Woman Under Fire - Leading Muslim Prayer
Discussion
I see these same muslim guys here who condemn women for "lacking humility" by leading a prayer with a man present, coming out of strip clubs at night with two women on their arm....WTH?!?
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150819,00.html
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150819,00.html
Didn't you know hypocrisy is at the heart of all good religions?
Love this bit:
"When she leads men in prayer, in this case, it's not proper for them to look at the woman whose body is in front of them..."
Forgot to add; shame, suppression, inequality and sexual frustration are also pre-requisites for most major religions.
Love this bit:
"When she leads men in prayer, in this case, it's not proper for them to look at the woman whose body is in front of them..."
Forgot to add; shame, suppression, inequality and sexual frustration are also pre-requisites for most major religions.
More fool her for being involved in this sham of an 'egalitarian' religion. I can understand why the women are involved in 'the East', but for those in the west, why don't they just tell the mad mullahs and the other representatives of the great Charlatan to just p**s off. Same goes for that other great world religion 'Catholicism', which has done more to subjugate women than almost any other movement, while that old monstrosity who represents it is wheeled around in his mobile mausoleum piously blessing ‘the blind'.
Dr Strangelove said:
More fool her for being involved in this sham of an 'egalitarian' religion. I can understand why the women are involved in 'the East', but for those in the west, why don't they just tell the mad mullahs and the other representatives of the great Charlatan to just p**s off. Same goes for that other great world religion 'Catholicism', which has done more to subjugate women than almost any other movement, while that old monstrosity who represents it is wheeled around in his mobile mausoleum piously blessing ‘the blind'.
Easy to say, not quite so easy to do. Many of these women (rightly or wrongly) have families who expect them to maintain the status quo. They care about their families, their reputation and their standing in the community so they toe the line. It doesn't even have to be the threat of death or violence that keeps them in check, but the loss of their families love and respect. I'm sure that if your family meant everything to you that you would also make personal sacrifices for them.
birdbrain said:
More fool her for being involved in this sham of an 'egalitarian' religion. I can understand why the women are involved in 'the East', but for those in the west, why don't they just tell the mad mullahs and the other representatives of the great Charlatan to just p**s off. Same goes for that other great world religion 'Catholicism', which has done more to subjugate women than almost any other movement, while that old monstrosity who represents it is wheeled around in his mobile mausoleum piously blessing ‘the blind'.
Easy to say, not quite so easy to do. Many of these women (rightly or wrongly) have families who expect them to maintain the status quo. They care about their families, their reputation and their standing in the community so they toe the line. It doesn't even have to be the threat of death or violence that keeps them in check, but the loss of their families love and respect. I'm sure that if your family meant everything to you that you would also make personal sacrifices for them.
I take your overall point about easy to say, etc. But i'm not quite saying it in that context.
I'm saying that she is a fool because of this statement: "Nobody cared that we didn't have a place in the faith.".
Because they who define and control it never have and never will.
Her faith was not created for her to have a place, except perhaps behind her man and on her knees. As i said, tell 'em to p**s off. If not, well that's the price they and 'she' have to pay.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yet another PH'er who knows nothing about religion but feels qualified to spout on about it.
Shame. Yep. Only if you have done something wrong.
Suppression and inequality. Depends on which teaching you choose and your point of view. Most religions have goddesses or female prophets so women are represented at the heavenly level. Most of the inequality that we see today in religions was tagged on long after the original teachings and is being challenged, for example the ordination of women in the church.
Sexual Frustration. Rubbish. Religions generally approve of sex. They do however disaprove of sex without love or commitment as this is seen as not treating creation with respect. Religions began teaching against what we would now call casual sex for two reasons. First beacause in the bronze age sex had to be treated with a bit more respect than it now is due to the possibility of death in child birth and the need to restrict population to a number that subsistance farming could support. Secondly a phase of serious anti sex teaching began at the same time as serious sexual diseases became more common. Syphilis, for example, is deadly. The church helped stop it spreading.
cymtriks said:
Yet another PH'er who knows nothing about religion but feels qualified to spout on about it.
Really? You make a very big assumption here...
I have a rather wide knowledge of most major religions...and many smaller ones.
After considerable reflection I have taken a considered view that I fundamentally disagree with the basic concept of religion.
I suggest you might want to think before levelling unfounded accusations.
alexkp said:
anonymous said:[redacted]
Yet another PH'er who knows nothing about religion but feels qualified to spout on about it.
Really? You make a very big assumption here...
I have a rather wide knowledge of most major religions...and many smaller ones.
After considerable reflection I have taken a considered view that I fundamentally disagree with the basic concept of religion.
I suggest you might want to think before levelling unfounded accusations.
To be fair Alex, this chap has a point.
not against you particularly, but alot of people on this site really think they know everything about religion and constantly hack it down and spit on it from every possible angle.
Im not particularly religious myself, but I certainly dont think I know "better". Each to their own.
I find it especially sad that many of these same people will be wishing each other Merry Christmas and happy easter, and getting their Kids Christened.
They will also probably start praying to God when their/ mother/father/child are about to die in a Hospital Ward.
Plus religion is one of the reasons why billions of people rightly or wrongly accept the awful circumstances they live in. Who are we to tell them how "deluded" they are when most of us would shit ourselves if we had to spend 5 minutes in a country like the Sudan.?
cymtriks said:
Yet another PH'er who knows nothing about religion but feels qualified to spout on about it.
Shame. Yep. Only if you have done something wrong.
Suppression and inequality. Depends on which teaching you choose and your point of view. Most religions have goddesses or female prophets so women are represented at the heavenly level. Most of the inequality that we see today in religions was tagged on long after the original teachings and is being challenged, for example the ordination of women in the church.
Sexual Frustration. Rubbish. Religions generally approve of sex. They do however disaprove of sex without love or commitment as this is seen as not treating creation with respect. Religions began teaching against what we would now call casual sex for two reasons. First beacause in the bronze age sex had to be treated with a bit more respect than it now is due to the possibility of death in child birth and the need to restrict population to a number that subsistance farming could support. Secondly a phase of serious anti sex teaching began at the same time as serious sexual diseases became more common. Syphilis, for example, is deadly. The church helped stop it spreading.
When they reach a fundametalist level all three religions based on the old testament seem to regard women as impure-so in that sense he is correct.
The Old testament based religions hate sex and women etc etc...
In Genesis Eve completes creation because God realises that Adam is alone. [(2:18) It is not good for man to be alone] We can therefore assume that it is a good thing to have women around! Also verses 23 and 24 state that women come from the same flesh as man and also are united into one flesh on marriage. This does not imply obvious inferiority. It also implies approval of sex as does the entire book Song of Songs. And as I pointed out there are plenty of female representatives in most religions. Christianity, generally considered male in nature, has spawned more idols and shrines dedicated to the Virgin Mary than you can shake a stick at.
One point that is usually overlooked is that the Old testament times were not exclusively monothestic. Rachel, for example Genesis 31:19 helps herself to family household idols (plural). There is also mention of a specifically female religon called Ashera somewhere in the Bible. The female religions and their input into modern OT based religions has been suppressed in recent history but this wasn't the original intention, is being challenged, for example by women leading Muslim prayer, and probably came about as a practical response to environmental pressures as I stated in my original post.
In Genesis Eve completes creation because God realises that Adam is alone. [(2:18) It is not good for man to be alone] We can therefore assume that it is a good thing to have women around! Also verses 23 and 24 state that women come from the same flesh as man and also are united into one flesh on marriage. This does not imply obvious inferiority. It also implies approval of sex as does the entire book Song of Songs. And as I pointed out there are plenty of female representatives in most religions. Christianity, generally considered male in nature, has spawned more idols and shrines dedicated to the Virgin Mary than you can shake a stick at.
One point that is usually overlooked is that the Old testament times were not exclusively monothestic. Rachel, for example Genesis 31:19 helps herself to family household idols (plural). There is also mention of a specifically female religon called Ashera somewhere in the Bible. The female religions and their input into modern OT based religions has been suppressed in recent history but this wasn't the original intention, is being challenged, for example by women leading Muslim prayer, and probably came about as a practical response to environmental pressures as I stated in my original post.
article said:
The event was meant to draw attention to the "second-class status" of women in Muslim spiritual life and Muslim life in general, said Asra Q. Nomani (search), an author and former Wall Street Journal reporter who is lead organizer of the prayer.
article said:
The sheik of Cairo's Al-Azhar mosque (search), one of the top world's Islamic institutions, said Islam permits women to lead other women in prayer but not a congregation with men in it.
QED, eh?
PS I do hate it when PHers whinge about religion. It appears that there are two types of people... those who are religious and those who spend all their time complaining about religion
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff