Posted by Illuminati on 5/7/2005, 5:19 pm, in reply to "Re: More Miracles in Islam" This argument gives a blanket statement regarding all women in all Western civilization. If it were correct, there should be no exceptions in Christian lands since it would be considered sinful for a women to rule over a man or to make contracts on her own after marriage etc. However, I doubt anyone during Queen Victoria's reign ever thought she was her husband's property or questioned her ability to make contracts. If there were a theological ban on powerful women, then her power and reign would have been considered antiChristian. I'm unaware of any theological objections to her coronation as queen. To the contrary, it seems that as queen she was the head of the Anglican church. That the relationship between men and women in Western society has evolved and continues to evolve is a historical reality. That Christians consider themselves bound by a statement in the Hebrew scriptures from 3000 years ago to view women as property is simply not correct. The author fails to recognize the evolution of theology in the Judeo-Christian tradition over the 3000+ years it has existed. Also since Christianity has respected the difference between theology and civil laws throughout most of it's history it is an oversimplification to try to connect civil laws today or in the recent past directly to Biblical laws given to the nation of Israel. In summary I believe some of the criticism of JudeoChristian theology is warranted. The full understanding of the equality of women legally and morally has taken time to develop and did not spring fully developed from the scriptures from the very first page. On the other hand the trojectory which led to the relative freedom of women which they have long enjoyed in Western Society was begun early in the history of Judiasm and was strengthened in Christianity. Islamic society has turned out much differently for several reasons:
206.206.120.230
1. "It is of interest to note that this Biblical instruction concerning women's vows has had negative repercussions on Judaeo-Christian women till early in this century. A married woman in the Western world had no legal status. No act of hers was of any legal value. Her husband could repudiate any contract, bargain, or deal she had made. Women in the West (the largest heir of the Judaeo-Christian legacy) were held unable to make a binding contract because they were practically owned by someone else. Western women had suffered for almost two thousand years because of the Biblical attitude towards women's position vis-à-vis their fathers and husbands.
1. Because Islam believes the Koran is God's very words there is no room of evolution of the religion. The understanding of women today is just as it was in the 7th century.
2. The Koran commands coercion and physical force including beating to compel a woman to obey her husband. In Biblical Christianity wives were asked submit to their husbands voluntarily out of love and in return the men were asked to love their wives as themselves. There was no mention of coercion or force.
3. Islam is committed to polygamy whereas Christianity has rejected polygamy for many centuries. Rather than "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" as the Jewish and Christian husband considers his wife the Islamic wife is just one of several serving her master.
4. The Koran and hadiths teach women are mentally inferior to men in verbal abilities and in common sense. This is a teaching which is not found in any Christian denomination of which I'm aware.
5. The hadiths teach the bulk of inhabitants in hell are women. This leads one to the conclusion that the probability for any woman to reach paradise and avoid hell is much less than that for a man. Not only are women degraded on this earth but they are dammed for the future. There is no such teaching in Christianity.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread