Instigator / Pro
28
1500
rating
25
debates
42.0%
won
Topic
#3548
Islam does not oppress women
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
2
Better legibility
4
1
Better conduct
4
1
After 4 votes and with 24 points ahead, the winner is...
rayhan16
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 12,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1485
rating
2
debates
25.0%
won
Description
Muslim Women are not oppressed because of Islam
Round 1
Pro
#1
Oppression Definition
The exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.- Dictionary.com
That is the meaning of oppression, something that Islam does not advocate.
Women's Rights In Islam
-Women can work
-Women can vote
-Women can own property
-Women can divorce
-Women have inheritance rights
-Women have a right to education
-Women can be exempt from all financial liabilities
-Women must be cared for, protected and provided for by either their husbands or fathers. Sense of security
-Right to accept or deny marriage proposals
-Freedom of expression
-Right to a dowry
Many, many more.
There are family roles in Islam. Men are the providers, the breadwinners. They put food on the table, pay the rent, debt, bills etc. The wife is the best friend with the husband and stands by him to support him. She also has a gift of giving birth, she has a unique gift of giving life. Yes there are some biological factors that must be taken into consideration, as men are more stronger than women, they should work but this does not stop some women from working, as they can. In Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, there have been 2 female prime ministers. In the US, there have been 0.
Polygamy
This is a topic in which many people fall for misconceptions
Men are allowed to marry 4 wives, and this is the quote to support this.
'then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one'- Surah An-Nisa 4:3
It means that men may marry up to 4 wives. The man must provide for each of them and provide equality to each of them as well. He must not treat any of them better or worse than the rest. It also says that if a man cannot cope, provide, protect for more than 1 wife, then only marry 1.
Now, people say, why can't women marry 4 husbands? Lots of things come into play. The first thing is DNA testing. This did not exist for 1400 years and only now it exists. So when women have babies, you do not know who the father is. If a man marries more than 1 wife, you know exactly who the father and mother is. Secondly, males can be abusive. It is within their nature to be more fiery, to demand for more, and to ultimately, rule the house. If a woman marries more than 1 man, both can ask for things which she cannot give, and they may turn hostile and violent. Yes there are peaceful men, however we need to look at the nature of a general man, rather than focus on exceptions. Another reason is, the woman will be more emotional. If a woman marries 4 husbands, she must work and provide for these 4, as well as each child. And you could say, the father can work too, however there needs to be someone that looks after the children. Lets suppose the woman has 8 children. 2 for each husband. These 8 kids will probably live under the same roof, there will be clashes, plus the husbands need to look after their kids. It is just not practical.
Explanation on the striking verse
4:34-Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by Allah over women and tasked with supporting them financially. And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with.1 And if you sense ill-conduct from your women, advise them ˹first˺, ˹if they persist,˺ do not share their beds, ˹but if they still persist,˺ then discipline them ˹gently˺.2 But if they change their ways, do not be unjust to them. Surely Allah is Most High, All-Great.
Men are the providers of women, they must protect them. If a woman becomes unlike herself such as being more violent, arrogant, abusive then speak to them first. Then if they carry on, leave the bed and go somewhere else. If they still carry on then tap them. The reason why it is a little tap, or a bigger tap is because a man is not allowed to hit a woman to cause pain. Nor is a man allowed to hit the face. Nor is the man allowed to leave a mark. These 3 factors take the word 'strike' in context. These 3 factors would not allow a man to strike/smack a woman as hard as possible and if they do, they are sinning. Now, as these 3 factors are in place, we know that the context of the word 'strike' is taken out of context and is fit into the modern meaning, when this is not the case.
Marriage
Women are entitled to refuse marriage proposals. If a man wants to get married to a woman, he must consult her dad beforehand. The dad is a man and will know the husbands intention. The dad can refuse if he thinks the intention is not good, as he is a man, he knows another man. Then the husband must pay for the wedding and announce it. The wife may want to pay, this is fine. The wife can also ask for a dowry. A dowry is a down payment for the marriage. For example, the wife can ask for a new car, £10,000 in gold and a Rolex watch. If the man is able to afford the dowry then he must give it to her. Then if they end up getting divorced, the woman can keep the dowry.
Mothers
Mothers are essential to a family, they are the glue to it all.
A man came to the Seal of the Prophets and said: “O Prophet of God! Guide me, to whom should I be good in order to benefit completely from my good deed?”
He said: “Be good to your mother.” He asked: “Next to her?”
The Prophet repeated: “Be good to your mother.” He said again: “And next to her?”
The Prophet answered: “To your mother.”
The man said: To what other person should be good?”
The Prophet said: “To your father.”
This saying of the Prophet clearly demonstrates that you should be good to your mother and you can clearly see that being good to her is important, as the Prophet repeated this 3 times.
I have displayed as many examples as I can to show how Islam does not oppress women. There are some misconceptions that I have answered too. Over to you Con.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Clearly Con has forfeited his round, in my opinion will be a full forfeit.
No rebuttle, nothing said.
Debate will be dismissed
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Foo Fighters
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
While I disagree (for starters, I spent too long in Iraq seeing how Islam treats them), pro offered the superior (and only) arguments.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Full forfeit
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con met great Jihad elsewhere, may the magician persevere in his endeavours, insha'allah.
Also, men are not allowed to tap the face of a woman just in case she does get hurt.
Thats your standards tho. In Islam the legal age for marriage is not a set age. We do tests to see if they are mentally ready and physically ready. Yes there will be some cases where they aren't mentally nor physically ready at 16, so we have to wait till they are. 18,19,20,21 etc.
There are a number of factors, from context of the times to being physically and mentally ready.
Plus this incident does not oppress women, its a red herring. Women are not oppressed because they can get married when they are physically and mentally ready.
If you watched the video and I'm sure you did, the guy said even the enemies of the Prophet did not question this because this was a norm in society. And thinking changes when society changes. 500 years ago, girls were not even entitled to education in the West. This is working class girls. Now they are, norms of s society changes but you cannot expect for every age of society to reach your norm
I watched the video, and at best, all he did was what aboutism, pointing out flaws in the western system (that some women who are 16 cannot consent nor conceive). The age of consent is simply a general base line, and if a girl or boy cannot consent at that age, it has to be done matter-by-matter, case by case through mental evaluation tests. If someone is deemed mentally too slow to work a job then too are they to consent to marriage. If this happens to a 16-year-old and they're too mentally impaired to consent or practically carry out these tasks, then it would be considered rape to sleep with them. His entire argument was a strawman argument, if we do a test on a 16 year old and deem them mentally 10 years old, you CANNOT have sex with them. There's a reason we have "Romeo and Juliet" laws, which state if the legal aged person in the act is still a teen, the other person cannot be more than 4 years older than them. This is to reduce the harm to the teen, even assuming they were slightly behind others of their age group.
I watched as much of the pro-pedophilia video as I could stomach. The guy talking about how Islam says it's fine if the parents consent, does not change that it's pedophilia... In fact, it is sounding more like literal slavery.
You can argue Islam has much wisdom but should ultimately be rejected for being so outdated... But you seem to be arguing that it's flawless, to include its endorsement of pedophilia as not a sin.
...
As for the mandate to strike women, if it's not violent but a friendly little boop as you seem to claim, why does there need to be any rule against the face?
There is a YouTube video that I sent to barney, look at that
I'm unsure why her lifestyle is relevant to any of the critiques i offered you. Think of it this way; if you think Prophet Muhammad was fine having sex with a 9 year old, and marrying a 6 year old then to be consistent you also have to admit that children of this age ought to be considered adults in other regards if they're capable of sexual consent. If a child can consent to sex at 9 (which is one of the most important and personal things one can do) then you also have to admit children of this age should be able to be truck drivers, bartenders and other such jobs. If you agree they cant do these jobs then why can Aisha consent to marriage? the logical answer was that she couldn't and she was groomed.
Read about Aisha. Read her lifestyle, how she acted, how she thought. And there is also a YouTube video which I linked to Barney. Watch that as well
In the modern era, Aisha would be considered to of been groomed. Even IF we granted the fact she became an adult at 9. She was given over to prophet Muhammad when she was 6, do you think she did that of her own will, or her fathers? if i wouldn't trust a 9 year old to work a job, like an adult or to get a drivers license or drink responsibility. Why do you trust her being able to consent to marriage with a man old enough to be her grandfather?
Answer to the marriage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCZDOCZdw2s&t=52s
It does not instruct them to strike them as you think. The term strike means a simple tap as I have said. You cannot tap the face
"The Prophet did not just want sex from Aisha"
As you informed me: "consummated at 9."
If he wanted something else from her too, does not change the fact that he was a pedophile. Him resisting his attraction to prepubescent girls until she was 9 does not change that he acted on it when she was only 9 years old. And is he either someone looked up to (perhaps even idolized?) in Islam or reviled for this unforgivable sin?
"Again, who are you to decide the age of marriage?"
Not a pedophile, nor an apologist for their ilk.
"How is this domestic abuse when men are not allowed to do these things?"
It instructs that they are to strike them (further, I would bet it doesn't likewise instruct the same of the wives, validating that treatment is unequal). If you're saying it is contradicted elsewhere, just means that it contradicts itself. As is, this sounds to me like advice for how to get away with domestic abuse /don't hit the face, people will see that/. Heck, if they're not allowed to leave any marks anyways, why is the face singled out as somewhere you're not allowed to strike? It's weird if there's a specific rule against a gentle silly playful tap on the nose /on no, you booped me, haha/, if that's all striking someone means in Islam.
It does not make him a pedo, a pedo is one that preys on little girls and wants sex from them. The Prophet did not just want sex from Aisha
To reassure it, he committed no sin
Again, who are you to decide the age of marriage?
and for 4:3, you misunderstood
Men are not allowed to cause pain to their wives
Men are not allowed to leave a mark
Men are not allowed to hit the face
How is this domestic abuse when men are not allowed to do these things?
A simple tap is all they can do, unless you want to say this is abuse?
"The Prophet married Aisha at 6 and consummated at 9."
Sexual intercourse with a 9 year old, that makes him a pedo.
"when a girl hits puberty, they are considered more mature and an adult."
Neat to know that about Islam. However, that doesn't make preying on children in any way okay (even if they did hit puberty extremely young).
"he committed no sin."
I dislike pedophiles, even if Islam endorses it.
That there are also rules for the marriage of women post menopause, does not change that there are rules for marrying underage girls (therefore okaying pedophilia).
As for men being required to not leave bruises when beating their wives, that is still violent domestic abuse intended to create an environment of fear.
And that is exactly why you should consult a Muslim, you did the right thing, let me clear it all up for you
The Prophet never endorsed any paedophilia thing, maybe you got that from the marriage with Aisha?
These are the points
-The Prophet married Aisha at 6 and consummated at 9. Why did he wait 3 years if he was a pedo?
-The context of times is very important. 1400 years ago, it was very common for girls to get married at a young age because when a girl hits puberty, they are considered more mature and an adult.
-If we look at the Prophets (SAW) life then we can understand he committed no sin. Why is it just 1 event that may seem a little shady?
-100 years ago in the UK, the legal age to marry was 12, imagine 1400 years ago
That is that sorted
Now the marrying underage girls part
Who are you to say that a girl is underage? A girl is more mature physically and mentally at the age of puberty. Why are you restricting it to the age of 16 or 18 or even 21. It is the context of the times my friend.
Plus the verse you were actually talking about, does not just give rules on women who have not completed the menstruation, but the women who have as well, no singling out.
Then we move onto 4:34
Men are not allowed to leave a mark on their wives, nor cause them pain nor hit the face. Now can you interpret the word 'strike' taking all these into context. It is just a simple tap.
There we go, all misconceptions out of the window, thanks for consulting a Muslim, proud to be of assistance
Most obviously: The whole pedophilia thing endorsed by the prophet.
Further, I did a quick Google search, and the Quran seems to have rules detailing marrying underage girls (https://legacy.quran.com/65/1-4).
Qur'an 4:34 seems to encourage beating of wives.
A non-Muslim can argue what he wants about Islam, can be true can be false.
This is why there are challenges set by many scholars,
Can you find a single contradiction in the Quran?
Can you find where the Quran advocates terrorism and oppression to women and so on?
Muslims know fully well that no one can find these, so the challenger can try but fail.
A non-Muslim can judge the religion, if it is not a fair judgement then Muslims can explain why it is not fair,
If it is a fair judgement, then that is fine
There has to be a definitive answer, Islam can be or not be the truth
If any non-Muslims wants to say why it is not the truth and give reasons then so be it, he can do so.
However a Muslim will always refute his claims and there is no agree to disagree, as there has to be an answer
A religion can only be judged by the followers of said religion.
To wholly separate a religion from what it inspires, would mean the religion itself is only a hypothetical (AKA fictional). About like when people defend communism by claiming every communist nation doesn't count because if anything went wrong then they weren't /really/ communist; which leaves actual communism a pipe dream, no more meaningful than the Invisible Pink Unicorns.
FYI, I've literally Muslims argue that Muhammad himself doesn't count for discussions of Islam, since he was only a Muslim, without any connection to Islam when he did those bad things.
Yh that video was just a general video. We were talking about guns etc and terrorism is a huge misconception that people have on Islam.
It is the same with oppression of women.
It is so simple, it is not the religion, only the people,
very key concept
Thanks for sharing that.
I don't think it is going to be good evidence in this particular debate, as he is blaming terrorism on political repression, whereas the oppression of women is a very different matter. The oppression of women happens assholes are in control, not as the result of outside forces.
To wholly discount the actions of Muslims en mass as being connected to Islam, would lead to the conclusion that Islam doesn't actually exist.
A lot of suicide bombers. However, this does not make sense.
How many school shootings would it take to blame the US. It would take a lot. However people are blaming the guns, rightly so
Think of the guns in this scenario as a red herring.
It is the same with Islam. Yes there are some verses that talk about war, however these are only in extreme circumstances. Peoples minds and influence on the scripture is the red herring in this situation, which is why groups like ISIS exist.
It is very canny actually. There is actually one thing in common between groups like ISIS and the islamophobes. They both think that Islam is a violent religion.
I would strongly encourage you to watch this video. It is very insightful and not that long, just less than 15 mins.
It could solve all that you are asking, so I am asking you to watch it and take it in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy9tNyp03M0
How many suicide bombers from the UK do you think it would take to be worth investigating the UK as a source of blame?
The religion of Islam has its laws. Of course when people do not follow its laws then it is not the fault of the religion, it is the fault of the person. So what else am I supposed to say? If my opponent brings something which is allowed in Islam and its Muslims follow it, then fair point. But if not, then of course I am going to say the person is not following its laws.
I will give you an example.
A man commits a murder in the name of the UK. He gets convicted. We have a debate about the UK. You bring up this incident and say this man killed in the name of the UK which makes the UK accountable. However the man did the deed so the man is accountable, and there is no need to investigate the UK because of this man.
My guess is pro will repeatedly argue No True Scotsman.
E.g.,
Pro: No Penn State Football Couch Raped Boys...
Con: What about Jerry Sandusky?
Pro: Well he wasn't being a true Penn State Football Couch when he did that, so it doesn't count.
If you quote from the hadith, I will be more than happy to respond
Please put in your description that the Hadith and Sunnah are allowed to be used as authentic Islamic scripture, since we both know that the Qur'an doesn't overtly say sexist things beyond the 'striking' line.
Well. Clarification was good. Title update is also good.
If not accepted within few days, I may contend it but with a slightly different title. The resolution would be something like this: "Islam oppresses women."
I would be PRO and assume the Burden of Proof. You (CON) do not need to raise any argument - all you need to do would be to rebutt (and refute) my claims. See you within several days
A mix of both. More the first one than the second, however both are true.
The title stands vague. Which of the following is intended:
1) Muslim women are oppressed but the cause/reason they are oppressed is NOT Islam
2) Muslim women are NOT oppressed thanks to Islam (e.g. Islam is the reason that muslim women are free from oppression).
I want to contend the topic once it is clarified.
Not saying that either. The difference between a religion and a follower of the religion, is the follower has a thing called free will. the non followers also have free will. so i am not talking about Muslims oppressing women but a more general 'people' oppressing women.
Exactly, so are you actually arguing a more taboo thing; that Muslims are fundamentally sexist and bigoted people, not that it's the ideology and brainwashing to blame?
I would have to disagree completely and I know you are wrong because UK itself is a good case study to see that more integrated second or third generation Muslims (well they identify as Muslim usually are further from Islam than that implies) and ex-Muslims that were raised by Muslims are much less sexist at the very least (usually less LGBT-phobic too) than ones still indocrinated by the OG Sharia Islam of their homeland(s).
This is just a debate about whether or not Islam is the perpetrator of oppressing women. Islam is the ideology, the religion. Muslims and Islam are different
I am actually interested in this topic, as in how you will defend it. If it is not Islam oppressing them, it is Muslims themselves. Will you attack that character of most Muslim men in Sharia nations then? Of course sexism is often perpetuated by the very women oppressed by it (onto other women and even by pressuring males to fulfil their 'providers' 'tough guys who don't ever cry or moan' role while not doing their 'feminine' role necessarily well).
What exactly will happen here?
I don't know where you'll take this but I am definitely curious. Patriarchy hurts both sexes/genders, it's just more subtle with how it harms men's mental wellbeing.