It's a matter of interpretation (like all religious writing).
The Koran permits a man to enter polygamous marriages, but not a woman. It does state that a man has to treat each wife with equal affection - which many muslims claim is impossible anyway, and so it is largely ignored (though not always, obviously).
Muslim tradition states that men and women both dress modestly. Ali (the founder of Shia Islam and mohammed's right hand man at the time of his death) particularly stressed the importance (as he saw it) of modest dress for women, which has become infamous for the full-body coverage of burkhas and yashmaks. many muslim women stress that it is a manifestation of their faith that they wear such garb - a free choice - however it's difficult not to imagine that they have been encouraged to do so by members of their community. Some muslim authorities and sects (such as Hamas in Palestine) demand women cover their hair at all times and have been known to punish those who do not.
Women walking behind men is a Kurdish tradition rather than an islamic one, though many Kurds are muslims (indeed Salladin was a Kurd and a hugely influential muslim leader).
Female circumcision is, by and large, a north African tradition. It is one that apparently horrified Mohammed, who states in the Hadith (the Hadith is things that Mohammed allegedly said that didn't go into the Koran) that it should not be attempted and if it has to be at least the perpetrators should do it in the least severe manner. This is seen by some as permission and by others as prohibition. It should be noted that some of the worst genital mutilation occurs in Christian or tribal faith areas of North Africa (such as Ethiopia) rather than Muslim areas - that said a lot of north Africa is muslim and it's a shame Mohammed wasn't more emphatic about not doing it.
In other ways Islam did trailblaze women's rights. The arabs were one of the first societies to allow women divorces and property rights.
This is going to be another divisive thread,whatever is said. I wont take the moderate Muslims view as the whole truth and if i say certain things then ill be marked as anti muslim.
Lets start with why should we need four women as a witness against the value of one mans witness in sharia courts? This cant be too controversial.
If i come across as unpleasant its because i find the subject unpleasant, i don't make any apologises.
Just cruise, the information is there.
Which is why people take you for a bigot, because bigots characteristically jump to the most unpleasant conclusions and spout out their prejudices without requisite fact-checking.
And you do make apologies, which is big of you, you made an apology to me a few days back - because you had your facts wrong.
Why not make a bit more effort before trying to build a case on nothing more than intemperate rants backed up with not much?
No. Make your case or lump it. What's the point of a discussion forum if the participants just refer their opponents to elsewhere?
So whats more unpleasant you trying to excuse the fact that womens evidence are less than mans or mine for pointing it out.
Is this a question?
I'm not sure I understand it.
You seem to be accusing me of excusing the disparity between women's testimony and men's in Sharia courts.
However, I did not do this.
In fact I called it sexist did I not?
Oh yeah - I did, on my first post in the thread.
I say again - You Should Check Your Facts.
Only half as bad, half as bad as what? "I only shot him once, not twice my lord". "Oh that's ok my man, case dismissed."
What a stunningly mature and considered response.
Shooting someone once is half as bad as shooting someone twice (all other criteria being equal).
Does this mean the case should be dismissed?
No. A guy (or woman) is still guilty of having shot another.
If you are having trouble grasping the complexities of this you have my sympathy. It's quite clear to me that sexism is sexism, but that judging two women as being as reliable as one man in financial law (specifically) is ... NOT ... AS ... SEXIST ... as judging four women the equal of a man in law (generally).
And so portraying the issue as a general regard that four women = one man is WRONG. And that before any sensible discussion of the sexism inherent in Sharia can go ahead we need to get past the silly exaggerations made in an attempt to smear Islam (rather than a smaller issue which is still admittedly sexist and which NO ONE is trying to excuse - despite your lies to the contrary).
Is this really so hard to grasp Xris? Can you manage to parse that, or is it beyond your ken, like?
Dont try and be too clever, it is too much apparent you have no real wish to debate women in islam but just to make your abuse heard.
It was your words not mine..only half as bad..I will ask again, half as bad as what?
It is also apparent that you think only requiring two women not four, is not a smear but four women is.
This is a philosophy forum, not a name-calling forum. I realise that religious discussions, at least witih some people...
That must be why I wrote a 540 word post on the subject I suppose.
It really is very easy.
Two women required to give evidence in place of one man for financial Sharia law (specifically) is not half as bad as saying that four women are required to give evidence in place of one man in sharia law (generally).
Another total misrepresentation of what I actually wrote.
...actually, to repeat a third time...
I called it sexism in the very first post I wrote on this thread.
---------- Post added 10-19-2009 at 10:56 AM ----------
I'm not personally bothered by the religious content.
What I am finding irritating is the complete disregard Xris seems to be paying in terms of attempting to follow points that seem at odds with his own (even when they aren't). More than once he has asked me to defend a position entirely at odds with what I have actually stated in posts on this very thread. Positions I don't actually agree with.
Name calling and blasphemy I'm (personally) fine with.
But as you say - it's a philosophy forum, hence I'd prefer to see a bit more attempt to actually debate something other than strawman constructs and some basic comprehension skills.
Not that I wish to cross the mods - but I'm literally having to defend myself from someone claiming I'm standing for the polar opposite of what I actually wrote about.
I just want to know are women regarded as second class citizens within the realms of Islam please.