They can go outside if they have permission. They are not forbidden.

Could you stop framing it as if women are completely barred from leaving the house? All the need is permission. It's not a big deal.


No I didn't say it was only wahabist countries, go back and read buddy. The middle east only makes up a small portion of the Islamic world.

Yes, millions of women have to ask permission before getting a job, it's a HUGE ISSUE, I'm surprised they haven't risen up and overthrown their evil gatekeepers to job-land.

You now need permission from your aboriginal overlords to go outside. GG.

See how stupid that is?

If there was thousands of years of tradition to support it and it was the norm for millions of people and it was accepted and it worked, then it wouldn't seem so stupid.




Muslims aren't dumb animals that need you to get offended on their behalf you know...

So, are women dumb animals that need to be told what to do in your opinion?

You don't have to join a discussion just to contradict everybody with retarded statements.

An appeal to tradition is a fallacy. If you try to make a point please do not try to say that something's good just because it's always been that way.
I am sure you could think of many things that have been supported by many people for a long time that are actually very stupid. At least I hope you can.

Forcing women permission to go outside is a strong tool of oppression that puts them on a level similar to a child in Western society.
Seeing as you agree with it, please provide arguments why it should be considered just to treat women like they are not capable of making decisions, such as going outside, for themselves.
Do you think it is just when a woman gets punished (I do not know what kind of punishment they will receive as there have been no sources regarding this practice in this thread, but since no one challenged it I assume it's a fact for the sake of this argument) for going outside without permission?

Do you not think that having men in charge of women's daily decisions puts all women essentially on a social status beneath men?
The fact that it is a tradition does not justify anything. You will have to find arguments that would make people agree that it is a good idea to treat women like that, else things will never be changed.

The question is not if Muslims are animals. Please do not make implications like that. It is perfectly possible to criticize a society without calling people in it animals. It is perfectly legitimate to reject traditions as inhumane.

-Jihad is the most misunderstood part in Islam, you don't kill/hate a person just because they are non-believers in god or non-muslims, in fact, in Islam it's compulsory for you to accept the Islamic religion, if you accept it, hooray, if not then it's totally fine.

2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

-Here are the top ten ways that Islamic law and tradition forbid terrorism (some of these points are reworked from previous postings):
1. Terrorism is above all murder. Murder is strictly forbidden in the Qur’an. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted). 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”

2. If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is impermissible in Islamic law. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). Note that this verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD or after and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Quran. Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it.

3. Islamic law forbids aggressive warfare. The Quran says, “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) The Quran chapter “The Cow,” 2:190, says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”

4. In the Islamic law of war, not just any civil engineer can declare or launch a war. It is the prerogative of the duly constituted leader of the Muslim community that engages in the war. Nowadays that would be the president or prime minister of the state, as advised by the mufti or national jurisconsult.

5. The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, ‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ” (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)

6. Terrorism or hirabah is forbidden in Islamic law, which groups it with brigandage, highway robbery and extortion rackets– any illicit use of fear and coercion in public spaces for money or power. The principle of forbidding the spreading of terror in the land is based on the Qur’an (Surah al-Ma’ida 5:33–34). Prominent [pdf] Muslim legal scholar Sherman Jackson writes, “The Spanish Maliki jurist Ibn `Abd al-Barr (d. 464/ 1070)) defines the agent of hiraba as ‘Anyone who disturbs free passage in the streets and renders them unsafe to travel, striving to spread corruption in the land by taking money, killing people or violating what God has made it unlawful to violate is guilty of hirabah . . .”

7. Sneak attacks are forbidden. Muslim commanders must give the enemy fair warning that war is imminent. The Prophet Muhammad at one point gave 4 months notice.

8. The Prophet Muhammad counseled doing good to those who harm you and is said to have commanded, “Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)

9. The Qur’an demands of believers that they exercise justice toward people even where they have reason to be angry with them: “And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.”[5:8]

10. The Qur’an assures Christians and Jews of paradise if they believe and do good works, and commends Christians as the best friends of Muslims. I wrote elsewhere, “Dangerous falsehoods are being promulgated to the American public. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians.
Quran 5:69 says (Arberry): “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness–their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.”
In other words, the Quran promises Christians and Jews along with Muslims that if they have faith and works, they need have no fear in the afterlife. It is not saying that non-Muslims go to hell– quite the opposite.
When speaking of the 7th-century situation in the Muslim city-state of Medina, which was at war with pagan Mecca, the Quran notes that the polytheists and some Arabian Jewish tribes were opposed to Islam, but then goes on to say:
5:82. ” . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers [Muslims] those who say: ‘We are Christians.’ That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.”
So the Quran not only does not urge Muslims to commit violence against Christians, it calls them “nearest in love” to the Muslims! The reason given is their piety, their ability to produce holy persons dedicated to God, and their lack of overweening pride.

It's not an appeal to tradition though, it's an appeal to context.


Right, a child who handles your household's finances and have some of the most equal gender employment in the world, ok mate.



Since we are pointing out fallacies, I guess I should point out that this is a strawman. I never argued that at all and I don't intend to.


Do I think it is just to punish people for breaking the law?

Yes.

Do you think that people should be exempt from laws just because they disagree with the law? Hint: think about the ramifications on a law like rape or murder.

Do you not think that women controlling the household put men on a social status beneath women?

This is the begging the question fallacy. You came up with a predicate that fits your answer. No one ever even theorised that who controls who can get a job predicates social status, you just came up with it as a way to force your argument.


Tradition does justify it though. Forcing other cultures to conform to your own ideals because they are ignorant savages or whatever is not productive.


Wow read the quote again, I literally said "they are not dumb animals". How does this imply that they are animals?

You also just said they are not animals, I can infer from that that you are saying they are animals!! Wow redundant, that was a deep way to say that you think they are animals and that you will continue being offended on their behalf -- assumably until western values have been sufficiently embedded that they will be 'enlightened' enough to provide their own arguments.


Only if you have a legitimate argument. Merely rejecting them because they are tradition is not legitimate, and I won't accept that argument.


I don't think women are any dumber than men, and they certainly aren't animals any more than men.

Do they need to be told what to do? Sure, everyone does sometimes. You won't get very far in life if you get offended when told to do something or refuse to tell other people to do things.


If only people had legitimate arguments that were cohesive and defensible! Oh no how dare he poke holes in our fragile arguments!

Not when there are muslim groups in my city actively campaigning against secularism and want their own religious rules in place. I don't want hostile religious/athiest folk in my community, nor do many other people. That's why I hope UKIP/Front Nationale win in England/France, so there is some serious backing for anti-immigration in the West.

Okay, I see you are starting to pick every line apart rather than writing a coherent text again so I won't respond. I know what I wrote and I don't need you to repeat it. It's a waste of my time and it ruins the format in a terrible way. With a quick glance through what you wrote I could already see that by picking the lines apart individually rather than responding to the whole text you actually took some things out of context or pretended like there was none, thus creating easier targets. It's a very dishonest strategy.
Please learn to write coherent texts if you want to be taken seriously, just a heads up.

You should run for office. You are great at not listening to what people say, replying to something you say they said (that includes quoting out of context), and throwing around rhetorical questions like there's no tomorrow.
Seriously, the information value of your posts is nearing zero. It's just a bunch of text shoved into a blender.