 – After three months of blockade, Christian forces victorious against Saracens holed-up in their fortresses north of Naples
934 – Genoa attacked by Muslim forces
935 – Genoa taken
972 – Saracens finally driven from Faxineto
976 – Caliphs of Egypt send fresh Muslim expeditions into southern Italy. Initially the German Emperor Otho II , who had set up his headquarters in Rome, successfully defeated these Saracen forces
977 – Sergius, Archbishop of Damascus, expelled from his See by Muslims
982 – Emperor Otho’s forces ambushed and his army defeated
1003 – Muslims from Spain sack Antibes
1003-09 – Marauding bands of Saracens plunder Italian coast from Pisa to Rome from bases on Sardinia
1005 – Muslims from Spain sack Pisa
1009 – Caliph of Egypt orders destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the Tomb of Jesus
1010 – Saracens seize Cosenza in southern Italy.
1015 – All Sardinia falls
1016 – Muslims from Spain again sack Pisa
1017 – Fleets of Pisa and Genoa sail for Sardinia, find Saracens crucifying Christians, drive Saracen leader out. Saracens try to re-take Sardinia until 1050
1020 – Muslims from Spain sack Narbonne
1095 – The First Crusade.

This is what Muslim conquerors did. They had no right to invade lands that had been Christian for a thousand years. Take Spain and France for example. Christians “lived on it and had a common identity,” as planten says about the Palestinians in Israel. So what makes Muslims right and Christians wrong? Christians had their lands before the Muslims invaded. If we apply planten’s test, Islam can claim no land outside Medina because it is the only place on the whole planet that Mohammad was accepted without force.

That’s just about the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this forum. Not quite, but pretty close.

If Christians wanted a place to be free to be Christian, maybe they should have gone somewhere other than America which was already populated with people of another religion.

This logic is so -]foolish/-] pointless I will be very embarrassed to see if it survives onto the next page.

 

[sedonaman]

That’s just about the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this forum. Not quite, but pretty close.
This logic is so -]foolish/-] pointless I will be very embarrassed to see if it survives onto the next page.

It’s “dumb” and “foolish” to you because it is actual history and doesn’t match Muslim attempts to rewrite it. And it’s not “pointless” because some Christian readers here might not be aware they’ve been told a woefully incomplete history.

If Christians wanted a place to be free to be Christian, maybe they should have gone somewhere other than America which was already populated with people of another religion.

Now that’s foolish logic because it is a tu quoque fallacy in reasoning. Typical.

 

[Sister_Amy]

It’s “dumb” and “foolish” to you because it is actual history and doesn’t match Muslim attempts to rewrite it. And it’s not “pointless” because some Christian readers here might not be aware they’ve been told a woefully incomplete history.

History has nothing to do with the conversation–you’re looking for an excuse to attack Muslims.

Now that’s foolish logic because it is a tu quoque fallacy in reasoning. Typical.

Has nothing to do with “tu quoque” or whatever. The point is that it’s utterly senseless to try that sort of logic–which is what you’re doing. It’s lame and unproductive.

Trying to equate the spread of Islam to the creation of Israel is totally fallacious, the motivations behind them being diametrically opposed.

 

[jakasaki]

That’s just about the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this forum. Not quite, but pretty close.

**If Christians wanted a place to be free to be Christian, maybe they should have gone somewhere other than America **which was already populated with people of another religion.

This logic is so -]foolish/-] pointless I will be very embarrassed to see if it survives onto the next page.

What does your statement have to do what the reply is to the poster?

That’s just about the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this forum. Not quite, but pretty close.

What is dumb about it?

Do you deny the historical islamic conquest posted above?

 

[planten]

**sedonaman, you have dug up a lot of christian history. I mean you christian people had quite a lot of land under your control since 300 or 400 A.D. From where and from whom did you take all that land?

I never allowed any one to capture any of your land. You said planten did this and that.

Actually, it was wrong to disturb the weakling state of Madinah by the nearby christian states under the poweful Army of Caesar of Rome. It was informed by the King Soloman in one of his songs:

“O daughters of Jarusalem, I beseech you by the oath of the deers and … of the fields that you do not disturb and do not wake up my beloved until my beloved would like to wake up itself…” Songs ch.2 verse 7.

The actual words are:

songs 2:7, O, Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you
by the gazelles and by the does of the field: that you
Do not arouse or awaken my love
until it so desires. (wakes up itself)…**

That was an advice in advance to the Jews and the christians that they should not disturb the man of God Muhammad (the beloved of Soloman) and should not wake him up until he wakes up himself. It was an advice to the people of books that they should not try to pick any fight with Muhammad, the last prophet. That is because the prophets do not attack any one and do not address any one until they are provoked…

But the people of the books were heedless of the advice of King Soloman.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Deny it?

Read my post right above yours.

The spread of Islam isn’t the subject matter, hasn’t been, and I refuse to make it so. If you do, then you need to look at the Roman and Byzantine Empires, then the British, French, and Spanish Empires. Islam had its own empires. Equating the empires of Muslims to the religion of Islam is just a lie.

 

[planten]

Deny it?

Read my post right above yours.

The spread of Islam isn’t the subject matter, hasn’t been, and I refuse to make it so. If you do, then you need to look at the Roman and Byzantine Empires, then the British, French, and Spanish Empires. Islam had its own empires. Equating the empires of Muslims to the religion of Islam is just a lie.

** Quite True, Sister Amy. Those christians had grabbed quite a big part of the world in the early time. We had not known about it. From whom they grabbed it?

We only knew the later attacks by the christian military in Afrika and Asia and Far east in years 1750-1900 A.D. They plundered many countries and captured all land resources. The missionaries followed the military with bibles and tried to convert as many as they could. They are exposed now. They are the real culprits.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.**

 

[jakasaki]

Deny it?

Read my post right above yours.

The spread of Islam isn’t the subject matter, hasn’t been, and I refuse to make it so. If you do, then you need to look at the Roman and Byzantine Empires, then the British, French, and Spanish Empires. Islam had its own empires. Equating the empires of Muslims to the religion of Islam is just a lie.

You know, you are 100% correct, the “spread of islam” is not the subject matter.

But neither was the discussion here on Palestine and the Jews and the Jews and Palestine and relocation of the Jews and etc… which if I am correct, either Muslim Woman or Sister Amy started talking about.

And the converstation went on and on about Palestine and the Jews until I decided to post a “popcorn” reply and another user responded to it.

And now, the thread took another turn with islamic conquest and you refuse to discuss it and blame the poster of turning the subject matter around while he/she was only responding to your reply.

But not once did you or the other muslim member stop the Palestine/Jew issue from being dismissed from this thread.

 

[sedonaman]

Equating the empires of Muslims to the religion of Islam is just a lie.

Then it’s awfully strange that PBS [known for its sympathy for Islam] would crank out a highly complimentary 3-hour program and DVD called Islam: Empire of Faith. Reading the editorial reviews [page down], one gets the definite feeling it had been modulated by some Islamic PR group or other.

 

[Sister_Amy]

You know, you are 100% correct, the “spread of islam” is not the subject matter.

But neither was the discussion here on Palestine and the Jews and the Jews and Palestine and relocation of the Jews and etc… which if I am correct, either Muslim Woman or Sister Amy started talking about.

And the converstation went on and on about Palestine and the Jews until I decided to post a “popcorn” reply and another user responded to it.

And now, the thread took another turn with islamic conquest and you refuse to discuss it and blame the poster of turning the subject matter around while he/she was only responding to your reply.

But not once did you or the other muslim member stop the Palestine/Jew issue from being dismissed from this thread.

Nah, I didn’t introduce the topic of Palestine. But I was willing to talk about it.

But another excuse by someone (sedonaman) to attack Islam? That requires more discussion, and I refuse to get involved in it. You refused to talk about Palestine in this thread. I refuse to talk about Imperial Conquest in this thread.

 

[sedonaman]

And now, the thread took another turn with islamic conquest and you refuse to discuss it and blame the poster of turning the subject matter around while he/she was only responding to your reply.

But not once did you or the other muslim member stop the Palestine/Jew issue from being dismissed from this thread.

 

[sedonaman]

Those christians had grabbed quite a big part of the world in the early time. We had not known about it. From whom they grabbed it?

Since you didn’t know about it, we must have grabbed it from Muslims.