Can a women lead a congregational prayer with men and women mixed behind her?
-
Just to make sure I got this right, you're saying that the physical movements standing, bowing and prostrating. Are not Quranic?
Please explain, why does the Quran mention these movements? Metaphorical?This is the wrong thread for that.
If insted of such long crusades for women clothing, menn who indulge in them did their "own" crusade for men's self-control they would be better served.
Indeed.
Also I would like to add The dress of women, and what's going on in the mind of men, are two different things.
This absolutely most important thing for anyone, is to manage ones own mind. If one let's ones own mind run amok, then this will often end up in bad things in many different ways. Negative thoughts, indulgent thoughts, angry thought, victimhood thoughts etc etc, are all detremental. If someone cannot avoid thinking about sex when seeing women, then that person has ALOT of work to do in regard to his/her thought habits. The worst situation one can be in is when you fail to prune and shape your mind. When you're slave to your mind, you're slave to advertisement, media, gossip, emotions, hormones, memories... and your life will be an unpleasant roller coaster. In a sense, you will be insane... in a very, very common way.In any case, blaming one's ideas, thoughts and mental pictures on someone else is the same a purchasing victimhood and slavery wholesale. In fact, If we don't realize that we need to watch our mind, and regulate it, and also go to work on it, then we'll simply drift in any direction the winds will take us.
The mind is just like the body, a tool to be used properly. Just like we need to keep the body in shape, the SAME is true for the mind. We need to weed our mind from devilish crop ups! These things crop up all the time... because we are human beings!
If a man walks passed a half naked woman, the state of his mind dictates what he will think and imagine. Her body is NOT the thing that creates thoughts in his minds. We are all solely responsible for our own minds. IF you cannot help but to imagine certain things, well, that's mental weakness... you're slave to your own mind. But we have power over our minds IF WE CHOOSE to.
... anyhow
-
Man of Faith,
In the end the Quran tells us that conjecture is not the same as knowledge. Your way is the way of conjecture. I sincerely advise you to come to knowledge and not conjecture.
As for you calling me sectarian. You have got to be kidding me. nope SMH, give me a break!
Salam
-
Hi,
It was not only talking. The act that happened is that he posted a youtube film of a woman of whom you can see half of her nipples.
Maybe I am a little bit old fashioned but I think it was not such a good idea.
yes and it's not my business how one clothes him/herself.
shooting some one in the head is totally different from shooting your own head.
Those who shoot themselves are shooting themselves, if you can not understand this then there is not much to discuss with me.
If they are are forcing you to dress beyond what you think is modest then that's a other thing, then you have the right to fight for your rights and I will offer you my help if I can help in some way.we build a society together, as a community, not as individuals
individuals form families and families form communities, i believe we can't remain silent if someone is trying to cause trouble in the lands, the mischief makers have to be kicked out remember? it's in the quran
i consider groups like femen, satanists, CIA and USAID and other such agencies, institutions like holywood, to be mischief makers
-
I think You are missing the whole point of what the Qur'an does. And you are confusing being mother with being homemaker. Women are physiologically enabled to become pregnant, deliver creatures and suckle, me are not. Women are physiollogically enabled to wash dishes and pans and iron clothes and clean, but so are men. Men are not one bit less able than women to do any of that, and if the pans are heavy even better enabled than most women. And in fact, historically, men have done all household chores. Till not very long ago, men were domestic servants doing all that. When I was in Egypt in fact there were still many being domestic servants. The women = homemaker does not come from biology but from bourgoisie and bourgeois middle class. High bourgeois had domestic servants. For lesser middle class bourgeois they assigned the woman as the house servant with a level. First class house servant, the wife, or the mother or the daughter.
And with the industrial revolution, work, which was usually done by craftsmen or craftswomen in their houses or in shops adjacent to their houses or very close by, enabling the whole family and the whole neaighbourhood to lead a life in common, work then, what is called productive work, become suddenly, and I would say brutally, cut off from family and neighbourhood life, creating a chasm for the poorest classes of society.
That "productive" "environment" is the one that has been imposed since then on all societies, breaking up families, not because women go to work but becaause the structure of production and labour was changed so that anybody working would be broken up from his or her family. And it has been so effectively implanted in all collective minds that now that structure seems as the only one posible or admisible, as if it was God imposed. And we have to put up with a lot of nonsense on how women working (women have alway worked and many times very heavily, but they have not always being paid) has destroyed the family? But the family was very effectively destroyed with the industrial revolution where men (then also women and children) were taken off their families.
The talk about hunting is ridiculous. Hunting is and was not an everyday job, not by any long stretch, and propably neither all the men went hunting nor all the women did not hunt; and there were many other jobs like gathering vegetal food which were as far as it seems carried out by women and which was obviously not done within the home but rather anywhere ad any distance from the home; and there were other things, like makig tools. But never mind, because now we are so far from that life that it makes no sense for such a thing to be brought up.
So much for the home making.
Forcing on women the choice ?either you stay home and serve us men ?homemaking? or you put up with doing everything and paying for everything inn the home and outside the home and taking care of the children?. (Although we do not know whether such men who put that dainty choice to the women still insist on being fathers of the children or not it does seem that they simply become another child to be maintained and brought up by the woman (wife I suppose we should understand) like all her other kids. I suppose the woman?s reaction to that should be to cry ??Please don?t, please don?t, I will be good, I will be good!?)
In fact, without being given any choice at all either with gun or without it, many women have had to do that, for the father as well as for the children or just for the children and that has happened even when women did not have any legal right to practically anything and not by their choice but by being left without ay choice.
I find it ashtonishing that that way of life which is so much boasted about of being islam is so happy with adopting the worst moral debacle of a civilisation which was the industrial revolution which enslaved first the countries where it happenned and then all the others. ?Oh yes, the pinacle of family life and human liberation!
Eat pig or die. That is more or less the kind of thing that is offerd to women in the scheme put forth by hanslan.
So now we are in the clear men who uphold that social structure inherited from the industrial revolution do not care that they are cut from their family provided they get good service by the ?wife? or the idiotess of the moment. Family is just good for breaking women aspirations and putting them in their place but for us men, please leave us in peace with our industrial revolution working conditions and working hours and the hours back and forth from work and all the external obligations of work because we are prima and happy, completely happy, with not seeing that much of the family.
Never mind that women are not pregnant or deliver or suckle children their whole life or that if they do not want to suckle they can do so and that even if they do all that and while they do it, it has never prevented them from working, and even working very hard and has never prevented them either from being exploited against their will with no family loving men coming to their rescue.
And all along, in this scheme of things, it seems that that is the only choice posible Women, all women, if they are truthful or loyal, must, either choose to be homemakers and treat husbands as a big child competing with the other children for attention and service (is it husbands only or is it any man?) or otherwise they must accept to be exploited in the home (having children and washing dishes and cleaning floors being one and the same thing) and being also exploited outside the home, while men are treated as spoilt useless invalids who if they do not go hunting are good for nothing.
Some speak about realism bu then come up with improvements o actual tyrany that leave one wondering what else can be imagined in order to make things more complicated than they already are.I have known plenty of men who have worked (price of living in this age) outside but who were great fathers, who did not exppect to be served but themselves were always ready to serve the women and the children and any family member or neighbour. For them there was not such a thing as putting a gun to any person, least of all a woman, and tell them ?choose between bad and worse?. That was why they (the men) were there, to prevent that in their presence any such thing as abusing women or children or anybody occurred. Those men, those who do not demand but give and protect, those are the qawwamun, those are the ones that deserve respect and that, when they are dead, are remembered with tears and prayers, because they indeed were a pre-sight of paradise and I am sure that even in the intimacy of God they continue to pray to Him for us whom they left in the earth.
SalaamSalam Huruf, I think you have mistook or expanded whatever I've written into something you believe I meant. I do believe biological constraints and inherent strengths in sexes leads to natural roles meant to be assumed, but whether it is equitably played out depends on the individuals. I also dislike the idea of taking men/women to be in-house servants in a private household because its like keeping slaves despite paying them as in most cases these people cannot have private lives.
My main point remains women can lead a congregational prayer - Quran does not prohibit it. I also believe due to sectarian tendencies, a woman led formal prayer will just be another sect among the many out there.
BUT to make it very clear, I do not believe in a formal congregational prayer currently practiced in the mosque especially Fridays thus this issue becomes irrelevant to me. I personally do not find supporting guidance from the Quran.
Nonetheless, a simple prayer saying thanks, requesting fortune and general protection in a private or public gathering/seminar/classroom/stadium/dining room/ restaurant/ etc led by anyone is fine.
Peace.
-
Salaam Hanslan,
You say
Salam Huruf, I think you have mistook or expanded whatever I've written into something you believe I meant. I do believe biological constraints and, but whether it is equitably played out depends on the individuals. I also dislike the idea of taking men/women to be in-house servants in a private household because its like keeping slaves despite paying them as in most cases these people cannot have private lives.
I still do not agree with "natural roles meant to be assumed" if you expand it beyond what is biologically determined or beyond what the Qur'an itself states.
As it is, the Qur'an does something marvellous from the point of view of human kind and is that it gives complete freedom to arrange the own lives with the least number of constraints possible. Any constraint imposed by men (or women) beyond what the Qur'an provides is overstepping God limits, God Who has so wisely formulated everything concerning us in such a way that we have a very wide room to lead fruitful lives, diverse lives, and enables each personn to become whatever her or his faculties and apsirations allow. Giving "roles" beyond what God provides is constraining people, an unwarranted tyrany. I do not think that God will not also ask us whether we did not act as tyrants to our fellow human beings.
As to the domestic servants, no, they ar not slaves, they carry out a job as decent and respectable as any other job. I am surprised that you come up with such a thing and at the same time do not realise that you yourelf sort of attach such a condition as God given to the women without any salary and without any qualms, or what again is a homemaker?
How well treated are domesstic servants of course depends on the moral condition of the employer and on the social conditions reigning in the society at the moment. If there is scarcity of domestic servants there is not much likelyhood that they will be abused, all they have to do is go out the door and to another house where they will be treated better. And if there are too many of them and people who emloy them have no morals very likely they will be abused. But if the employer has moral, the most likely thing is that they will be just another family member. What you say about living-in, that does not have to be so. Along history there have been the two kinds, linving-in and not living in. And it continues so today. If some are living in, it is because it is more convenient for them, they spare housing, and meals, have company... If they want to live on their own or with their own family, then they may do it with the same employer or changing employer. That would be a question of the labour market. Domestic service today is well protected by laws. Certainly no reason for them to be abused or treated like slaves... -or like a 24-7 homemaker.
You said
I think you have mistook or expanded whatever I've written into something you believe I meant.
No, I do not believe you meant that, I do not think you mean any at all of the bad things I have mentionned in answer to your post. In fact I believe the opposite, I believe that you are a considerate person and that you mean no abuse at all.
Also domestic service does not have to be a luxury. There are many instances where it is needed an not for luxury but for a quite normal modest life, or where it is the best choice for family or individual problems or situations.
BUT I also think that you do not realise the full import of what you say. You have an ideal in your head, but then what comes out written does not seem to match it and I am not making a criticism of you but of what may be understood from what you say.
There are already enough militants of the "keep women in their place and men with their privileges" doctrines that they should get reinforcements from other sides who may not want to do that but who might do it as "collateral".
Salaam
-
As it is, the Qur'an does something marvellous from the point of view of human kind and is that it gives complete freedom to arrange the own lives with the least number of constraints possible.
it gives the freedom to study the world around us and build a society and a system based on our observations
-
Peace,
From where did you get this "mushrik" image?
Sorry for the late reply. I made it myself.
-
This is the wrong thread for that.
Indeed.
Also I would like to add The dress of women, and what's going on in the mind of men, are two different things.
This absolutely most important thing for anyone, is to manage ones own mind. If one let's ones own mind run amok, then this will often end up in bad things in many different ways. Negative thoughts, indulgent thoughts, angry thought, victimhood thoughts etc etc, are all detremental. If someone cannot avoid thinking about sex when seeing women, then that person has ALOT of work to do in regard to his/her thought habits. The worst situation one can be in is when you fail to prune and shape your mind. When you're slave to your mind, you're slave to advertisement, media, gossip, emotions, hormones, memories... and your life will be an unpleasant roller coaster. In a sense, you will be insane... in a very, very common way.In any case, blaming one's ideas, thoughts and mental pictures on someone else is the same a purchasing victimhood and slavery wholesale. In fact, If we don't realize that we need to watch our mind, and regulate it, and also go to work on it, then we'll simply drift in any direction the winds will take us.
The mind is just like the body, a tool to be used properly. Just like we need to keep the body in shape, the SAME is true for the mind. We need to weed our mind from devilish crop ups! These things crop up all the time... because we are human beings!
... anyhow
another absolutely most important thing to do is follow the quran and dress modestly
If a man walks passed a half naked woman, the state of his mind dictates what he will think and imagine. Her body is NOT the thing that creates thoughts in his minds. We are all solely responsible for our own minds. IF you cannot help but to imagine certain things, well, that's mental weakness... you're slave to your own mind. But we have power over our minds IF WE CHOOSE to.
we are also responsible of how we dress
biology is biology, whether you like it or not
unless you pump men full of estrogens they will stare, look and have thoughtswomen do the same by the way, but you never mention women
when i go outside, the vast majority of the men do not wear skin tight clothes that show camel toes and almost full tits
your post reeks of apologizing for dressing very lightly and to throw personal responsibility out of the window
-
I fear that we may be drifting off topic here.
However at the same time these arguments presented indirectly answer the question asked at the beginning.I agree that men are responsible for their own thoughts, if they imagine anything sexual when they see women, then they're the ones at fault.
However, what's wrong with doing so?
I do not see any problem with having a sexual desire, especially not if the women whom I desire to make love with is appealing.
Her wearing provocative clothing only strengthens my desires. Even if not meant provocative (which I doubt, how do you define provocation?) they know that the sex drive in most of the men will be triggered.The following is simply a medical exlpanation, in now way pronographic
Just because I get an errection because a women raises my sexual drive, doesn't mean that I'm going to have intercourse with her.
Controlling desires does not mean not having them at all, and I don't want to be accused of being primitive or wrong in any way just because I get these desires.
However, I also don't want these desires to be provocated when dealing with God, worshipping God.This is the wrong thread for that.
I disagree.
The question of this topic was "Can a women lead a congregational prayer with men and women mixed behind her?"
in order to answer this question we need a common definition of the word "prayer". How do you answer a question if the very question itself is subjective? -
If somebody feels that he cannot do whatever it is, prayer or woork or anything else with other people being around, then that person should do it on his or her own. obody forces nybody else to pray with others.
I can't see what it is that makes buttocks of men les arising or troublesome than buttocks of women, are they made of gold or what?Derivig this thread to provocative clothes does nothign to clear theinitial question but it clear a lot concerning some males minds. And they pretend that they speak in the name of all men. That is a manifest lie. They always want a perk over the women, finally they ar made of fire while women a made of dut, so they cannot be at the same leve, right? They get aroued because they need to keep their perks and that is the tool that enables to prohibit the women to do what they want to do only themselves. It is not that sommon prayer is not possible becaue of women bodie but it is that that the women bodie makes it possible for them to keep their perks when the women bodies do ot helpthem to that they can be around women bodie wll right with no trouble.
I assume they will have the opportunity to explain to God how hard hey worked to imagine women leading prayers in provocative clothes and how thy defended they defended their perks with such courage and decision.May God save the perks of the creature made of fire from the creature made of dust.
The clear the question. Women would not want to share prayers with such beings made of fire, but with real men. Men who believe in God and the prophets and who want to follow the example of the prophets and not their power thirst and obessions.
Salaam
-
I can't see what it is that makes buttocks of men les arising or troublesome than buttocks of women, are they made of gold or what?
The reason why women (estrogen) have so much fat around their buttocks and thighs is in order to emphasize those parts.
Because men are attracted to big buttocks.
Potential partner selection by women however is not only limited by physical attractiveness, but is a complex system containing multiple factors (such as socioeconomic status).
https//books.google.de/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SxX4gRzOS6oC&oi=fnd&pg=PA267&dq=female+partner+selection+evolution&ots=Bh2q4D2LxN&sig=N_mVNTwNKemQshk8eHBBxseglFk#v=onepage&q=female%20partner%20selection%20evolution&f=false
Amazing book explaining it in a clear way.Men (Testosterone) focus almost only on physical attractiveness.
Derivig this thread to provocative clothes does nothign to clear theinitial question but it clear a lot concerning some males minds. And they pretend that they speak in the name of all men. That is a manifest lie. They always want a perk over the women, finally they ar made of fire while women a made of dut, so they cannot be at the same leve, right? They get aroued because they need to keep their perks and that is the tool that enables to prohibit the women to do what they want to do only themselves. It is not that sommon prayer is not possible becaue of women bodie but it is that that the women bodie makes it possible for them to keep their perks when the women bodies do ot helpthem to that they can be around women bodie wll right with no trouble.
Interesting how you interpret the devil is fire men are clay verse. I interpret it in a similar way. However I do not see gender in it, I see nationality in it. I am turkish, you are kurdish, I am better than you. I am german, you are turkish, I am better than you. The reason many people build mental walls between themselves, nationalism (or simply put arrogance).
However, I do not see men and women as the same, as explained above, even the way that we choose our partners clearly differ, that doesn't mean that I see men as superior, I just see them as something different. Different sexual organs, different responsibilities. Men can get women pregnant and leave, what is a woman who is left pregnant in a third world country without any outside/financial help going to do?
Leaving a woman like that is a bad thing to do, no questions there, however he can do it. A woman has different responsibilities towards herself. -
However you ee women or men does not bind anybody. It is you particular poit of view. To me it is pure nonsense. Not in the sense that women could not stand men's buttocks but in the sense that men can perfectly stand women's buttocks unless it is convenient for them not to do so. It is amazing how men that are so vulnerable to comen's attractivenss get sbsolutley cold if they are likely to endanger some interest of them.
Spare us the theater please. We know men, we know women and we also know that there are not men and women but individuals each with his or her own characteristics. Please do not come here with a collective alibi for anything. One is old enough to know betterthna that.
But if it so, just get out of the way and do not make people dissapppear that are in your way to impose your wants. Do not make wome dessappear, dissappear yourselves, those male, only those males that seem to find women's presence so dangerous.
That nonsense gets boring and does not enhance the respect for those who parade it.
The Qur'a does not support that nonsense. See sura Yusuf and foster self respect for men instead of maken of them such a pitiful picture. Do you think that you are the only one that knows men and women. We know thousands of them too.It is not that you are making us learn about martians.
You just want to keep your perks.
And that great, great fiding about women having faat there in order to emphasize those parts o that men find them attractive? That is really diagnostic. For what other reson would women have bigger buttocks inn general than for the realking of the universe the cnetre of everything, the male. It could not possibly be for any other reason, so what those buttocks did not think that they would spoil the males' prayers.
And the fat of pigs, is it also to make themselves attractive? And the lac k of fat on some mens buttocks would make them less attractive? What would have Yusuf tosay to that?
The humn male the centre of the universe around whom all turns and women must suvbordinate any dinity they may have.
If most men were the way you are depicting mny women would dispair, it is so pitiful... Thank God, you are saying what some men's minds are not what men's mind are. You keep speaking. I know many men do not like that kind of nonsense any more than I do.
I would suggest that men would just propose to buttocks and forget about the woman. That would set clearly things from the strt and avoid a lot of confusion and divorces and problems.
But at any rate, if SOME men feel they are not comfortable with women and them praying in the ame place, let them pray by themselves in place that are called male only. Women forbidden and charge only to themselves whatever cost that entails.
Salaam
-
I would suggest that men would just propose to buttocks and forget about the woman. That would set clearly things from the strt and avoid a lot of confusion and divorces and problems.
Huruf, you're awesome. Made my day laugh -
However you ee women or men does not bind anybody. It is you particular poit of view. To me it is pure nonsense.
Listen to all arguments with an open mind, pick the best of available options/ideas. I'm not telling anyone that my perspective is the best, it's up to the reader to decide. If you disagree, that's fine as well.
Not in the sense that women could not stand men's buttocks but in the sense that men can perfectly stand women's buttocks unless it is convenient for them not to do so. It is amazing how men that are so vulnerable to comen's attractivenss get sbsolutley cold if they are likely to endanger some interest of them.
All individuals have a different libido. Their sexual drive which is mostly genetics, is aroused by sexual stimuli. In almost all males the responsiveness is highest during puberty. After puberty it decreases, for some it decreases a lot, for others a bit less.
It can be raised trough intake of testosterone or through a healthy livestyle in general.Vulnerable to women's attractiveness?
It seems like you misunderstood what I said. Being sexualy aroused does not mean that you want to have sex with someone. It means that the body is lusting for sex. The mind however can simply say no. I am not a victim of my bodily desires, however that does not mean that I do not have these desires.It's like when fasting, when you see food, your desire to bite into an apple, or your desire to drink water increases.
And when I say desire to eat/drink, I do not mean having thoughts like "Oh boy! I would love to have a sip of that water!"
I mean your mouth instinctively salivates. Your body reacts to the sight of food/water. Your mind however ignores it at best as you can, this is known as freedom of will.Same goes for sexual desires, the mind says no, the body says yes(which is a good thing and should be accepted by oneself, I will never think badly of myself because my body gets aroused by women).
Did you know that women who get raped get aroused physically? Saying no is an insult towards all the women who have openly spoken about this. They are mentally experiencing great fear, however the body does react. Swelling of certain parts of the body (not getting too graphic, I'll stop here) and getting wet so that the "tool" is slippery and not rough. It's not because they are enjoying it, it's a bodily reacting to a penetration. If you get touched, whether you like it or not, your body is going to react. Same thing happens to a guys body when being confronted with sexual stimuli, which does not need to be mental, just the sight of buttocks can be more than enough for some men.Spare us the theater please. We know men, we know women and we also know that there are not men and women but individuals each with his or her own characteristics. Please do not come here with a collective alibi for anything. One is old enough to know betterthna that.
You're dissing quite a field of science.
I can give some references if you're interested.But if it so, just get out of the way and do not make people dissapppear that are in your way to impose your wants. Do not make wome dessappear, dissappear yourselves, those male, only those males that seem to find women's presence so dangerous.
I'm not forcing anyone to leave. If a woman insists on praying in front of me, then so be it, I can't force her not to, I will take my leave, however, if it turns out that I was right and she was wrong, and she was fighting for her "ego".
Well, God is ruler of all things, we will be judged for all the things we've done/intended.
However, why feel offended when saying that I am sexually attracted to you? At most you can simply say that you do not have an interest in me(which I probably wouldn't care about anyway, why care about the interest of a woman whom I won't engage with?) however you can not tell me to not find you attractive, that is like telling a homosexual to stop having an interest in their own sex.That nonsense gets boring and does not enhance the respect for those who parade it.
Again, dissing a whole field of science, nobody's forcing you to believe it.
The Qur'a does not support that nonsense. See sura Yusuf and foster self respect for men instead of maken of them such a pitiful picture. Do you think that you are the only one that knows men and women. We know thousands of them too.It is not that you are making us learn about martians.
The Quran doesn't support a lot of things, however it does order us to enrichen ourselves in wisdom. So it indirectly does order us to delve into this realm as well. Or are you going to legislate smoking and say the Quran never tells you not to smoke?
You're being very unscientific, dissing ideas simply because you dislike them.
If you want to honestly critizice this field of science, then at least confront yourslef with it, I've hinted that this field exists, my knowledge is limited, there are many people out there who could argue for this position far better than I can. Let us at least be respectful towards those who spend their days/weeks/months researching this on a scholarly level by not resorting to sarcasm.You just want to keep your perks.
I don't even know how to reply to this. It's just so wrong and you just keep insisting it to be the case.
Do you by chance have some sort of mental wall? An inferiority complex by chance? No offence, simply asking.
I do NOT see women as lower beings, how often do I have to repeat this? My dedication in life is to music, I play the piano, I love art and poetry.
Many of the people whom's works I admire are female. The most beautiful intellectual in my opinion the pinacle of mankind artistic works are sometimes by women. I have full respect towards them as human beings.And that great, great fiding about women having faat there in order to emphasize those parts o that men find them attractive? That is really diagnostic. For what other reson would women have bigger buttocks inn general than for the realking of the universe the cnetre of everything, the male. It could not possibly be for any other reason, so what those buttocks did not think that they would spoil the males' prayers.
No actually, it was so that they could get a bigger field of men who are interested in them, and choose the best partner/husband out of that field of men who desire to have intercourse with them.
It was at most an egoistical evolvement, just as all of evolution was.And the fat of pigs, is it also to make themselves attractive? And the lac k of fat on some mens buttocks would make them less attractive? What would have Yusuf tosay to that?
I don't know.
I don't know.The humn male the centre of the universe around whom all turns and women must suvbordinate any dinity they may have.
I never said that, nor do I think so.
I see women as intellectual individuals who can archieve just as much as men. However, in order to not be blinded by my own bodily desires, I prefer them to wear modest clothes and be polarizing in their attributes, the same way that I am trying my best to be do so myself.When attracted towards a person, one unwillingly/unconsciously changes oneself's behaviour, speaking in a higher pitched voice is just one of many examples.
If most men were the way you are depicting mny women would dispair, it is so pitiful... Thank God, you are saying what some men's minds are not what men's mind are. You keep speaking. I know many men do not like that kind of nonsense any more than I do.
Good for them, however you misunderstood most of what I said.
I never said that men want to have intercourse with women. It's their body that wants to do so.
Do you see human beings as mere shells? Don't you see the soul behind humans? That's what I try to see when speaking with women, therefore I don't want our shells to be interracting. I have a certain feeling of dignity and respect towards her soul and therefore ask of her to lower sexuality, so that we can heighten our rationality.A little secret between you and me.
If you ever get married, your husband will not magically lose his sexual desire towards other women.
Does this mean that he wants to have sex with other women? No, it does not!Same goes for my future wife, just because she's married to me does not mean that she won't be sexually attracted to other men.
However I plan on marrying a human beeing, not a monkey who has sex with everything that they find attractive, therefore it doesn't bother me all too much.I would suggest that men would just propose to buttocks and forget about the woman. That would set clearly things from the strt and avoid a lot of confusion and divorces and problems.
No comment.
But at any rate, if SOME men feel they are not comfortable with women and them praying in the ame place, let them pray by themselves in place that are called male only. Women forbidden and charge only to themselves whatever cost that entails.
Well then, let me ask you a serious question.
What difference does it make if women are praying behind men?
Is their prayer any less valid?If I were to kindly ask you to pray behind me, because I find you attractive and I do not want to waver in my thoughts, would you say no and directly afterwards get into contact with God?
Let's say that I am, as you imply, a weak pathetic human being incapable of controlling my own desires. Does that mean that I no longer have the right to pray in a mosque or any other congregational gathering? What if I believe that to be more desirable by God and I want to do the right thing?
Do I lose my right to get into contact with God in the way that I consider to be right, would you strip me of those rights and afterwards calmly get into contact with whom you consider the most mercifull, who can see all our intents?Take care.
-
?Scientific my foot!
Don't lecture me. You, the kind of men who do that, turn a mere question of worshipping into a full bloown discussion on libido. You are sick, definitely sick. Turn the question of prayers into a question of sex. Yu are definitely sick. And don't tell that men this or that. Do not run that rick on me. I know men, better than you it seems.
I suppose that now that we are getting into the question of men, it is much more to your liking to have you buttocks wide in front of some man interested in men. That is also scientific, insn't it? that men interested in men get aroused by seeing nice men buttocks. You know how men are... It is not mental it is physical. That should be much better than getting those automatical women buttocks that automatically switch any scientifical man on. We all love science. And buttocks science tops it all. Every man who goe to pray in a mosque should get previously a real good lecture on buttocks science. Tht should make everything so much more intereting.
I was gong to request the moderators to change the subject of this thread into a thread on the sexual arousal of the males, but having founf out that it is a subjct that promotes science so much I am doubtful. it might be good to get a real dose of buttocks science.
Science and miracles. It is a real miracle that some men produce the feat of turning anything concerning women into a a debate of women's clothing and libido of the men. And not just once, but many times, over and over and over, and ?it is so unbelievable! they do not tire of it. Science! Let science explain that. Real miracle are they!
Well, I leave you all in scientific peace pondering on the force of the buttocks. The force is there ?Buttocks force! ?Buttocks force forever! ?Buttocks for President!
Tatachaann tatatachaaan!
-
I suppose that now that we are getting into the question of men, it is much more to your liking to have you buttocks wide in front of some man interested in men. That is also scientific, insn't it? that men interested in men get aroused by seeing nice men buttocks. You know how men are... It is not mental it is physical. That should be much better than getting those automatical women buttocks that automatically switch any scientifical man on. We all love science. And buttocks science tops it all. Every man who goe to pray in a mosque should get previously a real good lecture on buttocks science. Tht should make everything so much more intereting.
I thought you didn't want me to lecture you.
I never mystified the buttocks like you are doing right now.
I even explained why we are attracted to the buttocks, it's nothing mystic.
I've said this on another thread. The gluteus is simply a muscle. Just like every other muscle it has a purpose (movement of the pelvix, straightening our body). We choose our partners based on their physiques. A heterosexual man is never going to be attracted towards another man, no matter how awesome his physique may be. Why should he? It's not like he can get him pregnant.I was gong to request the moderators to change the subject of this thread into a thread on the sexual arousal of the males, but having founf out that it is a subjct that promotes science so much I am doubtful. it might be good to get a real dose of buttocks science.
The very subject itself was suggesting this theme.
It was obvious the moment the question was asked. We never drifted off-topic.
Can women lead a prayer?
Yes, why not, equal rights for all!
No way, men will get arroused.
A sane muslim will argue why he chooses his position, the Quran wants us to be open-minded and not simply follow the decision of a crowd, as it tells us not to rush in taking positions, we will be responsible for ourselves.Oops, did I lecture you again? Nope, this is called a conversation.
Science and miracles. It is a real miracle that some men produce the feat of turning anything concerning women into a a debate of women's clothing and libido of the men. And not just once, but many times, over and over and over, and ?it is so unbelievable! they do not tire of it. Science! Let science explain that. Real miracle are they!
If it is concerning women, well it's pretty obvious it's going to turn sexual.
We are talking about a SEX after all.
Women are a sex, men are a sex. We are willingly differentiating, what did you expect? What kind of conversation where you expecting?
The topic itself was sexual/sexist.?Scientific my foot!
Don't lecture me. You, the kind of men who do that, turn a mere question of worshipping into a full bloown discussion on libido. You are sick, definitely sick. Turn the question of prayers into a question of sex. Yu are definitely sick. And don't tell that men this or that. Do not run that rick on me. I know men, better than you it seems.
"Don't lecture me?"
So you want people to simply say yes you are right?
Everyone who disapproves of your opinion has to remain silent?
Ever heard of the word communication?
Or the word debate? One in which you actually try to take the perspective of the other person into consideration and reply with the intend to provoke thought?"I know better than you"?
Amazing argument, well I'm done writing with you, I'm not going to lower my level to such childish "conversation is war" mentality.
I even offered you references so that the structure of my understanding becomes a bit more clear. Giving insight into my mind.
You never did the same, never tried holding up a conversation.Take care of yourself.
-
. You are sick, definitely sick. Turn the question of prayers into a question of sex. Yu are definitely sick. And don't tell that men this or that. Do not run that rick on me.
More likely that you are delusional, at least at this very moment.
Take a look at our comments.
Throughout the whole conversation you had a belittling attitude, being sarcastic, attacking my comments with sarcasm, making fun of what I said, instead of actually attacking the argues I've presented.And all of a sudden, even though you are the one who had an attitude,
comes a reaction like this in which you explode.
Yes I must be very sick. -
Whatever yous say. I can see very well that your weakness is not lack of words .
But you still are guilty of turning a spiritual question concerning women into a clothes show and a humillianting disdain for the core of the question and of turning it into a parade of libido.
You can call me whatever you want, I am used to that and immune to it. But you really must disdain women much when you think that I am delusional while at the same time you keep equalling women to a clothes question and turning the question of prayers into a matter of men's (SOME MEN'S) libido.
Your words are insulting even if you think that it is perfectly ok. But they are insulting, yours and those of all others who automatically turn any vindication regarding women into a clothes battle and a libido context. Your lack of seef asurance and of those who express themselves like that must be awful to need so much at all times to be the navel of the world and to think that anybody cares about their libido when they speak about prayers and communion with God. Talking about delusion...
Salaam
-
Let's cool it down a bit. In my opinion, simple as it may be, I see some valid points but that doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusions being drawn from such points/the ways it goes from there is solid.
Buttocks. Right, other than the word itself being satisfying to say or write...is not a valid response in regards to women praying in front of men. Any sexual thoughts arising from women's movements other than a strippers pole and that sort of stuff is solely to be blamed on whoever has these thoughts. On the flip side, whether it's women or men deliberately enticing the audience into having sexual thoughts is a situation that can be blamed on both. This is a concept that apparently some find hard to swallow. It must be the one enticing to blame. This can go further into different scenarios...leaving sexual attraction aside, how much someone is culpable for enticing and is the other helpless in the face of such enticement. Whether it's towards sordid tales of sexual adventure, criminal acts or even suicide.
In short, intentional enticement is wrong, unintentional is on the one imagining it. A woman could be cleaning and cause feelings of intense excitement in a man because she was stretching her limbs and her buttocks! Quelle horreur. In cases of deliberate enticement, blame is on both depending on the nature of the enticement and the circumstances of the individual parties. We are here talking about adults in control of themselves, not children or those with impaired faculties. And if seeing a buttock (is it single or plural? buttocks?) rising and falling for an adult causes impaired functioning of the sort that causes them to lose focus to the extent of forgetting what they're doing then they need to take themselves in hand or book an appointment to see a professional. No pun intended.
There is a real danger in such which can be readily seen in the world today. Policing people especially women (which is a hard fact) due to imagined sexual perversions and controlling situations just because they may cause men to lose their tops and 'get excited'. It is ridiculous, but a reality sadly.