Status Of Women

[pk70]

pk70 wrote:.

• It is divine ordinance that brings about Law, not the

It depends whom you and I accept Divine Laws
2. You provided a quote that talks about the ontological status of woman and man: that is NOT a jurisprudential or legal argument.
Of Course it has nothing to do with political power to abuse people, we are in democratic times, people are able to take care of themselves by hiring leaders for limited times and replace them if needed, they do not want to look into every day issue to be solved by centuries old thoughts so called divine laws, this is the way our scriptures guide, this is our Guru’s Ordinance, they are not limited in their application like woman has the same light as man has, therefore they stand equal. What you call divine law is what laws are made based on Holy Quran, not even written or dictated by Mohammad Sahib; still, you have the right to call it divine law as we call our Guru Teachings are divine laws that we are bound to. These are two different thoughts, pretty much inclusion with each others; that is the reason, why you are Muslim and I am Sikh. Difference is this as per our divine Guru Ordinance, all faiths are as per His Ordinance and we have no problem with what others believe in.
3. You are talking of ordinance for "Guru followers" but you have a socio-political programme: Khalsa Raj. What about non-Sikhs? What are the laws concerning them?

Muslim Bhai Sahib, your Islamic laws have no meaning for the people of other faiths. Neither does our Guru Teachings has, it is a given fact. Basically Sikhism is to progress in thinking while in love with the Only One Creator of all seen and unseen. Who wants to join this religion shouldn’t fear from any so called divine laws that abuse the humanity like stoning, cutting hands off, the brutal and barbarian punishments that are still practiced under divine laws. So if you have concern about people who are not Muslims, show them a height of civility and God given human rights often taken away with force, assured in Islam, otherwise all your concern is a fairy talk

• If that is your wish then create a new thread for a one on one debate and ask the questions. The burden of presenting the case that Islam treats women unjustly is on you.

Look, you asked “proof from scriptures” it has been given but you are still evasive, why should I waste my so precious time on an individual who is shy off quoting his own Holy Quran
2. I am simply questioning the fact that you see law and jurisprudence in ethical and theological statements which are two completely different areas.
Well this was not the issue to begin with our debate, you asked scriptures-reference, I gave and when I asked you reference from your scriptures, you referred another person. If I cannot get answer from you, why should I bother what Islam is all about?

Sikhism has a socio-economic project and I think it would be only fair to give the potential citizens of that state knowledge of its laws or jurisprudential system. If there is no such thing but rather a body of ethical teachings then Sikhs have to cope with the internal contradiction of claiming a socio-political project on one hand and yet lacking the necessary legislative body to carry it out.
Look around, there are many countries, they are ruled under democratic laws not so called divine laws and they have TOTAL freedom of practicing any religion. This is the age we are in, as per your own words, just face it. India is a democratic country, we have rights to practice our religion, no bans what so ever.
India has known the Dharmashastras,Judaism has its jurisprudential system, So does Islam, whereas Christianity opted for a mixture of Judaic and Roman law.
We opted Democratic ways of juristic procedures
If women friendly attitudes in gurbani are to be implemented into socio-political realities how would that be done? and on the basis of what jurisprudential system? That is the question. What would regulate inheritance? Laws regarding marriage? Rights of women to refuse a wedding? Issues of domestic violence etc
Democratic protects all these rights, I have enjoyed through out my life here in US and back in India, no problem, only insecure minds fear of this kind of things, fearless proceeds to face any difficulty comes by.
I am not denying that the Gurus had a woman friendly attitude. What I am questionning is the idea that Sikhism has a jurisprudential system that enables these friendly attitudes to be translated into socio-political realities.
The answer lies in above statement- Guru Teachings is binding for true followers, who go astray; I am not talking about them that population is in every religion.
And btw the Quran is ONE of the sources of jurisprudence, the other is the body of hadiths going back to Ahlul Bayt (as) in which there huge sections on jurisprudence as well as the rules to engage in ijtihad.
That was my question, I want to look at it how human rights and equality of woman in all aspects, is secured in there, or still some them are questionable? Religion is about spiritual progression and growth of thinking , not for controlling people BTW

 

[Astroboy]

The common law (British or American, if I may) is ample enough to give us a day-to-day guidance on issues. It may be different in case of family law in different cultures, in which Women's Right is a part. Since Sikhism sticks to one wife, it is the same as British Law but not the same as Shariah Law.

Why re-invent the wheel when there is hardly any difference between English Family Law and Sikh Family practices?
http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/jurisprudence.htm

 

[tony]

WJKK WJKF

I have been away for sometime but glad to be back. Ive read all five pages of this thread and no one seems to have resolved the issue. So lets try, as far as im aware all the prophets of every religions say the same thing that all are equal regardless of their race or sex, in the Quran Mohamed says the same, yet it is the only book that goes on to say that a man may chastise a women if she does not comply, this i believe was not written by a prophet but by a another man who had no dealings with God. it was put in so as to make it more acceptable to mans own failings and so for the religion to grow. So if the prophets have said we are equal and they speak of what God has told them, please tell me what earthly being has the right or ordasity to question God or his will. No single person or groups has that right to Question his will, only the devil and his desiples would dare. the problem seems to be that women are still being punish for what Eve did back at the start of time and because she failed, it is assumed that all women are the same , Yet in my eyes women seem to be more virtuous that men. It was god that chose Women to give birth to all men, so man should give respect to the one that brought him into this world. Christ was sent to us because of the failings of the Jews, Islam because of the same in the Christians and then Sikhism because of theirs, so is it time for another prophet. I dont think God would bother after telling us so many times, its time to for us to remember what the Prophets have told us, the alternative is the destrution of all mankind because if we cant give the same rights to someone who shares our home what chance is there of affording the same rights to our neighbours. This is not an attack on Islam as Sikhs are as guilty as any one of this injustice. believe in true equality and become another step closer to achieving your seat in heaven. God bless all Women and shame on any man who treats them with disrespect.
Tony

 

[spnadmin]

Nam Jap ji,

First of all thank you for moving the discussion to the plane of reason and temperate discussion. Second -- Your thinking about common law and family law stirs some reflection on my part because in a simple way you have high-lighted multiple layers of issues -- complicated is not the right word.

Common law has changed with the centuries in both Britain and the US. The US takes much of its legal theory from British Common Law as the US was once a colony and after the revolution the country retained what was sensible in the common law. The key idea I want to stress is that the common law changes with the times. So does codified law such as the body of family laws which are legislated. Both countries have historically appealed to a sense of virtue regarding right and wrong that is inspired by God. In other words we are accountable to deeply embedded religious values in the course of judicial practice. The key to what is unique: Both depend on the ability of the common man (man/woman) to come to decisions based on their logical ability to apply a set of laws to a set of objective facts. God does not inspire decisions or speak through judges and jurors when decisions are made. That is the part that has never changed as far back as the Magna Carta when the King of England was forced to sign off on the basic elements of today's notions of justice in the Anglo-American tradition. The right to trial by jury by a jury of one's peers, the right to be presumed innocent, the right to be protected against self-incrimination, the right to habeas corpus (bail) and most importantly the implied and not given right to be governed by consent of the governed. These principles have been violated throughout history but the basic values have been so strong that in the end they prevail. That is why we can protest openly against false imprisonment of political prisoners or torture of prisoners by our respective governments (for example Iraq) without being thrown in jail (contrast what is now happening in Zimbabwe).

On the subject of women -- women under British and US common law and family law are still unequal to men in terms of actual application of fundamental principles. That is a problem of societies not a problem of legal principles. The fact that the legal framework is time-tested and robust is what makes it possible for the law to change. Laws change societies and societies change the laws. When a framework of legal principles (e.g., Magna Carta) remains constant it is easier to change without social disruption and consensus is easier to achieve. Just my thoughts.

 

[Archived_Member5]

Until women become responsible, accountable and reasonable they are accorded as much right as their conduct and sense permits and commands. If all women aren’t equal in conduct, in devotion, in sense and ideology how then, pray tell can society treat all with the same measure of respect. Of course we are courteous to all. But unfortunately I have witnessed far too many men henpecked, nay nagged into dispirited submission to heed any claims from such envious and covetous women frenzied with a will to power their demeanour does not naturally inspire.

All faiths require woman’s submission to mans will, for the Lord husband or Father in her home is not entirely distinct from the God or Lord who rules the nations. Make peace, inspire love, create a swarg like Eden in your home with your governance of love and understanding and the kingdom of the hereafter is yours.

Man is born of woman, nurtured by woman, married to woman and is as successful as or despite the support and love or lack of it from his partner. I have witnessed far too many devoted wives be cast aside for the pursuits and destruction of a matrimonial home and marriage to ever heed any nonsense from these right demanding women.

Each mortal is given as much right as he accords his fellow man, is a beautiful and simple tenet. If woman seeks equality let her earn it, man is as valiant, loyal and fair as the mother, wife and sister inspire in him. It occurs far too often good men are given domineering manipulative wives who enjoy the fruits of a well reared son, whilst the daughters of such good families are married to small minded, jealous oppressive men, themselves creations and victims of the women who raised them.

Love conquers all, heals and cures the most hardened heart, battered women, domestic violence and matrimonial discord have a woman inciting such action somewhere in the picture. Men have lost so many rights, they are dragged to court for the smallest slights whilst the domineering, cunning and spiteful erosion in nagging of man goes unreported and untold, for men being far greater in dignity than women reduced to necessity of demanding of rights than inspiring and earning them ...

Until all are equal in will, mind, and spirit to confer privileges upon those who demand overlooking the dignified and humble do not creates a disparity in society resulting in unfair rights accorded to the weak wilful. The bridegroom and spouse who live in understanding, respect and love for one another and their mutual families are the truly blessed ...

 

[kds1980]

kds1980 wrote:



Then stop your stupid remarks about Islam being oppressive to women because much of that bad stuff that happens to ladies in Islamic countries is based on culture not religion. So please spare me the Fox news rhetorics.

Now back to our issue at hand: we are discussing law and jurisprudence regarding rights of women in Sikhism as given by the Gurus (so the first poster claims).

A typical reply That I was expecting from you.But there is a problem Punjab is not a sikh country neither it is according Governed by laws of Khalsa. but treatment of muslim women is governed by islamic laws in many islamic countries

 

[Javanmard]

Pk70 you still confuse ethics and laws. Pointless. I just had my colleagues over who are professors of law and who read the thread. You guys provided good entertainment. You just didn't get the point. You're still confusing the two areas and you're making amazing grandiloquent statements about Islamic law of which you have no knowledge of appart from the usual prejudiced views of your white masters.
But you have answered my question in admitting that Sikhism has no jurisprudential system and is hence incapable of establishing a Khalsa Raj. All you do is adopt a foreign law system that isn't based on divine principles. Finally you admitted. Khoda Hafez.

 

[spnadmin]

I mentioned a few posts back that the fate of this conversation depends on whether it becomes defamatory of individual forum members. It is not the place of forum moderators to do anything other than enforce terms of service. Please abide.

 

[pk70]

Pk70 you still confuse ethics and laws. Pointless. I just had my colleagues over who are professors of law and who read the thread. You guys provided good entertainment. You just didn't get the point. You're still confusing the two areas and you're making amazing grandiloquent statements about Islamic law of which you have no knowledge of appart from the usual prejudiced views of your white masters.
But you have answered my question in admitting that Sikhism has no jurisprudential system and is hence incapable of establishing a Khalsa Raj. All you do is adopt a foreign law system that isn't based on divine principles. Finally you admitted. Khoda Hafez.

Check out the confusion you have tried to put javanmarad

GURFATEH,
Our gurus have given equal status to women in the society then why women r not allowed to do kirtan in Dabar Sahib, Amritsar.( quote ssgg)
Equal rights for women in Sikhism? Please provide scriptural evidence. I am curious(quote javan mard).

SPN Sangat ji please read quotes of ssgg who started the thread, then javanmard who got curious to know the evidence in Sikhs’ scripture, note it down, scripture-evidence, not divine laws that he later on inserted it to preach that Islam has those Divine laws without being aware of the fact that they are aggressively questioned by people of other faiths. So what is going on?

Again,the thread was started as” equal status of women given by Guru Sahiban”, Javanmarad wanted scriptural reference but later on he dragged it to Divine laws and later on by namjapji Common laws are brought in. Neither divine law in a sense javanmard talks about nor common law has any thing to do with what sggs meant in thread.
The poster is pointing out that when Guru ji clearly states through Hukamnamas (Gurbani) that women are supposed to be treated equally why this fuss? Obviously these idiots are disobeying Guru, I feel they should be boycotted by the public. Guru says His light permeates in them also, in protest Guru also says that there is nothing without women, its she without who nothing moves in human race, it is she who gives birth to so called big guys. This is the only reason, Sati tradition was abolished, widow marriages were started and Sikh ladies were chosen to preach Guru Teaching. Guru Sahib started that too. Why now suddenly “Seva of Harminder Sahib” is not allowed? If Guru is disobeyed, the place where Guru is disobeyed and the people who disobey Guru have nothing to do with Guru.
Answer is very simple, the power is not in the hands of true Guru Followers but in religious hypocrites; Gurbani gives equal treatment but “macho man” mentality and deep rooted nostalgia for old thinking of considering woman inferiors still prevails.

Who is confused? Who is confusing. Where is the focus? What a scholarly entertainment!

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Javanmarad has been in denial eversince his first post which shows how insecure he is in his own faith that he has been hop scotching from one to the other for quite sometimes.

Below are the headlines regarding Muslim women and their treatment by the people of their religion:

1. An american muslim the founder of Bridges TVnetwork beheads his wife in Buffalo NY.
Brutal Irony In New York Woman's Beheading
Brutal Irony In New York Woman's Beheading, Police Say Couple Founded TV Network To Fight Muslim Stereotypes; Husband Suspected Of Killing Her At Office - CBS News


2.Sharia law a danger to women
TheStar.com | Opinion | Sharia law a danger to women

3.Freedom dies as radical Islam advances,It shows dead female victims of honor killings, a kneeling woman in a burqa being executed.www.dcexaminer.com >> Meghan Cox Gurdon

4.I will tell you about another similar horror story.
It's about a Muslim convert who became a polygamist who tortured, starved, imprisoned and beat his three wives and 19 children
More carnage from multiculturalism

This is just the snippet of what happens in the Msulim world daily. What a shame! and people like Javanmarad have the blindfolds on.

 

[Javanmard]

Vaheguruseeker, I suggest you take some classes on Islamic law before posting stuff about that subject. Anyways, I got what I wanted out of you guys. You have been really helpful. Thanks. More than you can imagine.

Ich vermisse die Einsatzgruppen...

 

[Javanmard]

Vaheguruseeker,none of the links you provided have got anything to do with Islamic law. They're just crimes that Islam itself condemns.
As for pk70, how to say it clearly: you are confusing jurisprudence and ethics because you don't know what these things mean. But you have already answered my question. So I thank you for your contribution.

 

[Javanmard]

Vaheguruseeker, honour killings are forbidden in Islam and the other cases you gave links too have nothing to do with Islamic jurisprudence. Deleted

PK70, Deleted I do have to thank you though for having shown me yet again that your "tradition" doesn't have a jurisprudential system that would enable the establishment of a Sikh state.
I thus shall leave you to your folkloric gurdwara fights and saron da sag.
I shall go back to finishing my article whilst listening to Wagner, wondering if the Nietzschean notion of Der letzte Mensch applies to Sikhs and if the Einsatzgruppen shouldn't have been used on Sikhs instead.
Zum Wiedersehen.

Deletions are by aad0002, following 2 thread warnings.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Vaheguruseeker,none of the links you provided have got anything to do with Islamic law. They're just crimes that Islam itself condemns.

Javanmarad,

Time to seek the truth as a Muslim now. Please post the headlines of the newspapers from the Islamic countries who have condemned the News I have posted.

Do not run away this time or ignore the questions as you have done before.

Tejwant Singh

 

[spnadmin]

"Ich vermisse die Einsatzgruppen..."

"I shall go back to finishing my article whilst listening to Wagner, wondering if the Nietzschean notion of Der letzte Mensch applies to Sikhs and if the Einsatzgruppen shouldn't have been used on Sikhs instead.
Zum Wiedersehen."

Interesting case of nostalgia for constructs of a philosopher who was opposed to organized religion. Just wondering. Is it nostalgia or sentimentality?

 

[Javanmard]

Du bist derjenige der hier Nostalgie in meinem Satz sieht, deshalb ist es an dir zu entscheiden ob es sich hier um Sehnsucht oder Sentimentalität handelt.
Zum Wiedersehen.

 

[pk70]

quote]
Javenmard
Thanks for thanks
I just want to suggest, do not take refuge in words in “confusing, confused etc”. that doesn’t convey the substance of the debate either. After having your answer you started zigzagging from on point to another. Regarding Jurisprudence and Ethic, I am pretty much clear; they were brought in just for ( in both ways), you failed to co operate.
I am giving you the dictionary meaning of these two words you brought in debate repeatedly, unfortunately they have no contextual place in the question you asked(now finally you accept that you have got it) Here is the meaning so that all should know, no confusion should be in mind about them;

Jurisprudence
a body or system of laws
a department of law: medical jurisprudence
Civil Law. Decisions of courts, esp. of reviewing tribunals


Ethic
a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture
the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics
moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence
usually used with a singular verb

) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain action

PK70, Deleted I do have to thank you though for having shown me yet again that your "tradition" doesn't have a jurisprudential system that would enable the establishment of a Sikh state.
I thus shall leave you to your folkloric gurdwara fights and saron da sag. quote javanmarad
So slowly you are coming out of disguise, posing as a scholar to discuss but remained slaved of hatred towards others by pointing out others without looking at your own back yard :ice:
Nietzschean notion of Der letzte Mensch applies to Sikhs and if the Einsatzgruppen shouldn't have been used on Sikhs instead.
Zum Wiedersehen.
You have just proved Raj Khalsa's stand was right, smell of garlic goes away hard, enjoy it:u):

 

[spnadmin]

Chacun a son gout.... Have to sign off....

 

[Javanmard]

PK70, as Goethe would say: L.M.A.A.
I feel no hatred for my fellow human beings.

 

[pk70]

PK70, as Goethe would say: L.M.A.A.
I feel no hatred for my fellow human beings.

I have been standing for fair Muslims for whole life, every one tried to convince me” they are the same, just a little smell is different” Today I have realized the truth in their statement, the ones frozen in times have no chance to see today’s light.
You are the one who failed to echo with me in favor of human rights, of course they were not existed in the times of your religion conceived get it?