Women's clothes and rape?

[AQL]

Anyway, I got two responses on the 33:59 that the word does not actually mean protection from harm which was one of my questions at least. Clothing does not protect from abuse as has been proven in many cases.

Lock this thread if you want. Too much deflection going on.

[QM Moderators Team]

ShatteredEmblem,

We will lock a thread if we deem appropriate, not simply because someone has requested it. Members are free to post on this thread unless they have been specifically asked not to. At present, the discussion is continuing and apart from a moderator intervention we have had to make (which we haven't seen flouted since), we see no other reason to lock it. You are free not to participate on the thread if you don't wish to.

Thanks.

[AQL]

I started it, so of course I will respond.  Even though the thread is being derailed.

[AQL]

Here are a few articles about harassment near the Kabah:

https://stepfeed.com/women-are-speaking-out-about-being-sexually-harassed-during-hajj-8156

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/08/middleeast/hajj-sexual-abuse-asequals-iwd-intl/index.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/02/26/588855132/-mosquemetoo-gives-muslim-women-a-voice-about-sexual-misconduct-at-mecca?t=1555011392335

[QM Moderators Team]

I started it, so of course I will respond.  Even though the thread is being derailed.

ShatteredEmblem,

We responded to your 'Report to moderator' which stated 'Please lock it'. The reason you gave was not acceptable to us, hence we have responded.

Thanks.

[Duster]

Salaam Duster,

I may get lambasted for this but I feel the focus on women to cover is to guard themselves from the attention of men.

Men who I feel are definitely driven by their sexual hormones , much more than women are. As far as I am aware, men get  consumed with sexual thoughts that get triggered quite easily.

God created them that way but maybe their test in that area is going to be harder because they have been ordered to restrain themselves.

Shalom / peace sister ....>>thanks for sharing ...appreciated ....

[AQL]

Here are two videos about Egypt and sexual harassment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNQalkT3Uc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gja05symHkk&t=311s

There is still a culture of blaming the victim, especially when it's a woman. No wonder this problem is not improving because so many people find excuses for men.

[Truth Seeker]

I have said before here that that it is not right for men to leer at women let alone grope them.

Those doing this next to the Kabbah is disgusting and this would clearly break their state of Ihraam.

Again, it's all about personal accountability. Unfortunately this type of behaviour can only be corrected on a macro-level with a multifaceted approach by leaders across the board.

In the videos about Egyptian men..this is a blatant display of the thought processes I mentioned in my earlier post. They are showing you what they are thinking and that's scary.

Scary because in other countries, where there is no such overt behaviour in public by men, it leads me to ask 'are they thinking like this inside?' At the end of the day they are all men.

You can never stop harassment fully even if you cover up in a conservative Islamic manner but I definitely feel that  you can lessen it to quite an extent.

I say this from personal experience as I can compare this to the period of time when I didn't cover and wore a different type of attire.

I don't want to give men a chance to 'look me over' and I feel I can control this somewhat by controlling what I wear and therefore am more empowered because unfortunately I can't force them to look away.

[AQL]

That's good for you, Truth Seeker, if that has been your experience wherever you live. You are entitiled to your opinion and choices. I agree with taking certain types of precautions to a certain extent but as long as men like those exist, it's not going to change/help much. And if a woman, man or child did not take those precautions, it does not mean the rapist/harasser now has diminished responsibility for his actions or the victim has blame.
I've also read that a person is more likely to be raped by someone they know.

Unfortunately, not all women are as lucky and there are cases where they are even harassed in full covering. We should sympathize with them regardless of their clothing. Even prostitutes do not want to be raped. I think more men (and some women) should watch these videos, learn the facts and open their eyes to reality. What excuse do male harassers and rapists have when the victim is a child, an elderly woman or even another man? We need to put the blame where it belongs. On the perpetrator.

Even if men generally do have a bigger problem with their sexuality, it's not an excuse. It would mean men have an even bigger responsibility than women, which many of them are failing at, as we can see.
I agree that it needs to be addressed on a wider scale. Without focus on attire, victim blaming and excuses but real solutions and punishments.

[Athman]

Dear ShatteredEmblem,

Wa alaikumus salaam,

Thanks for your reactions. Kindly see my replies in blue to your comments.

"Surely, God knows that women also struggle."

I do concur.

"Or perhaps it is the way the Muslim community and society at large treats women, their expectations of women, that overshadows this."

Maybe. Given that I don't subscribe to such perspectives, may I please reserve my opinion. My position on this is purely Qur'anic.


"All this surely shows that not everyone is the same. Not all men are polygamous and not all women are monogamous."

Somehow true. As mentioned earlier, in that case, the Qur'an recognizes such differences and provides for/ allows polygyny (not polygamy). It does not sanction it, order it nor discourage it but allows/ provides for it. I understand that we might not agree on this since you see such a provision as just made in the case of fear of unjustly treating orphans. However, if you do acknowledge that polygyny is specifically provided for in the case of unjustly treated orphans, would you then admit that Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) married more than one wife (33:28, 33:59) since he also feared not to or possibly used to unjustly treat the orphans? Will you also admit that the option of one wife is in the context of mistreated orphans (4:3) hence also only applies to orphan related situations? Will you then cite another Qur’anic verse which prescribes for the default one wife in generally other situations where orphans are not the main concern?

As a system, in Islam, marriage life is wholly networked such that one breach of a stipulated directive could lead to a disruption in at least one aspect down the chain of related issues. An attempt to insinuate ‘seeming’ other possibilities could result to a whole redefinition of the structure. You posit, “not all women are monogamous." For the case of the discussion, let’s assume polyandry is provided for. Let’s then theoretically assume a case of a deceased husband of a polyandrous wife. How would she cater for her other husbands’ possible needed attention when on a 4 months 10 days waiting period, according to the Qur’an? How would she even emotionally heal if she is to attend to some other households who may possibly need her presence? Other issues to do with other social domains like inheritance may also come up. Kindly think about this.

"Or that perhaps, the rules were not always the same?"

I do admit that laws could be different amongst nations sent prophets. However, for a particular field of interest, not necessarily that laws should be different. Some laws could still have thrived all along if not overlapping aspects. Otherwise, am yet to even hear from hearsay a case of God acknowledged polyandry case to have ever been there.


"I don't agree with generalizing people."

I concur, people are different. However, as regards certain matters, the Qur'an is specific with the general of a particular group e.g, gender, in this case that of men's 'al-shahawati' to women (3:14). This does not however mean that men have an excuse to entertain lust for women, it is simply an undeniable fact acknowledged by God. Whether one is to accept such a God acknowledged truth is a matter of their faith. After all, with respect to sexual urge, as noted previously, both sexes should exercise self-restraint (wa an taswbiru khairu lakum) - 4:25.


"I don't feel it's fair to just look at the verse about polygamy or even verse 3:14 (isn't the word used there humans/people/mankind?) coupled with society's hypersexual view of men to justify their behaviour, generalize men and women, and victim blame women."

I hope that this is a general statement. Otherwise, as for my stance, I don't think I can put it more clearly than does the verse 14 of Suratul Imran (3). It appears from your approach that you are bent on justifying that anyone who appreciates the fact stated in 3:14 is influenced with certain societal sensibilities. You also misconstrue my position insinuating a masculine 'hypersexual' influence without warrant. Otherwise I do assume that this with the subsequent statement was meant to be general and not what I consider your interpolation of my humble position.

"Also, those are also two separate verses."

I do agree.

"3:14 does not speak about orphans."

Nor did I suggest in any way possible that it addresses an orphan oriented context. In as much as it can be disputed that the two verses are unrelated and do address specific subjects, you may want to appreciate why I presented those verses together. After all, respectfully, it was not my intention to expound the subject of polygyny from the Qur'an. Not that my understanding of polygyny as depicted in the Qur'an is wholly evidenced by verse 4:3. I simply thought that you are familiar with the subject and do recognize the verses where it is generally alluded to. You may want to refer to Br. Joseph's article [1] on this where he argues for a similar stance: an allowance, not a sanction. Furthermore, in light of 4:3, the provision/ allowance also comes with it a proviso: that of enabled justice (al-laa ta'dilu).

"The verse after that actually speaks of "purified spouses" in Jannah which would apply to both, I think you'll agree."

I do concur. However, the context plays a key role in identifying the gender addressed in 3:14. They were possibly men being mobilized into battlefield. A reminder is made as to the temporary worldly treasures that shall come to waste (3:14) then an assurance to the eternal Bliss is guaranteed for sincere believers (3:15). Though this is again reminded of in 8:28 and reiterated in 8:67 as regards the general worldly pleasures (children and wealth) for people, am yet to find out if you accept those people (an-nas) addressed in 3:14 do include 'women' who are also adorned for the lust of other 'women' (an-Nisai).


"Do you think that it is mere speculation based on "pre-conceived notion" that God allowed polygamy because of men's supposed "sexual nature"? Or did I misunderstand your point?"

I also didn't get your point here. Kindly clarify.


"If we are to speak of "pre-conceived notions of their general world views", then it is often society that leads men to believe they are supposed to have hyper-sexual animal insticts with a lack of control, when some decent men would probably take offence to being described as such."

As stated above, my position in this is taken from the Qur'an. The way I see it, verse 3:14 is clear on this. Refer to my response above.

"Men can also be a cause of unwanted attention based on their clothing, so decency applies to them too which is not emphasized as much."

I do not fully agree. It is true that men could also cause unwarranted attraction where possible. Verses 24:30-31 as shared above address both genders as regards lowering ones gaze and guarding ones privates (wayahfadhu furujahum). However, I do not see the elucidatory remarks in 24:31 for the ladies to be an emphasis way far as compared to the directive in 24:30 for males. Rather, I find it elaborating on the extent of their decency/ modesty. As much as equality is cited as an aspect to be considered, I do humbly submit that the two sexes have differences in their body physique and 'attractive pockets' hence a difference to how one can be indecently exposed. Thus, a more natural tendency to cause unwarranted attraction for the females is posed if the prescriptions in 24:31 are not fully heeded. Again, this is in line with 33:59.

Dear sister, with the idea of equality, I am not convinced that this is the Qur'anic concept that establishes within familial or social matters. Rather, I find equity as the theme advanced. Furthermore, while I appreciate your honesty especially with respect to the undermined status of the woman in some Islamic societies, generally speaking, as regards God professed directives and provisions, I have to humbly remind one that there’s sincerity and then there’s humility. Kindly consider this. Islam is a complete system of life that has a balanced structure that should be understood, as extending to the basic rights, responsibilities and provisions in all possible areas of a believer’s life. As noted in my previous response, this should be the basic premise.

Regards,
Athman.

REFERENCE:
[1]. MARRYING FOUR WIVES IN ISLAM
http://quransmessage.com/articles/four%20wives%20FM3.htm

[AQL]

Salam Athman,

Thanks for your response as well.

Somehow true. As mentioned earlier, in that case, the Qur'an recognizes such differences and provides for/ allows polygyny (not polygamy). It does not sanction it, order it nor discourage it but allows/ provides for it. I understand that we might not agree on this since you see such a provision as just made in the case of fear of unjustly treating orphans. However, if you do acknowledge that polygyny is specifically provided for in the case of unjustly treated orphans, would you then admit that Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) married more than one wife (33:28, 33:59) since he also feared not to or possibly used to unjustly treat the orphans? Will you also admit that the option of one wife is in the context of mistreated orphans (4:3) hence also only applies to orphan related situations? Will you then cite another Qur’anic verse which prescribes for the default one wife in generally other situations where orphans are not the main concern?

As a system, in Islam, marriage life is wholly networked such that one breach of a stipulated directive could lead to a disruption in at least one aspect down the chain of related issues. An attempt to insinuate ‘seeming’ other possibilities could result to a whole redefinition of the structure. You posit, “not all women are monogamous." For the case of the discussion, let’s assume polyandry is provided for. Let’s then theoretically assume a case of a deceased husband of a polyandrous wife. How would she cater for her other husbands’ possible needed attention when on a 4 months 10 days waiting period, according to the Qur’an? How would she even emotionally heal if she is to attend to some other households who may possibly need her presence? Other issues to do with other social domains like inheritance may also come up. Kindly think about this.

I find that to be a stretch. That is not the only place in the Qur'an where God talks about marriage. But the verse where "polygyny" is mentioned, God talks about orphans.

I did not say poyandry is allowed or even should be. I said not all women are monogamous, meaning not all women want one man at a time or one man for the rest of their lives. Just how not all men are polygamous or want multiple women. Would you agree with that?

I do admit that laws could be different amongst nations sent prophets. However, for a particular field of interest, not necessarily that laws should be different. Some laws could still have thrived all along if not overlapping aspects. Otherwise, am yet to even hear from hearsay a case of God acknowledged polyandry case to have ever been there.


Perhaps "polygyny" was not allowed in some other time.

I concur, people are different. However, as regards certain matters, the Qur'an is specific with the general of a particular group e.g, gender, in this case that of men's 'al-shahawati' to women (3:14). This does not however mean that men have an excuse to entertain lust for women, it is simply an undeniable fact acknowledged by God. Whether one is to accept such a God acknowledged truth is a matter of their faith. After all, with respect to sexual urge, as noted previously, both sexes should exercise self-restraint (wa an taswbiru khairu lakum) - 4:25.


I hope that this is a general statement. Otherwise, as for my stance, I don't think I can put it more clearly than does the verse 14 of Suratul Imran (3). It appears from your approach that you are bent on justifying that anyone who appreciates the fact stated in 3:14 is influenced with certain societal sensibilities. You also misconstrue my position insinuating a masculine 'hypersexual' influence without warrant. Otherwise I do assume that this with the subsequent statement was meant to be general and not what I consider your interpolation of my humble position.

Of course it's a general statement.
Where did you pull that assumption out of? I also recommend that you keep this respectful. It seems that you are trying to imply that I am dimissing a Qur'ans verse?  Do you remember this verse 49:12?
If God mentions only men, does it mean God does not understand women's struggles and wants? Does it automatically mean women generally do not want wealth, children, gold and silver or men? Unfortunately, there are women who have also played a part in burying daughters and being in favour of sons. It's not a strictly male phenomenon.

I would recommend you also try to understand the wisdom behind the story of Prophet Yusuf pbuh and "Zulaykha".

Nor did I suggest in any way possible that it addresses an orphan oriented context. In as much as it can be disputed that the two verses are unrelated and do address specific subjects, you may want to appreciate why I presented those verses together. After all, respectfully, it was not my intention to expound the subject of polygyny from the Qur'an. Not that my understanding of polygyny as depicted in the Qur'an is wholly evidenced by verse 4:3. I simply thought that you are familiar with the subject and do recognize the verses where it is generally alluded to. You may want to refer to Br. Joseph's article [1] on this where he argues for a similar stance: an allowance, not a sanction. Furthermore, in light of 4:3, the provision/ allowance also comes with it a proviso: that of enabled justice (al-laa ta'dilu).

I am familiar with the verses.
For now, I believe in the interpretation which takes orphans/proper benefits into account. I really don't understand the sort of "Mr Joseph Islam is always right" type of mentality that some seem to have on this forum. Please respect my understanding. I do not find your argument convincing nor did I come here to debate that verse.
Let's agree to disagree.

I do concur. However, the context plays a key role in identifying the gender addressed in 3:14. They were possibly men being mobilized into battlefield. A reminder is made as to the temporary worldly treasures that shall come to waste (3:14) then an assurance to the eternal Bliss is guaranteed for sincere believers (3:15). Though this is again reminded of in 8:28 and reiterated in 8:67 as regards the general worldly pleasures (children and wealth) for people, am yet to find out if you accept those people (an-nas) addressed in 3:14 do include 'women' who are also adorned for the lust of other 'women' (an-Nisai).


"Possibly"?
Am I understanding this correctly, you think the "purified spouses" mentioned in that verse are only for men? Please clarify.
No, if we are going to restrict meanings based on the gender assigned, the subject and object then it would mean verses like 24:4 would also not apply to men who are being accused..

I do not fully agree. It is true that men could also cause unwarranted attraction where possible. Verses 24:30-31 as shared above address both genders as regards lowering ones gaze and guarding ones privates (wayahfadhu furujahum). However, I do not see the elucidatory remarks in 24:31 for the ladies to be an emphasis way far as compared to the directive in 24:30 for males. Rather, I find it elaborating on the extent of their decency/ modesty. As much as equality is cited as an aspect to be considered, I do humbly submit that the two sexes have differences in their body physique and 'attractive pockets' hence a difference to how one can be indecently exposed. Thus, a more natural tendency to cause unwarranted attraction for the females is posed if the prescriptions in 24:31 are not fully heeded. Again, this is in line with 33:59.

Dear sister, with the idea of equality, I am not convinced that this is the Qur'anic concept that establishes within familial or social matters. Rather, I find equity as the theme advanced. Furthermore, while I appreciate your honesty especially with respect to the undermined status of the woman in some Islamic societies, generally speaking, as regards God professed directives and provisions, I have to humbly remind one that there’s sincerity and then there’s humility. Kindly consider this. Islam is a complete system of life that has a balanced structure that should be understood, as extending to the basic rights, responsibilities and provisions in all possible areas of a believer’s life. As noted in my previous response, this should be the basic premise.

Where did I mention equality? Please do not make assumptions about my position. I speak about women's rights, their situation, and the hypocrisy of society which is very much prevalent. Even if you believe in equity or equality, hopefully you agree that, in a general sense, neither of those are being enforced by men in this world.

Of course we will not agree about everything and that is fine. But I believe in what I said. I think decent/modest dressing applies to men as well. I don't believe in the "navel to the knees" mainstream belief.

My main points of discussion were women's sexuality and sexual abuse/rape and clothing being used as an excuse. Not about debating the "polygyny" verse. If you actually want to discuss the problem of sexual harassment in places like Egypt or outside the Kabah or even the west then let's do it.

Salaam.

[Truth Seeker]

Dear ShatteredEmblem,

For now, I believe in the interpretation which takes orphans/proper benefits into account. I really don't understand the sort of "Mr Joseph Islam is always right" type of mentality that some seem to have on this forum. Please respect my understanding.

I strongly feel that there was no need to make the statement you just did regarding Joseph Islam. Our forum members are intelligent and rightly try to research and scrutinize the Quran to the best of their abilities.

If some forum members happen to agree with Joseph Islam's works, it is because his arguments and detailed analysis of the Quran seem convincing to them.

Of course there are a lot of people who respect his large body of work, both on this forum and outside (academics and non academics) but this is purely as a function of his arguments alone because he is completely anonymous.


In fact, there is a whole section on this forum dedicated for critiques and debates which can be found here:

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?board=23.0

[AQL]

Dear ShatteredEmblem,

For now, I believe in the interpretation which takes orphans/proper benefits into account. I really don't understand the sort of "Mr Joseph Islam is always right" type of mentality that some seem to have on this forum. Please respect my understanding.

I strongly feel that there was no need to make the statement you just did regarding Joseph Islam. Our forum members are intelligent and rightly try to research and scrutinize the Quran to the best of their abilities.

If some forum members happen to agree with Joseph Islam's works, it is because his arguments and detailed analysis of the Quran seem convincing to them.

Of course there are a lot of people who respect his large body of work, both on this forum and outside (academics and non academics) but this is purely as a function of his arguments alone because he is completely anonymous.


In fact, there is a whole section on this forum dedicated for critiques and debates which can be found here:

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?board=23.0

I personally find a lot of his articles are reasonable  and make sense but of course I do not agree with all of them/everything he says. Some of his challengers definitely bring good points/arguments as well.
But what I said is how I feel so I said it. It's as simple as that.

It seems this forum isn't so open after all.

[Truth Seeker]

Dear ShatteredEmblem,

I have noticed you make flippant comments on the forum and don't want anyone to pull you up on it. The statement you made to Athman "I really don't understand the sort of "Mr Joseph Islam is always right" type of mentality that some seem to have on this forum" seemed to me to be totally random and made out of frustration on your part. Let alone it not being linked to what he was trying to explain to you, which I actually felt was well balanced and thought out, with lots of references given.

Lets say that there are some people who agree with Joseph Islam on all his points, why does that bother you?  They have that right as you have the right not to agree. After I discuss topics with other members here and they have a different view from me,I don't get frustrated but rather think 'Each to their own'.


You said:"It seems this forum isn't so open after all". I actually feel it is very open but you have to be prepared to be challenged too. We have a code of conduct that is a remit for any discussions here. You have complained about forum members making personal attacks on you, yet you seem to be attacking others here willy-nilly.

[AQL]

Dear ShatteredEmblem,

I have noticed you make flippant comments on the forum and don't want anyone to pull you up on it. The statement you made to Athman "I really don't understand the sort of "Mr Joseph Islam is always right" type of mentality that some seem to have on this forum" seemed to me to be totally random and made out of frustration on your part. Let alone it not being linked to what he was trying to explain to you, which I actually felt was well balanced and thought out, with lots of references given.

Lets say that there are some people who agree with Joseph Islam on all his points, why does that bother you?  They have that right as you have the right not to agree. After I discuss topics with other members here and they have a different view from me,I don't get frustrated but rather think 'Each to their own'.


You said:"It seems this forum isn't so open after all". I actually feel it is very open but you have to be prepared to be challenged too. We have a code of conduct that is a remit for any discussions here. You have complained about forum members making personal attacks on you, yet you seem to be attacking others here willy-nilly.

He is pushing the same interpretation. You may "feel" it wasn't linked but that's your opinion. That part in blue is again your opinion and what you "felt".
Sure, you may "feel" the forum is open but when I say I "feel" something, apparently it's offensive.  Are you actually an admin?
"Challenged"? I've been responding to the people who are responding to me.
Where did I attack anyone? Go on. And I reported one person for personally attacking me BECAUSE THEY DID.
If you are offended over something like this, it's not really my problem.
The issue here seems to be that I do not agree with that interpretation of the "polygyny" verse. Kind of proves my point really.