Should women who are forbidden from having a job due to religion be allowed benefits?

Scroll to see replies

nope - or else we could all claim to be that religion and the country would be screwed economically. you can't read somebody's mind to prove that they have a particular religion.

On the contrary, it'd be very easy to prove whether you follow you follow Islam or not.
Everyone is "born a Muslim", fitra.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 61

The Epicurean

Original post by chemting

This sounds a lot like the Green Party's plan for mandatory free £7k to everyone...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes, it is similar to the universal income that the Green party were planning to introduce. Although I'm sure it was a lot less than 7k they were offering. It is part of the reason I am a Green party supporter :tongue:

Reply 62

qwertyuipdoe

Original post by AlwaysWatching

Essentially you have just proven his point.

Whilst teaching and nursing are honourable jobs, not every woman wants to be one. So it depends on what "suited" means. If it means "do whatever you want" why doesn't it simply say that, rather than "suited to the nature of woman". Because what is "nature of woman" and who gets to define it?

Well done for shooting yourself in the foot.

They haven't shot themselves in the foot. Nature of the woman refers to jobs that would be best for them as a person. The nature of each woman is different so it is saying to follow what ever career path is best for you as an individual. Stop fishing for reps

Reply 63

username155270

I like that religion. Which religion is it?

Reply 64

HAnwar

Original post by fatima1998

maybe OP is pointing at ISLAM but as you know Quran very well you are good to go :u:

Spoiler

I'm not an expert of the Quran but I do know Islam does not forbid it, but just prefers women to take care of the home.

Lol it's fine. Most people don't.

Reply 65

username1560589

Original post by 999tigger

Who is sacrificing what? You mean the claimant sacrifices part of their made up religious freedom so they cna get benefits? Not seeing the DWP sacrificing anything. Comply with the or dont get your benefits. Its not rocket science..

Followers of doleism cannot work without committing heresy. Thus they can only claim whatever benefits apply, which depend on their situation. I'm sorry, your 2nd to 4th sentences are too unintelligible for me to reply to. I agree with your final point.

Reply 66

fatima1998

Original post by HAnwar

I'm not an expert of the Quran but I do know Islam does not forbid it, but just prefers women to take care of the home.

Lol it's fine. Most people don't.

but home isn't just made of women, its the whole family and men also have to do something
your first name starts from H i think :biggrin:

Reply 67

chemting

Original post by The Epicurean

I remember reading about it, but can't remember details :colondollar:

Whilst I think it is one solution for some of the problems e.g. automated jobs in the future, I'm very skeptical of this. What's the cut-off point, is it means tested, work incentivisation. Some things that came into my mind but I never really looked further into it

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 68

AlwaysWatching

Original post by qwertyuipdoe

No you are wrong, read it again.

"The work should be suited to the nature of woman, such as medicine, nursing, teaching, sewing, and so on".

It is not a singular term. It is not saying "nature of that woman". It says "nature of woman". Big difference.

This is important because it implies only more feminine jobs are open for that woman, like nursing and teaching. Not jobs that are more traditionally masculine,. like building or law.

Essentially, this means Islam reinforces patriarchal values that does not give the woman true freedom. She is free to work, but only in jobs that is suited to "the nature of woman". I.e feminine, domestic roles. That is what it implies.

It does not imply a "free for all do whatever job is in your nature", as you have implied.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 69

999tigger

Original post by morgan8002

I think you mean satisfy. Yes, some sacrifices have to be made for the sake of religion.

Who is making the sacrifice you refer to? What is that sacrifice?

Dont you have exams to revise for?

Reply 70

username1177050

Not in this country. Either there husbands allow them to integrate or they can all gtfo the country

Reply 71

AlmightyJesus

Original post by chemting

On the contrary, it'd be very easy to prove whether you follow you follow Islam or not.
Everyone is "born a Muslim", fitra.

Posted from TSR Mobile

how is somebody born muslim...? how do you prove that? how does a baby get born with ideologies?
do you mean that somebody cannot be a convert? how is that also possible? are you saying that all converts are not being genuine/truthful but are just putting up an act?

Reply 72

qwertyuipdoe

Original post by AlmightyJesus

They're called reverts. Get over it. The reason everyone is born Muslim is because of a child was to die they go to heaven because they are too young to make their own choices

Reply 73

The Epicurean

Original post by chemting

I remember reading about it, but can't remember details :colondollar:

The idea behind a basic/universal income is to get rid of all the bureaucracy behind the current benefit system. The amount we spend on policing the system, checking peoples incomes etc... is rather expensive. The current system can and is often abused too, and this often results in the people who receive benefits being portrayed as scum as people often associate benefits with benefit cheats (think the channel 4 documentary Benefits Street). There are some people who genuinely need and deserve the support. So there is also the element of removing the stigma behind for example disabilities. Such people should not have to feel guilty for their circumstances. If every gets given this basic income, the system can't be cheated, so no longer needs all the expensive policing, background checks etc...

Another issue we have with the current benefit system, is getting people off benefits. So many people on benefits complain how they are better off on benefits than getting a job. Now if you receive money to support yourself regardless of whether you work or don't, this issue does not exist. In fact, there would be an incentive to work as working wont result in you losing your benefits, but you would instead get your benefits plus any extra income from your job. If you want a new car, a holiday, a new TV, there is now an incentive to work.

The benefits from the such a system are that in theory it should encourage entrepreneurship and business start-ups. If you are guaranteed an income, you can take financial risks in starting up a business, knowing that if you should fail, you have a guaranteed income to fall back on to meet your basic needs, no questions asked. And if your business start-up is successful, then there are huge gains to be made. So it helps remove some of the risk essentially.

Also, at the moment there is a lot of controversy about zero hour contract jobs and minimum wage etc.. In theory, if workers have an income to fall back on, they have more power to negotiate over their contracts as they are less desperate. Many people are forced to accept such jobs, however with a basic income, they aren't forced to accept such jobs. One can spend more time looking for a job they like and want. There should in theory also be less need to keep changing and increasing the minimum wage which often negatively effects small businesses more than larger businesses, who find they can no longer afford to employ staff. We should be encouraging more small business to hire people. If people's basic needs are already being met by basic income, then there is less of a need for a high minimum wage. So again, this should stimulate small businesses and drive the economy.

However, there are also faults with such a system, but this post is already too long and I don't wanna force you to read an essay :tongue:

Reply 74

AlmightyJesus

Original post by qwertyuipdoe

They're called reverts. Get over it. The reason everyone is born Muslim is because of a child was to die they go to heaven because they are too young to make their own choices

they're "called" reverts. but it's a :dolphin:

ing ridiculous notion though, isn't it? I mean, islam is a delusional asinine trainwreck of an ideology/religion that not only has no evidence/logic but actively makes the world a worse place. I mean "that's my opinion" (it's kind of not merely an opinion though, is it?)

Reply 75

_icecream

If their husbands provides for them then I don't see a problem however, it's when they expect top ups like child tax credits for every child when the husband isn't earning enough and when they have more than 7 kids expecting the tax payer to fund their life style.
Simple really, if you can't afford kids then don't have them

Reply 76

_icecream

Original post by chemting

What university is this? I'm kinda curious now lol :colondollar:

Posted from TSR Mobile

al azhar university Egypt

Reply 77

Ambitious1999

Original post by AlwaysWatching

Wahhabist laws do not apply in the UK. That argument is irrelevant.

But freedom of religion is allowed and the strict sharia laws associated with Wahhabism are part and parcel of following that religion. In some areas individuals could face prosecution by sharia court for failing to comply with those laws.
I'm not saying benefits should automatically go to any female not allowed to work, but if it is proven that obeying the law results in financial difficulty by means test then they should be allowed income support equal to JSA but obviously not JSA as they can't actively find work.