Islam liberated women 1437 years ago?

As you can tell by the title I am going to talk about how the greatest religion on earth liberated women 1437 years ago.

I am sorry. How can anyone say that with a straight face?

But no seriously, how many times has that phrase or the like been tossed around. “Islam gave women rights before anyone else did.” or as is stated in the title “Islam liberated women 1437 years ago.”

First, let me correct that statement.

Islam allowed the liberation of free women.

Women were regarded as nothing more than property that was exchanged between men and baby girls were often buried alive in the desert by their fathers. So when a new religion popped up saying hey guys maybe women aren’t property, of course, that was liberating.
Well here is the kicker, it was only Free women that were declared not property, slave women were still regarded on the same level of pots and pans.

The hijab was used as a means to distinguish between slaves and free women. Before any Muslims lovingly tells me Islam treats everyone as equal and that I’ve made this up, here is a little Hadeeth from Anas ibn Malik who is regarded as being trustworthy and one of the major narrators of Hadeeth.

He reported that: ‘Umar once saw a slave-girl that belonged to us (to Anas) wearing a scarf, so Umar hit her and told her: ‘Don’t assume the manners of a free woman.’

Go Women’s Rights?

Another proclamation by Muslims is that wearing the hijab is liberating because it means that they will not be sexualized by men.

Mate, sorry to break it to you, but there is such thing as a hijabi fetish. Lovely Mia has made a career out of it.

Women in Islam say that they choose to wear the hijab, but I can tell you right now that most of them don’t even know why they are wearing it.
They know that Allah tells them to because that’s what their parents told them which is what the imams told them, but can they name the ayats and surahs? No.
For reference, it is Al-Nur Ayat 31.
Now if the hijab was really a choice why do many Muslim women commonly refer to non-covering women as a candy that doesn’t have a wrapper on it, and then state who wants to eat an unwrapped candy?

These same women also refuse to acknowledge that there are women who have been forced to wear the hijab, they say things like “Oh but that isn’t the real Islam”.

Does that mean in the “real” Islam women don’t need to wear the hijab? But if that’s the case, why do some Muslim women degrade other women who don’t cover?

But what would happen to these women, who so religiously (Ha PUN) defend the hijab, removed it? Most say that they wouldn’t but I am curious. Is it the fear of Allah stopping them or fear of their father’s fists?

Have you ever wondered why older Muslim women don’t need to cover? I mean if the hijab is a religious and liberating thing, don’t you think that women would be wearing it till the day they die. Why are they given this option?

I’ll tell you.

Women who can no longer bear children do not have to wear the Hijab. Because they are no longer worth anything. They won’t be creating the next generation of little Muslims and so their value goes down. They are no longer regarded as desirable, so why would you need to cover up something that is not desired? She is no longer a precious little candy.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Islam liberated women 1437 years ago?

  1. You would have to be the bravest people in Australia. You should be supported by mainstream Australia every step of the way. Anything that oppresses,devalues or degrades women should be outlawed in Australia. I think The Koran,and the Bible need to be updated as circumstances are a lot different now than 2000 years ago. keep at it girls it will get better as time goes on. Your situation wont’ improve overnight. i wish you all the best for the future. There is light at the end of the tunnel but it can be a long tunnel. cheers Steve.

    Like

  2. I posted this in 2016. I think it illustrates what your post is saying. Political correctness has gone the route of denialism and the left who would normally be our allies are instead enablers.

    And so it goes —-

    May 28th 2016 (NBC) ISLAMABAD, Pakistan —

    A powerful constitutional body in Pakistan proposed legislation last week that would allow husbands to “lightly beat” their wives who decline sex or refuse to wear what their mates prefer. The Council of Islamic Ideology says it has to finalize the 160-page draft before it is sent to lawmakers in the Punjab province, the country’s most populated region, for approval. As well as beatings for wives who decline to have sex with their husbands, the document also advocates men use “limited violence” on spouses who do not bathe after intercourse or during menstruation.
“”DO NOT HIT HER VINDICTIVELY, BUT ONLY FOR REMINDING HER ABOUT HER RELIGIOUS DUTIES””
The council — known as CII — went so far as to provide guidelines on how to inflict the beatings.
”Hit her in areas where her skin is not too thick and not too thin,” CII leader Maulana Muhammad Khan Sherani told a press conference in Islamabad on Thursday. “Do not use shoes or a broom on the head, or hit her on the nose or eyes.”
”Do not break any bones or cut her skin or leave any marks,” he added. “Do not hit her vindictively, but only for reminding her about her religious duties.”
The CII cannot make laws itself but gives suggestions to Pakistan’s government and parliament.
Already, the proposal has sparked outrage inside the country.
”This is unbelievable,” said Allama Tahir Ashrafi, a former member of the CII who resigned for what he called religious regions. “So, what is ‘light beating’ and ‘limited violence’? Not chopping off their heads but only, say, burning them in oil?”
Ashrafi is now leader of the 110,000-member Pakistani Religious Scholars Council, a group of mullahs who debate Islam and preach.
He told NBC News the CII was subverting the very religion it claimed to uphold: “Violence is forbidden by Islam, period.” He said the council should be speaking “about rape, about the increasing divorce rate, about suicide bombing — but they avoid these issue”. Others have questioned the practicality of the proposals.
”Will the Maulana [religious scholar] observe every beating himself, personally?” said Rana Sanaullah, the Punjab province law minister, in another press conference in Lahore. “How will he ensure that ‘light beating’ doesn’t become ‘heavy beating’.”
The draft bill has a step-by-step guide on how to administer these beatings. If a wife disobeys her husband, according to the document, the husband should try to talk to her. If that doesn’t work, he should sleep separately and only finally use violence as a last resort.
The CII suggests that any man who doesn’t follow that process should be prosecuted.
Pakistan was the first Islamic country to elect a woman to high office, with Benazir Bhutto serving as prime minister in the 80s and 90s before her assassination in 2007. However it consistently ranks as one of the world’s worst countries for female employment and education.
More than 1,000 “honor killings” were carried out in Pakistan in 2015, a practice where women are murdered by their own relatives if they are seen as bringing “dishonor” on their families. The CII’s proposal was in response to an unconventionally liberal move by Pakistan’s Punjab province, which pushed for a progressive gender-equality law called the Protection of Women Against Violence Act. The act sought to give women more rights, including fitting violent husbands with electronic tracking bracelets.
Rejecting that bill as “un-Islamic,” the CII proposed its own document instead. The CII’s draft bill has to be finalized by the council before it is sent to the provincial legislature for approval.
In addition to the beatings, it also seeks to ban women from several aspects of society.
Female co-eds? Nope, not after primary school. Women joining combat squads in the armed forces? That would be out too — a far more conservative approach than the country’s air force, which has started training women to be fighter pilots. Women also would be barred for nursing male patients in hospital unless it is their husband, son, brother or father.
The proposal does make some paltry concessions for the female population. It says they should be allowed to inherit property and given protection from being kicked out of their houses if their husband dies without a will. Women should not be subjected to forced marriage, acid attacks or honor killings, the draft also states.


    Still, the list of punishable offenses goes on. The draft said beatings also should be administered to any woman who does not wear a hijab, gives money to other people without her husband’s permission, and talks loudly so the neighbors can hear. Women would also be forced to breastfeed their kids for two years and banned from using contraception without their husband’s permission.
”Disgusting,” human-rights lawyer Asma Jahangir said in an interview with Pakistani television this week. “But we shouldn’t be worried. The women of Pakistan know how to protect themselves”.
    Really? This in the face of over 1000 acid attacks and over 1000 honor killings in 2015.


    ——————————————————-+———————————————+————————————
    I offer these questions for your consideration.
”Why should anyone feel compelled to be subservient to a benevolent benefactor? Put another way, what kind of jerk expects to be worshipped for doing what came naturally?” Nationofnope.


    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s