Islam honours and Respects women

The tone of my opponent's argument switches to a plea as she enters the third round. Then she accuses me of introducing obvious errors (which are at best her opinion), plagiarizing from anti-Islam sites (without any sort of proof), and arguing with red herrings (the only example of which is the jeans comment).... Let's begin again - we have our work cut out for us... >> "I don't know what speaking to non-related males has to do with anything. A clear sign of ignorance" Purdah (loosely, curtain) is an the Islamic concept concerning women's separation from men. It holds, among other things, that women should not associate with men they are not related to. Further, the interesting thing is that this concept is enforced against women even though it is actually Zoroastrian in origin, not Muslim (http://www.islamfortoday.com...) And I encourage you to consider what Islamic "freedoms" are doing in Afghanistan... the UN certainly did. They weren't pleased: http://www.unhchr.ch... >> "4:34 speaks of the duties of men, then it speaks of "those women...". Now "those" women refer to the ladies whom I already mentioned. The verse has 2 parts to it. Please do not cancel anything out." 4:34 says in its entirety: " The men are made responsible for the women, ** and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme. " This has usually been translated in a way that makes it clear that these "certain qualities" that make them the bread earners make men superior to women. Regardless of how my opponent thinks the verse should read, the reality of the situation is that it gives husbands (as a last resort) permission to beat their wives. >> "What you've given concentrates on women who have decided to shed their liberty. Meaning you're giving info about specific women that do not deserve respect and attempted to tie it in with what I said." I'm not following you... perhaps you can clarify just when exactly it is that a woman stops being a person and becomes property to be inherited... >> "One of the rules of why Muslim women have to dress properly is to avoid harassment. Provocative clothing doesn't shield a person from being raped or sexually assaulted" You do realize these two statements are contradictory... >> "For divorce, what does the term "emergency measure" mean to you? Again it speaks not of divorcing women for no reason." In theory, maybe. In practice? >> "I ask my opponent to revise what I said about polygamy. I don't want to re-state what I said. Equality isn't even the issue here." Are you kidding? Polygamy is allowed, but Polyandry is not. Sounds like an issue of equality to me. >> "And since this deals with finances, at that time women weren't very familiar with financial transactions. That's why 2 were ordered and what I wrote before doesn't cancel out." So your defense to the fact that a woman's word is legally worth half what a man's is.... is to say that women were subjugated and not allowed to participate in finances, so they knew half as much about them... >> " Women do suffer from psychological problems more than men." Evidence? The link I posted above states that for this type of psychological phenomenon, women are SUPERIOR to men. >> "AND it's possible for women to forget make an error" Right... they must make errors at a rate double that of men, of course. Why else would the Quran say two are needed? >> "Pre-Arabia, women were not seen as anything. Islam changed that. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org...; You do realize that the change from this article was a change that happened long after the switch from goddess to god worship? Islam is in no way responsible for the betterment of women. They were MUCH better off before the 600's. ********************************************************************************** My opponent has spent this debate picking at little details of translation while ignoring the larger issues at hand. For example, while nitpicking over whether or not 4:34 means to scourge or a ""light" and "symbolic" tap meant for humiliating," my opponent misses the fact that her argument would deliver the notion that Islam honors and respects women by lightly and symbolically tapping them for the purpose of humiliation. Readers... I have, in this fashion, let my opponent destroy her own argument. She has failed to respond to several points, including the justness of letting a male child take 2/3 of the inheritance over the female child's 1/3, as well as the Prophet Muhammad himself making snide jokes about vaginas. Lastly, she completely incomprehensibly holds that "Islam... gave women rights and freedoms to the same level as men." A cursory glance at Sharia law shows this is not the case. Readers, the debate is clear. NEGATED.