Islam and Women

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

The studies and internet sources seem to be very diverse on this issue. F.e. the first sentence of the wiki article says:

The status of women in Islam is a contentious issue. In places the Qur'an says women are equal to men before God; in places women are commanded to be considered property of men and to be valued at half of what men are valued.

Can someone point me to the places in the Qur'an where it says that woman is considered property of men and to be valued at half of what men are valued?

Also, what's the point of the Hijab, the religious rule that "a woman should act and dress in a way that does not draw sexual attention to her when she is in the presence of someone of the opposite sex"?

[Chaigidel]

someone has to be the servant, especially when your faith tells you that you should be serviced by everyone.


but there is the Imohag who cover the men, and the women are heavily involved in the culture but they are all muslims ( the men wear hijab and dont show hair to anyone but wives)

[IrishHitman]

Meh, all the Abrahamic religions are misogynistic, Islam isn't a particular exception.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

it never said that... period

"a woman should act and dress in a way that does not draw sexual attention to her when she is in the presence of someone of the opposite sex"

it says dress modestly. huge cleavage is not recommended.

[Gromovnik]

huge cleavage is not recommended.

Why not? I just love looking into a huge cleaveage.

[jankren]

Why not? I just love looking into a huge cleaveage.

Yummie, me love em titties too!

[Pontifex Maximus]

Why is sex so evil again?

I think that Muhamed was sexually suppressed or else extremely shy about his sexuality for the rules to be so strict regarding intercourse. Though I have been known, on occasion, to be whipped into a fit of toe curling lust if I see a few loose strands of glowing female hair being flaunted from under a hijab.

I think the intent is good- don't let women wear revealing clothes so men don't commit adultery so men don't destroy their families. But then I think about a typical Muslim family unit five hundred years ago and realize that many of the men would have had multiple wives anyway. This obviously provides a scenario for the family unit that I am completely at a loss to explain.

The logic seems to be that if a Muslim man finds a woman attractive, in order to have sex or access to her body, he needs to agree to take her into his protection. However many women he can afford to protect, that's how many women he can see hijabless.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Why is sex so evil again?

it's encouraged in marriage. fornication is not however.

I think that Muhamed was sexually suppressed or else extremely shy about his sexuality for the rules to be so strict regarding intercourse.

just no...

But then I think about a typical Muslim family unit five hundred years ago and realize that many of the men would have had multiple wives anyway.

the quran couldnt ban it or else people wouldn't convert. plus widows, poor girls would turn into prostitution if the needed money. marriage offered them protection, at a clause that you have to love all your spouses equally, which is why it isn't typically encouraged.

The logic seems to be that if a Muslim man finds a woman attractive, in order to have sex or access to her body, he needs to agree to take her into his protection. However many women he can afford to protect, that's how many women he can see hijabless.

see the clause. plus do you think it's easy to protect all those people? and the kids? and you have to treat them all equally? that means if one asks for shopping money, you have to give them all shopping money with the same amount

[Pontifex Maximus]

it's encouraged in marriage. fornication is not however.

Clearly. I've heard stories of beheadings. Sounds very...barbaric.

the quran couldnt ban it or else people wouldn't convert.

I'm sure concessions had to be made to gain the initial following of warriors that then allowed Islam to be brought to millions more by sword point where conforming to such customs was no longer necessary.

see the clause. plus do you think it's easy to protect all those people? and the kids? and you have to treat them all equally? that means if one asks for shopping money, you have to give them all shopping money with the same amount

If Islam wasn't such a rigid religion, it could probably end the practice of polygamy, but alas, the entire faith just seems chaotic right now. At least I can say about the catholic church is that they are united and have central figureheads. While they have not been the beacon of liberalism, they can make change to accommodate the faithful in modern times. I think it is a fundamental flaw in Islam that nothing can be updated or changed. I think this will cause many Muslim countries to fall behind the rest of the world in an extreme way.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Clearly. I've heard stories of beheadings. Sounds very...barbaric.

i can't speak up for that. that's not a punishment in the quran.

I'm sure concessions had to be made to gain the initial following of warriors that then allowed Islam to be brought to millions more by sword point where conforming to such customs was no longer necessary.

what's the difference with the current age. people are having multiple one night stands anyways. at least with polygamy, you offer your ladies protection.

islam was not spread by the sword at least during the time of the rashidun caliphate. people were still allowed to practice their own religions. even christians praised when umar got rid of the byzantines.

If Islam wasn't such a rigid religion, it could probably end the practice of polygamy.

unlike catholics, we're very wary to change around god's words. hell, scholars still disagree if tobacco is forbidden or not. the practice is decreasing, just like slavery.

[motiv-8]

Why is sex so evil again?

Err.... Who says it is? Islam doesn't say that.

I'm sure concessions had to be made to gain the initial following of warriors that then allowed Islam to be brought to millions more by sword point where conforming to such customs was no longer necessary.

Thankfully, that's not what happened. A clearer understanding of the historical expansion of Islam is recommended to you. Propagating such historical myths doesn't do anyone any good.

If Islam wasn't such a rigid religion, it could probably end the practice of polygamy, but alas, the entire faith just seems chaotic right now.

Islam is not a rigid religion. It's as dynamic as the number of people that practice it. That would explain why there are large differences between Muslim communities around the world. You are merely parroting another myth. The entire faith appears chaotic because the world is chaotic. Many Muslim countries and societies are going through large changes owing to demographic, social, economic, and political factors, but such things are hardly unique to Islam. Muslims are working to cope with ideas such as globalization, IT, modernity, and liberalism just like any other group of people.

I think it is a fundamental flaw in Islam that nothing can be updated or changed.

What are you talking about? Things constantly are updated and changed in Islam. That's why there are discussions all over the world amongst Muslims over issues such as sexuality, family issues and law, relations with secular law and governance, governance in and of itself, civil rights, equality, economics, et al. All but the most narrow-minded Muslims -- who conveniently get the most coverage in international media -- recognize that the Qur'an cannot speak for itself and that it does not give a clear message for all issues to infinity. That's why there are legal processes in Islam to interpret scripture and figure out how to apply lessons to present and future issues. You cannot possibly call that rigid or claim that things do not change. Hell, even if you want to be negative, you can still see that the concept of the Islamic Republic as embodied by the state of Iran did not exist in previous centuries of Islamic history and practice. That was a major change and a major update to how Shi'a Muslims saw how government in Islam should work.

[Pontifex Maximus]

i can't speak up for that. that's not a punishment in the quran.

CLearly people thinkit is. Perhaps we should declare a holy jihad on them.

what's the difference with the current age. people are having multiple one night stands anyways. at least with polygamy, you offer your ladies protection.

Or just a legal way to have one night stand nightly.

islam was not spread by the sword at least during the time of the rashidun caliphate.

...No, it was sread by the sword.

people were still allowed to practice their own religions. even christians praised when umar got rid of the byzantines.

But forced to pay heavy taxes. How kind of them.

unlike catholics, we're very wary to change around god's words.

But find no difficulty in justifying horrible crimes with the text. Which is worse?

hell, scholars still disagree if tobacco is forbidden or not. the practice is decreasing, just like slavery.

A jihad on smokers!

[quote=motiv-8;5353571]Err.... Who says it is? Islam doesn't say that.

Thankfully, that's not what happened. A clearer understanding of the historical expansion of Islam is recommended to you. Propagating such historical myths doesn't do anyone any good./quote]
I'm obviously paraphrasing. To deny that Islam was not spread by conquest is simply to misunderstand history. No relgion has ever been peaceful, even the religions that claim to be the religions of peace. Maybe they mean there will be peace once the entire word has been forcefully converted. Afterall, then there would be no need to kill infidels, right? I honestly am flattered that so many religious people seem to care about my salvaion, but I can get on quite fine by myself. The same goes for Muslims, evangelical Christians and baptist door to door grace merchants. I don't need it, I don't want it.

Islam is not a rigid religion. It's as dynamic as the number of people that practice it.

Even though those factions are constantly at war with one another?

That would explain why there are large differences between Muslim communities around the world.

At least there is one common factor, all are prone to violence.

You are merely parroting another myth. The entire faith appears chaotic because the world is chaotic.

Chaotic because of what? I know one factor...

Many Muslim countries and societies are going through large changes owing to demographic, social, economic, and political factors, but such things are hardly unique to Islam. Muslims are working to cope with ideas such as globalization, IT, modernity, and liberalism just like any other group of people.

I've met many of the moderate Muslims, and they are a likable lot, until you get them going about religion. I find that many times they are just as radically defensive about their religion as may others and when I'm around them I feel as if they regard me as inferior. After all, Allah doesn't love me, right?

What are you talking about? Things constantly are updated and changed in Islam. That's why there are discussions all over the world amongst Muslims over issues such as sexuality, family issues and law, relations with secular law and governance, governance in and of itself, civil rights, equality, economics, et al.

Are these changes then uniformly and universally enforced? No. I'm talking about sweeping, radical changes to the face of individual religions. Look at Vatican Council II. Many fundamental facets of Catholocism were changed after the council. Catholic understanding of their faith as well as other things has hanged radically over the centuries because unlike the mUslim communities, Catholics are highly organized and cohesive. Muslim communities are divided and lack a proper hierarchy to unite them.

All but the most narrow-minded Muslims -- who conveniently get the most coverage in international media -- recognize that the Qur'an cannot speak for itself and that it does not give a clear message for all issues to infinity.

Then why aren't the moderate Muslims peaking out? Where is the moderate outcry? The only times I have seen Muslims get angry is when their faith is challenged or 'insulted' such as the cartoon Muhamed case.

That's why there are legal processes in Islam to interpret scripture and figure out how to apply lessons to present and future issues. You cannot possibly call that rigid or claim that things do not change.

I cn't comment on Muslimscripture because I do not speak or understand Arabic, so you would no dobt use that argument to shoot down any examples I give of fundamentalist mumbo jumbo that comes out of the Quran.

Hell, even if you want to be negative, you can still see that the concept of the Islamic Republic as embodied by the state of Iran did not exist in previous centuries of Islamic history and practice. That was a major change and a major update to how Shi'a Muslims saw how government in Islam should work.

Ah yes, Iran is a beacon of democracy, tolerance and justice. >_>

[motiv-8]

I'm obviously paraphrasing. To deny that Islam was not spread by conquest is simply to misunderstand history.

Apologies for tooting my own horn, but I have a bachelor's in history, friend, and my education was focused on the history of Islam, so the misunderstanding is not on my part. Islam was not spread by conquest -- conquests by Arab tribesman and nobles, a great many of whom weren't even Muslim, is what enabled Islam to be spread by other means, mostly missionary work and education.

Even though those factions are constantly at war with one another?

I can't really respond to vague remarks.

At least there is one common factor, all are prone to violence.

No more or less than anybody else. I get the feeling that you think Muslims are unique in this regard, which is more than a little hysterical.

Chaotic because of what? I know one factor...

Well, good for you. I named ... four? five? off the top of my head.

Are these changes then uniformly and universally enforced? No.

Of course not. Neither are they in any sub-set of human organization like, say.. Christianity. Different communites have different rules based on the particularities of their collective experience and identity. There's nothing wrong with that. If anything, ideas about modernity are beneficial in Muslim communities because they enable each other to communicate and share what they have in common vs. how they contrast.

Muslim communities are divided and lack a proper hierarchy to unite them.

Yes, this is true, but it serves as much as a strength as a weakness. Observe how much the Catholic Church as a centralized institution has weakened versus various different Muslim communities that have grown and thrived. I have tons of respect for the Church and its history, but pretending that it is an inherently superior order is something that I as an observor can't readily agree with. The theological and historical background of Islam lends itself to something other than a highly centralized hierarchy, and that's that. Attempts to impose such institutions have been met with skepticism or hostility since it was first attempted in the eighth century.

By the way, the claim that Muslim communities are disorganized and lack cohesion is simply incorrect. Individual Muslim communities, while being at different degrees of connection (or disconnection) from each other, are themselves tightly knit and cohesive. A stellar example of this is the Sierra Leonese Muslim community in Washington, D.C. Muslim communities in Bosnia and the Shi'a in Lebanon are another excellent example.

Then why aren't the moderate Muslims peaking out? Where is the moderate outcry? The only times I have seen Muslims get angry is when their faith is challenged or 'insulted' such as the cartoon Muhamed case.

People getting angry when they're insulted? How novel.

Who says moderate Muslims aren't speaking out? It happens every day. But guess which person gets airtime, the one who speaks in a voice of reason and sanity or the raving lunatic.

I cn't comment on Muslimscripture because I do not speak or understand Arabic, so you would no dobt use that argument to shoot down any examples I give of fundamentalist mumbo jumbo that comes out of the Quran.

Ha, let me tell you something -- I spent a year in university trying to learn Arabic. I remember a few phrases. Yet I can discuss the Qur'an, as long as I realize that translation is imperfect. With that in mind, you have nothing to fear in regards to me shooting down something. Speak your mind -- but I will say that I'm not interested in your personal feelings on comparing it with Catholicism.

Ah yes, Iran is a beacon of democracy, tolerance and justice. >_>

Let's keep strawmen out of the discussion. I never said Iran was, because by many yard sticks it's not. It wasn't before the Islamic Revolution, either. My statement had nothing to do with the merits of Iran as a model democracy (and as an American, making such criticisms would come off rather hypocritical), but in giving but one small, specific example of how Islamic doctrines continue to change over time. The point was that the idea of an Islamic Republic didn't exist among Iranians of the 16th Century, or the 7th for that matter.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

CLearly people thinkit is. Perhaps we should declare a holy jihad on them.

don't generalize...

Or just a legal way to have one night stand nightly.

are you bound to offer your lady protection and raise their kids after a one night stand?

...No, it was sread by the sword.

no it wasnt... there was no forced conversions during that time. chistians, jews, etc lived peacefully and there was no denying they enjoyed the protection of the caliphate better than byzantine rule. i can't speak up for any following dynasties. the quran discourages forced conversions anyways.

But forced to pay heavy taxes. How kind of them.

muslims had to pay zakat and tax. non muslims had to pay some special tax but add the two together and you tell me who has to pay more...

But find no difficulty in justifying horrible crimes with the text. Which is worse?

i don't justify these acts so don't generalize.

A jihad on smokers!

you cannot comprehend the amount of muslim smokers there are in indonesia...

[Pontifex Maximus]

Apologies for tooting my own horn, but I have a bachelor's in history, friend, and my education was focused on the history of Islam, so the misunderstanding is not on my part.

Then I wouldn't make claims that a snot nosed seventeen year old can refute with access to some databases.

Islam was not spread by conquest -- conquests by Arab tribesman and nobles, a great many of whom weren't even Muslim, is what enabled Islam to be spread by other means, mostly missionary work and education.

Sorry, my standadized education must be incorrect then.

No more or less than anybody else. I get the feeling that you think Muslims are unique in this regard, which is more than a little hysterical.

pfft, no way. Nearly every religion has at one point or another been spread or crusaded for by war. The main distinction is that most of the civilied world is finished with it...

Yes, this is true, but it serves as much as a strength as a weakness. Observe how much the Catholic Church as a centralized institution has weakened versus various different Muslim communities that have grown and thrived. I have tons of respect for the Church and its history, but pretending that it is an inherently superior order is something that I as an observor can't readily agree with.

I'm no fan of religion in general, but I don't see Catholics blowing themselves up in our cities for Jesus, so that means that they are doing something corret. I don't really care what someones relgious beliefs are, but as soon as you start hurting people for your god, religion, whatever, that's when I get irked.

The theological and historical background of Islam lends itself to something other than a highly centralized hierarchy, and that's that. Attempts to impose such institutions have been met with skepticism or hostility since it was first attempted in the eighth century.

That's fine. Just find a different way to reign in the radicals and establish uniform beliefs, or at the very least, fight it oug amongst yourselves. This life is all I have so I don't want it ruined by some uneducated nutjob with C4 strapped to his chest.

By the way, the claim that Muslim communities are disorganized and lack cohesion is simply incorrect. Individual Muslim communities, while being at different degrees of connection (or disconnection) from each other, are themselves tightly knit and cohesive.

Good to know, but I don't care about he micromanagement of the Muslim communities. It is insignificant if they all have different beliefs and fight eachother constantly.

A stellar example of this is the Sierra Leonese Muslim community in Washington, D.C. Muslim communities in Bosnia and the Shi'a in Lebanon are another excellent example.

Don't presume to tell me the Muslims in Lebanon are peaceful people...

People getting angry when they're insulted? How novel.

How many TV shows make fun of Jesus? The difference is that the next day, Christians don't take to the streets burning efigies.

Ha, let me tell you something -- I spent a year in university trying to learn Arabic. I remember a few phrases. Yet I can discuss the Qur'an, as long as I realize that translation is imperfect.

All relgion is imperfect. My only concern is about being taken seriously which I don't feel I can be unles I use Arabic.

Let's keep strawmen out of the discussion. I never said Iran was, because by many yard sticks it's not. It wasn't before the Islamic Revolution, either. My statement had nothing to do with the merits of Iran as a model democracy (and as an American, making such criticisms would come off rather hypocritical), but in giving but one small, specific example of how Islamic doctrines continue to change over time. The point was that the idea of an Islamic Republic didn't exist among Iranians of the 16th Century, or the 7th for that matter.

I wouold honestly hope that after 1300 years some changes would take place. Although that doesn't even make them admirable. The Iranians elected a homophobic, paranoid, warmonger that funds terrorism. When religion meets politics, bad things happen.

are you bound to offer your lady protection and raise their kids after a one night stand?

Usually children don't result from a one night stand, because in America we aren't stoned to detah if we use condoms, but yes, by US law I believe that the father is bound to help support the child.

no it wasnt... there was no forced conversions during that time. chistians, jews, etc lived peacefully and there was no denying they enjoyed the protection of the caliphate better than byzantine rule. i can't speak up for any following dynasties. the quran discourages forced conversions anyways.

I'm not denying that, I'm talking about the initial occupations. Islam, for a period, was a good thing for the world, and then European Christianity screwed it up big time. Now, for some reason, it is Islam that is screwing things up for the world.

muslims had to pay zakat and tax. non muslims had to pay some special tax but add the two together and you tell me who has to pay more...

I'm against discrimination of any kind, so taxing people because they believe in the same god but in a different way makes no sense to me.

you cannot comprehend the amount of muslim smokers there are in indonesia...

The scholars better choose wisely then.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Usually children don't result from a one night stand

have you ever watched the jerry springer show?

because in America we aren't stoned to detah if we use condoms

just stop it. condoms aren't forbidden.

but yes, by US law I believe that the father is bound to help support the child.

you do realize that many don't pay child support right? plus, giving money is not the same as raising a child. rasising a child is a full time job, play ball with the kid, educate him, go fishing...

I'm not denying that, I'm talking about the initial occupations. Islam, for a period, was a good thing for the world, and then European Christianity screwed it up big time. Now, for some reason, it is Islam that is screwing things up for the world.

you're generalizing all muslims basically implying i had something to do with it.

I'm against discrimination of any kind, so taxing people because they believe in the same god but in a different way makes no sense to me.

so you're saying the non-muslims shouldn't pay any tax? you do realize how many riots there would be if non-muslims had to pay way less than muslims... even under the tax system, christians end up paying less that muslims because muslims are obligated to pay zakat... i don't know why anyone is complaining. people tax green carders here, so what?

The scholars better choose wisely then.

it doesn't matter, smokers will smoke. have you ever seen someone detox after qutting smoking?

[motiv-8]

Then I wouldn't make claims that a snot nosed seventeen year old can refute with access to some databases.

Now, now, I'm not interested in your age. Good advice though -- but fear not, because I have done nothing of the sort.

Sorry, my standadized education must be incorrect then.

If your "standardized education" said Islam was spread by the sword, then yes, it was quite incorrect. A little independent verification never hurt anybody.

pfft, no way. Nearly every religion has at one point or another been spread or crusaded for by war. The main distinction is that most of the civilied world is finished with it...

The "civilized world" perpetrated far worse acts than religions ever did in the name of other ideas... I would think of a better argument.

Furthermore, it's not particularly difficult to find socio-economic causes or motives behind these so-called "religious wars."

I'm no fan of religion in general, but I don't see Catholics blowing themselves up in our cities for Jesus, so that means that they are doing something corret. I don't really care what someones relgious beliefs are, but as soon as you start hurting people for your god, religion, whatever, that's when I get irked.

God and religion are merely scapegoats for men with agendas to try to justify their acts. It doesn't really say anything about religion other than that it can be used by both good and bad people alike. Kind of like any organized way of thinking or living.

That's fine. Just find a different way to reign in the radicals and establish uniform beliefs, or at the very least, fight it oug amongst yourselves. This life is all I have so I don't want it ruined by some uneducated nutjob with C4 strapped to his chest.

I rarely see someone scaremongering.. themselves. The statistical probablility of that scenario is not even worth mentioning, even if you resided in a Muslim country.

By the way.. Muslims do have uniform beliefs. They're called the Pillars of Islam. As far as reigning in radicals... Let's see.. there's education, public relations, economic progress, strengthened security.. Yep, all these things are being worked on in combination by the majority of Muslim countries.

Is this where I'm supposed to about reigning in radical Christian nutjobs who murder doctors in abortion clinics? No? Okay, I'll hold on to that one.

Good to know, but I don't care about he micromanagement of the Muslim communities. It is insignificant if they all have different beliefs and fight eachother constantly.

If you don't care, don't engage in discussion. I think it's about as simple as that.

Don't presume to tell me the Muslims in Lebanon are peaceful people...

I don't have to presume to tell you anything. Try reading a history of Lebanon. But wait.. first of all, when did I ever mention the word "peace" or "peaceful" in the same sentence as Lebanon? I said that Lebanese Muslims are tight-knit. They had to be, or they would have been all but wiped out by murderous Phalangists and the Israeli-sponsored SLA.

How many TV shows make fun of Jesus? The difference is that the next day, Christians don't take to the streets burning efigies.

So? Right to protest is right to protest.

All relgion is imperfect. My only concern is about being taken seriously which I don't feel I can be unles I use Arabic.

Don't know what to tell you. You're talking to the wrong people.

I wouold honestly hope that after 1300 years some changes would take place. Although that doesn't even make them admirable. The Iranians elected a homophobic, paranoid, warmonger that funds terrorism. When religion meets politics, bad things happen.

Bad things happen with politics either way. But Ahmadenijad a warmonger? Hmm.. okay. What wars did he start, exactly? I hate to see what you'd call George Bush or Dick Cheney by comparison.

"Sponsoring terrorism" is a rather subjective term that I don't even want to get into.

[qutoe]I'm against discrimination of any kind, so taxing people because they believe in the same god but in a different way makes no sense to me.[/quote]
Economcis is economics. You might as well say you're against taxing people because they make the same kind of money, just more of it.

Muslims pay taxes, too. It's called zakat. Pretty evil, huh?

[jankren]

My dream is to have a harem of beautiful ladies just like our Prophet Muhammad the Stallion. I feel sad for that one other so-called prophet who died a miserable virgin.

Anas said, "The prophet used to visit all his wives in an hour round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas , "Had the prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the prophet was given the strength of 30 men. "
(Hadith Vol. 1:268)

Jesus the virgin must be crying in his grave wishing to have the miracle of Muhammad.

[dogukan]

Islam's priority is believing in god....not being property of men. In a Muslim country that is not ruled by Quranic laws, Muslim women does not have a problem.(see:TUrkey)...except when they are badly educated along with their families and husband....they then turn their own lives into hell.

[Каие]

Can someone point me to the places in the Qur'an where it says that woman is considered property of men and to be valued at half of what men are valued?

It doesn;t say they are the property of men, in fact quite the complete opposite. Islam liberated married women by giving them a distinct and separate legal identity and rights from their Husband and father not seen until over half a millennia later in the UK.

On the ''worth half a man'' bit, this comes from two places. Inheritance, and court witnesses. The latter as far as i know comes from dodgy hadiths, and is not backed up by logic as most of the hadiths detailing things like this like 4 witnesses required to punish a rape, lol. On inheritance, a son gets more than his sister in inheritance. The reason for this is because a Muslim man is duty bound to look after all the essential needs of both his sisters and mother, including housing, food etc. The woman can spend her inheritance on herself, solely, whereas the man must spend his on looking after his family, then whatever is left is his.

Also, what's the point of the Hijab, the religious rule that "a woman should act and dress in a way that does not draw sexual attention to her when she is in the presence of someone of the opposite sex"?

The point of hijab is symbolic. Muslim women should dress modestly as a matter of principle, that is all that is required of them, covering bare legs, mid drift, and cleavage. That's it. The hijab addition is for the purposes of symbolism. Firstly to signify chastity (think nuns), secondly to signify that you're a Muslim woman, thirdly equality (only nobles wore the scarf back in the day) and finally, liberation, a woman controls herself entirely and is the object and tool of no man.

Why is sex so evil again?

It';s not, and Islam doesn't see that way. Quite the opposite. Celibacy is strongly condemned/frowned upon in Islam, only promiscuity is looked down on. Sex is encouraged in Islam, seen as a duty if anything, regular sex is advised. Even the hadiths advised, allowed and recommended certain positions and techniques of sexual gratification. Obviously people disagree, cultural conservatives of various kinds, but Islamic texts are clear. All is allowed, within marriage.

I think that Muhamed was sexually suppressed or else extremely shy about his sexuality for the rules to be so strict regarding intercourse. Though I have been known, on occasion, to be whipped into a fit of toe curling lust if I see a few loose strands of glowing female hair being flaunted from under a hijab.

You've misunderstood both the concept, history and point of Hijab. It was only introduced very very late in the Prophet's life. His daughters didn't wear it.

I think the intent is good- don't let women wear revealing clothes so men don't commit adultery so men don't destroy their families. But then I think about a typical Muslim family unit five hundred years ago and realize that many of the men would have had multiple wives anyway. This obviously provides a scenario for the family unit that I am completely at a loss to explain.

The 4 wives scenario is also commonly misunderstood. The point of 4 wives was basically, social welfare in a time where there was no welfare. In one of the battles of early Islam, many many men were killed and wives widowed and children orphaned. The prophet allowed men to take on some women and children to look after them, but only orphaned women, who had no fathers. Everything on top of that is innovation and the interpretation of lustful opportunist individuals who wanted more.

As you say it kind of contradicts otherwise the ban on promiscuity and emphasis on marriage, love, loyalty/faithfulness and family unit.


PS. Islam was not spread by the sword, with the often touted example of Spain as the primary refutation of this myth. I know it personal, since I spent my life disliking Arabs and Muslims for ''invading'' North Africa and oppressing Berbers to this day. The truth is quite different, and far more complicated then, ''spread by the sword''. One could quite as easily simply blanket the fact that Christianity was spread by first the short sword in Rome, then the gun. Neither are correct.