Looks to be an excellent survey, and as we can see puts to rest the concept this is a popular Muslim practice.
It clearly is an African practice, and I note that e.g. in C. I. the animist connections. Also note in re Mali, the most orthodox Muslims, the northerners, have lowest incidences or do not practice.
I also note confirmation of my speculation that the Arabian peninsula practice is N.E. horn of Africa derived and in those populations.
I hope we can put that bollocks to rest then, and return to the OP. Sheesh, how did we get from make-up to female circumcision?
My fault combined with istara. I mentioned sex manuals, she linked to one online from the medieval period, but (somewhat poorly) translated by a Frenchman in the 19th century. Then our Canadian joined with the ignorant irrelevancies noted.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm :
Some of the excerpts from the link are weak. Others are compelling.
Drabble, it appears you are still dwelling on the sex manual prescribing “dryness”. Perhaps it would help to acknowledge the fact that this is a historic document. It predates c1850. No indication is given that it is still given any credence in modern Arabic societies.
I wager I could find an American manual from the same period (or later) that makes equally bizarre assertions about sex. However, it wouldn’t cast any aspersions on contemporary American society; the aforementioned sex manual is equally irrelevant to modern Arabs.
I actually meant to ask you about that, if you had read the original. Is it substantially different from that translation, and if so is the meaning much altered?
(I’m wondering if the original word for “dry” wasn’t quite the meaning we have of it?)
Have not read the original. Can’t say I am an aficionado of medieval sex manuals. I get the sense of the translation from the English presentation and a few phrases given. Inconsistent. Similar issues are standard to translations of the era.
Typical of the demagogue, you didn’t cite the Bible itself, but some other source with an agenda. I asked for an actual citation from the source and you didn’t have one. Your link reveals its agenda with such whacko statements as “Adam later asserts his authority over Eve by naming her.” So I guess every woman who has named a son has thus ordained men to be inferior to women, at least by your logic.
And besides, you have dodged the original question entirely. I said “cite an actual passage that says a woman’s worth is less.” Not who wears the pants in a relationship. If women’s lives are worth less, why do we routinely sacrifice the lives of men to save women? Why the “women and children first” mentality? If we actually said women were worth less than men, we wouldn’t prefer to let men assume the greatests risks.
Warmed-over feminist claptrap is so out of date. Is it now fashionably retro?
Satisfying Andy Licious, your venom amuses me to no end. I am hardly a demagogue; I expressly acknowledged parts of the site I linked to were weak.
The rest of your argument is equally humorous.
**Take a deep breath and recall that elfje’s original assertion related to the content of the Koran vis a vis the content of the Bible. Your contention about the “women and children first” mentality is worthless; we are SOLELY concerned with a statement of fact as to the content of two religious texts.
And do not speak to me of “dodging the original question”. Perhaps it would avail you to remember the original assertion was posed by elfje. I merely supplied a cite to help further your discussion.
It would also assist you to closely to closely read elfje’s assertion:
**Your reading appears to be deficient. Carefully note that elfje does NOT assert that the Bible says a woman’s worth is LESS than that of a man. A reasonable reader will clearly understand that elfjecontends that the Koran makes a positive statement that both sexes are equal, while the Bible DOES NOT make such a statement.
It is difficult to prove a negative. If you take issue with elfje’s assertion, perhaps you could make an attempt to show where the Bible does in fact make a similar statement to the Koran on the equality of the sexes.
Or you could try attacking me. :rolleyes:
It’s an interesting world in which objecting to stale, discredited man-bashing constitutes venom, but if that’s the world you prefer living in, just curl up with your dogeared copy of “Sisterhood is Powerful” and let the bitching commence.
What you are solely concerned with is talking around the issue. You just said absolutely nothing.
What elfje originally said was “A lot of followers of the two other monotheist religions seem not to know that the Qu’ran (spelling?) advocates that a woman’s worth is as much as a man’s. Unlike the Old and/or New testament.”
Read this until you understand.
No wonder you can reach such whacko conclusions and have no moral qualms about championing whacko sites like the one you linked to. For the record, what part of “Unlike the Old and/or New testament” don’t you understand?
It’s impossible to prove a negative, but you weren’t asked to and you darn well know it. You were asked to supply proof that the assertation is accurate.
Typical rhetorical trick – trying to change the topic. I didn’t ask you to show me where it said they were equal. I asked you to show me where it said women are worth less than men. Can you comprehend the difference? Please don’t reply until you manage to understand the question: cite an actual passage that says a woman’s worth is less.
Yep, any time I see a purveyor of ignorance and gender stereotyping, I’ll attack you. You think that’s wrong?
It occurs to me that the problem with mud-wrestling pigs is that (1) pigs like the mud; and (2) you inevitably get dirty.
I’m typing this extra slowly – two fingers, no more – so as not to further more confusion.
elfje did not assert that Bible says that women are worth less than men.
His or her assertion was two-fold:
(1) That the Koran makes a positive statement that both genders are assigned equal value; and
(2) That the Bible does not make a similar statement.
As proof, allow me to quote him or her again:
**So please desist with your braying for a cite that the Bible says a woman’s worth is less than a man’s worth.
Because elfje didn’t claim that.
–
Incidentally, trying to paint me as a feminist and purveyor of gender stereotypes against men will get you absolutely nowhere. OTOH, it’s pretty funny and everyone enjoys a good laugh.
Thank you, Narrad for taking up this debate on my behalf.
You’ re correct in what you say, i did not mean to state that the New/Old testament states that women are less than men, only that the Qu’ran says that women should have the same worth as a man, and that a lot of followers of the two other monotheist, do not seem to realize that the Qu’ran is, comparatievly speaking, more progressive than either the New or Old Testament.
Satisfying Andylicious. you were asking for a cite, or passage in the bible that states a woman’s worth is less (which is not what I asserted, but fair enough):
":18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. "
so she’s is an addition to Man, even her name says so.
and then this:
"3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;
3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.
3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. "
So not only does God say that her husbans will rule over her, Adam even names her. Like a pet.
Nie, huh?
All quotes from Genesis.
Then I’ll keep my reply brief to minimize the mud I get on me.
Based on your arguments, you do most things slowly. It’s okay. Society is more accepting of your type these days.
It’s cute that you tried to quote citations supporting that claim, and when your answers came up lame, you are now trying to claim that the argument was never made!
You learn this dishonest thinking in women’s studies class?
–
You’ve obviously laid down with those dogs, so you’ve got some of those fleas. Don’t blame me if folks see you scratching.
Wow! Man wants company. You’ve really blown the lid off the patriarchal conspiracy there, elfje.
Oh, I get it. Adam engages in name calling.
The bastard!
[quote]
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
[quote]
So Adam wasn’t content with the goats!
You have mastered cutting and pasting. You have yet to master thought or argument.
And this is saying she is worth less exactly how? Or are you just taking your women’s studies courses on a sort of religious faith?
The part “they shall be one flesh” sort of argues for an equality – if you wanted to see it.
I figured you’d get near to an argument sooner or later.
So this passage says the man will rule over her. Show me how this says her life is worth less than his.
So Adam undergoes the same punishment as his wife, even though he is less culpable.
Gee, I thought you were going to argue that men are valued more, but if you want to continue in this vein, be my guest.
Brevity is the soul of wit, elfje. You’re being pretty witless here.
Unless were supposed to jump up and rail against the “patriarchy” because of herbs and thistles.
Elfje is the cut-and-paste Energizer Bunny. Just keeps going and going …
Maybe I should start pasting in random passages from The Federalist Papers and claiming it supports my argument.
Did you ever name a child?
If so, does that mean the child has the status of a pet.
Go back to the thick-ankled, man-hating, victimhood-coveting women’s studies prof who foisted this crap on you and tried to at least get a more cogent version of the pap she’s peddling.
Satisfying Andy Licious, cupcake, precious, I’ll give you a summary. After I do so, you are free to break my post into small context-free nuggets, which you can respond to with irrational insults and blind argument.
Mmm-kay?
(1) elfje makes an assertion that the Koran states that men and women are equal, but the Bible does not make such an assertion.[sup]1[/sup]
(2) Andy does not refute the assertion, but instead pretends elfje is claiming that the Bible says women are worth less than men.[sup]2[/sup] Alternatively, Andy doesn’t pretend to misread; he simply can’t process plain language.
(3) Realising this either a wilful or simply ignorant misinterpretation of elfje’s assertion, but still thinking it will lead to an interesting discussion (ha!), I post a link to a site which (i) presents passages from the Bible; and (ii) claims that these show that the Bible values women less than men.
Carefully note that, (i) I do not claim ownership of the arguments made; and (ii) I expressly state that while I found parts of the linked site useful, others parts were weak.[sup]3[/sup]
(4) Andy froths up, accuses me of dodging the question and being a demagogue and a feminist,[sup]4[/sup] failing to understand that (i) the question wasn’t even posed to me, I was trying to assist the debate with a link; (ii) I happily acknowledged the linked site was inconclusive; and (iii) I am a man and what I understand about feminism could be scribbled on a Post-It note.
(5) I point out Andy’s misreading of elfje’s original assertion.[sup]5[/sup]
(6) Blind, Andy decides that I’m a man-basher, a purveyor of gender stereotypes, and yes, I’m still a feminist. He additionally refuses to acknowledge that he blantantly misread elfje’s statement.[sup]6[/sup]
(7) elfje confirms that Andy misread his or her original assertion. (But goes on to argue the case nonethless.)
–
Now, Andy, remember the suggested course of action! – break up my post into context-free chunks and reply to each with an irrelevant insult. (“I know you are, but what am I?” is a good one!)
Be especially careful to REFUSE to acknowledge you misread elfje’s assertion and PRETEND that I (being the man-hating feminist) am championing the statements made at the site I linked to. Froth, misread, pretend – and fight the good fight for oppressed men everywhere!
But sorry, I’m done with this here pig-wrestling.
Footnotes:
(1) Elfje: “A lot of followers of the two other monotheist religions seem not to know that the Qu’ran (spelling?) advocates that a woman’s worth is as much as a man’s. Unlike the Old and/or New testament.”
(2) Andy: “All right then, cite an actual passage that says a woman’s worth is less.”
(3) Narrad: "http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm:
Some of the excerpts from the link are weak. Others are compelling."
(4) Andy: "Typical of the demagogue, you didn’t cite the Bible itself, but some other source with an agenda. I asked for an actual citation from the source and you didn’t have one…
And besides, you have dodged the original question entirely. I said “cite an actual passage that says a woman’s worth is less.”"
(5) Narrad: "And do not speak to me of “dodging the original question”. Perhaps it would avail you to remember the original assertion was posed by elfje. I merely supplied a cite to help further your discussion. …
Your reading appears to be deficient. Carefully note that elfje does NOT assert that the Bible says a woman’s worth is LESS than that of a man. A reasonable reader will clearly understand that elfjecontends that the Koran makes a positive statement that both sexes are equal, while the Bible DOES NOT make such a statement."
(6) Andy: "It’s an interesting world in which objecting to stale, discredited man-bashing constitutes venom, but if that’s the world you prefer living in, just curl up with your dogeared copy of “Sisterhood is Powerful” and let the bitching commence. …
No wonder you can reach such whacko conclusions and have no moral qualms about championing whacko sites like the one you linked to. For the record, what part of “Unlike the Old and/or New testament” don’t you understand?"
Um, guys, can we get back to the original OP? If so, one thing I’ve noticed about Middle Eastern women where I live is their beautiful hair. Usually, it’s very long, dark brown to black, frizz-free, and shiny. Most of the men have the same gorgeous hair but it’s short. I’d like to know a couple of things: are there special hair preparations (shampoos, conditioners, etc) only known in middle eastern areas that deal with harsh conditions? Or is genetics the main answer? The weather is starting to get quite hot and humid and my hair is starting to grow sideways.
Please someone, if you only knew how hot and humid Northern Virginia weather can get, you would let me know before my hair turns into a puffball.
I live in Northern Virginia, I have very fine, lightweight long dark hair, and Avalon Organics (the “volumizing” products) are very good to my hair. I haven’t had any hair problems since I started using them.
alot of muslim men and woman wear kajal/kohol/surma or in the west l’oreal liquid eyeliner
We’re off to a false start already. Elfje said the Koran “advocates that a woman’s worth is as much as a man’s.” Not that men and women are “equal.” The idea of men and women being “equal” would not have occurred to the ancients because to us it means equal in a democratic society. They had no democratic societies. Indeed, they had slavery. The only conception they would have had of “equality” would be “being the same,” and it’s obvious to anyone except the most diehard feminist that women and men are not the same.
I asked elfje – or anyone – to support that assertation. No one has. Flame me all you want, but you are supporting a position you cannot cite any proof for, which is the hallmark of ignorance or bigotry.
You linked to a cite with some pretty shoddy and ideology-driven screeds. If you linked to it without believing in it, just to stir up discussion, that is known as “trolling.” Actually, I don’t think you were trolling, you just picked a half-assed source and now you’re trying to say that we shouldn’t hold you accountable for the sources you cite. No go. If you cite half-assed sources, it’s a reflection on you.
Then that would be a better practice for the “Mundane, pointless stuff I must share” forum and not one called “Great Debates.”
I mean, you tossed in a bunch of bilge and got called for it. What precisely is it you are protesting?
So you chose to “assist the debate” (I’ve never heard that one before) by citing a screed from one side of the debate.
Perhaps you might want to rethink this “assist the debate” thing.
And what you knew about feminism was enough to serve up a big ol’ plate of whacko stupidity.
Did I misread elfje’s post, or is elfje backing down from an unsupportable position? Besides, any reasonable reader can see the inference contained in elfje’s words.
And neither you nor elfje have posted anything to support your trite, androphobic claims.
–
You know a unique subset.