The testominy right to women in Islam

[ScimitarXEdge]

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

Likewise I too find your assertions to be bold; as you too did not provide any evidentiary support for your premise hence my remark. However, you must step back and correctly examine the logic construct of what I said. It wasn't a claim it was an observation due to a lack of evidence. There is no strong evidence that suggests males and females are "the same" cognitively because it isn't apparently available. The studies done are either methodologically flawed and/or ambiguous.

The evidence regarding males being on average more rationally minded than women is here.

I don't have access to any Peer Reviewed Journal Material off the internet since my subscription since my EBSCOhost subscription has ended. However, here's some material which may allude to where such material can be found

Men Smarter than Women, Scientist Claims | LiveScience

As for violence being an evolutionary mechanism; that's evident by the fact that violence exists in practically all animal species as apart of competition. I don't see why a specific study would be needed, not to merely take an assumption for granted, but the evidence is abundantly clear from ecological observation.

[Baygham]

.............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.

I was reading the account of a schizophrenic the other day, He had active hallucinations of voices, telepathic instructions and such, chasing him in the streets of NewYork.

Once confronted by such, he acutally made a rather remarkable change in his cognitive understanding of the world. Rather than refuting these voices, which were as real as his own mothers, sitting in front; he created a world of espionage and intrigue, where voices travel, and strange powers exist.

You my friend have created such a world as well. As have millions of others, its called the world of religion, the underlying psychological needs are the same. To make quick sense of a world that will otherwise require a lot of turmoil and hard work to make sense off - for the vast majority. A far easier affair is to believe in what cave men believed in and call it all a fantasy.

As the famous Chinese philospher, thousands of years ago said, after seeing a butterfly in his dreams; "did I, a man, dreamt being a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming to be a man". Most here, it seems have not figured that out yet in the thousands of years that have passed since his time.

Any alleged cognitive developments we may claim to have are largely embellished and mythologized.

In that case why stop the buck at 1500 years ago, why not go to the caves where the neanderthals lived and copy some cave paintings, have your household dress in cave man garb and start living - au natural.

Its all embellished mythologized, what progress, what discovery, Einstien, Bohr, penfield, mere cave dwelling neaderthals. These large labs at CERN, The NIH, Los Alamos, NASA, all the large universities, mere embellished mythologized arenas, no more than my village hut, or the cave in mecca, where allah revealed all knowledge, thats where I should sent my son to get some non embellished cognitive apparatus, but then why even bother, whats life on earth, a mere useless exercise, to pass on to Akhirath, why even move a muscle here, I will make my moves when the chances are much better, it will be a lot easier to get laid with 72 brainless huris running around than trying to make a living with chinese competition around the corner.

Talk about - embellished and mythologized.

[Toramana]

Likewise I too find your assertions to be bold; as you too did not provide any evidentiary support for your premise hence my remark. However, you must step back and correctly examine the logic construct of what I said. It wasn't a claim it was an observation due to a lack of evidence. There is no strong evidence that suggests males and females are "the same" cognitively because it isn't apparently available. The studies done are either methodologically flawed and/or ambiguous.

The evidence regarding males being on average more rationally minded than women is here.

I don't have access to any Peer Reviewed Journal Material off the internet since my subscription since my EBSCOhost subscription has ended. However, here's some material which may allude to where such material can be found

Men Smarter than Women, Scientist Claims | LiveScience

As for violence being an evolutionary mechanism; that's evident by the fact that violence exists in practically all animal species as apart of competition. I don't see why a specific study would be needed, not to merely take an assumption for granted, but the evidence is abundantly clear from ecological observation.

That is the fundamental flaw in the mental orientation of religious-minded intelligentsia i.e., they jump to conclusions and lack the kind of skeptic tendency that is the mark of a scientific mindset. Although, it is true that there is a difference between the average brain-size of women and men, most of the scientists consider brain-to-body ratio an appropriate parameter (to correlate with intelligence) in comparative study of geneder intelligence.

However, it is yet to be established conclusively how the difference in brain-to-body ratio corresponds to the varying levels of intellectual achievement in males and females.

Foremost, it has not yet been determined whether any such difference is intrinsic or due to environmental factors. There is no consensus in scientific community yet on a number of things related to gender intelligence (which is important for any thesis to become an established fact).

The study you have cited is just an article not a research work. And the same psychologist from Western Ontario University has claimed, Africans and people in the region from Middle East to South Asia are the least intelligent standing no chance to compete with super intelligent Far-Easterners and Westerners. His assertions have been criticized and labeled to be linked to racist views. I don't think you would agree with his other theories related to the stratification of humanity as less intelligent to most intelligent based on IQ.

Last, cognitive eolution is more related to complexity and sophistication of ideas, thoughts, etc. that result in higher-level of abstraction and more complex organization of things in a culture and/or society . The cognitive devices themselves are probably the net effect of the accumulation of large amount of knowledge in a society.

[Alchemist]

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

"Rationalization" has it's own shortcomings as a 'thinking method' since it is too linear. But what I'd like to attribute this difference is mainly to Language. Greek language is phonetic, as is english and other european writing are the same (as oppose to semetic languages). Being phonetic, the emphasis is on the visual space since words are made of sounds described by symbols that 'break down' words...which in turns leads to "reductionism" as a form of abstraction.


Baygham,

IQ is not a "scientific measurement". There is no "entity" of intelligence that can be measured empirically! And there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence.

I recommend you Stephan Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man". Generally IQ tests are framed such as to test the "culture-ization" of man.

Also, ScimitarXEdge nailed you on your own logic....you gotta admit that.

[Ashiq]

That is the fundamental flaw in the mental orientation of religious-minded intelligentsia i.e., they jump to conclusions and lack the kind of skeptic tendency that is the mark of a scientific mindset. Although, it is true that there is a difference between the average brain-size of women and men, most of the scientists consider brain-to-body ratio an appropriate parameter (to correlate with intelligence) in comparative study of geneder intelligence.

However, it is yet to be established conclusively how the difference in brain-to-body ratio corresponds to the varying levels of intellectual achievement in males and females.

Foremost, it has not yet been determined whether any such difference is intrinsic or due to environmental factors. There is no consensus in scientific community yet on a number of things related to gender intelligence (which is important for any thesis to become an established fact).

The study you have cited is just an article not a research work. And the same psychologist from Western Ontario University has claimed, Africans and people in the region from Middle East to South Asia are the least intelligent standing no chance to compete with super intelligent Far-Easterners and Westerners. His assertions have been criticized and labeled to be linked to racist views. I don't think you would agree with his other theories related to the stratification of humanity as less intelligent to most intelligent based on IQ.

Last, cognitive eolution is more related to complexity and sophistication of ideas, thoughts, etc. that result in higher-level of abstraction and more complex organization of things in a culture and/or society . The cognitive devices themselves are probably the net effect of the accumulation of large amount of knowledge in a society.

What people fail to understand is that human beings have, are and will continue to live despite scientific breakthroughs only being but one part of infinity. Life will not suspend until the other parts of the infinity are discovered. It will go on. That said, I don't think it is wise to use science as a pillar on everything. Sure, there is no problem to rely on it when there is conclusive evidence to establish a theory next to unbreakeable; however for the most part man can't wait and suspend life for scientific breakthroughs in order to continue living. Life must go on.

We as Muslims understand that life is temporary and until death comes we will follow the philosophy of the Prophet of Allah (may the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) that no matter where we find wisdom we will take as a lost treasure of a believer, and follow what Hadhrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said about expecting to live forever, yet anticipating death the next moment.

Societies were not established by science, they were established by a trend established by man due to his inner workings. When man grew corrupted due some people recognizing how the inner psychological systems worked, God kept sending teachings in order to correct what man had forgotten due to corruption, and bring the sincere back on the correct path that would lead man to understanding his purpose.

A man and a woman are different. Period. This is a fact whether one likes it or not. A man and a woman also have natural duties. This is a fact. One should not corrupt society by encouraging women to leave their home when her children are still babies and immature of age. Yes, when she no longer has any responsibilities at home in terms of raising and upbringing up good children for the benefit of society, and the children themselves, then she can go out. A man, has a responsibility helping out his wife by providing for the family. It is team work.

Today's society is the result of women leaving the home and not attending to what is a priority, their children and their upbringing. This is not to say that women are incapable and should not seek education and contribute to society. Their contribution to society first and foremost is to raise good home-grown children. This is their part. The children have a different attachment to the mother than the father. A mother usually has a 9 months head start.

Women in Islam have been able to regain their natural rights. Imagine, this happened in Arabia, a region which was the shame of world in a time where the Persians dominate with a great civilizations. In 23 years, the Arabs, went from burying their infant daughters to regarding them as the pinnacle of knowledge and guidance. With this they surpassed the Persian in 23 years, as far as societal rights and practices were concern.

[torkham]

re mahzala, ayat baqara and mufasireen. i think you, mahzala, are correct and logical. there is further support to this issue, discussed by a few academic muslims, who realised the immense gap in what is stated in the quran and what different people have understood. not only there are [some] women who are more shocked by 'shock', horror movies etc, but there are equally amazing number of men who make simple and trivial conclusions when they read the quran translations. arabs have enough problems reaching correct meaning of arabic written circa 1400 years ago, because of change in usage in arabic, innovations and additions to the meaning of words that are older than islam.

[ScimitarXEdge]

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

That is the fundamental flaw in the mental orientation of religious-minded intelligentsia i.e., they jump to conclusions and lack the kind of skeptic tendency that is the mark of a scientific mindset. Although, it is true that there is a difference between the average brain-size of women and men, most of the scientists consider brain-to-body ratio an appropriate parameter (to correlate with intelligence) in comparative study of geneder intelligence.

However, it is yet to be established conclusively how the difference in brain-to-body ratio corresponds to the varying levels of intellectual achievement in males and females.

Foremost, it has not yet been determined whether any such difference is intrinsic or due to environmental factors. There is no consensus in scientific community yet on a number of things related to gender intelligence (which is important for any thesis to become an established fact).

The study you have cited is just an article not a research work. And the same psychologist from Western Ontario University has claimed, Africans and people in the region from Middle East to South Asia are the least intelligent standing no chance to compete with super intelligent Far-Easterners and Westerners. His assertions have been criticized and labeled to be linked to racist views. I don't think you would agree with his other theories related to the stratification of humanity as less intelligent to most intelligent based on IQ.

Last, cognitive eolution is more related to complexity and sophistication of ideas, thoughts, etc. that result in higher-level of abstraction and more complex organization of things in a culture and/or society . The cognitive devices themselves are probably the net effect of the accumulation of large amount of knowledge in a society.

Say what you wish about the religiously minded; but you have provided insofar nothing in support of your assessment, which is in fact a "claim"; when someone makes a claim there is an onus to demonstrate evidential information which at least lends support to the claim. You're merely committing very typical logical fallacies and furthermore doing precisely the very thing you criticize; giving blind unqualified statements. The attempt to discredit me by committing a Genetic Fallacy regarding The "Religious Minded" is a logically false response.

Recall that we're discussing evidence, evidence can be subject to change given more clarified information is available. What I presented to you is that the Scientific Community of today are discovering New Evidence which supports the premise of cognitive differences between males and females. Mind you I have only presented news ON a study, but NOT the Study itself as that would require me to find the Journal, and for such impromptu discussions, this isn't needed. You have made a claim, which doesn't have much evidence to support it yet. Also recall I said here's some material which ALLUDES to where such studies can be found. Your attempt to portray it as if I'm claiming this is is the study itself is Straw Man Arguing. Furthermore; even if what you were saying were true regarding the researchers involved in the study; It doesn't discredit the evidence they have within this study; you're committing Ad-Hominem.

Which leads me to say that despite your attempt at trying to present your position as rooted in Critical Scientific Analysis; it appears that this is more of a smokescreen for an argument which is essentially driven by emotions and anxiety.

Lastly, "Complexity and Sophistication" is an extremely vague set of terms and mostly subjective, if not totally subjective. To me the words of a Rainforest Chieftan regarding the interrelationships between the creatures of the Rainforest is much more sophisticated and profound than the words of your Average Technocrat in regards to Industrial Civilization's mythology of progress that pollutes and contaminates everything with toxicity.


My original statement still stands, there is as of yet NO evidence that Men and Women are cognitively on par with each other on average; there is evidence both historical and analytical/empirical that males are more adapted for rational/analytical thinking.

[Catya Sher]

Re Alchemist,

Excellent post.

I'm not sure, though, that the Arabs surpassed the Sassanian Persians in this area.
At least, not anywhere near in 23 years ?
Can you explain?

What was the exact quotation by Hazrat Ali [AS] ?
That's so right, we all must think like this!
There's so much negativity around.

[Ashiq]

Re Alchemist,

Excellent post.

I'm not sure, though, that the Arabs surpassed the Sassanian Persians in this area.
At least, not anywhere near in 23 years ?
Can you explain?

What was the exact quotation by Hazrat Ali [AS] ?
That's so right, we all must think like this!
There's so much negativity around.

The Muslims did not surpassed the empire itself and all its infrastructure, in 23 years. However, from the beginning of the call to the death of the Prophet of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the Muslims did establish a practical state with all established rights and complete form of government within 23 years. It was not long before they overtook the Persian Empire and acquired everything the Persians spent centuries building. Poetic justice, if you want to call it, because they attempted to kill the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), they mocked Hadhrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), and they tried to obliterate the Muslim State. They lost their empire because of their own doing.

I will find you the exact quote.

[Toramana]

Say what you wish about the religiously minded; but you have provided insofar nothing in support of your assessment, which is in fact a "claim"; when someone makes a claim there is an onus to demonstrate evidential information which at least lends support to the claim. You're merely committing very typical logical fallacies and furthermore doing precisely the very thing you criticize; giving blind unqualified statements. The attempt to discredit me by committing a Genetic Fallacy regarding The "Religious Minded" is a logically false response.

Recall that we're discussing evidence, evidence can be subject to change given more clarified information is available. What I presented to you is that the Scientific Community of today are discovering New Evidence which supports the premise of cognitive differences between males and females. Mind you I have only presented news ON a study, but NOT the Study itself as that would require me to find the Journal, and for such impromptu discussions, this isn't needed. You have made a claim, which doesn't have much evidence to support it yet. Also recall I said here's some material which ALLUDES to where such studies can be found. Your attempt to portray it as if I'm claiming this is is the study itself is Straw Man Arguing. Furthermore; even if what you were saying were true regarding the researchers involved in the study; It doesn't discredit the evidence they have within this study; you're committing Ad-Hominem.

Which leads me to say that despite your attempt at trying to present your position as rooted in Critical Scientific Analysis; it appears that this is more of a smokescreen for an argument which is essentially driven by emotions and anxiety.

Lastly, "Complexity and Sophistication" is an extremely vague set of terms and mostly subjective, if not totally subjective. To me the words of a Rainforest Chieftan regarding the interrelationships between the creatures of the Rainforest is much more sophisticated and profound than the words of your Average Technocrat in regards to Industrial Civilization's mythology of progress that pollutes and contaminates everything with toxicity.


My original statement still stands, there is as of yet NO evidence that Men and Women are cognitively on par with each other on average; there is evidence both historical and analytical/empirical that males are more adapted for rational/analytical thinking.

Hi, I had posed a simple question for any one to answer and had said women are fully rational (The underlined is the only thing I had said).

Now as for rationality, that is an elusive concept for us even to grasp let alone precisely describe. We can only talk about it loosely from the stand-point of our inadequate understanding of it. To me, "given a situation, making the right decision" would be the presence of rationality in someone. Now as for general intelligence is concerned e.g. soundness of decisions, approach, tact, strategy, etc. in every day matters, one doesn't find a woman inferior to a man.

Now you are making a counter-claim i.e., men are more rationally-inclined and as I could infer from your post, you are basing that judgement on the higher number of intellectual achievements men have made relative to women. You rather go ahead and say that superiority (instead of been caused by socio-cultural conditions) has biological basis (caused by ecological conditions i.e. natural conditions). The same assertion you make about cognitive abilities.

I asked you whether you can cite any authetic study supporting your assertion. You are coming instead up with your dogmatic pronouncement like a prophet or are picking only one source to corroborate what you say.

My point of view is, this intelligence and gender issue has been studied from many perspectives e.g. psychological, neurological, etc., yet there has not been reached any consensus on this in the scientific community as whether a disparity really exists, in whose favour (males or females), and if it exists what are its causes (i.e., the superiority is natural or nurtured).

[Toramana]

The professor, whose article you have cited, reports that the average IQ of a European is 103 where the average IQ of a Muslim is 84 or something like that. Now this is a substantial difference.

The above means, a European whether male or female is on average more intelligent than a Muslim. Now on the basis of this data, we can infer that a European woman is intellectually more accomplished than a Muslim man say in some sahara (desert).

Now could you tell me, on the basis of intellectual achievements, whose judgement carries more weight; a European Muslim woman or a Muslim man from a desert in Saudi Arabia? Is this disparity due to some permanent retardation in the Muslim man or does it have socio-cultural causes?

[ScimitarXEdge]

Toramana, again you're on a tangent; even if this is the claim of this professor, I assume that what you're asserting is true; it doesn't invalidate his research IN THIS scope.

If you're trying to be someone who champions the cause of critical thinking and scientific progress; you should also try doing it with out logical fallacies.

[Toramana]

What people fail to understand is that human beings have, are and will continue to live despite scientific breakthroughs only being but one part of infinity. Life will not suspend until the other parts of the infinity are discovered. It will go on. That said, I don't think it is wise to use science as a pillar on everything. Sure, there is no problem to rely on it when there is conclusive evidence to establish a theory next to unbreakeable; however for the most part man can't wait and suspend life for scientific breakthroughs in order to continue living. Life must go on.
...
...
...

I say socities were to a greater extent shaped by science than dogma and superstition. When man understood the working of nature through experience/empirical observation and discovered his own ptentialities, he evolved more effective social structures.

From hunter-gathering to aggrarian society (it is speculated agriculture was discovered by women) to industrial era, to post-industrial age, every change in technology and increase in cognitive ability has coincided with some social change (primitive society to feudal society to industrial society, etc.).

There must be some objectivity governing societal rules otherwise we would have Taleban trying to reverse the wheel of time.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Hi, I had posed a simple question for any one to answer and had said women are fully rational (The underlined is the only thing I had said).

Now as for rationality, that is an elusive concept for us even to grasp let alone precisely describe. We can only talk about it loosely from the stand-point of our inadequate understanding of it. To me, "given a situation, making the right decision" would be the presence of rationality in someone. Now as for general intelligence is concerned e.g. soundness of decisions, approach, tact, strategy, etc. in every day matters, one doesn't find a woman inferior to a man.

Now you are making a counter-claim i.e., men are more rationally-inclined and as I could infer from your post, you are basing that judgement on the higher number of intellectual achievements men have made relative to women. You rather go ahead and say that superiority (instead of been caused by socio-cultural conditions) has biological basis (caused by ecological conditions i.e. natural conditions). The same assertion you make about cognitive abilities.

I asked you whether you can cite any authetic study supporting your assertion. You are coming instead up with your dogmatic pronouncement like a prophet or are picking only one source to corroborate what you say.

My point of view is, this intelligence and gender issue has been studied from many perspectives e.g. psychological, neurological, etc., yet there has not been reached any consensus on this in the scientific community as whether a disparity really exists, in whose favour (males or females), and if it exists what are its causes (i.e., the superiority is natural or nurtured).

I'm not making a claim, I saying that there is evidence that suggests that Males are more Rationally Inclined. This is true, the more contemporary evidence is making this suggestion, even amidst findings that women often out perform male peers in scholastics; this is not my claim.

You're making a claim that women are fully rational; although now you're being somewhat more ambiguous by what you mean by rational, when you use such a way of expressing things it implies that the inclination of males and females towards rational decision making is at par; this is not what we find based on current evidence, whether there's a consensus on it yet or not is not on debate here; this is what they're finding out. However, this would essentially trump the Politically Correct excuses that people who favor your argument peddle in a manner that can only be described as: to use a word you seem to toss around, Dogmatically. Excuses such as blaming sociocultural conditions rather than entertaining the possibility that perhaps these tendencies happen because evolutionarily, males tended to be involved in activities which would nurture those inclinations and females were not. Not because of sociocultural repression but because our Environment didn't require it. Now before you leap forward in politically correct banter, this isn't a claim, but rather an alternate way of addressing the same contentions you see present. Furthermore your sociocultural idea can similarly be flipped around, that it seems women are more on par with males, only because policies were enacted to make things more "female friendly". I know this is definitely evident in the surroundings I was raised in.

Rationality does not necessarily have to do with making the right or wrong decision; it has to do with the mental operations used to come to a certain decision or solution. Computers for example have a rational system of assessing data, but can often come to the wrong answer if certain givens are not established. You're merely projecting what you wish to see in this exchange by what you "infer"; it's false premise, which is precisely the dogma you're accusing others of.

If anything resembles dogma here I would argue that it's coming from your end. not to seem disparaging. If you actually read through what I wrote/typed, I stated that the reference I gave would lead you to the relevant materials regarding the studies and current evidences. We're not having a scholarly debate here. There's no need for me to find Journal articles for you since I don't have subscriptions to Journal Databases at this time.

I've explained this in the last three posts and yet you're stubbornly hurling out the same Knee-Jerk Robotic reactions of "religious minded" and "dogma"; which is ostensibly ironic given the situation.

[Fatima]

I was about to say the same thing---the way she is trying to ascribe things to Science it never claimed...i.e., a woman's abilities are half of those of a man ...

So far, we cannot find any scientific study that says a man's visual or cognitive/rational ability, or memory capacity is twice the strength of a women's...That is how Muslims try to find reasons no matter how irrational and untrue to justify their attachment to religion...

Lol. You barely have a grasp of simple grammar yet you are so quick to make mighty claims on behalf of science.

It's a scientific fact that women have more rods and less cones than men. The implications of that are significant. I'm not going to play google for you, so why don't you go ahead and gear your focus towards the science of the eye genius.

Your own insecurities lead you to believe that this simple anatomical fact is a shortcoming, so you fight against your own being. It's not a shortcoming, it's actually blessing, although it may not give a woman the upper hand in visual investigation it grants her an edge in other more detail oriented (visually) arenas.