The testominy right to women in Islam

[Michin Khel]

People who believe that the psychology of males and females are the same apparently live in caves and never interact with the opposite sex. Good for you.

Again the assumption that women are half wits because two of them are required for one testimony is your own assumption. From a legal stand point there are other social consideration such as repercussions for testimony. In an Islamic society women are kept in harems and do not interact with non-mahrams and therefore there is a lesser chance of civil disputes that would bring out a situation where it is the word of one woman against one man. Since the penalties in Islam are harsher the dilberation requires to be more stringent. In wester society if a man rapes he might get a few years in jail with good behaviour in an islamic society he would be put to the sword.

depth of comprehension.

Thats the best answer i have ever heard, manana

[Baygham]

People who believe that the psychology of males and females are the same apparently live in caves and never interact with the opposite sex. Good for you.

Again the assumption that women are half wits because two of them are required for one testimony is your own assumption. From a legal stand point there are other social consideration such as repercussions for testimony. In an Islamic society women are kept in harems and do not interact with non-mahrams and therefore there is a lesser chance of civil disputes that would bring out a situation where it is the word of one woman against one man. Since the penalties in Islam are harsher the dilberation requires to be more stringent. In wester society if a man rapes he might get a few years in jail with good behaviour in an islamic society he would be put to the sword.

depth of comprehension.

LOL,

Well my mother and sister are not in a harem. Yours may be.

If women rights are to be in a harem, than may allah grant that wish to you and your whole family.

Thats the best answer i have ever heard, manana

Luffy,
You like to have your family in a harem, or just one for yourself with some western delights.

I would like to hear the ladies, if they would like to be in a harem.

[Michin Khel]

I dont know what exactly is harem but ya women in my family stay inside house and wear burqa for outside..this is norm of our society in lakki marwat.
Our neighbour khattak tribe dont wear burqa and their females go freely outside their homes.

[Ashiq]

Why is that, the testimony of a woman is considered to be that of a half of a man although she has the full rational capacity to judge things ...Please, deliberate upon this...

I am not sure if you are aware but it was Islam that gave women their natural rights in the first place. Societal rights are something that need to balance a society so as to not drag it from one extreme to the other. As such, men have certain rights and women have certain rights. One cannot pick and choose which one they will accept and which one they wish criticize. Do you think it would be fair for a women to start telling a man that he should start bearing the children? It might be, but is it possible? So, therefore, the first concern is to deal with nature itself and question it.

That said, I think it is not fair for you to judge Islam from today's vantage point. It would be better to understand the whole issue collectively and then come up with positive approach. The reason why I say this is because Islam is not against societal order, in fact, it encourages it to the point that it teaches Muslims to not mock the gods of other people.

Now can you imagine that God being One and Unique telling Muslims not to mock the gods of others? Why? Because it is to maintain a societal order.

Moreover, before one can criticize Islam for certain injunctions with respect to the different classes of sex, on must deal with these issues pre-industrial revolution.

[Baygham]

I am not sure if you are aware but it was Islam that gave women their natural rights in the first place. Societal rights are something that need to balance a society so as to not drag it from one extreme to the other. As such, men have certain rights and women have certain rights. One cannot pick and choose which one they will accept and which one they wish criticize. Do you think it would be fair for a women to start telling a man that he should start bearing the children? It might be, but is it possible? So, therefore, the first concern is to deal with nature itself and question it.

That said, I think it is not fair for you to judge Islam from today's vantage point. It would be better to understand the whole issue collectively and then come up with positive approach. The reason why I say this is because Islam is not against societal order, in fact, it encourages it to the point that it teaches Muslims to not mock the gods of other people.

Now can you imagine that God being One and Unique telling Muslims not to mock the gods of others? Why? Because it is to maintain a societal order.

Moreover, before one can criticize Islam for certain injunctions with respect to the different classes of sex, on must deal with these issues pre-industrial revolution.

Well I am not a pre-industrial, bronze age, cave dwelling, nomadic, hunter- gatherer. I am a post modern, educated, skilled, human being and want my fellow brothers and sisters an opportunity equal to one I have and had and a public space in which we both can breathe till they reach that place. In the mean time I dont want to go back to a cave either and give up what has taken humanity centuries to acquire.

If Quran and sunnah was a pre-industrial answer to pre-industrial problems, than Great. It did wonders for them. But to impose it for eternity, is to wish for the permanence of the stone age. Then it does not solve problems as the time and place of its design has changed. Then we try to change the time and place to retro-fit it into a pre-industrial mold, so as Islam can fit and appear useful again. Is that logical or wise.

There is no place for a pre-industrial civilization in todays world. Just like there was no place for a cave man, once the bronze age came about, or for the bronze age following discovery of iron. We have to have laws and systems not for eternity, but for the times and place we are in at the present.

[Ashiq]

Well I am not a pre-industrial, bronze age, cave dwelling, nomadic, hunter- gatherer. I am a post modern, educated, skilled, human being and want my fellow brothers and sisters an opportunity equal to one I have and had and a public space in which we both can breathe till they reach that place. In the mean time I dont want to go back to a cave either and give up what has taken humanity centuries to acquire.

If Quran and sunnah was a pre-industrial answer to pre-industrial problems, than Great. It did wonders for them. But to impose it for eternity, is to wish for the permanence of the stone age. Then it does not solve problems as the time and place of its design has changed. Then we try to change the time and place to retro-fit it into a pre-industrial mold, so as Islam can fit and appear useful again. Is that logical or wise.

There is no place for a pre-industrial civilization in todays world. Just like there was no place for a cave man, once the bronze age came about, or for the bronze age following discovery of iron. We have to have laws and systems not for eternity, but for the times and place we are in at the present.

Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah

My point was not to say that the Quran is only applicable in the pre-industrial revolution period. Not at all.

What I was trying to illustrate is that in pre and post industrial revolution human beings' needs have not changed. Our psyche has not changed. Therefore, if we can appreciated Islam's contribution to mankind up the industrial revolution we would realize how much more important it would be in our present life, meaning modern life.

Today, we are not better off than then, we have advanced materially, however, we have more psychological and ethical issues. If we follow Islam's response to contemporary issues, because the Quran does claim to timeless, then we would be able to resolve a lot of our issues.

Women's rights was something that Islam established as a rule of Law (Islam Shari'ah). It was foreign at it outset. However, the establishment of women's right that were established over 1430 years ago are timeless and perfectly fit today's time. Today, in the modern world, most women do not have equality and equity when it comes to their male counter-parts. Not at all. Islam's answer is there, however, it takes taqwah (righteousness) to realize and understand the Quranic teachings. Don't judge Islam by the practice of the so-called Muslim states of this modern world. Judge Islam based on its teachings, and how the Prophet Muhammad (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) interpreted the Quranic Law, not how its followers interpret the teachings today to suit their own needs.

Wassalam

[Alchemist]

Well I am not a pre-industrial, bronze age, cave dwelling, nomadic, hunter- gatherer. I am a post modern, educated, skilled, human being a

you can change culture

but you can't change your biology ...


sorry

its just reality ;]

[Baygham]

you can change culture

but you can't change your biology ...


sorry

its just reality ;]

My biology if that of the modern human is atleast 300000 years old to may be a couple of million,
My biology of a primate a few millions longer,
My biology of a mamalian, greater than 500million years
My biology of a living structure - close to 5 billion years.

Islam - less than 1500 years.

Changes in my genome in the last 1500 years - close to none.

Changes in the 10,000 years prior to islam in the human genome, Close to none.

Islam or any religion for that matter has nothing to do with my or your genome.


But I can change my environment. My concepts of world, culture, society and such. These cognitive domains are infinetly advanced than before. A stone age human may be biologically the same but cognitively we are miles apart. Just like an ameaba is miles apart from an ape.
Stagnant ideologies by definition cant handle this evolution. Hence the problem with evolution. but time will not stop. We will change, in a few million years maybe even biologically, but our lifespans of a few decades warrants us to deal with things a little faster. So the emphasis on cognitive evolution.
Religion, if rigid, cannot and never will cope with that. To arrest your evolution cognitively is like an ameoba resisting evolution. When times change an unevolved organism dies.

[Ashiq]

Baygham, assalamu alaikum,

don't confound physical evolution with the evolution of our mental capacities and understanding.

[Alchemist]

My biology if that of the modern human is atleast 300000 years old to may be a couple of million, [Conjucture ... cultural artifacts date much longer than that, try 200 million years]
My biology of a primate a few millions longer,
My biology of a mamalian, greater than 500million years
My biology of a living structure - close to 5 billion years.

Islam - less than 1500 years. [Islam began with Adam (pbub) and completed by Muhammed (pbuh)]

Changes in my genome in the last 1500 years - close to none. [ conjecture]

Changes in the 10,000 years prior to islam in the human genome, Close to none.

Islam or any religion for that matter has nothing to do with my or your genome.
But I can change my environment. My concepts of world, culture, society and such. These cognitive domains are infinetly advanced than before. A stone age human may be biologically the same but cognitively we are miles apart. Just like an ameaba is miles apart from an ape.
Stagnant ideologies by definition cant handle this evolution. Hence the problem with evolution. but time will not stop. We will change, in a few million years maybe even biologically, but our lifespans of a few decades warrants us to deal with things a little faster. So the emphasis on cognitive evolution.
Religion, if rigid, cannot and never will cope with that. To arrest your evolution cognitively is like an ameoba resisting evolution (lol). When times change an unevolved organism dies.

My dear,

You are confusing self. All that gibberish about islam and your "living structure" is just suppose to throw us off the real issue and impress? What are you trying to correlate here? Your cognitive abilities has "exponentially" evolved while your body and islam has remained rigid for thousands of years? that makes no sense at all.


From an evolutionary perspective the cognitive abilities of men and women differ as a result of the millions of years that they spent in "pre-industrial" revolution. Industrialization happened only a few hundred years ago, and that is not enough time for gender differences to disappear. Almost all sexual anamorphic characteristics that exist in primates correlates with humans as well, such as our biological mating nature to be polygamist. Take further, sex steroids are known to change the cognitive functions of males and males. Even if you look at the male body, it's functions are utilitarian where as female's are aesthetic.
The primary function of the difference of sexes is the propagation of genes and offspring survival. Now if you want to argue that society has evolved to such a high degree, children don't need as much investment and care since survival rates are higher and therefore women (mothers) can hire nannies and pay for cable tv then that is a different story. Western society has played with this idea of "gender equality" and I don't see what good it has brought for them save harm. More neglected children, broken homes and screwed up relationships. This is a totally different issue...and we can debate about the merits of living in "Brave New World". However, don't try to BS me and tell me that men and women's psychology are fundamentally the same. It hasn't been for millions of years and it won't change now.
I just find it sad that young women are deluded into this belief that they must be "independent" otherwise they will be deemed 'backwards' by society...western society.

[Toramana]

Nice reading related to this topic

Abstract: With cultural evolution new processes of thought appear. Abstraction is universal, but rationalization first appeared in ancient Greece, theorization in Renaissance Italy, and model building in twentieth-century Europe. These processes employ the methods of metaphor, metalingual definition, algorithm, and control, respectively. The intellectual and practical achievements of populations guided by the several processes and exploiting the different mechanisms differ so greatly as to warrant separation into cultural ranks. The fourth rank is not completely formed, while regions of the world and parts of every population continue to operate by the processes of earlier ranks.

http://asweknowit.ca/evcult/CogEvol.shtml

[ScimitarXEdge]

Toramana;

In terms of your first remark it's contextual; there are instances where a woman's testimony is equal that of a man; so long as they're believers. The context which you may be referring to deals with contracts; the reason being is that generally women do not deal in matters of contracts thereby it becomes a matter of conventional expertise, which tends to be even to this day in prominently described egalitarian societies, within the hands of men.

In terms of your premise behind your question; it's a false one. There is no strong evidence that exists that suggest that on average women are as rationally inclined as males on average. There are always exceptions, but as they say "The Exception Proves the Rule".

Furthermore the existence of aggressive/violent tendencies amongst males and the tendencies of women not to be so is not disproof of the irrationality of males nor is it evidence of rationality of women; as we know violence is an evolutionary mechanism.

[Toramana]

Toramana;

In terms of your first remark it's contextual; there are instances where a woman's testimony is equal that of a man; so long as they're believers. The context which you may be referring to deals with contracts; the reason being is that generally women do not deal in matters of contracts thereby it becomes a matter of conventional expertise, which tends to be even to this day in prominently described egalitarian societies, within the hands of men.

In terms of your premise behind your question; it's a false one. There is no strong evidence that exists that suggest that on average women are as rationally inclined as males on average. There are always exceptions, but as they say "The Exception Proves the Rule".

Furthermore the existence of aggressive/violent tendencies amongst males and the tendencies of women not to be so is not disproof of the irrationality of males nor is it evidence of rationality of women; as we know violence is an evolutionary mechanism.

Bacha pa khair! Bacha, quote me published work (research) on your statements highlighted (underlined, bold) above. I find them to be very "bold assertions".

[Alchemist]

Take the fact of the matter that more mathematical geniuses have been men...

ever wondered why there are more women nurses then males?

now you'd love to argue which one came first, the chicken or the egg?

[ScimitarXEdge]

Industrial Society and Gender

Well I am not a pre-industrial, bronze age, cave dwelling, nomadic, hunter- gatherer. I am a post modern, educated, skilled, human being and want my fellow brothers and sisters an opportunity equal to one I have and had and a public space in which we both can breathe till they reach that place. In the mean time I dont want to go back to a cave either and give up what has taken humanity centuries to acquire.

If Quran and sunnah was a pre-industrial answer to pre-industrial problems, than Great. It did wonders for them. But to impose it for eternity, is to wish for the permanence of the stone age. Then it does not solve problems as the time and place of its design has changed. Then we try to change the time and place to retro-fit it into a pre-industrial mold, so as Islam can fit and appear useful again. Is that logical or wise.

There is no place for a pre-industrial civilization in todays world. Just like there was no place for a cave man, once the bronze age came about, or for the bronze age following discovery of iron. We have to have laws and systems not for eternity, but for the times and place we are in at the present.

Actually, you are a Pre-Industrial Hunter Gatherer (Bronze Age Cave Dweller is an exaggerated Hollywoodesque concoction); in fact we're all Pre-Industrial Hunter Gatherers as that is how our cognitive and biological faculties have developed over Evolutionary Time Scales in relation to the Natural Environment. As a result, our faculties and needs; cognitive and biological, developed to operate in those conditions as well. The distinction you make between cognitive and biological is a superficial one. In nature, gender based labor division was and is an ecological necessity; this is precisely how gender evolved in Higher Order Specialized Animals. This applies especially true for humans and even allegedly egalitarian societies this is evident by the tendencies of genders to be geared towards certain forms of labor. The terminology and rhetoric you may use to describe your contemporary idealizations of yourself are based on Circular Logic at best and Culturalized Appeals at Worst.

If you're arguing based on the primacy of Industrial Society, then this becomes an Appeal to Novelty (look up Logical Fallacies). Beyond that there are very pertinent factual aspects as to why the premise is weak. Industrial Society which claims to have established functional identicality amongst genders can only do so by administering policies to make it operate that way. This only reinforces the evidence that gender based labor roles are in fact a result of how evolution developed human cognitive and biological faculties; It only seems that Industrial Societies provide equality or equity because it has manufactured the portrayal of that perception and instituted surrogate activities as both a measure and alienation of our faculties. And this in turn is a result of Industrial Society creating an alienation between our cognitive and biological faculties and our Natural Environment which they developed in and as a result dysfunctional psychologically, physiologically and intellectually. In Summary the Pathology of Industrial Civilization is based on poor circular reasoning.

Any alleged cognitive developments we may claim to have are largely embellished and mythologized. It can easily be reduced by analyzing the function and objective of these alleged developments. Essentially we find the ultimate function of human cognition is to understand, manage and apply resources optimally in the Natural Environment to sustain the species and ecological niche which the species resides in. This need hasn't changed but industrial society has no longer performed this task cognitively; we are now managing resources for optimal consumption at the expense of everything else. If we were to evaluate this on scales of "progress" that is cognitive DE-evolution not evolution. Let's not be enamored by flashy gizmos and gadgets and think we've come a long way. We only depend on them because they're institutionally imposed not because we truly need them.

The false dichotomies of stone age vs. industrial age or bronze age vs. iron age are simply red herrings and Appealing to Novelty. Anything that tries to establish legitimacy by "the times" ...."the era" ..."the place" are variations of that. It is also anthropologically false; Pre-Industrial world whether bronze age, pre-agricultural, iron age all existed on essentially the same ecological principles; they did not "nullify" the other as maybe incorrectly portrayed. Even if it were true, it wouldn't mean the Appeal of Era/Novelty would be a valid one. We can see from our modern era we are self destructive, unsustainable and dysfunctional; hardly the heralds of a valid system, but it reinforces that the qualitative virtue is based on how well it suits our cognitive and biological faculties, not "time and place". Now whether or not the Qur'an and Sunnah's edicts are valid is now is not an issue of " retro fitting", that is as stated a diversion and red herring. It is an issue of whether or not the Qur'an and Sunnah is compatible with our cognitive and biological faculties; which are still the same as they have always been for the last several hundred thousand years, thereby would make the Qur'an applicable now more than ever. What this shows is that not that the Qur'an is no longer valid because of Technological Society but that Industrial Society is not valid because of our Evolution and that the accusations made by Industrial society about inequality are false and intended to excuse it's interference with the cycles of Human Life and more over the ecosystem. The Argument of technological progress in recent times isn't an expansion of cognitive ability, but merely we just "happened to figure stuff out" eventually with what we already had. The brains of our ancestors are equipped to do Differential Equations and Complex Analysis. They just hadn't composed it all yet; not that would negate the merits of their wisdom for our times, after all despite the beauty of Math, what do we use it for? Parasitic Consumption in the Industrial Prison System.


Highly Recommended Reading:

Technological Slavery by Ted Kacynski