Does adopting Islam liberate women?

[Cyclone]

I don't agree with you very often but I agree.

 

I think someone covering their face is just rude-mirrored sunglasses/helmet/nihab whatever-you are trying to avoid communication and I would be happy to give you your wish.

 

So in sunny weather people with sunglasses on are being rude? And everyone riding a motorbike is being rude?

[mindfieldz]

So in sunny weather people with sunglasses on are being rude? And everyone riding a motorbike is being rude?

 

Wearing shades indoors and motorbike helmets when not on your bike can be considered rude.

[andygardener]

The definition of the word is quite clear, it's to make them free. Not to make them free from choice.

 

Have you seen avengers yet, Loki used this exact argument, I've come to free you all so you'll be happy, free you from having to make any choices because I'm now in charge of everything!

 

If you extended the argument you end up with slavery, and nobody would argue that a slave has been freed (by virtue of not having the freedom to make any choices).

 

I haven't seen the avengers but that approach is pretty much the main argument from the islamist and even more mainstream islamic point of view. The world is confusing, their god provides a detailed user manual to life, this is therefore liberating as all one need do is refer back to the manual if in doubt as to what to do. It replaces doubt with certainty and confusion with clarity.

 

Of course it's predicated on their god actually existing in their perceived form so like any faith based approach to life it's a big gamble on the unknown, but at least until death it may give a sense of liberation to those who put all their chips on islam, just as other faiths do for their backers.

[Plain Talker]

Surely they must be forced to wear the hijab,no woman with even amodicum of fashion sense would opt to wear one by choice,all the women ive seen wearing them tend to resemble the pictures you see of old peasant women somewhere in the backwoods of Greece or other Med countries

 

I choose to wear a hijaab when outside my home. no-one makes me do so, no-one forces me to. It's my own choice.

[janie48]

I see nothing restrictive about wearing the hijaab,i expect it can be quite liberating.The burka too might be quite liberating to some women,and i think they have a right to cover their face in public,but certainly not in the workplace where interaction with other people is required.

 

As for rules,tell me anyone who isn't constrained by rules.They are imposed on us in school, family life and society in general. No one is ever totally liberated, much as we would like to be sometimes.

[rubydazzler]

You said

 

Adopting any religion as a serious endeavour and not a cry for attention or acceptance in a certain set is bound to restrict one.

 

Do you really not see the arrogance in that?

No, I don't. You obviously don't know some of the people I know. If you're doing it because you really believe all the things prescribed by the Big Three you're necessarily but willingly limiting your choices and your autonomy, and I have my opinion on why that should be. I find many people of a Christian/Islamic bent are by far more arrogant. They seem to find it acceptable that the rest of the world should be forced to accommodate their sensibilities and also be restricted by their beliefs.

 

With Islam because it's by far the most restrictive religion so far known to man, a lot of people, especially woman, are adopting it for different reasons than that they actually believe in it. Attention seeking and seeking acceptance from like minded people are probably the most common. And they merely pay lip service to and don't actually adher to all its rules. This is in my opinion. You are quite free to have yours, obviously.

[PaliRichard]

You were free to follow some, any or all of them without adopting the religion or the believes they entwine around the rules.[/Quote]

 

I entirely agree.

 

It would, that's my point.[/Quote]

 

It seems a bizarre reason to argue with me then because I never stated other than this. My point was that had I not adopted the religion I wouldn't have taken these things on board to begin with, hence would not have enjoyed the freedom they allowed.

 

You were already free to follow those patterns, it just so happens that you didn't choose to until you adopted a religion that told you to. Maybe you just need someone or something to tell you how to behave, I prefer to decide for myself.[/Quote]

 

I didn't choose to because it never crossed my mind that these things could be liberating. I came on religion by accident, I wasn't looking for it, I just considered it was a load of cobblers. I decide how to behave myself, just like you do. You do not (I assume) choose to behave outside the law, I choose not to behave outside of my religious rules, but I could if I wanted to.

 

Likewise a rule telling them that they must learn to play the guitar does not mean they can play the guitar.[/Quote]

 

I never mentioned a rule saying someone must learn to play the guitar, you did, I corrected you that it was a choice to learn, not a rule.

 

In the former case they are free to learn, in the latter case they are constrained to learn, but before they can play it they must learn.

Are there are a set of rules of learning? I looked again, and you did say that being free to learn did not mean you could play, which implies that the alternative is having to learn, which still does not mean you can play.[/Quote]

 

But if you want to play you have to learn, which is what I'm trying to get across. If they want to play (I don't know why you're picking up on this constrained to learn/rule that they must learn, I never mentioned it) they have to follow the rules. If not they don't, if they do and eventually learn they are still free to stop playing whenever they want.

 

Yes you could. But whilst following them you are constrained by them[/Quote]

 

No you're not, because you are free to drop them and stop learning whenever you wish, there is nothing that says when you take up the guitar that's it, you are bound by the rules until you have succeeded in mastery, you can stop whenever you wish.

 

There are no rules about learning something, this is a false analogy.[/Quote]

 

No it's not, if you want to play the guitar you have to follow the rules to develope that skill.

 

I don't disagree.[/Quote]

 

But you have been doing, you need to make your mind up.

 

Is it. What if your religion forbade it, would it have freed you then?

The freedom to not learn is not the same as not being able to play.

You are told not to by your religion, your freedom has been constrained.

The fact that you follow a rule voluntarily doesn't mean that the rule is not constraining your behaviour[/Quote]

 

It's not constraining my behaviour because I choose, which is a word you might look up, to follow it, my behaviour can only be constrained if I am forced to partake in, or withold from certain activities. As I am not forced my behaviour is not constrained. In a similar way the artist is not having there choice not to paint constrained by the fact they are painting. Only if they are forced to paint is it constrained.

 

 

Did you think we happened to be talking about the same subject by mere happen-stance. If you think I've misinterpreted then you could restate it or be more clear......Then maybe your analogy was unclear[/Quote]

 

I'm not sure I can make it more clear other than repeating it again and again, you just don't seem to have the ability to grasp it. In which case I think it is most prudent if we just drop the guitar analogy as you seem to have missed the point more than once.

 

I think your poor analogy has left us talking at cross purposes, you are now talking about the rules of learning to play (which I don't believe exist) when you appeared to start of talking about the freedom to learn to play and the opposite of that being required to learn to play[/Quote]

 

I was only ever talking about the rules of learning to play, the fact that you don't accept they exist makes the analogy somewhat pointless. It is not a poor analogy, you juat don't accept it.

 

You introduced the freedom of learning to play when you said

nothing can give you the ability to play the guitar except the exercising the freedom to learn to play the guitar[/Quote]

 

I merely took that further. But my point was always about the rules themselves, otherwise it would have been a silly analogy to use.

 

Are they telling you how to feel? Or are they saying that despite your feeling of being liberated, you have not been. Personally I don't really care whether you feel liberated or not, I'm confident that the imposition of a set of rules cannot make you more free, it's a given in the nature of what rules are. You can't have it both ways, either you are choosing to not drink (to continue this example) or a rule tells you to not drink and constrains your behaviour.[/Quote]

 

The rule tells me not to drink and I choose to follow that rule. If the rule told me not to drink and I was forced to follow it (say by a parent or spouse or community) then I would be constrained. As it is a complete and utter freedom of choice to follow it I'm not being constrained by it. Let's take away the rule, let's say I just decided not to drink, does that mean I'm being constrained? Because there is no difference whatsoever in volition.

 

It does constrain it[/Quote]

 

So you keep saying

 

Yes, we can break the rules at which point (for the law of the land) we will be subject to the consequences. By constrain I don't mean to say that you are physically stopped, you are constrained whilst ever you follow the rule[/Quote]

 

Then what do you mean because you're really confusing me.

 

By breaking the rule you are clearly no longer constrained, but then it isn't your religion and it's rules that have freed you, it's your decision to ignore the rule despite your religion[/Quote]

 

I never said breaking the rules would liberate you, I said following them would. Has this got so long that you've lost the thread of it because I can't make sense of what you're saying now. My original point was that following religious rules led me to freedom, my analogy was that following the rules of the guitar led to the freedom to create music. By following the rules, not breaking them, I am freed, by following the rules of lrearning to play the guitar, not breaking them (before I have learnt to play it) I am free to make music.

 

If I ignore the rules of either I have lost that freedom, although I can become competent enough in both that the 'rules' no longer guide me, it is automatic, the rules have allowed me to forget the rules, not break them.

 

Yes, and to not follow them is to cease to be constrained by your religion and to be liberated by exercising choice[/Quote]

 

I am excercising choice, which you seem to have failed to grasp.

 

 

It depends on the choice. If I were following the rules of the religion because I was forced it would be a totally different kettle of fish to had I chosen to follow them. But following them freely is not, and cannot constrain me.

 

In what way is it restricting, is it more restrictive than the law not to murder which we agree we could break?......No, I'd think that you were silly.

.........It wouldn't make me feel restricted[/Quote]

 

Then you are a better man than many who come into contact with religious zealots and I take my hat off to you, because most people find having religion shoved down their throat when they feel fine without it restrictive.

 

The fact that your religion tells you not to drink (assuming it does and this isn't hypothetical) is an example of your behaviour being constrained. You're free to break the rule, but that will be against your religion and so if you wish to remain true to the set of rules you've adopted your behaviour has been limited.

 

But the whole point, which I have spent most of the day trying to get across to you and you repeatedly fail to grasp is that I can, at any time, if I choose to, break any religious rule I want. I choose not to.

 

You can, if you choose to, go and murder someone if you want, but you choose not to.

 

I am not constrained, I choose to follow my rules, you are not constrained, you choose to follow yours, neither of us have to, we just do.

 

Some religious people don't follow the rules, that's fine.

 

Some secular (and religious) people break the law, that's fine too, if they were constrained they wouldn't be able to, but they're not, thay have the ability to freely choose.

 

I really don't know how many more ways there is to say the same thing!

[PaliRichard]

No, I don't. You obviously don't know some of the people I know. If you're doing it because you really believe all the things prescribed by the Big Three you're necessarily but willingly limiting your choices and your autonomy, and I have my opinion on why that should be. I find many people of a Christian/Islamic bent are by far more arrogant. They seem to find it acceptable that the rest of the world should be forced to accommodate their sensibilities and also be restricted by their beliefs.

 

With Islam because it's by far the most restrictive religion so far known to man, a lot of people, especially woman, are adopting it for different reasons than that they actually believe in it. Attention seeking and seeking acceptance from like minded people are probably the most common. And they merely pay lip service to and don't actually adher to all its rules. This is in my opinion. You are quite free to have yours, obviously.

 

Read that back, can you really, genuinly not see that you are adopting the same behaviour as those of a Christian/Islamic bent that you are complaining about?

 

Really?

 

I think you should learn about religion more. Islam is nowhere near the most restrictive religion, that shows both an ignorance of Islam and of other religions.

[Glamrocker]

I choose to wear a hijaab when outside my home. no-one makes me do so, no-one forces me to. It's my own choice.

Ah sarcasm, it bypasses some people

[skinz]

Islam enslaves women, it's that simple. Some are house slaves, some are field slaves. What's the expression? Uncle toms??

 

All religion enslaves all, all who believe that is. It's that simple.