POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
As Salaamu Alaika farida,
Salaam
I believe that POLYGYNY is allowed in order to give status and rights to all women. Many men have extra marital relationships and the poor other woman has no status or rights even though she is often the source of much happiness to the man she knowingly shares. To redress this injustice English legal system has acknowledged a mistress?s rights but still her status is not respectable.I think all in a family relationship where sex is exchanged which continues the stream of life going; that marriage is the bond required by Allah to maintain the status, rights and dignity of all involved. Unfortunately today, both men and women are having sexual relationships outside of the marriage bond; and both get hurt on either side due to it. Im surprised to here about the English legal system acknowledging the rights of mistresses. Do they acknowlege the rights of men who sleep with married women? (Now that would be something )
I wonder how many married men would able to cheat on their wives if all women refused to have a relationship outside Nikah?
Men should also refuse to have sexual relationships outside of marriage; whether they are the one who is married, or the women is the one who is married. But I get your point.
I fully believe that it is actually MARRIED MEN, who primarily made laws to outlaw polygyny in most countries. Prior to 100 or 200 years ago, polygyny was legal in most countries, while polyandry has barely ever been legal in most of the world. Married men, that we not to godly, probably realized that they could have a lot more fun without the responsibility if they could outlaw polygyny. Plus it really helps those who want to control global population. How many women would be willing to sleep with married men if the society openly accepted polygyny? Not many in my estimations. Rather they would be trying to marry those men. Many women agree to sleep with men they know are married because their selection just isn't that great out in the world today (or they just fall in love elektro that hurts). My thinking says that if polygyny was the norm, very few women would be willing to be a mistress. Maybe Im wrong.
Who is taking care of orphans nowadays?
Whenever rights are given to humans they always find ways to abuse it, oil rich Arabs are doing that, yet there are so many (Kosovan etc) Muslim women begging on the street.
There is lot of wisdom in the Qur?an, which we can?t always understand, but ultimately it is for our benefit.
Best regards
faridaWell, depends on if you mean arabic orphans or english orphans! Arabic orphans still have their mother according to many arabs. So I guess in America we just call that single parent homes. No orphans involved. Moms just look to get another husband when she can.
Im not sure what's going on in arab countries, or "muslim" countries. I would expect that their families are helping them out with the orphans. I don't think that a woman with kids losing her husband is automatically put on the market to be a co-wife (anymore than any single woman would). But I wouldn't be surprised that if some "orphans" were very wealthy with an inheritance, that someone close to them might be trying to spend their wealth before they are of marriageable age; or to marry them to take advantage of their wealth if they could. Allah knows best.
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
-
Salaam huruf,
Im not really interested in what annoys you, or whether or not you like my posts. If you don't like them, or are annoyed by them; them simply save yourself the headache and STOP READING THEM. I gave a valid analysis of "maybe" why you were connecting my posts to priests tirads, or whatever you called it. If you don't want to be analysed on here, stop posting. Otherwise it will happen. No need to get your underwear in a bind.
You don't have to like me. Im not here for that. I actually like some people on here (based on posts only) and some I don't. Either way, I don't let it keep me from learning or not learning something based on who gave it. Nor do I take a position of agreement with something because I like who posted it. That is childish and immature. True seekers of knowledge, IMHO, accept truth and wisdom from where ever it comes.
Quoting you maybe have an aversion to the term "IMAM" is not out of the blue when you speak about your problems with the way preachers speak. Who knows, maybe I am reading your brain and you just don't like it. Either way, if it isn't true, what do you care? Just move on and make a post that has something to do with the topic instead of diverting it to how you think I should be posting; like this one. And when you say believe you, "I won't speak about other people"; then what exactly do you call this post about my posting? ???
Enough said. I think I have communicated what I wanted to say.
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
OK, I got it you like to make speeches. And you are right too, I don't need to read them. I suppose I was entertaining the utopia that I could get the corn without having to muddle through the rest. Never mind.
Salaam
-
OK, I got it you like to make speeches. And you are right too, I don't need to read them. I suppose I was entertaining the utopia that I could get the corn without having to muddle through the rest. Never mind.
Salaam
If you think that was a speech, then you should have heard me in the past to give a khutbah! rotfl rotfl rotfl
Live long and prosper! O0
As salaamu Alaikum, angel
-
4.4. Wa 'atu nnisaa'a saduqatihinna... This word "saduqa" occurs only in this aya? So it might be useful to know what the difference between this saduqa, which in Yusuf Ali is translated as dower, and the 'ujur in 4.24 and 4.25 that are also translated as dower. (huruf)
Thank you, Sister huruf, for reminding us of the difference between "sadokaat" which appears only in 43 and "ojoor" in all the other verses. It is so important that I couldn?t help getting excited when I read your reminder. I will begin with it.
Yusuf Ali and his likes presume that sadookaat and ojoor are the same because according to them 44 too is about men?s marrying women like the other verses. According to them, 44 is not about marrying the women off.
The translators are so prejudiced (or rather bloked as you once said?) that they contradict themselves so easily. Take for example Muhammad Asad?s translation
And give unto women their marriage portions in the spirit of a gift*; but if they, of their own accord, give up unto you aught thereof, then enjoy it with pleasure and good cheer.
In the footnote he explains
*The expression nihlah signifies the giving of something willingly, without expecting a return for it (Zamakhshari)
See the contradiction? Do men pay the dowers without expecting a return from the women they marry? God?s truth is that bride?s dower, or marriage portion as Asad puts it, is given by the groom, expecting a return for it. He gives it to her so that she will keep house for him and raise him children.
I said God?s truth because God explains it Himself in Al-Baqarah 223 Your wives are your tilth? You make a pay and expect a return for it, which is your tilth.
So sadoqaat can not be dowers.
An Arabic speaker defined nihla like this (Will Samia pleasde tell us whether it is true) Nehl is honeybee. Nehla is a gift similar to the gift of honey that honebees freely provide to others (bears, humans etc.) without expectation of reward.
To sum up, in 44 the women?s sadoqaat are their own possessions.When men marry them off, they hand the possessions over to the women, without expecting a return.
Men have no right to expect a return because they are not giving anything from themselves. However if the women, of their own accord, give up unto you aught thereof, then?
*I will try to answer ImamQuranonly?s questions separately, God willing.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
See the contradiction? Do men pay the dowers without expecting a return from the women they marry? God?s truth is that bride?s dower, or marriage portion as Asad puts it, is given by the groom, expecting a return for it. He gives it to her so that she will keep house for him and raise him children.
correction, primarily , sex and enjoyment.
siki
-
IQO salam
on a side note, what is your opinion regarding the command here in 4-3 for MMa?
is it being suggested that one should marry the MMA or it is being highlighted, "That one may stay satisfied with one (wife) or/and The MMA" ? (because she is already yours, for all practical purposes)
siki
samia ! i direct my above question to you. kindly give your opinion.
siki
-
The possessions of orphans shouldn't be eaten up before they reach the age of maturity to give it to their control. But I don't see "marrying them off" to some man as a way to avoid taking advantage of their wealth. If you have raised them to the point of maturity and not taken advantage of their wealth, why is it necessary for YOU to marry them off to someone now that they have reached the age of maturity in not to do so? Did you all of a sudden become a bad person when they reach the age of maturity? What is the reason or logic behind this timing?
The reason behind it is the opportunity which now comes up the female orphans are finally mature enough to marry. The protecting momeneen and momenaat can take it, as a way out their fear, if they want.
Now you are using "orphan women". Who are the orphan women that are spoke off in 43? Or are you referencing 46 now? and if so, how does 46 relate to 43 to you?
They are the female yatamaa who have reached their physical and mental maturity. In 46 God orders the possessions te be handed over to the yataamaa, who actually are the women in 43.
I agree that 46 is speaking about orphans when they reach the age of maturity, hence they would be women then if a man were to speak about marrying them. And clearly they have "amwaal" that is supposed to be released to them at this point.
But under your concept of "taooloo", how does marrying off only one of the nisaa or the ones whom your oaths have, help you in this?
The possessions are not taboos never to be touched. On the contrary, in 46 God tells you that they are your possesions (amwaal akum) which means if you are really poor, you can eat in a fair manner (fa?l ya3kul bi?l ma3ruuf); plus, you are assigned to invest them, on your yataamaa?s behalf, in economic endeavours.
Supposing you have bought some sheep so that you shall feed them and when the time is ripe you shall sell them at a profitable price. Then several of your yetaamaa prove to have matured enough to receive their money and all of them authorize you (maa taaba lakum) to marry them off. However, the sheep are not good enough to sell yet. If you sell them you will lose lots of money.
In this case you can choose to marry off only one of the yataamaa and keep the others waiting for the proper time. Or if even one orphan?s wedding is definite to put you to economic hardship, you can ask all of them to wait until you sell the sheep at a reasonable price.
As for those whom your oaths have, their wedding never puts you to financial hardship because they don?t have any possessions you have to return. So if you really want to do good works (amal-e saaleh), you can marry them off. God loves His ebaad who do good works.
... remember "this way you will have no possessions of orphans left under your care to eat with your own possessions by mistake" It seems that now you are suggesting that the person will eat the amwaal knowingly, and not mistakingly. How is that better?
I am not suggesting that the person will eat the amwaal knowingly. I said unwittingly, which means unintentionally or unkowingly.
So he should marry off the poor under his oath so that his burdens are removed and he no longer has to pay for them? How does this make sense to you?
For whom?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
I misspelt the word blocked. Please allow me to correct it. It was in this part of huruf's post
The Qur'an is forever and complete guidance, but humanity is never complete nor forever. And I am not saying either that we should not study and try the utmost to understand every single aya. What I say in this case of the orphans and may be in others is that we may be blocked, because we are just unable to place ourselves in the precise situation in which the people to whom this was addressed found themselves. May be if we get an insight of it, the explanation would be so straightforward that we would be astonished.
-
Well, depends on if you mean arabic orphans or english orphans! o Arabic orphans still have their mother according to many arabs. So I guess in America we just call that single parent homes. No orphans involved. Moms just look to get another husband when she can.
Im not sure what's going on in arab countries, or "muslim" countries. I would expect that their families are helping them out with the orphans. I don't think that a woman with kids losing her husband is automatically put on the market to be a co-wife (anymore than any single woman would). But I wouldn't be surprised that if some "orphans" were very wealthy with an inheritance, that someone close to them might be trying to spend their wealth before they are of marriageable age; or to marry them to take advantage of their wealth if they could. Allah knows best.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
Wa alikum salaaml IQO,
Thank you for elaborating on my contribution and correcting me on the gender side. However I was mainly addressing issues of single women, who sometimes have no choice (according to some very modern women)
As much as I respect your contribution I would however say that sometime we humans seem to take a very narrow minded approach of life? whereas Allah sees the wider approach and as a result we often get confused for example these issues here
Arabic orphans still have their mother according to many arabs.
This is not as black and white as we may think, single mother especially divorcee face lot of problems in those countries and how many Arabs go and marry those mothers in order to take care of the orphans?????
I guess in America we just call that single parent homes. No orphans involved. Moms just look to get another husband when she can
Why not? (Here one mustn?t forget that many men after divorce leave their children with the mother and are free to remarry, whereas Islamically it?s the woman who should enjoy this freedom, but, being a mother the idea of leaving her child is unbearable for her. So this is one way of holding a marriage together.)
Getting back to your point about no orphan involved, I am sorry; here you are taking a very limited approach. Be it America or England you may think that because the state takes care of single women and children so there are no orphans(orphan in other words vulnerable person) Sadly you would find children who are left at the mercy of foster parents and many are waiting to be adopted this includes many Muslim children who are finding it difficult to be housed in a ?Muslim? household as not many are willing to take care of someone else?s child.But I wouldn't be surprised that if some "orphans" were very wealthy with an inheritance, that someone close to them might be trying to spend their wealth before they are of marriageable age; or to marry them to take advantage of their wealth if they could..
Here again IMHO you are thinking of amwaal only in terms of monetary inheritance. I would think that the protection of a vulnerable person from sexual abuse could also fall in this category. Sexual abuse of a girl and a boy is a common concern in care homes and foster homes and even in adopted homes. I know of so called muslim families where vulnerable orphans/girls had to be protected from their uncles so I would not limit my approach to these verses to inheritance only.
I look forward to your valuable contribution
Best regards
farida -
4.4. Wa 'atu nnisaa'a saduqatihinna... This word "saduqa" occurs only in this aya? So it might be useful to know what the difference between this saduqa, which in Yusuf Ali is translated as dower, and the 'ujur in 4.24 and 4.25 that are also translated as dower. (huruf)
Thank you, Sister huruf, for reminding us of the difference between "sadokaat" which appears only in 43 and "ojoor" in all the other verses. It is so important that I couldn?t help getting excited when I read your reminder. I will begin with it.
Yusuf Ali and his likes presume that sadookaat and ojoor are the same because according to them 44 too is about men?s marrying women like the other verses. According to them, 44 is not about marrying the women off.
The translators are so prejudiced (or rather bloked as you once said?) that they contradict themselves so easily. Take for example Muhammad Asad?s translation
And give unto women their marriage portions in the spirit of a gift*; but if they, of their own accord, give up unto you aught thereof, then enjoy it with pleasure and good cheer.
In the footnote he explains
*The expression nihlah signifies the giving of something willingly, without expecting a return for it (Zamakhshari)
See the contradiction? Do men pay the dowers without expecting a return from the women they marry? God?s truth is that bride?s dower, or marriage portion as Asad puts it, is given by the groom, expecting a return for it. He gives it to her so that she will keep house for him and raise him children.
I said God?s truth because God explains it Himself in Al-Baqarah 223 Your wives are your tilth? You make a pay and expect a return for it, which is your tilth.
So sadoqaat can not be dowers.
An Arabic speaker defined nihla like this (Will Samia pleasde tell us whether it is true) Nehl is honeybee. Nehla is a gift similar to the gift of honey that honebees freely provide to others (bears, humans etc.) without expectation of reward.
To sum up, in 44 the women?s sadoqaat are their own possessions.When men marry them off, they hand the possessions over to the women, without expecting a return.
Men have no right to expect a return because they are not giving anything from themselves. However if the women, of their own accord, give up unto you aught thereof, then?
*I will try to answer ImamQuranonly?s questions separately, God willing.
Peace,
Hasan AkcaySalaam brook
Joining this discussion in the middle I would, for now just address some of your arguments here.See the contradiction? Do men pay the dowers without expecting a return from the women they marry? God?s truth is that a bride?s dower, or marriage portion.
If I was to take all arguments as men against women then I would limit my understanding of the above. In terms of matrimonial law I see the marriage portion as a security for women. Women often move from their homes in order to become someone wife and its 99% women who have to cut short their careers.
as Asad puts it, is given by the groom, expecting a return for it. He gives it to her so that she will keep house for him and raise him children
This should not be seen to mean that she will keep house for him or raise him children. It is her house she would be looking after and her children who would benefit from her closeness, guidance and education.
She is not doing her husband any favor; she is doing a great job for her children and sadly many a man(and woman)is so unappreciative of this maternal role that she is provoked to go out and earn and prove that she is in no way less than a man.
This initial education of your child is a most important step in embedding YOUR values in him/her and no one can do this for you as only you know what you value most.I said God?s truth because God explains it Himself in Al-Baqarah 223 Your wives are your tilth? You make a pay and expect a return for it, which is your tilth.
I would expand on the meaning of tilth here as this is an allegorical term I would just take the example of a farmer, who loves his tilth more than other possessions as his livelihood depends on it. He does all he can to give the right nourishment to his tilth and does all in his power to save his tilth from the adverse effect of weather or vermin.
Whether it rains too much or there is a danger of drought the first thing that comes to his mind would be how to protect his tilth. This is how we should see man taking care of his wife as a protector (Maun).Finally So sadoqaat can not be dowers.
I may not be as well versed in Qur?an and Arabic as some on this site, however I have my own way of understanding the Qur?an which has guided me for a number of years.
From what I understand pf the word Sadoqaat the root word here is ?Sidiq? which I understand to mean ?with all the sincerity due? so the sadoqaat are gifts that one gives with sincere love and respect and that is why even the prophet accepted such gifts.Look forward to your response
Best regards,
farida -
As Salaamu Alaika farida,
This is not as black and white as we may think, single mother especially divorcee face lot of problems in those countries and how many Arabs go and marry those mothers in order to take care of the orphans?????
Im not to familiar with what goes on in those arab countries, other than what I hear. So I mainly was speaking about what happens in America. Nevertheless, I think there still is a difference in divorced women with kids and widowed women with kids, and orphans as we know them in America who have no parents at all; including any relatives that will take them in.
Single and divorced women with kids get married everyday here in America. Widows maybe even easier. Orphans that have no mother or father, and go from foster home to foster home or live in orphanages, I don't think get adopted quite often. But Im sure that if they were known to have substantial inheritances, they would be adopted very quickly.
Why not? (Here one mustn?t forget that many men after divorce leave their children with the mother and are free to remarry, whereas Islamically it?s the woman who should enjoy this freedom, but, being a mother the idea of leaving her child is unbearable for her. So this is one way of holding a marriage together.)
Getting back to your point about no orphan involved, I am sorry; here you are taking a very limited approach. Be it America or England you may think that because the state takes care of single women and children so there are no orphans(orphan in other words vulnerable person) Sadly you would find children who are left at the mercy of foster parents and many are waiting to be adopted this includes many Muslim children who are finding it difficult to be housed in a ?Muslim? household as not many are willing to take care of someone else?s child.Sometimes after separation or divorce many women run off with the kids. Many women think the kids BELONG to them since they carried them in their bellies for nine months and gave birth. The kids BELONG to Allah and are a trust given to both the mother and father. So men and women both are guilty many times. Each individual case is different depending on the circumstances and opportunities.
Im not sure where orphans became defined as vulnerable person. Many non-orphaned kids are vulnerable, and likewise many orphaned kids are not vulnerable. Al Quran gives much guidance to taking care of the needy and the poor. These ayaat to me deal with the abuse of the WEALTH of orphans, not the issue of the poor ones; those are covered elsewhere.
Here again IMHO you are thinking of amwaal only in terms of monetary inheritance. I would think that the protection of a vulnerable person from sexual abuse could also fall in this category. Sexual abuse of a girl and a boy is a common concorn in care homes and foster homes and even in adopted homes. I know of so called muslim families where vulnerable orphans/girls had to be protected from their uncles so I would not limit my approach to these verses to inheritance only.
I look forward to your valuable contribution
Best regards
faridaAmwaal as used in the context of the 4th Surah is used only as monetary/property inheritance. You can't give back sexual abuse. So although I understand the problem with sexual abuse, I don't think that it is addressed in those ayaat because all sexual abuse is considered wrong in Al Quran. The only allowable sex in Al Quran is between married spouses.
As well, thank you for your contributions.
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
-
As Salaamu Alaika farida,
Im not to familiar with what goes on in those arab countries, other than what I hear. So I mainly was speaking about what happens in America. Nevertheless, I think there still is a difference in divorced women with kids and widowed women with kids, and orphans as we know them in America who have no parents at all; including any relatives that will take them in.
Single and divorced women with kids get married everyday here in America. Widows maybe even easier. Orphans that have no mother or father, and go from foster home to foster home or live in orphanages, I don't think get adopted quite often. But Im sure that if they were known to have substantial inheritances, they would be adopted very quickly.
Sometimes after separation or divorce many women run off with the kids. Many women think the kids BELONG to them since they carried them in their bellies for nine months and gave birth. The kids BELONG to Allah and are a trust given to both the mother and father. So men and women both are guilty many times. Each individual case is different depending on the circumstances and opportunities.
Im not sure where orphans became defined as vulnerable person. Many non-orphaned kids are vulnerable, and likewise many orphaned kids are not vulnerable. Al Quran gives much guidance to taking care of the needy and the poor. These ayaat to me deal with the abuse of the WEALTH of orphans, not the issue of the poor ones; those are covered elsewhere.
Amwaal as used in the context of the 4th Surah is used only as monetary/property inheritance. You can't give back sexual abuse. So although I understand the problem with sexual abuse, I don't think that it is addressed in those ayaat because all sexual abuse is considered wrong in Al Quran. The only allowable sex in Al Quran is between married spouses.
As well, thank you for your contributions.
As Salaamu Alaikum, )
Wa alaikum Salaam,
First of all let me thank your for correcting me regarding amwaal I overlooked the whole context in this surah.
However I see you have quite a negative view about women? who run away with kids?. I?ve got lots of exposure to messy divorces where I have seen the worst of both sexes.Sometimes after separation or divorce many women run off with the kids
At other times it?s the father who disappears and takes no care of his kids. This is worse than having a father who died, as the thought that ?my father is alive, yet not bothered? is very painful for children their position at times is worst than orphans.Many women think the kids BELONG to them since they carried them in their bellies for nine months and gave birth
It?s true that many women think this way but there are cases where Dad ran away when mother said she wants access to the children (without responsibility), but wants to be free to remarry for her own self instead of looking for a father for her children.
This is a complex situation which is why we are reminded in the Qur?an not to use the children to manipulate the situation as parents when a divorce happens.Orphans that have no mother or father, and go from foster home to foster home or live in orphanages,
There are many, with both their parents, who end up in an orphanage. Sometime these are illegitimate children and at other times their parents are unable to look after them so they are taken into care.
I dont want to take this thread to a different topic, but don?t we need to expand the definition of orphans?
Best regards
farida -
4.4. Wa 'atu nnisaa'a saduqatihinna nihlatan...
The possessive "saduqatihinna" makes me think that this saduqa is something that belongs to them, or something they are entitled to. Then comes the "nihlatan...", which means something is being given free. One explanation that occurs to me and seems to fit in the aya is that what is being said os to give the women their money that their parents left, without taking any wages or commissions for the administration or guardianship or whatever, that is, having done all that graciously, which would make what comes after about the women giving freely, quite logical. This reading fits in the series of ayas dealing with this.
Coming to the 'ujur, I agree that this seems to be something paid as a cosideration for something in return. I do not think that it is for taking care or the home, because it is not specifically something that a woman does or should do because of being a woman, and in fact not so long ago many of the household chores were in the hands of men and besides nobody needs to marry the person that does the household chores. Why should a woman marry the butler or a man the housekeeper. No. they pay them wages with fairness and that is it.
I do not think it is for sex and enjoyment either, thoug I can very well understand that everybody would be ready to pay for that. It doesn't need any commendation. But the reason why I think that the 'ujur are not for that is that, that I know, the woman also has sex and enjoys, so even if it would be fun to pay each other reciprocally, I do not think that is the answer. So what I think is evident that the woman contributes to the man she marries is the possibility of being a father and being part of a human family. The burden of having children biologically imposed to the male is non existent, on the female it is enormous. Even if the female doesn't bear a child or even gets ever pregnant, the possibility and expectation of it by itself from herself, the environment and society, represents for her an allpervading constraint. As to the more punctual fact of pregnancy and birth it varies with every woman, it can be quite bearable on the one end and on the other can mean death, and in between everything can happen and does happen. So there is no balance at all in the respective burdens of the male and the female in reproduction. Among most mammals, the males are on their own, and the offspring remains with the females. A male of the human species becomes a man when he consciously wills to live in a human family an consciouslly assumes his burden on it, taking the duties and responsibilities that balance out the burden on the woman in the production and rearing of the common offspring. The very Generous Qur'an points continuously to the fact that our being constituted in sexes is a source of spiritual improvement if we are well guided, it is a school, and a source of blessings. But it exacts too the conscious assumption of our burdens and duties, which on the other hand will not fail also to bring enormous satisfactions in this life and in sha Allah in the next.
Concerning the "women's liberation" I have said many times, simplifying it a lot, that in fact it wasn't women that had to come to the level of men, but men who had to come to the level of women. Before that there was the double moral, now all are equally inmoral apparently, because it would be politcally incorrect to say that many more males than females are pigs, but anyway, we should not be depressed. In spite of all the brainwashing that we get to become the kings and queens of the planetary pigstay, as it happens, there are very good men and very good women in a world that, as it always has been, is full of temptation. Talking about which and pointing out the difference between males and females, I think that there is a clear explanation why statistically there may be more disolute men than women. For women, being disolute, even with today's means, brings automatic burdens and penalties. For men, apart from disease, but even that to a lesser extent than women, there is no inmediate loss. Men do not have to put in iuds, get abortions, have illegitimate children, get kicked out a jobs because of it... Yes, that is the difference. For men to get derailed brings no inmediate bodily or social prejudice. Therefore it takes more determination to be righteous. But to be good out of necessity is not a marvel either, so conscioussness is necessary for all, and that is why the honest Qur'an says that nobody es better than anybody else except by the consciousness of his, her Creator and Sustainer.
May He bless us all and his universes.
Salaam
-
As Salaamu Alaika farida,
I don't have a negative view of women only, I have one of men too. No really, I LOVE WOMEN! yes Can't you tell by my polygynous nature? ! Okay, on a serious note, what I am really saying sister is that wrong is wrong and it goes both ways. I was not defending men, I was pointing out that it happens on both sides; since you mentioned the wrong that men do often. As I said, each situation is different and it's circumstances and opportunities has to be looked at individually. Men and women can be both equally right or equally wrong.
I agree with you about the definition of orphans. It never meant to me only those kids whom their father had died. But this is what many arabs or others on this forum have promoted as the correct understanding as it is used in Al Quran. I haven't agreed with them, but was rather just pointing out what those who have said so, believe.
As Salaamu Alaikum,
Wa alaikum Salaam,
First of all let me thank your for correcting me regarding amwaal I overlooked the whole context in this surah.
However I see you have quite a negative view about women? who run away with kids?. I?ve got lots of exposure to messy divorces where I have seen the worst of both sexes.Sometimes after separation or divorce many women run off with the kids
At other times it?s the father who disappears and takes no care of his kids. This is worse than having a father who died, as the thought that ?my father is alive, yet not bothered? is very painful for children their position at times is worst than orphans.Many women think the kids BELONG to them since they carried them in their bellies for nine months and gave birth
It?s true that many women think this way but there are cases where Dad ran away when mother said she wants access to the children (without responsibility), but wants to be free to remarry for her own self instead of looking for a father for her children.
This is a complex situation which is why we are reminded in the Qur?an not to use the children to manipulate the situation as parents when a divorce happens.Orphans that have no mother or father, and go from foster home to foster home or live in orphanages,
There are many, with both their parents, who end up in an orphanage. Sometime these are illegitimate children and at other times their parents are unable to look after them so they are taken into care.
I dont want to take this thread to a different topic, but don?t we need to expand the definition of orphans?
Best regards
farida -
In terms of matrimonial law I see the marriage portion as a security for women. Women often move from their homes in order to become someone?s wife and it?s 99% women who have to cut short their careers. (farida)
I agree. Women do give up these things, which marriage portion ('ujuur) is supposed to make up for. As a result ?ujuur is, in in huruf?s words, something paid as a cosideration for something in return.
What I understand from your words is that the something in return is women?s keeping men?s houses instead of living in other houses where they were accustomed to living with a feeling of security and raising men?s children instead of carrying on their previous careers. Although they are also women?s houses and women?s children, the rule still stands women do give up things from their lives in order to contribute positive things to men?s lives; so they deserve the dowers in return.
Sadoqaat are different. They are women?s own possessions.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
I do not think it is for sex and enjoyment either, thoug I can very well understand that everybody would be ready to pay for that. It doesn't need any commendation. But the reason why I think that the 'ujur are not for that is that, that I know, the woman also has sex and enjoys, so even if it would be fun to pay each other reciprocally, I do not think that is the answer. So what I think is evident that the woman contributes to the man she marries is the possibility of being a father and being part of a human family. The burden of having children biologically imposed to the male is non existent, on the female it is enormous. Even if the female doesn't bear a child or even gets ever pregnant, the possibility and expectation of it by itself from herself, the environment and society, represents for her an allpervading constraint. As to the more punctual fact of pregnancy and birth it varies with every woman, it can be quite bearable on the one end and on the other can mean death, and in between everything can happen and does happen. So there is no balance at all in the respective burdens of the male and the female in reproduction. Among most mammals, the males are on their own, and the offspring remains with the females. A male of the human species becomes a man when he consciously wills to live in a human family an consciouslly assumes his burden on it, taking the duties and responsibilities that balance out the burden on the woman in the production and rearing of the common offspring. The very Generous Qur'an points continuously to the fact that our being constituted in sexes is a source of spiritual improvement if we are well guided, it is a school, and a source of blessings. But it exacts too the conscious assumption of our burdens and duties, which on the other hand will not fail also to bring enormous satisfactions in this life and in sha Allah in the next.
4-24......if you are seeking with your money to be protected and not for illicit sex. As for those whom you have already had joy with them, then you shall give them their wage as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree to after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.
5-5 ...... and the chaste from among the believing women and the chaste from among those who have been given the Book before you (are lawful for you); when you have given them their dowries, taking (them) in marriage, not fornicating nor taking them for paramours in secret; and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is of no account, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.
MIN qablikum iza atatumhunna, oo ojurihinna.
The woman's wages, (Mahar) is to be paid before one derives sexual benifit from her, and it has been specifically mentioned that these wages are not for out pouring or legalising fornication, nor should be used as a licence for prostituion. BUt to get the woman in an honest relationship with an aim to maintain chaistity.
siki
-
70-29'30 And those who guard their private parts -Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess -- for these surely are not to be blamed.
The conjunction or in this verse is a choice word. It indicates that a believing man is allowed to display the private parts of his body to either his wife or one of his ma malakat aymaan. He has to choose and he has to do do with only one wife, which proves once more that polygyny is forbidden in God's religion.
As for the status of the ma malakat aymaan, they are the legal wives of the men whose oaths possess them. 3350 is proof enough.
In 3350 God says to His messenger, Mohammad We have made legal for you your wives whose dowers you paid and those whom thy oaths have -Innaa ahlalnaa laka azwaajaka'l 'l?tee ?taina ujuur ahunna wa ma malakat yameenuk.
That is, those whom Mohammad's oaths had were legally married with him. The other believing men are also bound by this divine decision (235-6, 7029-30).
Peace,
Hasan Akcay