Status of women in western society...

  • Thread starter Thread starter azc
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 68
  • Views Views 11K
i don't consider polite or impolite way of selling their services for the money. Crux of the issue is interacting with non mahram. The nagnitutde of sin between the job of waitress and cheerleader is a different thing though. Do you have any dalil from Quran and hadith that a woman can do the job such as of waitress wherein interaction with non mahram is too obvious, is allowed . What is the demarcation of halal and haram job in your opinion, clarify it.
The only conversation between me and waitress is only she ask what is my order, and I tell her what food that I want. Nothing more. And there is no prohibition for interaction like this in Islam. For me, halal job is what still in limit of modesty, and the haram is what has out of limit of modesty.
 
Greetings,What a laughable generalisation. Try saying that to the women in my family and see what sort of response you get.Peace
since you are an atheist, i can understand your views... Peace!
 
The only conversation between me and waitress is only she ask what is my order, and I tell her what food that I want. Nothing more. And there is no prohibition for interaction like this in Islam. For me, halal job is what still in limit of modesty, and the haram is what has out of limit of modesty.
will you show me dalil ......?
 
since you are an atheist, i can understand your views... Peace!

NO, actually he does have a point.

Women in the west may be more promiscuous than those in the Middle East, but, the women of the west are way more independent and opinionated than our own in the middle east.

That, is a fact. Sad as it is. It is true. Not just for atheist women, but also of Muslim ones too.

since you are an atheist, i can understand your views... Peace!

Since I have Muslim sisters, who are contributors to the community where I live, I also understand his views. Atheist has nothing to do with it.

Scimi
 
Last edited:
will you show me dalil ......?
My daleel is ..... there is no daleel that prohibit modest interaction between men and women. If interaction between men and women is totally prohibited, then you cannot discuss with sisters in this forum.

Now let me ask you. Why you have prejudice toward people in the West, which you generalizing them in accordance of your opinion?. Why don't you think that there are good people too among them?.
 
will you show me dalil ......?

Umar RA, when he was khaliph, appointed a woman to be in charge of the Market/Bazaar.

Daleel?

Learn your Muslim history, it's all there bro.

Scimi
 
My daleel is ..... there is no daleel that prohibit modest interaction between men and women. If interaction between men and women is totally prohibited, then you cannot discuss with sisters in this forum. Now let me ask you. Why you have prejudice toward people in the West, which you generalizing them in accordance of your opinion?. Why don't you think that there are good people too among them?.
No brother. This is not the proper way of discussion. Plz don't enlarge it if you can't prove your point of view with daleel from Quran and hadith. Fallacious reasoning can't be accepted in a healthy discussion... Now you say why I talk to sisters on forum. So you've completely fallen down ...? You are comparing this discussion on forum wherein we are not watching each other, even not listening each other. Only basis of reading the posts of each other you are trying to justify the interaction of non mahram men with young girls (waitress) wearing (mini) skirt..? Astaghfirullah !!. For your knowledge I tell you, we have several female muhaddisin ra in Islamic history. They would teach the male students behind the curtain. When this teaching is allowed then why this discussion will not be allowed..?....
 
Last edited:
Umar RA, when he was khaliph, appointed a woman to be in charge of the Market/Bazaar.Daleel?Learn your Muslim history, it's all there bro.Scimi
O man ! What you are saying.? Use common sense. You are talking about that Umar RA who even didn't allow women to pray salah in masjid, he appointed a woman market supervisor...? We are discussing about the skirt/mini skirt wearing young girls offering their services to non mahram customers...?
 
Last edited:
O man ! What you are saying.? Use common sense. You are talking about that Umar RA who even didn't allow women to pray salah in masjid, he appointed a woman market supervisor...? We are discussing about the skirt/mini skirt wearing young girls offering their services to non mahram customers...?

Bro,

Common sense is what I am posting, meanwhile you are talking bias, and hard too. I'll explain. Be patient.

Women are allowed to trade in Islam, they can own businesses. In fact, there were women who were trading in the market places of Medina - under the jurisdiction of Umar RA - and Al Shifa RA - the woman - as appointed governor of the marketplace.

You're splitting issues with the whole "mini skirt" comment and this shows how fundamentally incapable you are when it comes to applied contexts.

This thread poses the question of western women in society. Muslim women exist in the west - or are you willfully ignorant of this fact?

Muslim women who live and work in the west will do as they please, and if that means wearing hijaab - and observing mahram, then so be it.

The idea of mahram is a safeguard for personal relations between man and woman who are not of the same family - it does not apply to a public place where one is going to market in search of milk.

Your ability to define mahram is absolutely ridiculous. You seem to think that no man can speak to a woman without her chaperone, period - when in fact this rule only applies to a personal involvement between the sexes.

Sheesh, and you got the nerve to speak to me about common sense? I call it uncommon sense, since you have no idea what it really is.

I'm still waiting for you to prove that satan taught angels lol in that other thread... you come across like a know it all - who when pushed - becomes quite irate due to his inability to actually answer the question.

For the record, here is the post I have been waiting hours for you to respond to: https://www.islamicboard.com/general/134343630-weird-hadith-jummah.html#post2942061 Or will you dodge this as well?

Scimi
 
The only conversation between me and waitress is only she ask what is my order, and I tell her what food that I want. Nothing more. And there is no prohibition for interaction like this in Islam. For me, halal job is what still in limit of modesty, and the haram is what has out of limit of modesty.

Yes, and this does not fall within the rules of mahram, this is something azc doesn't realize.

Scimi
 

Your link is dead, page does not exist.

Scimi

EDIT: during the battle of Uhud, was it permissible for the women to treat injured men who were non mahram?

Answer this bro :)

You will find this is a nuanced subject matter and you are looking at it rather linearly. Your lateral ability is non existent, and you confine yourself to copy paste posts when you fall short.

That's not the way to discuss something.

What you are doing is passing the buck.

Scimi
 
Last edited:
:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Greetings,

What a laughable generalisation. Try saying that to the women in my family and see what sort of response you get.

Peace

On a gut level, most women would have a reactive objection to this question. Because the idea of being "toys" is simply offensive as women. However, I think if we contextualized the discussion in terms of objectification and women stopped to think of the way that affects men globally perceive us due to this objectification in our societies, most of us would understand that we have indeed unwittingly turned into "toys." I think pornography plays a big element in this objectification. However, it is only one in the long list of things in society that have turned women into "toys."

I minored in communication and so for example when I was sitting in my communication class, I had never even heard of "snuff pornography" but when I learned the descriptive details in class, I was aghast. And the way advertisements set up women to be passive and sexual with many times phallic symbols or their legs open negates us as anything but sexual objects.

Also, most women don't want to live or base our value on men's perception, yet women are culturally taught to accept exactly men's perception as determination of our value in Western culture. For example, in Cosmopolitan, laughably a woman's magazine but hardly I'd term pro-women, women are taught to wonder whether they are doing enough to keep the interest of their man with bedroom tricks or how they can get their crush's attention with inane things like wearing a specific brand of lip gloss. And then men wonder why women turn into insipid and needy creatures in relationships - uh?

By the way, there's a common misconception that women, because they are women, are exempt somehow from perpetuating this objectification because it's supposed to be men's domain. Nuh-uh. Women are complicit in this objectification of fellow women because women's magazines are written by female authors who "sell" these types of stories and articles in the magazine geared towards women. And let's for one moment imagine you have a daughter: Would you want her to learn to measure her value by how much a male at any given time likes her? This insanity begins in her preteens, by the way, because there's makeup and provocative clothing style geared towards now that age group and magazines like Seventeen sell the same type of tripe of Cosmopolitan except geared towards a younger audience.

And not only that, if you look at the dating and sexual relationship section of a bookstore (as antiquated as an idea as that may seem in the Age of the Internet) or even Amazon, you'll see that women are again being educated on how to hook a man and keep him or ensnare him into marriage if he's not proposing as desired at a given time and place. And all these self-help books in dating and relationships are geared towards a female audience because they are the primary buyers of the book in the first place. And why? Because men feel free all the time to walk away from relationships because they've been taught that marriage is a sucker's game. And men are not introspective enough to usually perseverate on their failed relationships as women usually do, which means they also don't care about learning from their mistakes in relationships and not repeating them and don't care about marriage because they say, "Why buy a cow when you can get the milk for free?" Yes, apparently, men think so highly of women that they are now reduced to being "cows" in the dating and mating game.

When men are teens, they are encouraged to have sex as soon as possible and take the virginity of their respective girlfriends. But not even think of marrying them because of course these men are told by the media and culture that they are too young and have to learn to fully sow their wild oats before they even think of settling down. But when these girlfriends have lost their virginity to the men and are no longer virgins, then emerges the good-old "Madonna" and the "bad girl" (substitute for the w-word) standard.

For example, in the romantic comedy What's Your Number? the main character is desperately afraid that she's slept with so many men that she's never going to get married until she puts a stop to her sexual entanglements and seriously starts a romantic relationship with the next person. In the movie The Ugly Truth, the main protagonist has not slept with someone for almost an year and that's a barometer of how she's the "nice girl," the kind a man marries. And then in the movie Barefoot, a man finds a virgin with whom he falls in love because of her innocence and child-like curiosity. So, basically, the same culture that has taught a woman to measure her worth by a relationship, teaches her that she's now not good enough because the men she loved took her virginity and remaining innocence. If that's not the definition of being a "toy", then I don't know what is. Also, that thing called Oxytocin bonds women to a man when they have sex whereas men can have sex and immediately move on; in fact, neuroscience studies that I'd looked at years ago proved this and probably is still available on the Internet to peruse on this subject. However, in the absence of those specific studies which I don't want to take the time to find right now, I'm linking to the article, "Sex: Why it makes women fall in love - but just makes men want MORE." (Warning on the article: provocative images.)

Also, whenever there are real and breathing consequences of a relationship, women are the ones who left bearing the responsibility of carrying, birthing, and taking care of the children as single parents when men walk away from these "consequences." In fact, Valerie Polakow wrote an entire book Lives on the Edge: Single Mothers And Their Children In The Other America about the feminization of poverty due to the men not taking responsibility of these children.

By the way, I don't think women ever stopped desiring commitment and marriage despite what "The Cool Girl" trope that Hollywood likes to sell to men in movies (see article "Men: the Cool Girl doesn’t exist, so stop looking for her"). What this means is that women are shortchanged when they feel they can't be completely honest with men about wanting marriage, picket fences, and babies.

Please don't misunderstand as I also liked the point that brother anatolian brought up about Muslim societies as well as we cannot afford to imagine for a second that Muslim societies are free of their share of problematic aspects specific to women as well. However, I don't think we can afford to give an eyeroll either to how women are indeed treated like "toys" in Western society in the name of the hollow slogan "freedom." For example, when I think of or look at the word "freedom", I know as a woman what I'd want is to free of all things that would strive to put me down due to my womanhood and negate my personhood. And unfortunately, in the Western societies that we live, "freedom" is just an attractive catchphrase without any of the accompanying reality of being truly free because we're never free of media's influence, society's judgment, nor male judgment or or even our own imperative biological calculations.

Even when women are able to kick and haul ass, as the women in your family might do (which would be awesome in my view as I personally want and love for women to be strong), we're in the end being treated as "toys" and we frankly don't deserve to be so abominably abused in the name of freedom.
 
With relation to Muslim women rights to work:

It is permissible for a woman to go out of her house for work, but that is subject to certain conditions. If they are met, it is permissible for her to go out. They are:

- That she needs to work in order to acquire the money she needs.

- The work should be suited to the nature of woman, such as medicine, nursing, teaching, sewing, and so on. (personally I (Scimi) believe they make great engineers too, if Maryam al Astrolabiyah is to be cited as an example. In fact, I think these jobs such as sewing suit men as well - did the Prophet pbuh not repair his own garments?)

- The work should be in a place that is only for women, and there should be no mixing with non-mahram men.

- Whilst at work she should observe complete shar’i hijab.- Her work should not lead to her travelling without a mahram.

- Her going out to work should not involve committing any haraam action, such as being alone with the driver, or wearing perfume where non-mahrams can smell it.

- That should not lead to her neglecting things that are more essential for her, such as looking after her house, husband and children.

IslamQA - most likely the very same you tried to reference.

In the IslamQA site - I found this:

[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_light]Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen said: The field in which a woman works should be only for women, such as if she works in teaching girls, whether in administration or technical support, or she works at home as a seamstress sewing clothes for women and so on. As for working in fields that are for men, this is not permissible for her because it requires her to mix with men, which is a great fitnah (source of temptation and trouble) and should be avoided. It should be noted that it is proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I have not left behind me any fitnah that is more harmful to men than women; the fitnah of the Children of Israel had to do with women.” So the man should keep his family away from places of fitnah and its causes in all circumstances. End quote. [/FONT]Fataawa al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah (2/981)

What I find interesting is how he ignored the fact that in Medina, women were trading publicly in the market places and no one batted an eyelid.

Not to mention how women would also accompany men to the battles in order to be nurses - to ghair mahram.

Sometimes, the scholars lose sight of history and talk from a position of haughtiness. They are not infallible.

For the record, a Muslim woman serving a non mahram man at a cafe, his cappucino, is not "free mixing" - but rather, "serving a customer".

Scimi
 
Last edited:
since you are an atheist, i can understand your views... Peace!
Maybe you can understand them, but that doesn't make them right. Science backs up the Muslim view, not the modern Western view. And I say this as a non-Muslim who grew up atheist and studied science and history. The simple fact is that every rising culture in history had strict rules of modesty, and virtually every decaying culture in history lost its rules of modesty. The West is no exception and it had strict rules of modesty before the 1900s and is now in obvious decline. The most conclusive study on this subject is "Sex and Culture" by Oxford anthropologist Unwin in 1934 where he showed that there is 100% correlation between female premarital chastity and cultural development. You can find it here:

https://archive.org/details/b20442580

Obviously the means of preserving chastity is modest dress and proper restrictions on the mixing of the sexes. This is what Islam does, and what every civilized culture in history did. The West is no longer civilized, it is suffering from collective insanity and will soon die a natural death.
 
fschmidt, what a refershing post from a non Muslim.

I agree with you on the decline of empires. I was just reading Cormac O'Brien's book, The Fall of Empires. And though he doesn't particularly make a point of lewdness and promiscuity being a contributory factor to the fall of any empire, he does mention it as a by product of a failing one.

I find that very interesting.

Thanks for sharing with us, your POV. I appreciate it.

Scimi
 
Who is "she" ?

With relation to Muslim women rights to work:

It is permissible for a woman to go out of her house for work, but that is subject to certain conditions. If they are met, it is permissible for her to go out. They are:

- That she needs to work in order to acquire the money she needs.


She was wondering how she could afford the rent now her father was not working anymore, and realised she needed a job to support her family

- The work should be suited to the nature of woman, such as medicine, nursing, teaching, sewing, and so on. (personally I (Scimi) believe they make great engineers too, if Maryam al Astrolabiyah is to be cited as an example. In fact, I think these jobs such as sewing suit men as well - did the Prophet pbuh not repair his own garments?)


She got a job part time working in a cafe, as a Barrista.

- The work should be in a place that is only for women, and there should be no mixing with non-mahram men.


Her colleagues were all women, and the manager was a man but he sat in his office and didn't interfere with the daily grind. Pun intended.

- Whilst at work she should observe complete shar’i hijab.- Her work should not lead to her travelling without a mahram.


She wore the uniform, of which, a hat with the Costa Coffee logo on it was worn, hiding her hair due to health and safety and hygiene reasons. She had no idea she was observing hijaab. Being an introvert, she would keep her conversation with customers limited to simply their order.

- Her going out to work should not involve committing any haraam action, such as being alone with the driver, or wearing perfume where non-mahrams can smell it.


Being an introvert, she kept herself to herself on her journeys to and from work. She didn't like to attract attention so she would not wear scents to attract others with.

- That should not lead to her neglecting things that are more essential for her, such as looking after her house, husband and children.


She was looking after her family...

...But was she a Muslim?

Curve Ball.

Scimi

EDIT:

The only conversation between me and waitress is only she ask what is my order, and I tell her what food that I want. Nothing more. And there is no prohibition for interaction like this in Islam. For me, halal job is what still in limit of modesty, and the haram is what has out of limit of modesty.

DING!!!!
 
Last edited:
Women should have the right to dress up and work whatever job they desire to do. Same goes for men. They shouldn't be pressured and even less so punished for dressing a certain way or doing a given job. Many women will naturally choose to dress 'decently' while others will dress scantily. Some will choose to be cheerleaders and others will choose to be waitresses or nurses or scientists, and so on.

I take issue when people, especially men, try to pressure women into doing certain things or dressing a certain way. I also take issue with men who view women as toys, and unfortunately, these men exist in every culture and society that I know of. It has a lot to do with some men being a bit too hormonal and thinking with their hormones rather than with their brains. :facepalm:
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top