Accommodating male/female segregation for Muslims?

[Argus]

Yes, not all segregation is the same. Segregating based on gender and age is very common practice in our modern world. Segregating based on race in the old US south was a problem because the races were treated differently.

But segregating boys and girls, men and women, is integral to Islam, and they most certainly are treated differently in all aspects of life. Just look at men in their t-shirts and women in their hijabs and burkas. Look at the Islamic laws around womens value, testimony, inheritance and control of money and children.

If we want people from a socially backward part of the world who have embraced these ideas all their lives to change after they come to Canada we have to start at the beginning, not let them get settled in while we make 'accommodations' to their backward views and change our society to suit their ways.

[Boges]

Also, the comparison to segregated gyms actually doesn't wash, because woman want those gyms, it's not being forced upon them.

And no man ever is going to want to work out in a men's only gym.

[Argus]

Also, the comparison to segregated gyms actually doesn't wash, because woman want those gyms, it's not being forced upon them.

And no man ever is going to want to work out in a men's only gym.

Anyone who actually tries to make the argument that womens are as well off or better off in the Muslim world as in the West has got deep psychological problems. Next they'll be telling us how gays love it in Tehran and Cairo.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Argus

[Big Guy]

At our local golf course, the women get the prime 10 a.m. to 12 noon tee off times. That is totally unfair! They also hit the ball a lot more times than the men. These courses should charge by the number of strokes rather than by the game. This segregation is totally unfair and the men should be accommodated!

[?Impact]

backward views

Backward views are something all religions seem to embrace. Are you suggesting we ban religion? I don't like the backward views of any religion, but we have seen the folly of banning religion before. Who gets to define the progressive views?

And no man ever is going to want to work out in a men's only gym.

Not too long ago there were male only (practice, not rule) gyms, and when women started showing up they were harassed.

[CITIZEN_2015]

It is amazing or incredible to the extend some people go to make hugely false statements as how many people are better off in their own homeland or prefer to live there than Canada. This contradicts all the facts and statistics that millions are in line up mostly from Middle East to come and settle in Canada despite the poor health care system and they stay in line up for years. How many people are in line up to immigrate to Arabia or Kuwait or Syria or North Africa or even the best of the mid east countries such as Iran and Turkey?

And yeah for those with lots of money there is likely better health care in their home which may constitute a small percentage but their God help them if they are poor as a good majority are and can't afford it to pay huge bills and with no social programs in place have to remain sick or die from it........................

Edited August 16, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[Boges]

Not too long ago there were male only (practice, not rule) gyms, and when women started showing up they were harassed.

Which is a concern for women. They're eye candy. So women only Gyms are a thing. Or at least women only sections co-ed gyms.

It's not a religious thing.

[Big Guy]

Which is a concern for women. They're eye candy. So women only Gyms are a thing. Or at least women only sections co-ed gyms.

It's not a religious thing.

Wouldn't be a problem if all the women wore birkinis.

[cybercoma]

Wouldn't be a problem if all the women wore birkinis.

Nonsense. Anyone woman who wears a burkini should be attacked with hatchets and harpoons until she gets sufficiently naked for the men on the beach and "Western" culture. /s

Edited August 16, 2016 by cybercoma

[Boges]

Nonsense. Anyone woman who wears a burkini should be attacked with hatchets and harpoons until she gets sufficiently naked for the men on the beach and "Western" culture. /s

I'm sure you'd be dismissive if a "Western" Christian man or woman told another woman in a bikini to cover up and show some pride in herself.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Boges

[betsy]

Not if you actually follow the Bible.

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife ... both the adulterer and adulteress are to be put to death."

And there's more. Deuteronomy 22 says if a man finds out that his wife is not a virgin on their wedding night, the men of the village must stone her to death. That chapter gets even crazier in that it says a woman should be stoned to death if she's raped in the city and doesn't scream loud enough for people to hear.

Not a lot of forgiveness there.

Only if you were a Jew, who'd lived before The Messiah.

CHRISTIANITY, Cybercoma.....Christianity.

Teachings of Christ. The New Testament.

John 8

³ The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group ⁴ and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. ⁵ In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” ⁶ They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. ⁷ When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” ⁸ Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

⁹ At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. ¹⁰ Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

¹¹ “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Edited August 16, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

The punishment of stoning isn't found in the Qu'ran, but lashing is. Stoning is a punishment found in the bible and practiced by Jews for a very long time; the current Islamic practice closely follows the old Jewish one.

So why do some Muslims believe it's ok to stone people, but most Christians don't? Because people tend to follow what the *leaders* of their religions teach, rather than what is in the actual texts they claim to follow. Muslims use the Hadiths to 'interpret' the Qu'ran, and that's where the support for stoning is. Christians have had a number of leaders who have interpreted the bible in various ways, but most will point to Jesus as being the one who eliminated stoning (among other things) - although Christians will still use it to kill people, as did John Thomas in 2011, when he killed Murray Seidman for making advances toward him.

Islam also teaches that a man should love and care for his wife and a father should love and care for his daughter; part of that love and care is to protect her from other men. I agree that the segregation they employ is overkill, but the motivation is not a lot different from a Christian man who insists that his wife/daughter dress modestly and avoid certain activities and places so that they will not be seen as 'easy' or 'loose' or 'asking for it'.

In any case, the point is that regardless of what the religious texts say, people reinterpret it suit themselves. Sometimes the changes result in more humane actions such as eliminating stoning, and sometimes not - such as condoning stoning. You choose to believe the worst of Islam and you assume that women in Islam experience lives of unmitigated misery, and you are wrong. It is certainly more proscribed than in Western countries, and women do chafe under it's limits - but so did Christian women chafe under similar limitations not so long ago. Merely 60 years ago, for example, my mother could not get birth control without my father's permission. In the Middle East, things are changing - slowly - for the better, if female autonomy is the criteria. Do not let your assumptions blind you to that fact, or the fact that it wasn't so long ago that much of Christianity looked much like Islam does today.

The bottom line: there is a big difference between Islamic countries, and Western/Christian countries.

Obviously, the kind of love that Jesus taught to His followers, is vastly different from the kind of love that Islam teaches.

There is no stoning, or even lashings in Christianity for women who committed adultery. Love is forgiving.

Edited August 16, 2016 by betsy

[?Impact]

Teachings of Christ. The New Testament.

You mean:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:17-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” — Luke 16:17

[CITIZEN_2015]

The difference between middle east and the west is that the former is still a religious region (maybe in 600 years when Islam is as old as Christianity is now it would be different) whereas the west has liberated itself from Christianity as a good majority are not practicing Christians and history have taught them to separate state and religion otherwise it would have been same in the west as it is now in mid east as it was 600 years ago in Europe when Christianity was 1400 years old. So let not compare religions bur rather compare beliefs.

Edited August 16, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[betsy]

You mean:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:17-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” — Luke 16:17

He didn't abolish the law. We still have to follow the 10 Commandments.

He simplified it though, and summed it all up to Love of God and Love of neighbor.

It is frequently argued that if Jesus did not “abolish” the law, then it must still be binding. Accordingly, such components as the Sabbath-day requirement must be operative still, along with perhaps numerous other elements of the Mosaic Law. This assumption is grounded in a misunderstanding of the words and intent of this passage. Christ did not suggest here that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain forever in effect. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term kataluo, literally meaning “to loosen down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (

Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Corinthians 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., “to render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate.”

It is especially important to note how the word is used in

Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, He revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding Himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience under threat of a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10, 13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.

http://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html

Edited August 16, 2016 by betsy

[dialamah]

He didn't abolish the law. We still have to follow the 10 Commandments.

http://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html

Sometime ago, Bryan let us know that nothing in the Old Testament applied, because Jesus. So, do we still follow the old testament, or are we free of that and need only practice love, forgiveness and turning the other cheek?

[betsy]

Sometime ago, Bryan let us know that nothing in the Old Testament applied, because Jesus. So, do we still follow the old testament, or are we free of that and need only practice love, forgiveness and turning the other cheek?

I can't speak for Bryan.

I don't even know if you quoted him accurately....or you might've misunderstood what he meant - which is more likely.

One thing is obvious though, and you'd proven it several times: you hardly understand the Bible.

Edited August 16, 2016 by betsy

[dialamah]

I can't speak for Bryan.

I don't even know if you quoted him accurately....or you might've misunderstood what he meant - which is more likely.

One thing is obvious though, and you'd proven it several times: you hardly understand the Bible.

I will paraphrase, and perhaps that will help you. When it was pointed out that the Bible has some pretty terrible things in the old testament, including some nasty stuff God's people were supposed to do, Bryan explained that because Jesus came, all that stuff no longer applied. Is that your understanding as well?

[cybercoma]

I'm sure you'd be dismissive if a "Western" Christian man or woman told another woman in a bikini to cover up and show some pride in herself.

I would be pissed at them just the same. You know why? Because nobody should be telling other people how they should dress.

[cybercoma]

Only if you were a Jew, who'd lived before The Messiah.

CHRISTIANITY, Cybercoma.....Christianity.

Teachings of Christ. The New Testament.

John 8

³ The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group ⁴ and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. ⁵ In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” ⁶ They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. ⁷ When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” ⁸ Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

⁹ At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. ¹⁰ Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

¹¹ “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Yeah, well Jesus is a hypocrite because he also said in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

But I guess that's the problem with religious books. You can pick and choose the passages that say whatever you want to justify whatever beliefs you have.

Let me know when you find the passage where Jesus tells you to shun gay people.

[cybercoma]

I can't speak for Bryan.

I don't even know if you quoted him accurately....or you might've misunderstood what he meant - which is more likely.

One thing is obvious though, and you'd proven it several times: you hardly understand the Bible.

Do the teachings of the Old Testament apply or not? Or is it just the parts you like?

[Bonam]

Do the teachings of the Old Testament apply or not? Or is it just the parts you like?

They apply when they support the view you had anyway and do not apply when they do not support the view you had anyway.

[Argus]

Sometime ago, Bryan let us know that nothing in the Old Testament applied, because Jesus. So, do we still follow the old testament, or are we free of that and need only practice love, forgiveness and turning the other cheek?

These laws are still valid – but, as we know, they are applied in a spiritual way. The application of the law has been transformed by the coming of Jesus Christ. If our hearts are circumcised, it does not matter whether we have been circumcised in the flesh. If we are offering spiritual sacrifices, we do not need to offer animals.

If we are always forgiving debts and liberating people from bondage, we do not have to do anything different on sabbatical years. If we are treating our livestock and farmland properly, we do not have to do anything different on sabbatical years. If we live by the spirit, the letter of these laws is not required.

If we examine our hearts for corruption and are being cleansed by Jesus Christ, then we do not have destroy houses that have mildew. If our thoughts are pure, we don’t have to worry about our fabrics. If we are always thinking of God and his laws, we don’t have to wear phylacteries. The laws are valid, but the way in which we obey them has been transformed by the coming of Jesus Christ.

https://www.gci.org/law/otlaws

[Argus]

So the question remains: Do we accommodate the growing number of Muslims in Canada in their religious beliefs that men/boys and women/girls should never publicly mix, or do we attempt to persuade them that this is against Canadian social mores and values?

Under Islamic law, it is not permissible for men and women to freely mix or socialize with non Mahram men under any circumstances. Islamic scholars are unanimous on this matter because the prophet of Islam left behind his words: “I have not left behind me any temptation more harmful for men than women”

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Sex_Segregation_in_Islam

[Guest]

Are we all coming to some sort of basic agreement here? I haven't read all of the posts, but it appears that we all seem to think that the more strictly a religious person/religious people follow the word of their God, or their barbaric cultural practices, whatever they may be, the bigger the bastards they are?

That's basically my position.

A woman should never be prevented from wearing a burkina, or a bikini, on any beach in the world.

Edit> In the interests of equality, neither should a man.

Edited August 21, 2016 by bcsapper