Separation of women

[Aapa]

Assalaam walaikum,

Yes, after having had to be in environments where I was working with men I am now not going to be able to go back to that. It is too stressful.

Isn't it funny that the mixed sexes environment brings out the stress level. Women compete for the attention of men. In a single sex environment..there is just fun and none of that nonsense.

Do not get me wrong. I like men. However, life is so much more fun when you spend time with women and save time your own men-folk.

 

[alf2]

:salam2:

To be honest, I embrace the separation of genders that occurs in Islam, and this is coming from a culture that worships and idolizes sexual relations. I have issues in my life that I am dealing with, and I don't need the added distraction of trying to impress some woman too.

But then, I've always been a bit phobic of women. Probably why the vast majority of my female contacts have been internet/telephone. I get all goofy around women and become this socially inept stumbling dork, which doesn't do much for my self-esteem.

So by not having women around, I don't have to worry about that part. I can just concentrate on becoming a better man.

I do get lonely sometimes, but I try to remember that this is the way it must be. I have priorities, and finding a woman is not one of them right now.

I love the seperation of genders too.
Even if people dont really agree with it, its for our own good.
I no longer believe men & women can be just friends.

Surely, Allah subhana wa ta ala knows best for us when we do not.

 

[hayat84]

just to laugh.I don't like nor men neither women;I only like my sweetheart.

 

[Aapa]

Assalaam walaikum,

This is progress. We understand the absoulute need for the separation of the sexes. It is for our own good. And when we are blessed with the company of men that our allowed to us, it just makes us love them more. We see the best sides of men.

 

[septithol]

Asja wrote: The brief answer is that Allah made men to have a natural inclination towards women and gave them power over the females. He made women to be naturally inclined towards men though He made them weak and soft in nature. Hence, when free mixing occurs between women and (non-Mahram) men, its effects result in bad intentions, since the human self is inclined towards evil and (carnal) desires make a person blind and dumb, while Satan commands people to do indecent and evil things.

Sam Colt pretty much put an end to men having power over women. Anyone who truly wants to prevent men from doing evil things to women will give the woman a gun and teach her how to use it. Anyone who won't do that, and does something else instead, has bad motivations, either they want to oppress women or they want to leave numerous opportunities and excuses for men to be able to do bad things to women, or both.

 

[Asja]

Asja wrote: The brief answer is that Allah made men to have a natural inclination towards women and gave them power over the females. He made women to be naturally inclined towards men though He made them weak and soft in nature. Hence, when free mixing occurs between women and (non-Mahram) men, its effects result in bad intentions, since the human self is inclined towards evil and (carnal) desires make a person blind and dumb, while Satan commands people to do indecent and evil things.

Sam Colt pretty much put an end to men having power over women. Anyone who truly wants to prevent men from doing evil things to women will give the woman a gun and teach her how to use it. Anyone who won't do that, and does something else instead, has bad motivations, either they want to oppress women or they want to leave numerous opportunities and excuses for men to be able to do bad things to women, or both.

I do not see how is this related with Deen of Allah- Islaam. We as Muslims do not recognise, niether do we accept these kind of deffense and honouring of one woman, but Alhamdulillah as you may already know is that Allah subhan wa teala is protecting us on the best way with His deen and this beautiful way of life which is Islam.

Islam is protecting woman on every way, trough keeping her honour and chasity with hijaab,puting her under care of her father, brother, and husband, and with protecting her dignity also with seperation of man, like it was subject and question of this thread.

May Allah guide you Septihol.:tti_sister:

 

[Aapa]

Assalaam walaikum,

Sam Colt has nothing to do with it. You can put a knife, a match, a block of wood, and the old fashioned frying pan. If a person needs to defend themselves they will.

You are limiting power to a physical definition.

And what does this have to do with the separation of sexes. We do it willingly. We want to be in separated groups. How does it lessen me as a person if I choose to be a woman who obeys my faith. How does this diminish my intellect or place me in a position of inferiority. I do not understand.

 

[alf2]

Asja wrote: The brief answer is that Allah made men to have a natural inclination towards women and gave them power over the females. He made women to be naturally inclined towards men though He made them weak and soft in nature. Hence, when free mixing occurs between women and (non-Mahram) men, its effects result in bad intentions, since the human self is inclined towards evil and (carnal) desires make a person blind and dumb, while Satan commands people to do indecent and evil things.

Sam Colt pretty much put an end to men having power over women. Anyone who truly wants to prevent men from doing evil things to women will give the woman a gun and teach her how to use it. Anyone who won't do that, and does something else instead, has bad motivations, either they want to oppress women or they want to leave numerous opportunities and excuses for men to be able to do bad things to women, or both.

You do know that guns are not allowed to be carried by average citizens in many countries including but not limited to the United Kingdom as well as Denmark...right?

Just because America is full of gun toting psychopaths doesnt mean the whole world is.

 

[septithol]

Aapa wrote: You are limiting power to a physical definition.

And what does this have to do with the separation of sexes. We do it willingly. We want to be in separated groups. How does it lessen me as a person if I choose to be a woman who obeys my faith. How does this diminish my intellect or place me in a position of inferiority. I do not understand.

Aapa, if you are attacked by a man twice your weight and with 4 times your upper body strength, do you think your chances are better if you fist fight him, or shoot him?

I expect without a gun, if you are ever in such a situation, you'll quickly learn why the absence of a gun places you in a position of inferiority.

 

[septithol]

Alf2 wrote: You do know that guns are not allowed to be carried by average citizens in many countries including but not limited to the United Kingdom as well as Denmark...right?

Yup. It's because they want to guarantee criminals, including those in the government, that their victims will be disarmed.

Read up on Nazi Germany. Before they implemented their 'final solution', they passed laws disarming the Jews. Gun control is a necessary prerequisite to tyranny and genocide.

Just because America is full of gun toting psychopaths doesnt mean the whole world is.

So making people helpless before whatever criminal chooses to attack them is sane?

I'll tell you what dear, if you are ever attacked by a psychopath, you call the police. Assuming the psychopath gives you a chance to make the call, the police will travel at about 60 mph, or about 80 feet per second, tops, from a distance that may be several miles away.

I'll take my chances with my gun, and a bullet that travels twenty times that speed, 1600 feet per second, from a distance of 20 feet away or less.

Oh, I do hope you don't have any children in the house with you. It's unlikely that someone would attack you and let your children live, but I suppose the desire to actually *effectively* protect your children, rather than merely give lip service to the notion, is also psychopathic.

 

[sachin4islam]

Asja wrote: The brief answer is that Allah made men to have a natural inclination towards women and gave them power over the females. He made women to be naturally inclined towards men though He made them weak and soft in nature. Hence, when free mixing occurs between women and (non-Mahram) men, its effects result in bad intentions, since the human self is inclined towards evil and (carnal) desires make a person blind and dumb, while Satan commands people to do indecent and evil things.

Sam Colt pretty much put an end to men having power over women. Anyone who truly wants to prevent men from doing evil things to women will give the woman a gun and teach her how to use it. Anyone who won't do that, and does something else instead, has bad motivations, either they want to oppress women or they want to leave numerous opportunities and excuses for men to be able to do bad things to women, or both.

Septithol: You are misleading the discussion title. We are talking about separation of two genders and not oppression of woman.

Let a rose be a rose. let its hands grip and embrace a child and its natural,soft,compassionate and loving instinct be intact.

I tell you one thing generalized,man are victim of psychological oppression and as a reaction woman are victim of physical oppression. I hope you got the point. I do not put this point as a thumb rule.

Regards.

 

[Jen77]

Asalaamu alaikum

Septithol,

I understand what you are trying to say, your points generally do make sense. But you are always comparing apples to oranges, especially in this case. You have logic, we have faith.

Now I know that you are probably thinking that faith will not save a person faced with a psychopath, only weapons will. I disagree. In the event of something bad happening Allah will give me the tools I need if I am to survive. If I am not to survive then I will be in a better place insha'allah.

Ideally separation of the sexes will prevent the need of a woman having to defend herself. That's what is so lovely about it, women are made to be treasured. Life, however, is not perfect. Humans have a way of messing it up, that's why we need guidance.

 

[septithol]

Sachin wrote: Septithol: You are misleading the discussion title. We are talking about separation of two genders and not oppression of woman.

Sachin, true, seperation is, theoretically speaking, a different matter than oppression. However, in practice, this is seldom really the case, some of the groups being 'seperated' will be oppressed in practice. Case in point, in the early 20th century in the US, it was the law in a lot of places that blacks and white be seperated, and that they have 'seperate but equal' facilities, such as schools, hospitals, etc. The 'seperate but equal' was the law and the theory. The reality was that the facilities for blacks were very inferior to the facilities for whites. The law eventually had to be scrapped, it wasn't working, it was just oppression for blacks under a different name.

 

[septithol]

Jen77 wrote:

I understand what you are trying to say, your points generally do make sense. But you are always comparing apples to oranges, especially in this case. You have logic, we have faith.

Now I know that you are probably thinking that faith will not save a person faced with a psychopath, only weapons will. I disagree. In the event of something bad happening Allah will give me the tools I need if I am to survive. If I am not to survive then I will be in a better place insha'allah.

Ideally separation of the sexes will prevent the need of a woman having to defend herself. That's what is so lovely about it, women are made to be treasured. Life, however, is not perfect. Humans have a way of messing it up, that's why we need guidance.

Jen, you are certainly free to have faith, and to refuse to defend yourself with weapons. However, I've taken 4 years of biology in college, and read numerous accounts of species that are unable to defend themselves, or their young, generally because they've lost the ability after being isolated on an island with no predators for many generations. In every single case, it's a recipe for the extinction of that species. They are killed off to the last one as soon as any predator finds it's way to the island where they live. The only exceptions are if they are protected by humans in a zoo. But a zoo is a highly complex and artificial environment; a species that requires a highly complex and artificial environment to survive really isn't suited for survival. It's much like the unfortunate children born with no immune systems, their body cannot *defend* itself against germs. They can only live in a highly complex environment, that of a sterile bubble with no germs at all. They really aren't suited for survival, either. Neither is a woman (or the children of a woman since they have inherited whatever genes make her unable or unwilling to defend herself and her children) who can only survive in the highly complex environment of being isolated from the rest of the world.

Personal defense is a personal bodily function, like eating, or breathing, or fighting off germs. If you can't (or won't) do it yourself, and are dependent on a highly complex environment, like an iron lung, sterile bubble, stomach tube, or being isolated, to keep you alive despite that inability, biologically speaking, you're a candidate for extinction.

Furthermore, I should point out that the belief that you don't need to defend yourself, shall we say, *suspiciously convenient* for those human beings who still are willing to use violence and weapons, not only to defend themselves, but to attack others for no reason. They will survive, you will die. I don't consider it a good thing that those human beings who survive and populate future generations should be violent cowards who like to disarm other people, then attack them.

 

[Tabassum07]

:salam2:

How did this thread ever divert to psychopaths and gun control? Septithol, you don't understand that we *love* gender separation. It helps us women be at ease and be free to talk however we want to talk with each other, without having to worry about proper etiquette in front of nonmahram males. In front of nonmahram males, we have to be formal. However we can openly have informal discussions with our women. Have you ever stepped inside the Sisters Only section here? You'll see what we mean.

 

[septithol]

Tabassum wrote:Septithol, you don't understand that we *love* gender separation. It helps us women be at ease and be free to talk however we want to talk with each other, without having to worry about proper etiquette in front of nonmahram males. In front of nonmahram males, we have to be formal. However we can openly have informal discussions with our women. Have you ever stepped inside the Sisters Only section here? You'll see what we mean.

Tabassum: Well wanting to associate with only your own gender because you *love* it is one thing, and I've no objection to that. However, being FORCED to do so is quite another, and I've several objections to that.

I would never marry a man who would not trust me either to meet other men, or to carry a gun. If he can't trust me to do that, then he flat out can't trust me, which would make me wonder why he wanted to marry me anyways? Certainly I would never marry, or even go within 50 feet of someone I couldn't trust. If I can't trust someone, I'd lay up all night worrying that they were going to murder me in my sleep. Failing that, it would mean that the reason I couldn't trust them was that they were so stupid, useless, and lacking in general integrity that it would put me in danger in countless other ways. Ei, how could they be trusted to make sure that the stove was off at night and didn't burn the house down?

As for discussions with women... that would be a big problem for me. I'm a woman, but I'm not much interested in most of the things that most other women are. Discussions with most other women are boring and stupid to me. I'd say about 95% of the people I can have any sort of interesting conversation with, about guns, hunting, science, machinery, or the sort of movies and books I like are men.

 

[Tabassum07]

Tabassum: Well wanting to associate with only your own gender because you *love* it is one thing, and I've no objection to that. However, being FORCED to do so is quite another, and I've several objections to that.

Well, you're probably looking at the wrong muslims then. Nobody can ever *force* a person to do anything in the name of religion - it says in the Quran quite clearly "There is no compulsion in religion." We can either advise a person about what's the proper thing to do, or stay quiet. Please don't judge by what you see portrayed in the media all the time. They like to show how muslim women are locked in their homes, beaten up, forced to stay away from men. But if a woman is a *true* muslim, she would *want* to segregate from men as much as possible. And please don't say it's not possible in the West - I've worked in the West, and would only openly talk to females and only talked to males when it was necessary - that is, no chitchat or small talk but just be to-the-point and businesslike. It happens. We have close male relatives like blood brothers etc to talk about openly on other subjects.

I would never marry a man who would not trust me either to meet other men, or to carry a gun. If he can't trust me to do that, then he flat out can't trust me, which would make me wonder why he wanted to marry me anyways? Certainly I would never marry, or even go within 50 feet of someone I couldn't trust. If I can't trust someone, I'd lay up all night worrying that they were going to murder me in my sleep. Failing that, it would mean that the reason I couldn't trust them was that they were so stupid, useless, and lacking in general integrity that it would put me in danger in countless other ways. Ei, how could they be trusted to make sure that the stove was off at night and didn't burn the house down?

See, that's another thing I don't understand. Why the need to live in so much paranoia? I've never in all my life wished to own a gun to protect myself, because I've never found myself in any situation where I was with someone I didn't trust. Yes, why would you marry someone who you couldn't trust, whose integrity you'd doubt? That's another matter entirely - but in my own personal opinion, a person who fears Allah above all else, can be trusted above all else. And that's usually the basis of Islamic marriages. Muslim families are much more stable than Western ones, and its because they're based on Islamic values which both the husband and the wife follow.

I hope you don't take any offense to what I said. And I hope my tone did not come across as patronizing or condescending - that's not my intention at all.

 

[sachin4islam]

Tabassum wrote:Septithol, you don't understand that we *love* gender separation. It helps us women be at ease and be free to talk however we want to talk with each other, without having to worry about proper etiquette in front of nonmahram males. In front of nonmahram males, we have to be formal. However we can openly have informal discussions with our women. Have you ever stepped inside the Sisters Only section here? You'll see what we mean.

Tabassum: Well wanting to associate with only your own gender because you *love* it is one thing, and I've no objection to that. However, being FORCED to do so is quite another, and I've several objections to that.

I would never marry a man who would not trust me either to meet other men, or to carry a gun. If he can't trust me to do that, then he flat out can't trust me, which would make me wonder why he wanted to marry me anyways? Certainly I would never marry, or even go within 50 feet of someone I couldn't trust. If I can't trust someone, I'd lay up all night worrying that they were going to murder me in my sleep. Failing that, it would mean that the reason I couldn't trust them was that they were so stupid, useless, and lacking in general integrity that it would put me in danger in countless other ways. Ei, how could they be trusted to make sure that the stove was off at night and didn't burn the house down?

As for discussions with women... that would be a big problem for me. I'm a woman, but I'm not much interested in most of the things that most other women are. Discussions with most other women are boring and stupid to me. I'd say about 95% of the people I can have any sort of interesting conversation with, about guns, hunting, science, machinery, or the sort of movies and books I like are men.

Septithol:

You seem to be obsessed with doubts and suspicions or technically you seem to be occupied by "OCD". I am sorry to write it.

Except our Lord no one knows what one conceals within his/her heart. But should I not tell you about a personality whom you may trust even with your closed senses,believe me,He is none other than Muhammad (SAW). Follow Him (SAW) and seek the purpose of life. You will forget about ''Guns". Come within fold of Islam,I invite you, and I swear by Allah,you will never regret your submission.

Regards.

 

[Just a Guy]

Assalaam walaikum,

Yes, after having had to be in environments where I was working with men I am now not going to be able to go back to that. It is too stressful.

Isn't it funny that the mixed sexes environment brings out the stress level. Women compete for the attention of men. In a single sex environment..there is just fun and none of that nonsense.

Do not get me wrong. I like men. However, life is so much more fun when you spend time with women and save time your own men-folk.

:salam2:

Well women don't compete for my attention. More like they try to get away as soon as possible.

But anyway, this is not a "me whining about women" thread. I will simply state that I think the separation is necessary, and it allows me more ease and comfort in accomplishing my goals.

 

[Aapa]

Assalaam walaikum,

The sisters of the deen are different from the women of the duyna.