Islam does not oppress women

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”. 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. 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. 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: Nonsensical (R1). Supposedly “obvious”, but not supported by any scriptural evidence (R2, R5, R6). Based on what the Quran doesn’t say (R3, R6). Supportive of a scenario where women must dress with excessive modesty so that men need not exercise self-control (R4). 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: Failed to address the fact that oppression occurs as a result of there being a concept of disobedience in Islamic marriage. Are based on an illogical interpretation of the meaning of the word “beat” (strike) in verse 4:34. 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.