Equality of man and woman in today's context

[Goenitz]

So do you see that happening in UK? Are men defending their pride and taking away resources as they can?

You said " So if superior physical power is legally taken away..." so if that is the case, why not.

Other than physical power, what other power men have over women in a modern fair society. In a fair society, where women get equal opportunity, they have financial power. I would say women have higher pyschological power over men.

1. In a fair society, where women get equal opportunity: Name one. Even if there is one, physical power can dominate others, easily. Law always cannot help you, if it is broken at large scale.
2. I would say women have higher pyschological power over men: May be true but very hard to say. As it is not scientific fact. Otherwise I can say man can abuse relationship as generally, women won't want to end it due to emotional attachment (even in a fair society).

 

[magra]

Why are you trying to force a change of a religion, and in particular this point of discussion has no legs to stand on. If you don't like Islam, nobody is forcing you into it. Let it be the peoples choice, don't infringe on the rights of others just because you can't understand it.

You started the discussion with talking about "certain religion", now you have changed that to muslims "peoples...". Which is it? Islam or people who claim to be muslim?

Islam says, men can have no more than 4 wives, but the men will have to do justice between them all. Allah is the judge, if the man can't do justice, he will have to pay for his sins. If the wives are unhappy with this injustice, they are free to leave. Just like any other marriage. You keep talking about a specific situation where a woman is financially dependent on the man and would be afraid to come out and voice her concerns. This situation shouldn't apply today, since there are many financial opportunities out there. But lets say a situation like that does arise, then it wouldn't matter if she is muslim or not, in a polygamous situation or not. A non muslim financially dependent woman would be afraid to voice her concerns regardless of her religion. Has nothing to do with Islam.

India can start by allowing muslims to freely eat what they wish. Starting with beef.

I am not forcing any change but merely having a discussion. A society which suppresses free exchange of ideas starts degrading.

Realistically speaking, why would a woman enter or agree to a polygamous marriage if she is financially independent. I would say in 99% of polygamous marriages, the wives are dependent financially on the husband. What Allah would do on judgement day is left to Him. I am talking about the man going scot free in this mortal world.
Human laws are made and applied in consideration of mortal world and not in consideration on what God would or would not do later.

I agree with you with regards to beef. I feel it is hypocritical to just protect one animal (cow) while letting other animals being murdered to satisfy human taste buds. Either ban all animal murders and become vegan / vegetarian society or allow whichever animal one wants to murder. So lets not stop at a cow. Let people murder dogs and cats and eat them as well, right?

You said " So if superior physical power is legally taken away..." so if that is the case, why not.

1. In a fair society, where women get equal opportunity: Name one. Even if there is one, physical power can dominate others, easily. Law always cannot help you, if it is broken at large scale.
2. I would say women have higher pyschological power over men: May be true but very hard to say. As it is not scientific fact. Otherwise I can say man can abuse relationship as generally, women won't want to end it due to emotional attachment (even in a fair society).

I believe I made my points clear. Lets agree to disagree.

I would continue to argue for banning both polygamy and polyandry. If a man wants to support additional women, let him do so financially without entering into spousal relations with such women.

 

[ummarz]

I am not forcing any change but merely having a discussion. A society which suppresses free exchange of ideas starts degrading.

Realistically speaking, why would a woman enter or agree to a polygamous marriage if she is financially independent. I would say in 99% of polygamous marriages, the wives are dependent financially on the husband. What Allah would do on judgement day is left to Him. I am talking about the man going scot free in this mortal world.
Human laws are made and applied in consideration of mortal world and not in consideration on what God would or would not do later.

I agree with you with regards to beef. I feel it is hypocritical to just protect one animal (cow) while letting other animals being murdered to satisfy human taste buds. Either ban all animal murders and become vegan / vegetarian society or allow whichever animal one wants to murder. So lets not stop at a cow. Let people murder dogs and cats and eat them as well, right?

I am glad we can have a civilized discussion. And I agree with your opening.

Yeah, I don't know why would women choose that. As a man it doesn't make sense to me. But they do it, and have been consistently doing it. I heard that the King of Thailand has a pretty large collection himself. As well as Kim of NK.

I have to disagree with your assumption that 99% are financially dependent. Instead, I would say most women enter a polygamous relationship where the man holds a much higher status in society. There is a subtle but definitive difference between the two.

Humans laws can never fully provide justice. No matter how hard we try there will always be some injustice. We have gotten pretty good at it, but there are still people who get murdered and the murderer never is brought to justice. This makes me believe in Islam ever more. That it makes sense, that one day everybody will be brought to justice.

If the man follows the teachings of Islam, he would do justice. And the women are free to choose if they want to stay or not, or if they want to marry an already married person. All these rights are given to them via Islam. They are not being forced. If a man does injustice be it in a polygamous or monogamous relationship, he will have to answer depending on the injustice. If its punishable then he will be punished. If its about injustice in the time or affection, the wives can leave him, just like any other marriage.

You should not forget that this polygamy has many other benefits to the society. The rate of rape is much lower in muslim countries, so is prostitution. Wealthy men of status end up keeping many women (more than 4) as concubines in non muslim countries. These women will never get as many rights as law would prescribe a wife would get, no right to wealth or land. Just intercourse and a few clothes, perhaps rent for the apartment while the men use her. Not only that, but the rate of cervical cancer is lower throughout the muslim world. Cervical cancer spreads through non protective intercourse.

 

[Goenitz]

I believe I made my points clear. Lets agree to disagree.

I would continue to argue for banning both polygamy and polyandry

Sure. If you believe that then I cannot fight faith. Lets advocate our views and agree to disagree.

 

[magra]

I am glad we can have a civilized discussion. And I agree with your opening.

Yeah, I don't know why would women choose that. As a man it doesn't make sense to me. But they do it, and have been consistently doing it. I heard that the King of Thailand has a pretty large collection himself. As well as Kim of NK.

I have to disagree with your assumption that 99% are financially dependent. Instead, I would say most women enter a polygamous relationship where the man holds a much higher status in society. There is a subtle but definitive difference between the two.

Humans laws can never fully provide justice. No matter how hard we try there will always be some injustice. We have gotten pretty good at it, but there are still people who get murdered and the murderer never is brought to justice. This makes me believe in Islam ever more. That it makes sense, that one day everybody will be brought to justice.

If the man follows the teachings of Islam, he would do justice. And the women are free to choose if they want to stay or not, or if they want to marry an already married person. All these rights are given to them via Islam. They are not being forced. If a man does injustice be it in a polygamous or monogamous relationship, he will have to answer depending on the injustice. If its punishable then he will be punished. If its about injustice in the time or affection, the wives can leave him, just like any other marriage.

You should not forget that this polygamy has many other benefits to the society. The rate of rape is much lower in muslim countries, so is prostitution. Wealthy men of status end up keeping many women (more than 4) as concubines in non muslim countries. These women will never get as many rights as law would prescribe a wife would get, no right to wealth or land. Just intercourse and a few clothes, perhaps rent for the apartment while the men use her. Not only that, but the rate of cervical cancer is lower throughout the muslim world. Cervical cancer spreads through non protective intercourse.

I am also glad that we are having a civilized discussion despite my questioning some of your belief systems.

You mentioned Kim of NK and King of Thailand, but those are rare examples. In most cases, it is just the case of wealthy businessmen trying to get more than 1 wife. In such cases, why would a financial secure woman be willing to share his man with others? If not, it is financial coercion and nothing else.

You mentioned that rape and prostitution are lower in societies where lustful wealthy men are legally allowed multiple sexual partners. Are you saying that only wealthy men do rape and engage in prostitution? In a society, if lets say upper 5% can afford multiple wives, are you say that the rest 95% who cannot afford do not do rapes and do not go to visit prostitutes?
So polygamy can at best reduce rapes and prostitution by 5%. Do you think that this slight reduction justifies polygamy?

 

[ummarz]

I am also glad that we are having a civilized discussion despite my questioning some of your belief systems.

You mentioned Kim of NK and King of Thailand, but those are rare examples. In most cases, it is just the case of wealthy businessmen trying to get more than 1 wife. In such cases, why would a financial secure woman be willing to share his man with others? If not, it is financial coercion and nothing else.

You mentioned that rape and prostitution are lower in societies where lustful wealthy men are legally allowed multiple sexual partners. Are you saying that only wealthy men do rape and engage in prostitution? In a society, if lets say upper 5% can afford multiple wives, are you say that the rest 95% who cannot afford do not do rapes and do not go to visit prostitutes?
So polygamy can at best reduce rapes and prostitution by 5%. Do you think that this slight reduction justifies polygamy?

Please, lets not put words in my mouth. I thought we were having a productive conversation.

How can you reduce it all to "lustful wealthy men"

At its core, this is meant to protect women from exploitation. Men are meant to take responsibility for their action, via marriage women are given rights that a concubine can never have. Men of means are also meant to help the society by marrying windows and divorcees. That is if they can do justice between them all, and that those women want to be with him or not. If the first one decides to leave, then he can't have two can he.

Again, I didn't say that only wealthy men engage in prostitution. I mentioned that in the muslim world, the rate of prostitution is much lower than the non muslim world.

I don't know where you got those percentages, you would have to provide a source. Even so, 5% is very healthy if it turns out to be true.

No where did I say that 95% can't afford a prostitute. I don't know where you are coming up with these allegations.

Let me share this chart of HPV (eventually can develop into cervical cancer) with you. I will attribute the good results in western countries to frequent screening.

https://www.nature.com/articles/488S2a/figures/3

 

[magra]

Please, lets not put words in my mouth. I thought we were having a productive conversation.

How can you reduce it all to "lustful wealthy men"

At its core, this is meant to protect women from exploitation. Men are meant to take responsibility for their action, via marriage women are given rights that a concubine can never have. Men of means are also meant to help the society by marrying windows and divorcees. That is if they can do justice between them all, and that those women want to be with him or not. If the first one decides to leave, then he can't have two can he.

Again, I didn't say that only wealthy men engage in prostitution. I mentioned that in the muslim world, the rate of prostitution is much lower than the non muslim world.

I don't know where you got those percentages, you would have to provide a source. Even so, 5% is very healthy if it turns out to be true.

No where did I say that 95% can't afford a prostitute. I don't know where you are coming up with these allegations.

Let me share this chart of HPV (eventually can develop into cervical cancer) with you. I will attribute the good results in western countries to frequent screening.

https://www.nature.com/articles/488S2a/figures/3

You mention that the purpose of allowing polygamy is that men may marry widows and divorcees. But truthfully, how many such polygamous marriages are done today for that purpose? What is actually been done is wealthy men take younger wives (unmarried) when 1st wife gets older. So this is done to satisfy such men's lust and nothing else. Hence I used the term 'lustful wealthy men'. Historically, it may have protected widows and divorcees, today it is being used to legally have sex with younger girls.

You mentioned the benefit of polygamy that in muslim countries (where polygamy is allowed), rape and prostitution is much lower. I said that only wealthy can afford polygamy (why would multiple women agree to marry a poor man). Given that in a society, wealthy men will be a small percentage, it means that only these wealthy men would not do rape or engage in prostitution correct? The rest would do as in any other society.

 

[ummarz]

You mention that the purpose of allowing polygamy is that men may marry widows and divorcees. But truthfully, how many such polygamous marriages are done today for that purpose? What is actually been done is wealthy men take younger wives (unmarried) when 1st wife gets older. So this is done to satisfy such men's lust and nothing else. Hence I used the term 'lustful wealthy men'. Historically, it may have protected widows and divorcees, today it is being used to legally have sex with younger girls.

You mentioned the benefit of polygamy that in muslim countries (where polygamy is allowed), rape and prostitution is much lower. I said that only wealthy can afford polygamy (why would multiple women agree to marry a poor man). Given that in a society, wealthy men will be a small percentage, it means that only these wealthy men would not do rape or engage in prostitution correct? The rest would do as in any other society.

First you need to provide a authentic source for a claim that muslim wealthy men are mostly just satisfying their lust. I will take nothing less than a properly executed study or academic survey. You will find, that there isn't one. So I don't know where you are coming up with these assumptions.

Secondly, lets say it happened, then that's not the problem of Islam, because wealthy men have through out history have kept concubines, and remember its the women who are choosing to be one in most cases. In Islam, you can't keep concubines, you have to marry them and they get all the rights a wife would get. Not only that but you would have to do justice between them. See the difference. Muslim men are limited to 4, and must be just or its prohibited. Where as non muslim wealthy men just have to provide them a couple shopping trips and keep as many as they wish.

In other words if muslim men are doing non islamic practices today, then they should stop and follow Islam properly. The problem is not with Islam!

I argue that if there is even a 1% difference then that's worth it.

I see the problem you are having with this. I would like you to focus on it this way.

This is not obligatory that all men must marry 4 wives. Its more that its not prohibited, and instead restricted to 4. For those who have the means, and want to help the society, and they must do justice. All women have to agree to be in a polygamous relationship. And you can see that in practice. Majority, vast majority of muslims are in a monogamous relationship.

Its an optional thing that is helping the society in many ways. And women don't seem to have a problem with it through out history. Islam put a restriction on it, and elevated the rights of women. As you can see this practice occurs through out the world. Islam said that if you are able to do this, it must be in a constructive way, limited to 4, given the status and rights of a wife. And must be done with justice in not only the house, but also the wealth and the time and the affection. And then it explicably says, if you can't do that, than its better for you to marry one.

I don't mind you asking questions about my belief. With Islamophobia so rampant in the society, we all have to do our part. I understand if you need time to wrap your head around all that we talked today. I am always here if you have any more questions.

Cheers

 

[nang2]

That is what I call nonsense.

This is like arguing since Area of a square is Pi R squared, it should be the same for a square. Guess what, the square has sides not radius.

Will you get a angioplasty on your liver because liver is also an organ like your heart?

Why do you call something nonsense when you don't know what it is. Do you even know what rights mean?

 

[Maula Jatt]

Why do you call something nonsense when you don't know what it is. Do you even know what rights mean?

He is a hindutava troll and is pretending to be a muslim

Or Atleast that's what Indians on this forum are saying

 

[magra]

First you need to provide a authentic source for a claim that muslim wealthy men are mostly just satisfying their lust. I will take nothing less than a properly executed study or academic survey. You will find, that there isn't one. So I don't know where you are coming up with these assumptions.

Secondly, lets say it happened, then that's not the problem of Islam, because wealthy men have through out history have kept concubines, and remember its the women who are choosing to be one in most cases. In Islam, you can't keep concubines, you have to marry them and they get all the rights a wife would get. Not only that but you would have to do justice between them. See the difference. Muslim men are limited to 4, and must be just or its prohibited. Where as non muslim wealthy men just have to provide them a couple shopping trips and keep as many as they wish. Its an optional thing that is helping the society in many ways. And women don't seem to have a problem with it through out history.

In other words if muslim men are doing non islamic practices today, then they should stop and follow Islam properly. The problem is not with Islam!

I argue that if there is even a 1% difference then that's worth it.

I see the problem you are having with this. I would like you to focus on it this way.

This is not obligatory that all men must marry 4 wives. Its more that its not prohibited, and instead restricted to 4. For those who have the means, and want to help the society, and they must do justice. All women have to agree to be in a polygamous relationship. And you can see that in practice. Majority, vast majority of muslims are in a monogamous relationship.

I don't mind you asking questions about my belief. With Islamophobia so rampant in the society, we all have to do our part. I understand if you need time to wrap your head around all that we talked today. I am always here if you have any more questions.

Cheers

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Islam.
I am questioning whether the interpretation needs to be updated to modern setting.
As you know that a flowing water keeps it fresh, whereas a stagnant body of water starts to stink. Hence, with the flow of time, religious interpretation needs to also get updated.

With regards to your asking source, I agree that I do not have any authentic source but I am leaving to anyone's best judgement / common sense to what we see in today's times.

Keeping concubines / mistress is a thing of bygone era. Kings and high ranking ministers used to do so. Today, monarchy is almost non-existent. Where in non-muslim societies do you see people keeping concubines.

If you are saying that having 4 wives suppresses men's urge to have extra marital relations, do you have any proof of that? If one wife did not satisfy the man, what is the guarantee that 4 wives will?

I understand that most muslims are still in monogamous relationship and thats a good thing. However, the ones that are in polygamous relationship, what is the psychological and emotional impact on wives (I would say that these are semi-willing at best since they are financially dependent in most cases)? What is the impact on children in such a household? These children might grow up to assume that having multiple sexual partners is perfectly fine.

I think I have laid out all my arguments and I have nothing further to contribute on this topic. We can agree to disagree on this.

Thank you for participating in this discussion with me.

 

[Whitefalcon90]

The point of the thread is not to say that man and woman are equal in all respects.
Obviously, a man has more physical power. Only a woman can give birth and breast milk. So there are differences.

My point is that should a man and a woman get equal rights.
In medieval times, it was generally not safe for a woman to go out and work due to security reasons.

Today, in most parts of the world, security situation has improved to the extent that individual women do not need constant physical protection of men. Also, uniform education has given them the opportunity to earn their income and not be dependent on men for financial security.

Ofcourse, there are many developing countries where women are still lagging behind financially. But in terms of a global religion, which has adherents in developed world as well, should we not think of updating the law or updating the interpretation of the law to modern setting.

Why should a successful and more earning wife not get the same right to polyandry.
Either allow both polyandry and polygamy, or ban both.

Women can be a great asset during war. When Pakistan invades India, women should all gather and do farming work to provide food, dairy to the men in need, cook for the soldiers, take care of children , take care of the injured as nurses, doctors, etc... even back up the men in fighting. There you go, a war is solution to all of Pakistans problems.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Women can be a great asset during war. When Pakistan invades India, women should all gather and do farming work to provide food, dairy to the men in need, cook for the soldiers, take care of children , take care of the injured as nurses, doctors, etc... even back up the men in fighting. There you go, a war is solution to all of Pakistans problems.

you're religious nutjob nothing else, reported again

 

[Maula Jatt]

you're nutjob nothing else, reported again

*Correction

 

[Whitefalcon90]

you're religious nutjob nothing else, reported again

You want your safe space with all the liberals? Ahh so cute. Why do you hate Islam so much.

Reported for stalking and harassment and labeling me a terrorist.