We're discussing a lot of other big issues with Islam, Kusunoki. Oppression, equality, human rights (and I'd like to add wahhabism).

I didn't think I'd participate in the discussion since it doesn't make much sense to me. Any religion depends on thousand of years old books, translated and re-translated in different languages by people who do not necessarily agree on the meanings, to be read and interpreted in more other ways.

There's no violent or peaceful religions, only violent and peaceful people, and social environment.


But that made me laugh :

Originally Posted by Ele

"What it actually means is that women are unhappy that their culture is oppressing them."

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

"Once they start judging it by western values, sure."

Just like african-american slaves, they were doing perfectly fine before the yankees gave them some ideas of emancipation & freedom. Or Tibetans, they were doing perfectly fine with the chinese government before western values messed up with their minds. Or women being excised in some poor african countries, they were doing perfectly fine before they started hearing about western values.
Ahhhh those western values... xD

Slavery isn't a culture forcing itself on another, it's human traffic & exploitation mixed with racism.
The "excision exemple" is intra-cultural, and I'm pretty sure it's religious.
Only the tibetan issue is about the chinese culture & politic forcing itself upon them.

Even tho, the point about women being oppressed in certain islamic countries having nothing to do with "western values" would still stand.

That makes it sound like it happened at the same time. By the time they used black slaves, whites enslaving each other went out of fashion at least a thousand years ago. I'd like to read your source if whites were indeed used as slaves when blacks were.

If you want to discuss moral relativism and the question if there are objective standards by which a culture can be judged, make a new thread.
This thread is about Islam's morality, so stay with that.

Muslims are just normal people they just have rules differently with others. And no when a muslims kills another religion or a same religion is a sin

I will not reply in the manner of your culture because:
O ye who believe! Let not a folk deride a folk who may be better than they (are), not let women (deride) women who may be better than they are; neither defame one another, nor insult one another by nicknames. Bad is the name of lewdness after faith. And whoso turneth not in repentance, such are evil-doers. (11) Quran 49:11


Islam is a way of life, "way" here meaning method or path, when you follow a straight path to get to a certain destination, you do not leave it or follow a different windier path. We believe that God created us, and who else would know what's best for us other than God himself? (Whoever is reading this may not agree with this but bare with it as I'm trying to make a point.) That is why we follow God's rules and obey his commands, for there is signifcance to what He has commanded.
In this case, women have the right to be safe, and the husband's duty to protect the wife. If a women leaves the house alone, she is at risk to potential danger, having the consent of her husband would be a lot safer for herself. This is a signifcance behind it, and knowing that she has obeyed God as she pleases her husband, she gains inner-peace and happiness. On the other hand, men should go to a level of cruelty by never allowing a women to leave the house.

"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good." Quran 4:19

The Prophet has also said:
“None but a noble man treats women in an honourable manner. And none but an ignoble treats women disgracefully.”


Secondly, women not being allowed to drive is only a law in Saudi Arabia alone, no other country applies that law, it's not even a sharia law. Yes, it is kind of a lame law.

Muslim women clothing aren't heavy at all.
And it also goes back to what I said earlier, the primary reason to obey the command of God:

"O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed..." Quran 33:59

And the signifcance behind it is vaste. The first being modesty:

"Say to the believing man that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands..." Quran 24:30

Islam shows that women should not be judged on her appearance but rather her virtue.





Lastly, let's look at the famous word of this thread, "oppression".

Or, it is not oppression, as Ele said, there is something called uninstutionalised oppression, which means even though the "victims" are happy with their current lifestyle, they are actually oppressed.

As I mentioned earlier, when you are subject to speed limits when driving, are you being oppressed? Why don't they call it speed oppression? Instead of speed limit?

Islam also has these limits, which you guys are interpreting it as "oppression", as I said in the beginning, Islam is a way of life, you can't say, "Ok, here is how you guys maintain peace: Do whatever you want." No, and these limits were made by God who created and knows what's best for us.

Yes, there are a lot of cases where women are oppressed, abused and rights taken away from them. As I said a few times, this is a result of human nature and not teachings of Islam.

Now I have a question, let's say the west somehow got rid of sharia and imposes their cultures and influences all muslims that Islam is oppression etc etc, isn't it oppression to stop muslims from following their beliefs? Ok, but they are happy with it. But then it is uninstitutionalised oppression.

In other words, I could say that, "Oh! That country allows alchoholism! Alcohol is bad for your health, family and social life! That country is oppressing them! Ok no! They are being uninstitutionally oppressed because there are other options like Islam which do not allow these barbaric acts! They should follow Islam!".

I'm not the best i putting words together so any erros you see just point it out. Thanks.

Oh and avoid insults as it's not professional.

-----------------------------

Some links to articles written by women about "oppression", oh, and a video.
http://www.islam-australia.net/pages/oppress.html
http://www.islamreligion.com/article...Wb11I.facebook
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laila-...b_3052001.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZNyTDTElU8

The detail on the matter is that backseat moderation is fine in discussion because it's part of the truth finding process and being capable of defending yourself against dishonesty is an important part of debates, as is critical thinking.
Anyone can backseat moderate as long as it stays within reason and does not derail the thread. I have seen pretty much every regular of discussion backseat moderate, and it is perfectly fine because that way a good understanding of conduct can be established. It's possible that a random smod may stumble upon your post and infract you for backseat moderating, so it can still be risky (and I could probably lose lmod if someone who actually cares knew I handle it this way). Up to you what you do. vOv
It's not you in particular who got the permission to backseat moderate, it's just that I saw you do it well which is why I complimented you.

@proton

You are right about the point I was trying to delivery, isn't it oppressive that some states in the US bans sharia? You guys see it as liberating, muslims could see it as "oppressive" because it's lack of free will. I also tried to point out that there is a difference between oppression and limits.

Problem is, some people of this thread make it as if control = oppression.
I have already tried to explain the significance behind islamic laws, from there I guess it's up to each individual whether they agree or not.

I'll conclude by saying Islam controls men and women, sadly however, there are men who oppress women.