#no need to couch it in a moral justification relating to the legal issues just pirate it bc you want to play it but dont want to/cant pay

[we-would-just-be-robots]

Discuss the concept of gender justice in relation to qur’anic passages about rights and responsibilities of men and women

In this essay, I will be looking at the rights and responsibilities of men and women in accordance to Islam. To do so I will look at Qur’anic verses that are used in reference to the rights and responsibilities of women, and a variety of secondary sources. Asma Barlas identifies two key questions in relation to gender justice and the Qur’an, Does the Qur’an ‘condone sexual inequality or oppression’, or does it ‘permit and encourage liberation for women?’ (Barlas, 2002, p. 1)

Asma Barlas states that ‘a definition of patriarchy is fundamental to being able to establish the Qur’an as an antipatriarchal’, or a patriarchal, text. (Barlas, 2002, p. 12) and offers two definitions, a specific and a universal one. Barlas’ specific definition assumes that there is a real and a symbolic continuum between God, or Allah, and fathers.  The specific definition has a father-right theory, which also extends to husband’s claim on his wife and children. The Qur’an was written in a society that functioned via this traditional form of patriarchy. The classical definition speaks of patriarchy in a historical sense, referring to a past culture and using it as an explanation for what may be contained in the Qur’an.

The broader definition that Barlas offers sees the Qur’an’s teachings as being universal. In this definition, the father rule has ‘reconstituted itself’ (Barlas, 2002, p. 12) into a political system which privileges males. This system operates off of three major claims, that ‘essential ontological and ethical-moral differences between women and men’, ‘these differences are a function of nature/biology’ and that the Qur’an’s different, unequal treatment of ‘women and men affirms their inherent inequality.’ (Barlas, 2002, p. 12) The broad patriarchal definition is more applicable to modern Islamic cultures.

It’s important to consider the political context before Islam was introduced. The description Daniel Brown gives of it make it seem rather grim for females, he points to things such as female infanticide being denounced ‘harshly and repeatedly’ (Brown, 2003, p. 26) and any woman who did survive to adulthood belonged to her father, only to later belong to her husband. Women had ‘no economic or social independence or rights’ (Brown, 2003, p. 26). Additionally, poetry at the time portrays women ‘primarily as sexual objects’ (Brown, 2003, p. 26), further diminishing any value women have that isn’t to serve men. The introduction of the Qur’an could actually be seen as quite beneficial, for women of the time, as it ‘not only repudiated female infanticide’ granting more of them a chance at actually surviving, ‘but gave women economic and legal status independent of their husbands and guaranteed daughters a share of inheritance’ (Brown, 2003, p. 26) so was a big step forwards, for the time. Cook notes that Khadija was an important and wealthy widow around the time Islam was introduced to the area, and she was powerful enough to employ Muhammad as her agent, and was the one to propose marriage to him. Cook points to Khadija as evidence that some pre-Islamic women did quite well for themselves, but this doesn’t mean that the society wasn’t completely horrific for women, it’s just a rare occurrence.

Asma Barlas, in response to her earlier question asking if the text is ‘sexist and misogynistic’ (Barlas, 2002, p. 1), presents evidence to support this view. For example, she references the Qur’an’s different treatment of women and men in regard to issues such as marriage, divorce and inheritance. Barlas places the blame for misogynistic readings of Islam on exegetes and commentators rather than the Qur’an’s teachings. In particular, Barlas points to the ‘Golden Age of Islam, which coincided with the Western Middle Ages’ as being a particularly ‘well known’ (Barlas, 2002, p. 9) time of misogyny, during this time many secondary texts were produced, these texts were influenced by men’s ‘own needs and experiences while either excluding or interpreting . . . women’s experiences.’ (Barlas, 2002, p. 9). The erasure of women’s experiences and voices in the secondary texts are often mistaken for a lack of representation in the text itself, and allows for a ‘striking consensus’ amongst Muslims when it comes to women’s issues.

Fatima Mernissi provides a similar approach, she focuses mainly on secondary texts, and claims that the misogynistic traditions sprout from either fabrications or a misunderstanding regarding the context of the Qur’anic verse. In particular, she singles out Abu Hurayra as being especially bad for fabricating, and claims that many intellectuals ‘sold themselves . . . to politicians who were trying to pressurise the collectors of religious knowledge to fabricate traditions that benefited them.’ (Mernissi, 1992, p. 45). She gives an example, the Qur’anic verse 33:53 which is often used to support the seclusion of women, ‘When you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition.’ (Qur’an, 33:53), according to Mernissi the context for this is that the Prophet had just married, and needed personal space, and talking from behind a partition is likely a matter of respect. Mernissi rejects traditions which are contrary to her view under the belief that the Prophet had such a positive record in his treatment of women that any evidence to the contrary is not evidence at all. Daniel Brown criticises Mernissi for ignoring more problematic Quranic verses which contain clear patriarchal statements and instead focuses on Hadith. Mernissi’s thesis also implies that ‘Muslim community was able to completely depart from the spirit of the Prophet’s teaching remarkably short order’ (Daniel Brown 295), but this isn’t hard to believe considering that pre-Islamic Arabia was likely even more misogynistic than the misogynistic traditions Mernissi rejects.

Brown also looks at the approach of another Islamic feminist, Amina Wadud. Wadud takes the opposite approach to Mernissi, choosing to focus more on the Qur’an than on secondary texts like Hadith. Wadud takes on passages that seem to establish the superiority of men over women, like Quran 4:34, which states that ‘Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred one of them over another.’ (Quran, 4:34) The interpretation Wadud takes from passages like these are that they represent a responsibility between men and women in society, and that they don’t represent men’s superiority over women. Further in the verse it gives instructions on how to punish a rebellious wife, ‘banish them to their couches and beat them.’ Wadud interprets this as ‘prohibiting unchecked violence’ (Wadud 76) against females, as it presents other punishments that are meant to be used before physical violence. This interpretation still permits physical violence against women, even if as a last resort, which a majority of modern views, especially western ones, would find inappropriate. Brown explains Wadud’s approach as restricting  the meaning of passages with negative implications for women by saying they refer to specific contexts, and shouldn’t be universalised, however the Qur’an is the words of God, and ‘one cannot get much more universal than that’. (Brown 296)

One view that is pushed by Islamic feminists, is that the Qur’an may actually ‘permit and encourage liberation for women’ (Barlas, 2002, p. 1), as mentioned previously various commentators believe that the Qur’an has been misinterpreted to enforce patriarchal beliefs, but the Qur’an ‘can be read in multiple modes’. Muslim theology makes a distinction between divine speech and the earthly realisation, to avoid ‘collapsing God’s Words with our interpretations of those Words’ (Barlas, 2002, p. 10), this view can be supported with a verse in the Qur’an which warns against confusing the words of the Qur’an with those of readings of it. There are some parts of the Qur’an which can be hard to blame on readings or certain interpretations, for example the verse mentioned earlier clearly permits beating someone’s wife.

The next part of this essay will look at various verses of the Qur’an and analyse their implications for women, and look at approaches from various commentators. The verse mentioned repeatedly before, verse 4:34, quite clearly states that men are preferred over women, and they are the ‘managers of the affairs of women’ (Quran 4:34). For what reason are men seemingly preferred to women? Cook cites a commentator named Ibn al-Arabi, who says God’s preference is due to the intellectual superiority and the superiority in religious performance that men have over women, another commentator Hawwa says that ‘it is clear that a man is to rule over his wife’ (Cook, 2000, p. 39) citing reasons such as men’s superiority in terms of intellect and judgement. Taken at face value the verse ‘endorses male dominance’ and gives ‘the husband a right . . . to beat a rebellious wife’ (Cook, 2000, p. 38) Michael Cook comments that the view of male dominance is a common one, especially in monotheistic religions, however permitting violence against one’s wife is much rarer. It could be argued that Islam does genuinely view this as an undesirable last resort, The Prophet reportedly never beat a woman, and even banned the practice among his followers until he was told that it was ‘producing an undesirable shift between husbands and wives’ by his companion Umar. (Cook, 2000, p. 105)

Another couple of important verses refer to women's legal status, as mentioned earlier the introduction of the Qur’an helped to improve the rights of women. Females were granted a portion of the inheritance, however males receive a portion equal ‘to that of two females’ (Quran 4:11), so females are still viewed as less valuable. Additionally, two women are equal to one man in terms of being a witness, with the justification being that ‘if one of them errs, the other can remind her.’ (Quran 2:282). The obvious connotations of these verses are that it heavily enforces the view that ‘women are worth half of what men are’ (Brown, 2003, p. 273). A modern commentator Iqbal states that the women’s worth ‘isn’t derived from any inherent inferiority’ (Brown, 2003, p. 273), but actually comes the economic opportunities and status women are given from society, this view naturally leads to the conclusion that if women’s worth is based on society then as society changes to be more equal women should be viewed as more valuable, especially in western countries. However, this conclusion ‘clashes with a strong tendency in modern Islam which emphasises the timelessness, eternal relevance and perfection of the Qur’an.’ (Brown, 2003, p. 273) but at the same time Iqbal’s statement that women don’t have any ‘inherent inferiority’ can be supported by the Qur’an’s creation story, Wadud points out that ‘femininity and masculinity are not created characters imprinted into the very primordial nature of female and male persons’ (Wadud, 1999), and instead these come from cultural perceptions.

 The Qur’an, at face value, presents women as inferior and the property of their husbands or fathers, it devalues them in terms of independence and economic means, it restricts their inheritance and makes them appear inferior in terms of intelligence. However, certain verses of the Qur’an are clearly subject to different meanings based on interpretation, whereas others are not, it is important to not mistake interpretation for the actual words of the Qur’an though, this applies to both liberal and patriarchal interpretations. The Qur’an came about in a time of extreme patriarchy, where women seem to be without any rights, for the time the Qur’an presented protection for women by granting them independence and economic opportunities, however in the modern times with the prevalence of western feminist views the Qur’an appears to enforce patriarchal views, from how the Prophet behaved it is clear this isn’t the aim of the Qur’an and instead commentators should look for feminist and liberal verses within the Qur’an, and dismiss patriarchal ones as being outdated.

Bibliography  

Barlas, A., 2002. Unreading  Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. s.l.:University of Texas  Press.

Brown, D., 2003. A New Introduction to Islam. s.l.:Wiley-Blackwell.

Cook, M., 2000. The Koran: A Very Short  Introduction. s.l.:Oxford University Press.

Mernissi, F., 1992. The Veil and the Male Elite: A  Feminist Interpretation of Women's Rights in Islam. Reprint ed.  s.l.:Perseus Books.

Wadud, A., 1999. Quran and Woman: Rereading the  Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective. s.l.:Oxford University Press.

[movietvtechgeeks]

Latest story from https://movietvtechgeeks.com/breaking-james-comey-testimony-major-takeaways/

Breaking down James Comey testimony, major takeaways

Former FBI Director James Comey spent three hours on Thursday answering questions, while also consistently defending himself against the recent onslaught of President Donald Trump's attacks on his character. The main takeaways from his testimony were expected as he had released his written testimony on Wednesday. He just filled in plenty of blanks on Thursday. You can read the full transcript of Thursday's hearing here. It's a long one, but you can see a pattern with several Republican Senators along with the Democrats. Someone at the White House must have wrestled Trump's phone from him as he remained Twitter silent for all of Thursday.

"Lies, plain and simple."

Comey testified that President Donald Trump lied when announcing the firing of the then-FBI director due to low morale. Comey testified his firing was due to his refusal to drop the Russia investigation and for not pledging his loyalty to the president. “Those were lies, plain and simple,” Comey testified. “The president and I had had multiple conversations about my job, both before and after he took office, and he had repeatedly told me I was doing a great job, and he hoped I would stay.” The White House adamantly denied both of Comey’s accusations ever taking place.

Unprecedented meetings… and detail.

Comey said as FBI director, he felt the need to chronicle his private meetings with Trump in unprecedented detail. While meeting with President Barack Obama twice in three years and with President George W. Bush once, the FBI director met with Trump a total of nine times, Comey testified. A meeting on Jan. 6 at Trump Tower to brief the president on the Russia investigation led to Comey feeling “compelled” to document their conversations, since the investigation was related to his campaign. “First, I was alone with the president of the United States, or the president-elect, soon to be president, and then the nature of the person," Comey said. "I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting, so I thought it important to document. That combination of things I had never experienced before, but had led me to believe I got to write it down and write it down in a very detailed way.”

Comey leaked his own story to the press

Arguably the most damning moment was when Comey said he leaked contents of a memo about his conversation with Trump to the New York Times through a friend, later identified as Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman. Comey wanted to get his account out, encouraging the appointment of a special prosecutor, now former FBI director Robert Mueller. “My judgment was, I need to get that out into the public square,” Comey testified. “I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons. I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel." The president’s lawyer is accusing Comey of "unauthorized disclosures” and will "leave it the appropriate authorities" to determine whether the leak should be investigated.

Grilling across party lines

Both Republicans and Democrats intensely questioned Comey about his private interactions with Trump. Comey testified the president asked him to drop the FBI investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who resigned over engagements with Russia. A gross conflict given the FBI is obligated to remain independent of the White House. “Why didn't you stop and say, ‘Mr. President this is wrong’?” asked Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-California. “It's a great question. Maybe if I were stronger, I would have. I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took in,” Comey testified. “Maybe if I did it again, I'd do it better.” https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473

“Lordy, I hope there are tapes”

It’s still unknown if there are recordings of Comey’s private meetings in the Oval Office. Trump eluded to the possibility in a tweet last month. During Thursday’s testimony, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee “Lordy, I hope there are tapes.” A White House spokesperson said she had "no idea" if the president is taping his Oval Office conversations, but sarcastically said they will "try to look under the couch." The White House's statements were "lies, plain and simple." Comey took notes on their conversations because he worried the president "might lie" later. After a while, he said, he so distrusted the man running the country that he did not want to be left alone with him. It was a riveting, televised portrait of President Donald Trump, one unrivaled in recent memory for its potential to undermine the presidency. Comey's message, delivered in meticulous detail, amounted to a challenge to lawmakers, the public and the special counsel now investigating possible links between Trump's campaign and Russia: Whose account do you believe - the nation's former top law enforcement official testifying under oath or a president with a record of skirting the truth on issues big and small? The answer to that question ultimately may not impact the outcome of the FBI and congressional Russia probes, and it may not move Republican lawmakers any closer to a dramatic break from their party leader. But it could leave the president in a perilously weak political position not yet five months into his term. "A president cannot communicate effectively if their trust tank is full of holes and credibility has leaked out all over the political landscape," said Matthew Dowd, who served as chief strategist for President George W. Bush's re-election campaign. A Gallup poll conducted in April found that just 36 percent of Americans found Trump "honest and trustworthy" - down from 42 percent in February. The White House and the president's personal lawyer vigorously vouched for Trump's integrity, saying he did not try to get the FBI to end the Michael Flynn investigation and also did not seek a loyalty pledge from Comey. Both were quick to note that Comey validated one Trump claim: that Comey had told him three times that he was not personally the target of the investigation. "I can definitively say the president is not a liar, and I think it's frankly insulting that question would be asked," spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said. Comey himself is a controversial figure. He outraged Democrats last year with his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email practices, including the decision to publicly disclose the potential of new information 10 days before the election. During his final appearance on Capitol Hill as FBI director, he vastly overstated the number of emails that were uncovered late in the campaign, prompting the bureau to correct his testimony. Still, it was telling that few Republicans who don't work for Trump stepped in to defend the president's version of his contacts with the former FBI director. The toughest questioning of Comey by GOP lawmakers on the Senate intelligence committee focused more on whether the interactions he described amounted to legal trouble for Trump than on whether he was telling the truth about the nine meetings and phone calls he had with the president. Instead, some supportive GOP lawmakers simply argued that Trump's action were a result of well-meaning inexperience or dedication to his aides. "I'm frankly proud of him for standing up for someone who was as loyal as Mike Flynn was throughout the campaign," Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., said of Comey's dramatic depiction of an Oval Office meeting in which Trump allegedly said he hoped the FBI would let the Flynn investigation go. Collins spoke after the prepared text of Comey's opening statement was released Wednesday. House Speaker Paul Ryan also did not dispute Comey's assertions. He vouched for the importance of the FBI's independence and excused Trump's blurring of that line as missteps by a man who isn't "steeped in the long-running protocols" that govern the relationship between the White House and the law enforcement agency. "The president's new at this. He's new at government," Ryan told reporters on Capitol Hill as Comey's dramatic testimony unfolded. "He's learning as he goes." Yet, Trump's own track record - as president, a candidate and private citizen - make the questions about the veracity of his own words impossible for the White House to avoid. He memorialized his approach to accuracy in his 1987 book "The Art of the Deal," writing: "People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole." Trump's shift from real estate mogul and reality TV star to political powerhouse was driven in part by his campaign to spread the lie that President Barack Obama was born outside the United States. He spent his first full day occupying the world's most powerful office inflating the size of the inaugural crowd and demanding that his advisers do the same. Last month, he created a voter fraud commission to investigate "millions of people who voted illegally," despite there being no proof of such fraudulent voting. The president's abrupt firing of Comey on May 9 - and the White House's bungled handling of the controversial move - has intensified questions about Trump's credibility. At first, the White House cited a harsh memo about Comey's performance from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as the justification, though Trump later said he would have fired Comey regardless of what the Justice Department recommended. When Comey allies began fighting back with negative stories about Trump in the press, the president issued a startling warning on Twitter: "James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!" The White House has avoided all questions about whether such tapes exist. But Comey confidently asserted that if there are recordings, they will back up his testimony. "Lordy, I hope there are tapes," Comey said.

Movie TV Tech Geeks News