• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Muhammad was a Feminist

TheGoverness

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
40,977
Reaction score
55,186
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Here's an article that claims Muhammad (the guy who married a 9 year old girl) is "arguably" the first feminist.

Muhammad Was A Feminist | Huffington Post

The refutation to this article is in Muhammad's own words:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.
Click to expand...

The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said: "Yes." He said: "This is because of the deficiency of her mind."[11]
Click to expand...

Yeah, he's very feminist alright. :roll:
 
From the OP article...

"It is time for Islam to liberate women fully and do so upon the example of Muhammad and the authority of the Quran that holds compassion and mercy as the first and foremost attributes of Allah."

... right. :roll:
 
TheGoverness said:
Here's an article that claims Muhammad (the guy who married a 9 year old girl) is "arguably" the first feminist.

Muhammad Was A Feminist | Huffington Post

The refutation to this article is in Muhammad's own words:





Yeah, he's very feminist alright.
Click to expand...

I like where this is going

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

869bb3a819ab93f42da100ff6bfe66cd6cf6993e61e2fb31dc6985b59abf71cf.jpg
 
If a woman is half that of a man and a Muslim male is allowed 4 wives, does that make wifey(s) double the value of a husband?

Wonder if that's ever been considered by those most concerned with the set-up. :2razz:

Seriously though, if Muslims want to peddle that sort of approach (in the OP, not in mine post here) when they move to any country where the law of the land trumps everything else, certainly religious tenets, I know who needs some "striking".
 
OrphanSlug said:
From the OP article...

"It is time for Islam to liberate women fully and do so upon the example of Muhammad and the authority of the Quran that holds compassion and mercy as the first and foremost attributes of Allah."

... right. :roll:
Click to expand...
Where the article sounds pretty much like somebody decided on a case and then went out looking for own confirmation bias, not everything in it is historically untrue.

But no matter in what manner and to what extent he increased women's lot in and for his times, the times to consider are today and now.

And that doesn't make the average woman's lot in places like Saudi or even the Emirates anything to write home about, yesterday or today.

The concept of feminism would have left every male (prophet included) as baffled as it does there now.
 
TheGoverness said:
Here's an article that claims Muhammad (the guy who married a 9 year old girl) is "arguably" the first feminist.

Muhammad Was A Feminist | Huffington Post

The refutation to this article is in Muhammad's own words:





Yeah, he's very feminist alright. :roll:
Click to expand...

ya that seems crazy he may have been better then some other people in his day but thats about it and thats a low bar
 
I am shocked to see the Islamophobia on display on these forums. Do the people who hate on Mohammed this way really not know that they are engaging in blasphemy against Islam? Freedom of speech is all well and good, but it should never go so far as to allow people to say things that make others feel icky and invalidated. I think no one should be allowed to criticize Mohammed, or Islam generally. On the other hand, we should all feel free to say anything we want about Jesus and Christianity in general. Isn't that fair?
 
TheGoverness said:
Here's an article that claims Muhammad (the guy who married a 9 year old girl) is "arguably" the first feminist.

Muhammad Was A Feminist | Huffington Post

The refutation to this article is in Muhammad's own words:





Yeah, he's very feminist alright. :roll:
Click to expand...

He is the feminist like I am ****en rich.Because I am pretty sure a feminist would treat women equal to men not treat them less than men.There are verses in the Koran where a woman's word is worth less than a man's, when it comes to inheritance she gets less than her brothers,and a bride is basically paid for with a payment called a dowry.
 
The dowry long predates Muhammed. From Wiki:

Babylon
Even in the oldest available records, such as the Code of Hammurabi in ancient Babylon, the dowry is described as an already-existing custom. Daughters did not normally inherit anything from their father’s estate. Instead with marriage, they got a dowry from her parents, which was intended to offer as much lifetime security to the bride as her family could afford.

In Babylonia, both bride price and dowry were practiced. However, bride price almost always became part of the dowry. In case of divorce without reason, a man was required to give his wife the dowry she brought as well as the bride price the husband gave. The return of dowry could be disputed, if the divorce was for a reason allowed under Babylonian law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry

Very interesting Wiki entry including the claim that 69% of Pakistanis believe "it is not possible for a girl to get married without a dowry."
 
TheGoverness said:
Here's an article that claims Muhammad (the guy who married a 9 year old girl) is "arguably" the first feminist.

Muhammad Was A Feminist | Huffington Post

The refutation to this article is in Muhammad's own words:





Yeah, he's very feminist alright. :roll:
Click to expand...

From the Bible:

Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing to the Lord.

21Fathers, do not provoke your children, so they will not become discouraged.
Click to expand...

Ephesians 5:21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her 26to sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to Himself as a glorious church, without stain or wrinkle or any such blemish, but holy and blameless.

28In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29Indeed, no one ever hated his own body, but he nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church. 30For we are members of His body.a
Click to expand...
 
TheGoverness said:
Here's an article that claims Muhammad (the guy who married a 9 year old girl) is "arguably" the first feminist.

Muhammad Was A Feminist | Huffington Post

The refutation to this article is in Muhammad's own words:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.

Yeah, he's very feminist alright. :roll:
Click to expand...

The above is verse 4:34, but the version you have presented is a bit of a whitewash. There is no "first", "then if they persist", or "finally". Those have been added by the translator (which accounts for the brackets) to make it sound like women are warned before they're beaten. In truth, the Arabic separates the 3 actions only with the word "and", which means all 3, including the beating, are to be administered.
 
stevecanuck said:
The above is verse 4:34, but the version you have presented is a bit of a whitewash. There is no "first", "then if they persist", or "finally". Those have been added by the translator (which accounts for the brackets) to make it sound like women are warned before they're beaten. In truth, the Arabic separates the 3 actions only with the word "and", which means all 3, including the beating, are to be administered.
Click to expand...
and here's you, claiming to have Arabic. Where you couldn't even get your head around idiomatic flavors of the language in your foreigner's ghetto in Cairo (if your stay there is to be believed).

You figured out the meaning of "Grüss Gott" among Bavarians yet?

Well, why not give us a word by word transliteration to prove your otherwise unsubstantiated claim above?

That's leaving aside for the moment the whole distasteful Noel Coward theory.
 
Read Hammurabi...
 
Chagos said:
and here's you, claiming to have Arabic. Where you couldn't even get your head around idiomatic flavors of the language in your foreigner's ghetto in Cairo (if your stay there is to be believed).

You figured out the meaning of "Grüss Gott" among Bavarians yet?

Well, why not give us a word by word transliteration to prove your otherwise unsubstantiated claim above?



That's leaving aside for the moment the whole distasteful Noel Coward theory.
Click to expand...


Arabic is just a language that was not even fully developed at the time of the Koran. The flavors are just an excuse. And I do not think you can prove that it is not anymore than an excuse.
 
Chagos said:
and here's you, claiming to have Arabic. Where you couldn't even get your head around idiomatic flavors of the language in your foreigner's ghetto in Cairo (if your stay there is to be believed).

You figured out the meaning of "Grüss Gott" among Bavarians yet?

Well, why not give us a word by word transliteration to prove your otherwise unsubstantiated claim above?

That's leaving aside for the moment the whole distasteful Noel Coward theory.
Click to expand...

Honest folks, I'm not paying this guy to lob these soft balls across the middle of the plate. He's doing it on his own.

The quickest way to resolve this is by going to google.translate, entering "and", and then choosing Arabic. You'll see it's simply the Arabic letter "wow" (yes, wow). It looks like a stylized number 9. Then go to quran.com and go to verse 4:34. When you put your cursor over the Arabic, it gives you the English translation. Go near the end of the verse and find the phrase translated as, "and [finally] strike them". Brackets are used by this web site (and most others) to indicate where words have been added for clarity (God words need to be clarified?????). The word for word translation is as follows"

wa - and
iDrubu - the plural imperative of hit/strike/beat
hunna - them.

There are no other words, therefore there is no "finally" or "lightly" as some translations try to slide by us. What is supposed to pass for clarity is actually propaganda.

I eagerly await the next soft ball from my unwitting straight man.
 
Aaaah, implications are not everybody's thing, it appears.

Nor logic.

Where the question could be seen as arising where the logic lies in going thru the whole rigmarole of admonishments (I mean why not beat the crap out of her right from the start if that's going to be the final and most important action anyway?), better not bother with those that might get over-challenged by it.

Good to know though that some don't need any explanation of the word of (any) God. Shows that churches, priests, theologians, what-have-you, are all totally superfluous idjits of totally unjustified existence.

No wonder exchange with those of greater learning was never sought. Who the hell needs to talk to scholars when he knows it all? :roll:
google translate :lamo:lamointerprets the 26th letter of the (modern) Arabic alphabet (6th in older abjadi) as "and", no matter in what context of use. Not a "but", not a "hence" not a "then", not anything else, just "and". In other words no distinction in use as (prefixed) resumption particle, result particle or conjunction particle. And thus (we see) that of such substance internet linguists be made.:roll:

Wow indeed (it's actually waw, but never mind).

Priceless.

You're not seeing any softballs, Stevecanuck. You're in fact not seeing anything at all on account of not even being on the field. Not the field of knowledge of any Arabic, not the field of knowledge on any other related subject.
 
Chagos said:
Aaaah, implications are not everybody's thing, it appears.

Nor logic.

Where the question could be seen as arising where the logic lies in going thru the whole rigmarole of admonishments (I mean why not beat the crap out of her right from the start if that's going to be the final and most important action anyway?), better not bother with those that might get over-challenged by it.

Good to know though that some don't need any explanation of the word of (any) God. Shows that churches, priests, theologians, what-have-you, are all totally superfluous idjits of totally unjustified existence.

No wonder exchange with those of greater learning was never sought. Who the hell needs to talk to scholars when he knows it all? :roll:
google translate :lamo:lamointerprets the 26th letter of the (modern) Arabic alphabet (6th in older abjadi) as "and", no matter in what context of use. Not a "but", not a "hence" not a "then", not anything else, just "and". In other words no distinction in use as (prefixed) resumption particle, result particle or conjunction particle. And thus (we see) that of such substance internet linguists be made.:roll:

Wow indeed (it's actually waw, but never mind).

Priceless.

You're not seeing any softballs, Stevecanuck. You're in fact not seeing anything at all on account of not even being on the field. Not the field of knowledge of any Arabic, not the field of knowledge on any other related subject.
Click to expand...

Translated from the Arabic the Koran is the first Mein Kampf, in fact it is much worse. The silly argument that you need to understand Arabic to know Islam is ****ing ridiculous. Enjoy cherry picking, it won't change a thing.
 
Chagos said:
Aaaah, implications are not everybody's thing, it appears.

Nor logic.

Where the question could be seen as arising where the logic lies in going thru the whole rigmarole of admonishments (I mean why not beat the crap out of her right from the start if that's going to be the final and most important action anyway?), better not bother with those that might get over-challenged by it.

Good to know though that some don't need any explanation of the word of (any) God. Shows that churches, priests, theologians, what-have-you, are all totally superfluous idjits of totally unjustified existence.

No wonder exchange with those of greater learning was never sought. Who the hell needs to talk to scholars when he knows it all? :roll:
google translate :lamo:lamointerprets the 26th letter of the (modern) Arabic alphabet (6th in older abjadi) as "and", no matter in what context of use. Not a "but", not a "hence" not a "then", not anything else, just "and". In other words no distinction in use as (prefixed) resumption particle, result particle or conjunction particle. And thus (we see) that of such substance internet linguists be made.:roll:

Wow indeed (it's actually waw, but never mind).

Priceless.

You're not seeing any softballs, Stevecanuck. You're in fact not seeing anything at all on account of not even being on the field. Not the field of knowledge of any Arabic, not the field of knowledge on any other related subject.
Click to expand...

Awwww, that's just so pathetic. You've been reduced to pretending to quibble about the meaning and pronunciation of the simplest word in the world. That's just.......sad. Sad, but amusing.
 
stevecanuck said:
Awwww, that's just so pathetic. You've been reduced to pretending to quibble about the meaning and pronunciation of the simplest word in the world. That's just.......sad. Sad, but amusing.
Click to expand...
That's your comeback to the apparent linguistic deficits of yours that have been addressed?

Yeah, as I said, you're not even on the field.

Anywhere.

Sad indeed.
 
Chagos said:
That's your comeback to the apparent linguistic deficits of yours that have been addressed?

Yeah, as I said, you're not even on the field.

Anywhere.


Sad indeed.
Click to expand...


You are consistent, anything but Islam and what it is all about.
 
TheGoverness said:
Here's an article that claims Muhammad (the guy who married a 9 year old girl) is "arguably" the first feminist.

Muhammad Was A Feminist | Huffington Post

The refutation to this article is in Muhammad's own words:

Yeah, he's very feminist alright. :roll:
Click to expand...

This is mostly dumb due to anachronism. Anything which predates feminism cannot be feminism. That ought to be painfully obvious, but Whiggish interpretations still manage to capture the human imagination.

Islam certainly changed the perception of women (how could it not?). But it changed it from something which was not feminism to something which was also not feminism. Obviously, an era which normalized prepubescent arranged marriages is not going to jive with modern mores. That's part of what makes looking at the past with one eye on the present so dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom