Sorry to be an Ivanhoe again, but bear with me for a bit...
This from Turkey, where the authorities are re-examining the Hadith and trying to establish a more reformist viewpoint...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm
"...."There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's permission and they are genuine.
"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."
The project justifies such bold interference in the 1,400-year-old content of the Hadith by rigorous academic research.
Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said "he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone".
So, he argues, it is clear what the Prophet's goal was.
Yet, until now, the ban has remained in the text, and helps to restrict the free movement of some Muslim women to this day."
I think this is commendable to re-examine as the Christian church did the baggage that accumulated along the centuries; however I would like to look at the position of women in the Christian and Muslim faiths; but first, any comments on the 'freeing' of women as proposed here?
I come from Zambia. There are a number of tribes, each with its own 'customs' and people often feel quite strongly about their customs, and similar to religion, once a practice is labeled a custom, it is given a measure of respect. What is interesting though is how people frequently use customs to their advantage - and in Zambia, quite often to the disadvantage of women.
For example, if a man dies, his relative arrive almost immediately and take all his property - claiming that in their custom, property belongs to the mans family - leaving the dead mans wife and children with nothing.
To summarize, people take advantage of whatever situation they can and often invoking the 'its my culture' or 'its my religion' card is a way to cut down on the criticism.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe position of the woman is secondary almost always?
I come from Zambia. There are a number of tribes, each with its own 'customs' and people often feel quite strongly about their customs, and similar to religion, once a practice is labeled a custom, it is given a measure of respect. What is interesting though is how people frequently use customs to their advantage - and in Zambia, quite often to the disadv ...[text shortened]... king the 'its my culture' or 'its my religion' card is a way to cut down on the criticism.
Originally posted by snowinscotlandWomen take advantage of the 'my culture' or 'my religion' card too. However, in general, women are subject to rules made by men far more than the other way around. (In Zambia). Women do however claim that traditionally it is their husbands 'duty' to support them - so not everything goes the mans way.
The position of the woman is secondary almost always?
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut in general the women select the male? or the men select the female?
Women take advantage of the 'my culture' or 'my religion' card too. However, in general, women are subject to rules made by men far more than the other way around. (In Zambia). Women do however claim that traditionally it is their husbands 'duty' to support them - so not everything goes the mans way.
I think I am thinking how the rules in religion tend to supress the women in terms of deference towards a male figure, well, certainly in christianity and muslim. This ties with the behaviour of most cultures towards controlling the means of reproduction, ie the women....
Originally posted by snowinscotlandBiblical mandates, laws, and commandments are primarily designed by God for the orderly maintenance of human life. The idea that the Bible subordinates women is a concept originating in ignorance of the correct interpretation and application of Biblical truth.
Sorry to be an Ivanhoe again, but bear with me for a bit...
This from Turkey, where the authorities are re-examining the Hadith and trying to establish a more reformist viewpoint...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm
"...."There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's p ...[text shortened]... Muslim faiths; but first, any comments on the 'freeing' of women as proposed here?
Originally posted by josephwCare to elaborate? The whole *women are subject to their husbands* notion subordinates women rather than seeing them as equal to men. Or are you saying that this notion didn't come from Jesus himself and is therefore bogus.
Biblical mandates, laws, and commandments are primarily designed by God for the orderly maintenance of human life. The idea that the Bible subordinates women is a concept originating in ignorance of the correct interpretation and application of Biblical truth.
Originally posted by pawnhandlerWhether you know it or not pawnhandler, you stray from the point.
Care to elaborate? The whole *women are subject to their husbands* notion subordinates women rather than seeing them as equal to men. Or are you saying that this notion didn't come from Jesus himself and is therefore bogus.
And the Bible doesn't say women are to be "subject" to their husbands, but to "submit". Unfortunately there are those who would use this to support the idea that women are inferior to men. That would be a lie.
But you have missed the point altogether. That's not meant as a slap.
The Bible does not teach that women are inferior to men.
Originally posted by josephwEphesians 5:22 (New International Version)
Whether you know it or not pawnhandler, you stray from the point.
And the Bible doesn't say women are to be "subject" to their husbands, but to "submit". Unfortunately there are those who would use this to support the idea that women are inferior to men. That would be a lie.
But you have missed the point altogether. That's not meant as a slap.
The Bible does not teach that women are inferior to men.
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
That is not a position of equality. The subsequent passages are about how a husband should treat his wife, but not about a husband submitting himself to his wife. One only submits oneself from a position of relational inferiority. This is not straying from the point.
Originally posted by pawnhandlerEph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Ephesians 5:22 (New International Version)
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
That is not a position of equality. The subsequent passages are about how a husband should treat his wife, but not about a husband submitting himself to his wife. One only submits oneself from a position of relational inferiority. This is not straying from the point.
It's a matter of role. Men and women are equal in sole. But as I said before, it's about orderly maintenance.
Notice though that the greater accountability is placed upon the man. As such the man is really a servant to his wife!