The Instigator
Clash
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Blob
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Islam does not oppress women

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Blob
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,389 times Debate No: 23503
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

Clash

Pro

If you accept this debate, you also accept that you cannot use the argument that Islam is a religion which oppress women just because some Muslims or Muslim countries oppress women. I think most people here can agree that this argument is just illogical and a failure. To see if a religion really oppress women or not, you have to look at the religion itself. So, what is going to be used in this debate is the foundations of Islam, which is the Quran and the sayings of prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him).


Rounds

1: Acceptance only

2: Arguments only

3: Rebuttal

4: More rebuttal and closing statements. No new arguments. Arguments shall be given only in round 2.
Blob

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Clash

Pro

Thank you, Blob, for accepting this debate. I'm looking forward to have this debate with you.


Arguments


I will with these arguments show that Islam does not oppress women:

1) Islam on wives

2) Islam on mothers

3) The Economic Aspect of Women in Islam

4) Some other examples


Islam on wives

Islam highly encourages treating the wives well. They should be shown love, respect and care. Also, wives should be given the dowry, a gift from the husband, which is a part of the marriage contract. This dowry can be anything from money to clothes or jewelry. Even if the husband divorce the woman, he cannot take this dowry back.

Also, the wife's money is hers only and the husband are not allowed to touch it. She may help her husband and support him, but only if she wants. In Islam, its the husband who is obligated to provide her with food, shelter and clothing. A companion asked prophet Muhammed what is the right of a wife over her husband. He said, “That you feed her when you eat and clothe her when you clothe yourself and do not strike her face. Do not malign her and do not keep apart from her, except in the house.”

Just this one saying of prophet Muhammed is enough to show us the amazing position of wives in Islam and how much it respects them:

The best among you are those who are the best to their wives. (Muslim)


Islam on mothers

Islam raises mothers to a status greater than that found in any other religion. Its very hard indeed to say that Islam oppress women when we know the treatment of mothers in Islam. The treatment of mothers in Islam is quite amazing. Islam commands kindness, respect and obedience to mothers. You should not be kind to only your mother. You should be kind to your father also, but more to your mother. The command to be good to one's parents begins right from the Quran. God says:

"Worship God and join not any partners with Him; and be kind to your parents..." [Noble Quran 4:36]

Prophet Muhammed has given more rights to the mother than anybody else. He said:

"Do good to and serve your mother, then your mother, then your mother, then your father, then the near relatives and then those who come after them."[Mazhari]

But why does mothers have most rights? Because every mother has to go through the problems of pregnancy and a lot of pains, and no child can be born without women. God says in the Quran:

"And We have enjoined upon man, to his parents, good treatment. His mother carried him with hardship and gave birth to him with hardship, and his gestation and weaning [period] is thirty months. [He grows] until, when he reaches maturity and reaches [the age of] forty years, he says, "My Lord, enable me to be grateful for Your favor which You have bestowed upon me and upon my parents and to work righteousness of which You will approve and make righteous for me my offspring. Indeed, I have repented to You, and indeed, I am of the Muslims." [Noble Quran 46:15]

Moreover, you cannot come to paradise, no matter what, if you are not good to your mother. Prophet Muhammed said:

Paradise lies at the feet of your mother [Musnad Ahmad, Sunan An-Nasâ’i, Sunan Ibn Mâjah]

What can be greater evidence of honoring women than this? If Islam oppressed women, would it say all this about mothers? Of course not.


The Economic Aspect of Women in Islam

Islam gives women very much economic rights. The Islamic Law recognizes the full property rights of women before and after marriage. She can do whatsoever she wants to do with her property, and her husband has no rights on them. Islam also gives women completely financial security. Muslim women are required to receive marital gifts without limit and to keep present and future properties and income for their own security, even after marriage. The Muslim women's money is hers alone, and nobody has the right to touch it. The husband must also give full financial support during marriage and during the “waiting period”. Even after divorce - another right of Muslim women, which both Judaism and Christianity doesn't give to their women - the husband have to support her financially for a whole year.

It should also be noted that in Europe until the 19th century, women did not have the right to own their own property. Islam on the other hand gave them the right to own their own property 1,400 years ago (Quran 4:32). Women in Islam have many more economical rights, but it would be to much to mention them all. Let us just say it this way: Economical rights is not a problem for Muslim women.


Some other examples

1: Men and women have the same religious duties, moral duties and responsibilities

“And their Lord responded to them (saying): Never will I allow to be lost the work of (any) worker among you, whether male or female; you are of one another...” (Quran 3:195)

2: From the spiritual aspect

According to Islam, men and women have the same spirit, and there is no superiority in the spiritual sense between men and women. (The Quran 4:1)

3: The Quran clearly admonishes those men who oppress or ill-treat women

'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.' (The Quran 7:36)

This verse basically takes the cake. To say that Islam oppress women when it itself clearly says to not be harsh with them, but to be kind to them, is very illogical indeed.

4: As a child

Before Islam came, some Arab tribes buried their female babies alive, just because of the fact that they were females. This wicked thing was denounced immediately when Islam came. God says in the Quran:

"And when the female (infant) buried alive - is questioned, for what crime she was killed? And when one of them is informed of (the birth of) a female, his face becomes dark, and he suppresses grief. He hides himself from the people because of the ill of which he has been informed. Should he keep it in humiliation or bury it in the ground? Certainly, evil is what they decide. (Quran 16:58-59)

Children, both females and males, has also the right to be supported by their parents in everything.

Prophet Muhammad said: Whosoever supports two daughters until they mature, he and I will come on the Day of Judgment as this (and he pointed with his fingers held together).

5: Equality between a man and woman

The sole basis for superiority of any person over another, according to Islam, is piety and righteousness, not gender, color, or nationality (see the Quran 49:13). This fact alone clearly shows that Islam does not oppress women, or any other human for that matter. According to Islam, all humans are from one soul. Women is equal to men, but Islam recognises that they are different, so women have some rights on men, and men have some rights on women.

Also, we find in the Quran something quite amazing:

"I shall not lose sight of the labor of any of you who labors in My way, be it man or woman; each of you is equal to the other (3:195)"

This verse explicitly states that women is equal to men, and thus completely refuting the myth that Islam oppress women.


Conclusion

As we clearly can see by just these examples, Islam does not oppress women. In fact, it was Islam which liberated women after they was badly oppressed by the pagan Arabs for several years. It has Islam which gave women many rights that was prohibited them by the pagan Arabs, like the right to own her own property and to divorce. Muslim women has many rights, rights which women in Europe didn't have until just some 100 years ago, in contrast to Muslim women, who had them 1,400 years ago. Islam does not oppress women, it liberates them. That's why most converts to Islam are women, especially in Europe and USA.


Source

http://d1.islamhouse.com...
Blob

Con

Thank you to Clash for creating this debate. I’m sure it will be productive.


I will be arguing the Islam does oppress women. Importantly, I do not need to prove that Islam oppresses women generally i.e. in most cases. Even if there is only one instance of oppression of women, then Islam oppresses women, even if there are many more instances of liberation.


Oppress:
to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints [1].




Hijab (“modesty”)


“Say to the believing men 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.” (The Quran 24:30) [2].



“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; 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, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.” (The Quran 24:31) [2].



From the two pieces of scripture quoted above, it is clear that although both men and women are required to dress and behave modestly, the requirements are greater for women. Specifically, women are required to wear a veil, they are only allowed to reveal their body to certain people, and they are prohibited from moving their bodies in certain ways if the intent is to draw attention to certain parts of their bodies. Islamic scripture does not burden men with the same restraints. Thus, Islam oppresses women because it does not allow them the same degree of sexual expression.




Paying the Cost to be the Boss


“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. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them.” (The Quran 4:34) [3].


In simple terms, this means that a wife must obey her husband, and if she does not, then her husband may beat her. This is apparently fair since the husband is charged with the responsibility of feeding and clothing etc. his wife. I argue that the imposition of these set gender roles is unjust because it is biased in favour of men. Indeed, only the husband can ever be the boss (notwithstanding that he must “pay the cost to be the boss”) and, ultimately, the wife must obey her husband’s commands, or else be beaten. Thus, Islam oppresses women because it does not give them equal say (or even equal opportunity for equal say) in their marital relationships.



Conclusion

I have put forth two examples of how Islam oppresses women. These examples come directly from scripture, and they clearly show that women are burdened with unjust and cruel restraints and impositions under Islam. Pro will need to refute both of these examples in order to show that Islam does not oppress women. If he cannot refute both examples, then Islam oppresses women.



[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2] http://www.muslimaccess.com...

[3] http://quran.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Clash

Pro

Thank you for your arguments.


Rebuttal

Con has basically given two arguments. I will now rebute them and show why they fail to prove that Islam oppresses women.


The Hijab


I don't think Con has a problem with the hijab, and he never said that the hijab oppresses women. So I don't need to defend the hijab. However, if you are in fact saying that the hijab oppresses women, then just let me know in your round 3. I will then rebute that claim in my last round.

Now, what was it that Con argued in his 'Hijab argument', if not to argue that the hijab itself oppresses women? Con said: ...it is clear that although both men and women are required to dress and behave modestly, the requirements are greater for women. Specifically, women are required to wear a veil, they are only allowed to reveal their body to certain people, and they are prohibited from moving their bodies in certain ways if the intent is to draw attention to certain parts of their bodies. Islamic scripture does not burden men with the same restraints. Thus, Islam oppresses women because it does not allow them the same degree of sexual expression.

Rebuttal: So, Con argues that Islam oppresses women because the requirements are greater for women, and because Islam does not allow women the same degree of sexual expression.

Now, Con is true about the fact that women are prohibited from moving their bodies in certain ways if the intent is to draw attention to certain parts of their bodies, but he fails to mention that women are prohibited from moving their bodies in certain ways if the intent is to draw attention to certain parts of their bodies...to people besides their husbands. And in contrast to what Con claims, men are obviously and of course also prohibited from moving their bodies in certain ways if the intent is to draw attention to certain parts of their bodies...to people besides their wives. Moreover, nowhere in the Quran or in the sayings of prophet Muhammed does it say that only women and not men is prohibited from moving their bodies in certain ways if the intent is to draw attention to certain parts of their bodies. Thus, Con's claim that Islam oppresses women because it does not allow them the same degree of 'sexual expression' as men, is a failure.

Con also said that 'Specifically, women are required to wear a veil, they are only allowed to reveal their body to certain people...'

As Con said, men are also required to dress modestly. However, women are more required than men to dress modestly. This is basically because of the fact that it is not common among women to look at men lustfully as much as men do look at women. Moreover, it should be obviously clear as to why men doesn't have to wear a veil as to cover their hair.

Now, to your second point. Its true that women are only allowed to reveal their body to certain people. indeed, to reveal their body to strangers is both immoral and almost like you are doing infidelity against your husband/wife. So women should reveal their body only to their husband or to close relatives. However, so does the man. The man also of course cannot reveal his body to everyone, and can only reveal his body to certain people. And again, nowhere in the Quran or in the sayings of prophet Muhammed does it say that only women and not men are prohibited from revealing their body expect to certain people. Thus, Con's claim is invalid and a failure.

I also want to say something very important which everybody, including Blob, should know about Islam and its view of women. Just because men have some rights on women, or just because there are some requirements which are greater for women than for men, that doesn't mean that Islam oppresses women. What should be understood is that equality between men and women in rights, is impossible and an absurdity due to their natural differences in physical, mental, emotional and psychological qualities. As I said in my argument round, Islam recognises that women and men are different , so women have some rights on men, and men have some rights on women. To say that women and men should have the same rights on everything, is again, absurd. Moreover, if we however take all the rights of men over the women, and then all the rights of women over the men, we will see that their rights in general (i,e.., In most cases) are the same.


Can men beat their women in Islam?

Con argues that Islam teaches that men can beat their wives if they don't obey them, because of verse 34 of the Quran. Well, it doesn't. This verse is just very misunderstood. What should be known is that the word 'beating" which is used in this verse, does not mean "physical abuse". It simply just means "a light tap". This is the best translation of this word, and must Muslim scholars agree on that. Here is a explanation given to this verse by some Muslim scholars:

“Men are the support of women as God gives some more means than others, and because they spend of their wealth (to provide for them). So women who are virtuous are obedient to God and guard the hidden as God has guarded it. As for women who are averse in behavior, talk to them suasively, leave them alone in bed and tap them (like a doctor would tap a patient - lightly), if they open out to you, do not seek an excuse for blaming them. Surely God is sublime and great.' [1]

Dr. Jamal Badawi, commenting on this verse, says:

"If the problem relates to the wife's behavior, the husband may exhort her and appeal for reason. In most cases, this measure is likely to be sufficient. In cases where the problem persists, the husband may express his displeasure in another peaceful manner, by sleeping in a separate bed from hers. There are cases, however, in which a wife persists in bad habits and showing contempt of her husband and disregard for her marital obligations. Instead of divorce, the husband may resort to another measure that may save the marriage, at least in some cases. Such a measure is more accurately described as a gentle tap on the body, but never on the face, making it more of a symbolic measure than a punitive one.' [2]

And even this light taping should only happen as a last resort and in extreme cases. Also, the face must be avoided. In fact, prophet Muhammed clearly discouraged his followers to beat their wives. He never hit any female, and he used to say that the best of men are those who do not hit their wives. In one hadith, he said: "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?” (Al-Bukhari)

It should also be noted that the relationship between the husband and the wife in Islam should be based on mutual love and kindness (Quran: Ar-Rum 21). Violence against women has no place in Islam.

Now, concerning that the man is the 'boss'. Nowhere in the Quran or in the sayings of prophet Muhammed does it say that men are the boss of the women. However, the Quran clearly states that men are the maintainers of women and the head of the household. They are in a way the leader. But again, only in the context that they are the maintainers and protectors of women. It is the men who must support and maintan the woman. He is financially responsible for her, and must for example provide her with food, shelter and clothing. In this way, the man is the leader or 'boss'. Its not in a bad way, like for example that the man is the boss in everything and the woman has to obey like a slave. This is a big misunderstanding which must be gone with.


Conclusion

I have clearly shown that these examples that Con gave does not at all burden women with unjust and cruel restraints and impositions. Con's two arguments basically fails to show and prove that Islam oppresses women.

The conclusion still stands very strong and obvious: Islam does NOT oppress women.

Thank you.


Sources

[1] http://www.islamicfinder.org...

[2] http://islamnewsroom.com...
Blob

Con

Islam on Wives


Islam highly encourages treating the wives well. They should be shown love, respect and care.


Obviously, I dispute this. See my arguments in Round 2.



Also, wives should be given the dowry, a gift from the husband, which is a part of the marriage contract.

The dowry (what a woman brings to a marriage) does not exist in Islam [1]. Therefore, I assume Pro meant the dower. As Pro said, the dower is a required part of the marriage contract. In a non-legal sense, the dower is essentially a non-refundable (under certain circumstances only) deposit on the bride, paid by the groom, to secure her. The dower is a way for the groom to show the bride that he intends for the marriage to be a long-term one. It is a way for the groom to put his money where his mouth is. Note that I am not saying the dower constitutes bad treatment; I am saying that it is nothing more than neutral treatment (wife gets dower, husband gets wife). Indeed, the dower is given according to the social status of the bride [1].



Also, the wife's money is hers only and the husband are not allowed to touch it.

That a husband is not allowed to steal his wife's money is a good thing, obviously. However, this does not absolve Islam from the oppression of women in other ways (domestic violence etc.).



In Islam, its the husband who is obligated to provide her with food, shelter and clothing.

I have already addressed this. See Round 2: "Paying the Cost to be the Boss."



He (Muhammad) said, “That you feed her when you eat and clothe her when you clothe yourself and do not strike her face."

How interesting that Muhammad said "...and do not strike her face" instead of the much simpler "...and do not strike her." I will be elaborating on this fact in the final round.



"The best among you are those who are the best to their wives" (Muhammad)

In this case, "best" is defined according to the teachings of Islam. Unfortunately, Islam teaches that it is OK for a husband to beat his wife if she does not obey him. Thus, Muhammad's saying can be rephrased as "The best among you are those who beat their disobedient wives."




Islam on Mothers

Essentially all Muslim mothers are (or were) wives. Thus, both of my examples of oppression (restricted sexual expression and domestic violence) apply to mothers, at least at some point in their lives.



The Economic Aspect of Women in Islam


The Islamic Law recognizes the full property rights of women before and after marriage. She can do whatsoever she wants to do with her property, and her husband has no rights on them.

It is good that women have property rights and that a husband is not allowed to steal his wife's property, obviously. But again, this does not absolve Islam from the oppression of women in other ways (domestic violence etc.).



Muslim women are required to receive marital gifts without limit...

Obviously, this does not mean that women are required to receive unlimited gifts. Although there is no legal limit imposed on the value of the dower, both the husband and the wife must agree as to what the dower will be. Thus, there are practical limits on the value of the dower, and as mentioned above, the dower depends on the social status of the bride.



...another right of Muslim women, which both Judaism and Christianity doesn't give...

Whether Islam oppresses women less than Judaism and Christianity is irrelevant. We are debating whether Islam oppresses women, full stop.



Other Examples


Pro quotes several verses in the Quran that simply say women are equal to men and are to be treated well. Unfortunately, Islam is not consistent in these teachings. As I have already shown, Islam allows husbands to beat their wives (I shall finalise and prove my argument on this point in the final round).

Words count for nothing if actions do not follow. If I say "I love you", and then I proceed to beat you black and blue, then clearly my words are meaningless in terms of the outcome for you. Therefore, any verse in the Quran that does not command a specific action should be ignored because it is meaningless. For example, a verse that says "Be good to women" does not command a specific action, so it is meaningless and should not be given any consideration. On the other hand, a verse that says "Do not strike a woman ever" (and I can tell you right now that this verse cannot be found anywhere in the Quran!) commands a specific action, and should be given consideration.

Thus, Pro's examples are meaningless and should not be given consideration, because the verses do not command specific actions (and where they do I have already addressed them). They do not absolve Islam from the oppression of women in other ways. For Pro to win this argument, he must show that Islam does not command any action that oppresses women. With only one round left, Pro has a long way to go.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Clash

Pro

Defending my arguments

Islam on Wives

I really don't see why Con dispute this. Moreover, I really don't see anywhere in his arguments where he refutes my argument on wives. It's okay that you dispute it, but that's only your opinion. You also have to refute it, and you have failed to do so. My argument on wives clearly showed that wives has a great position in Islam, and thus refuting the myth that Islam is a religion that oppresses women.

To the issue of the dowry. Con claims that the dowry doesn't exist in Islam. This claim seems to come from wikipedia. Surprisingly, this is what Con's own source of wikipedia says: 'In Islam, mahr (Arabic: مهر‎, "dowry"; also transliterated mehr, meher, or mahrieh) is an amount of money (but not necessarily) paid by the groom to the bride at the time of marriage (nikah) which she can spend as she wishes.' [1]

So, in contrast to what Con claims, the dowry (the husband giving the wife money etc) exist in Islam. Con's statements clearly only comes from his lack of knowledge about Islam, because the dowry without a doubt exist in Islam, and every Muslim know this.

Now, the dower as Con explained it is true, although not very good explained. However, the dower is irrelevant to my argument, which was about the dowry, and which in contrast to what Con claims, exist.

Now, that a husband is not allowed to steal his wife's money, does not absolve Islam from the oppression of women in other ways. However, this was just one of several other examples which I gave as to show how great the position of wives in Islam is, and thus refuting the myth that Islam oppresses women. Moreover, you have not given any examples as to how Islam oppresses women. Well, you gave two, but I clearly showed that they didn't at all oppress women.

Con said: 'I have already addressed this. See Round 2: "Paying the Cost to be the Boss."

I have refuted his 'Paying the Cost to be the Boss' argument. Thus, Con's rebuttal is nothing more than a failure.

About prophet Muhammed and one of his sayings: That's irrelevant. Moreover, he probably had several as to why saying "...and do not strike her face" instead of "...and do not strike her."

How interesting that Muhammad said "...and do not strike her face" instead of the much simpler "...and do not strike her." I will be elaborating on this fact in the final round.

It's NOT ok for a husband to beat his wife in Islam. I clearly showed at my round 3.

Islam on Mothers

Con didn't refute anything on this argument. He only said that his examples of oppression apply to both mothers and wives because all Muslim mothers are (or were) wives. That's true. However, its irrelevant to this round, because this round is for rebuttals of the opponents arguments, not explaining that your arguments apply to both mothers and wives because all Muslim mothers are (or were) wives. Extend this whole argument.

The Economic Aspect of Women in Islam

That women have property rights and that a husband is not allowed to steal his wife's property, does not absolve Islam from the oppression of women in other ways. However, this was just one of several other examples which I gave as to show how great the position of women in Islam is, and thus refuting the myth that Islam oppresses women. Moreover, you have not given any examples as to how Islam oppresses women. Well, you gave two, but I clearly showed that they didn't at all oppress women. Thus, your rebuttal is nothing more than a failure.

Now, I of course know that women are not required to receive unlimited gifts, and I never said so either. However, that doesn't change the fact that women are required to receive gifts, which is very good. Indeed, if Islam oppressed women, it would not give her anything.

About Judaism and Christianitu: That's true. However, I didn't say that Islam oppresses women less than Judaism and Christianity. I only said that, in contrast to Islam, Judaism and Christianity doesn't give women the right to divorce, which is also something which you clearly ignored (i,e.., That Islam gave women the right to divorce).

Other Examples

Con refutes nothing on this argument. Therefore, I extend all my examples in this argument.

Now, if the Quran says that women are equal to men and are to be treated well, you cannot possibly say that Islam oppresses women. Indeed, if it did oppress women, it would never say this or anything else which I have shown about women. Con tries to refute this fact by simply saying that these teachings is not consistent with Islam, because Islam allows husbands to beat their wives. First of all, these teachings is of course consistent with Islam, because they are in the Quran, which is the highest authority in Islam. Moreover, Islam does NOT teach that husbands can beat their wives, and I clearly showed that in my round 3. Thus, Con's rebuttal is invalid and a failure.

Now, Con said that he should finalise and prove his claim that Islam allows husbands to beat their wives. He would probably give some new verses or Hadiths to prove this claim. I'm not going to ask him to not do so, because he will just improve his case, not giving a whole new argument. If Con intend to provide new verses or Hadiths to prove his claim, I will just say that they are all probably misunderstood and all been refuted by people who knows Islam. If Con however just start to talk about verse 34 of the Quran, which is the verse he claimed allowed husbands to beat their wives, then you can just see in my round 3. There I made it very clear that this verse doesn't at all say that husbands can beat their wives, as confirmed by several Muslim scholars (I however gave just two Muslim scholars confirming that this verse doesn't at all say that husbands can beat their wives, because of limited space).

Moreover, it would have been nice if Con gave all his proofs to support his argument at his argument round, because if he gives new proofs in his last round to support his claim that Islam allows husbands to beat their wives, that would be unfair to me because I cannot refute it, although I probably would have done so easily.

Moreover, even if this verses do not command specific actions, it still can be used to refute the myth that Islam oppresses women, as I have shown. It doesn't have to be specific actions. This is something which only Con says, and I strongly disagree with it. Moreover, there are also many verses in the Quran which command specific actions. Like for example when the Quran commands us to treat our mothers well, when it commands the husband to give the woman the dowry (Basically a gift), when it commands us to be kind with women and not to be harsh with them, when it command us to not bury female babies alive and, and I can go like this for a very long time.


Summary


Con tries to refute my whole argument by simply just picking and chosing some of the sentences in the argument itself. This is really pathetic and a fallacy in itself. Although Con addresses most of the sentences in my arguments, he also ignores many. Like for example all the examples I gave in my 'Other examples' argument. Or in his case, all sentences. He also completely fails to refute my 'Islam on mothers' argument. He didn't refute even one sentence of it. He has also yet failed to defend his arguments.

Moreover, Con has basically failed to really refute my arguments. I on the other hand, successfully refuted both of Con's two arguments and clearly showed that they didn't at all prove that Islam oppresses women. Moreover, Con's two arguments clearly don't go along with the strong definition of oppresseion, which Con himself gave: 'to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints.'

Indeed, the conclusion of this debate remains very strong and obvious: Islam does NOT oppress women.

By that, I ask the voters to do the right thing and vote Pro.

Thank you to the readers for reading this debate, and to Blob for having this great debate with me.


Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Blob

Con

The Hijab



R1: Now, Con is true about the fact that women are prohibited from moving their bodies in certain ways if the intent is to draw attention to certain parts of their bodies, but he fails to mention that women are prohibited from moving their bodies in certain ways if the intent is to draw attention to certain parts of their bodies...to people besides their husbands.


This clearly does not make any sense.



R2: ...men are obviously and of course also prohibited from moving their bodies in certain ways if the intent is to draw attention to certain parts of their bodies...


Where is the verse in the Quran that specifically prohibits men from moving their bodies in certain ways if the intent is to draw attention to certain parts of their bodies? Such a verse does not exist. Pro implies that such a verse is not needed because it is “obvious”. Why, then, is it not “obvious” for women too?


Pro seems to think that the truth of his claim is self-evident, and that he is therefore exempt from providing any scriptural evidence to support his claim. This does not constitute a rebuttal at all.



R3: ...nowhere in the Quran or in the sayings of prophet Muhammed does it say that only women and not men is prohibited from moving their bodies in certain ways...


This line of reasoning is clearly faulty. Pro is attempting to use what the Quran doesn’t say as evidence for his argument. However, the Quran doesn’t say lots of things. For example, the Quran doesn’t say that men should not obey women. By Pro’s reasoning, this means that men should obey women. Clearly, we can only go on what the Quran does say, but Pro fails in this regard.



R4: ...women are more required than men to dress modestly. This is basically because of the fact that it is not common among women to look at men lustfully as much as men do look at women.


Here, Pro admits that Islam does not allow women the same degree of sexual expression. Pro seems to think this is fair because men look at women lustfully more than women look at men lustfully. Putting aside the fact that Pro gives no evidence for his assertion, he is basically saying that women must dress a certain way because men can’t help looking at them. In other words, women must dress a certain way so that men need not exercise self-control. This is not fair and just, as it places the entirety of the burden on women. This is oppression.



R5: Moreover, it should be obviously clear as to why men doesn't have to wear a veil as to cover their hair.


Again, Pro says that it should be “obvious”. Is it to do with the length of the hair? Surely not, as some men and women have hair of the same length. Is it to do with the attractiveness of the hair? Surely not, as some men have hair that is much healthier and more attractive than the hair of some women. Pro says the reason is obvious, yet he fails to state the reason.



R6: The man also of course cannot reveal his body to everyone, and can only reveal his body to certain people. And again, nowhere in the Quran or in the sayings of prophet Muhammed does it say that only women and not men are prohibited...


See R2 and R3 above, and apply to R6.



R7: What should be understood is that equality between men and women in rights, is impossible and an absurdity due to their natural differences in physical, mental, emotional and psychological qualities.


In countries where there is no official religion, men and women do have equal rights. In such countries, women are not required to dress more modestly than men. Also, wives are not required to obey their husbands. The fact that men and women have equal rights in many places all around the world proves that it is not “impossible” or “absurd” to have equal rights. Therefore, it is an act of oppression to use the physical, mental, emotional and psychological differences between men and women as a basis for not granting equal rights.



Can Men Beat Their Women in Islam?


First of all, the beating of wives by their husbands was not the central part of my opening argument. The central part of my argument was that “Islam oppresses women because it does not give them equal say (or even equal opportunity for equal say) in their marital relationships” (see Round 2). The oppression occurs as a result of there being a concept of disobedience in Islamic marriage, and not as a result of the consequences for disobedience. The consequences just make the oppression worse.



Now, I am not at all backing away from my claim that Islam allows men to violently strike their disobedient wives. There are several reasons as to why it is more reasonable to interpret the word “beat” (strike) in verse 4:34 as meaning “strike violently” instead of “tap symbolically”.



  1. If it is nothing more than a symbolic tap, why would the Quran explicitly state that men should never tap women on the face? This makes no sense, since a tap on the face would be no more painful than a tap on any other part of the body. The avoidance of the face only makes sense if it relates violent striking, since the face is a sensitive area that is also visible to be public.

  2. For the first offence, the consequences are mild: “advise them”. For the second offence, the consequences are more serious: “forsake them in bed”. For the third offence, the consequences suddenly become less serious again: “tap them symbolically, but not on the face”. This makes no sense. It is more logical that consequences would increase in severity as the offence increases in severity. This can only occur if the husband can violently strike his wife after the third offence.

  3. Many Muslim scholars do believe that men can violently strike their wives in Islam. For example, Dr. Ahmad Shafaat states: “...beating should be effective in its purpose of shaking the wife out of her nushuz (disobedience). This means that it should provide an energetic demonstration of the anger, frustration and love of the husband. In other words, it should neither seriously hurt the wife nor reduce it to a set of meaningless motions devoid of emotions. As for the argument that the Prophet intensely disliked beating, we can say that his intense dislike was for the type of beating done outside the limits set down by God” [1]. In a non-religious country, an act of this description would be considered assault in the eyes of the law. Islam allows men to assault their disobedient wives by setting more relaxed limits for violence.



Now, concerning that the man is the 'boss'. Nowhere in the Quran or in the sayings of prophet Muhammed does it say that men are the boss...


Verse 4:34 clearly states that the man calls the shots. It even sets out what actions a man is to take when his woman does not obey him. Thus, the man is the boss to the extent that he is in charge. I do not see how Pro can deny this.



Conclusion


In order to win this debate, I only had to show that Islam oppresses women in at least one way. I have more than satisfied this requirement. I gave two concrete examples: inequality in sexual expression and inequality of power distribution in marriage.



Pro claimed that he had successfully rebutted my first example, despite the fact that his arguments were:



  1. Nonsensical (R1).

  2. Supposedly “obvious”, but not supported by any scriptural evidence (R2, R5, R6).

  3. Based on what the Quran doesn’t say (R3, R6).

  4. Supportive of a scenario where women must dress with excessive modesty so that men need not exercise self-control (R4).

  5. Based on the false assumption that equal rights for men and women is impossible (R7).



Pro also claimed that he has successfully rebutted my second example, despite the fact that his arguments:



  1. Failed to address the fact that oppression occurs as a result of there being a concept of disobedience in Islamic marriage.

  2. Are based on an illogical interpretation of the meaning of the word “beat” (strike) in verse 4:34.

  3. Fail to recognise that many Muslim scholars believe that Islam allows men to violently strike their women.



Pro has failed to refute my arguments. Islam oppresses women.


Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Shamin 3 years ago
Shamin
After many happy years of marriage, my husband suddenly burst and applied away from me because he met a younger woman. Our daughter was 6years old at the time. Cried day and night and I did not know to whom I could turn. But priestess Ifaa was been mentioned everywhere that she is good in restoring broken marriage with her powerful spells and I met her through her email "priestessifaa@ yahoo. com" that was given to me by my cousin sister as how she came and in my life and so my life changed again to positive in 2days because my husband came back to me quick. Thank you priestess Ifaa for your spell powers.
Posted by Blob 4 years ago
Blob
There were many things I could have mentioned but didn't.
Posted by Blob 4 years ago
Blob
There were many things I could have mentioned but didn't.
Posted by JusticeBringer125 4 years ago
JusticeBringer125
None of you mentioned the factor of Honor Killing
Posted by nickusmc 4 years ago
nickusmc
Here is the problem with Islam, Christianity and Judaism- what is written isn't always what is practiced. If these religions truely went "by the book" we would have all eradicated ouselves a long time ago. The point is, no one practices what they preach.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
XimenBao, there is no bigger vote of garbage than yours. You are claiming that Con won all these three points: Modesty, dominance of mean, and beatings. However, as 1dustpelt said, you have not explained why. Moreover, why did you give Con points for sources? I really don't see how Con's sources was more reliable than mine. Now, don't misunderstand, Con did a great job on this debate, and if he wins then that is deserved. You can also vote just as you want. However, I see your vote as nothing more than biased and vote bombed. Probably because both of you are Atheists...
Posted by twocupcakes 4 years ago
twocupcakes
okay cool, i found out how to fix votes
Posted by twocupcakes 4 years ago
twocupcakes
Oops, I did not mean to give spelling and grammar to Pro, this was a typo. I meant to vote 0-3 for Con for argument points, sorry.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Wallstreetatheist, may I ask where I used semantics and intellectual dishonesty? And how was his scources more reliable then mine? Just stop trying to get us to think that your voting is nothing more than biased.
Posted by Blob 4 years ago
Blob
Here is the missing reference for my final round:

[1] http://www.islamicperspectives.com...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
ClashBlobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full points to counter dustpelts garbage. Modesty, dominance of mean, beatings. Con won all three. Pretty much the only way Pro could have won was to argue the definition of "islam" since the scriptures are pretty clear cut.
Vote Placed by twocupcakes 4 years ago
twocupcakes
ClashBlobTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Good jon, interesting debate. Con has shown that islam oppresses women in at least one way(which is all it would take to show that islam oppresses woman). Pro fails to rebuke all of Cons reasons. Con shows that hijabs are an undue burnen on women and that men are "the boss". Pro does offer rebuttals, but these rebuttals are not strong enough to rebuke the arguments. Pro tries to justify seemingly inequalities in rights, however Con shows that equal rights are not impossible or absurd.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
ClashBlobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I assume this was a suicide debate; it's like taking Pro on, "The Heliocentric model is not accurate." Anyway, after Pro's arguments were rebutted very well by Con, Pro didn't admit defeat or have good responses, but instead chose semantics and intellectual dishonesty. Con demonstrated the scriptural dominance of men in Islam and the scriptural justification for the beating of women. He argued those points very well and Pro had a difficult time rebutting them.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
ClashBlobTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vb dayton. "Con did it better" is not a valid RFD. Xianbao also had poor RFD. You must explain why "Con won all three"
Vote Placed by daytonanerd 4 years ago
daytonanerd
ClashBlobTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did it better