Maulana Maududi and the woman.

A gentleman has sent me an article about Maududi's wife and said that I need your comment on it. After reading the text, at first I apologized for the logical errors in it, but at his insistence I promised to write a few sentences. Let's go to Maududi first. Maulana says:

"What the West has given to women is not given as women but has been made into men."

The first logical fallacy is that Maududi, by saying "whatever the West has given to women", has driven women out of the West. It is common for women to be Western. The second thing is more interesting than the first. Says:

"In fact, women are still as humiliated in his eyes as they were in the old days of ignorance."

Maududi is admitting that woman was "humiliated" even in the "old age of ignorance". This means that the religion of God, Christianity, spanning over two thousand years was not only the "age of ignorance", but also the woman was considered "humiliated" in this age of Christianity. In short, the two thousand year age of religion was just ignorance, in which woman was not respected. Look at Maududi's second mistake that in the first sentence he said that what he has given to a woman now has made him a "man". In other words, bringing a woman on the image of a man is a disgrace to the woman, therefore the man also remained a "disgrace". That is, the man brought the woman to the level of his "humiliation" and proved that she is also "humiliated". However, it is not so simple. So let's see more. Writes:

"There is still no respect for the queen of the house, the wife of the husband, the mother of the children, a real and genuine woman."

Now, according to the turn they have made, the woman who does not have these "characteristics" should be considered as "humiliated". This means that women in Western society have never been through these relationships, because they themselves have said that they were "humiliated" even in the earlier "age of ignorance", and in their eyes, that is all right. ۔ The rest is their self-made standard, which has nothing to do with Western social life. Mr. Maududi has not stopped here but is making more mistakes. See more:

"If there is honor, it is for a man or a woman who is physically a woman but mentally and mentally a man."

"If there is honor", that is, now they are believing that woman has "honor", whereas before that they have said that woman was "humiliated" before, and still "humiliated". Is. A person who does not know what he is saying is called a teacher of others. Without understanding the values ​​of foreign societies, man does the same stupid things that Maududi has done. Now tell me friends, should I continue reading this foolish article of Maududi or not? Because the next thing about the "dress" is much more stupid, and my enthusiasm has responded.