Islam does not oppress women

Defending my argumentsIslam on WivesI 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 MothersCon 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 IslamThat 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 ExamplesCon 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. SummaryCon 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...