Support the mistress as well as the wife
-
Sis. farida,
Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Archer. Funny that sister huruf mentioned that "an adulterer is meant for an adultress and vice versa". Come to think of it, why would they stand by cheating husbands? Can it be that they were also guilty of some level indiscretion which the world was not aware about? Or maybe because it is a better form of revenge because the wives would alway hold that against them and can actually blackmail them over it? Maybe they had some other ulterior motives. Who knows?
Peace
Allahu Aalim!
-
Salam all,
Br. Sharp001,
I meant a married woman getting married to another man. But you make a good point... her getting married to another woman would be like... a bonus for her husband... more happiness, sharing and caring.
I guess it could actually benefit all involved.. at least that's how my grandmother's situation is.. I'm very sure that it's not a easy thing to deal with though.. what makes it difficult is the level of understanding and especially the amount of truthfulness that the individuals involved have with themselfs (personal, internal) first and foremost and then of coure the mutual conditions with all involved... This isn't much different than monogmy! In the sense of 43 we know that there are many men who can't even deal justly with a single wife and vice versa..!
On top of fearing injustice, orphans are involved for this verse to be applicable. Can you imagine how rare that particular situation is? And Ms. Symonds doesn't even come close to qualifying for marriage to a married man.
not sure if this fits into what you're saying.. but would this be the same as women who have children from dead beat men who abandon them? Please let me know...
Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Archer. Funny that sister huruf mentioned that "an adulterer is meant for an adultress and vice versa". Come to think of it, why would they stand by cheating husbands? Can it be that they were also guilty of some level indiscretion which the world was not aware about? Or maybe because it is a better form of revenge because the wives would alway hold that against them and can actually blackmail them over it? Maybe they had some other ulterior motives. Who knows?
That's definitly something to ponder.. I wonder how she would be doing in her race for president.. had she divorced him...?!
Sis Farida,
If you can not deal justly with them than only one (not exact quote) AND dealing justly is not easy its TOUGH
It can be just as tough to deal with just a single spouse. The divorce rates speak for that, I think. There are certain apects that need to align for any good marriage to work.. if they don't no matter monogmous or poly... they will simply not work or be misreable..
No man are not content.
How much do you believe physiology might fit into all of this?
Women when happily married and content do not cheat on their husband where as men do ..dont worry about studies just check seeking love websites and you will find quite a few men admitting that they are happily married, yet want a bit of fun on the side they are taking advantage of the availability of women
Yes.. I know.. those studies are made alot of times just for their shock value. I'll take your word for it.. something are better left alone..
Women do cheat when they are cheated on and s.c. liberated women are now trying to outdo men by going to male striptease etc but still their number is less over all.
not sure if I'd call that liberated for either man or woman.. ???
The sad reality is that women are generally romantic and seek love and are happy with a one to one relationship, even if they can have lots of men; one example was Princess Diana
I believe many men do too and even though vice versa in having lots of the other etc.. Love is not lust... Love is not always recipicated either... so it could be love for one and lust for the other.. either side of fence... it happens..
peace.. peace
-
this woman is not a victim, she is a willing participant... she milked men for what she could, and when things weren't going her way she blew the whistle
anyone who thinks that one gender cheats any more or any less than the other is simply fooling themself
-
this woman is not a victim, she is a willing participant... she milked men for what she could, and when things weren't going her way she blew the whistle
anyone who thinks that one gender cheats any more or any less than the other is simply fooling themself
exactly dear P
that's why i yucked up there Farida (first part of aaron's statement) and no i am not defending the guys...
second statement; sure, except if they all cheat homosexually...
peacelk
-
Salam all,
Br. Sharp001,I guess it could actually benefit all involved.. at least that's how my grandmother's situation is.. I'm very sure that it's not a easy thing to deal with though.. what makes it difficult is the level of understanding and especially the amount of truthfulness that the individuals involved have with themselfs (personal, internal) first and foremost and then of coure the mutual conditions with all involved... This isn't much different than monogmy! In the sense of 43 we know that there are many men who can't even deal justly with a single wife and vice versa..!
not sure if this fits into what you're saying.. but would this be the same as women who have children from dead beat men who abandon them? Please let me know...
Peace Br. Mehdi,
About the first paragraph, I am sorry if I was misleading but I was just being sarcastic when I implied that a married woman should marry another man. I was just trying to make a point that the cycle won't end at polygyny. It will keep snow-balling upto the point where people would not be considering whether it is unjust to any of the people involved in a polygamous relationship, especially the children.
For the second paragraph, what I was trying to imply is the condition for polygyny in 43 is so very difficult to adhere to that it becomes virtually impractical in today's world. I mean think about it. You are only allowed multiple marriages if you fear injustice to the orphans. Can anyone tell me what possible forms of injustice could there be to orphans, which would prompt another marriage?
Salaam
Thank you for 43 reference, its late here however I must replyYes I can. Large numbers of men are killed in Iraq war leaving many women in need of protection and the above verse is mainly to support those vulnerable women, as well as to hinder women like Ms Symonds from selling themselvs cheaply.
Best regards
Sis. farida,
I think I lost the connection there. If many woman are left in need of protection because of war, does it necessarily mean that one should marry them to offer the needed protection. What happened to the taking them under your protection as a sister? The only need I can possibly think marriage can fulfil are sexual. Every other need can be fulfilled under a brother/sister relationship.
As for Ms. Symonds, it was really unfortunate that she was exposed to the society that she was in. But the thing is she gave into it. 2268 comes into mind.
2268 - "The Evil one threatens you with poverty and bids you to conduct unseemly. Allah promiseth you His forgiveness and bounties. And Allah careth for all and He knoweth all things." (Yusuf Ali)
In the end, she turned out to be nothing but a gold digger, hiding behind a preceived notion of "seeking true love".
Peace
-
I think I lost the connection there. If many woman are left in need of protection because of war, does it necessarily mean that one should marry them to offer the needed protection. What happened to the taking them under your protection as a sister? The only need I can possibly think marriage can fulfil are sexual. Every other need can be fulfilled under a brother/sister relationship.
As for Ms. Symonds, it was really unfortunate that she was exposed to the society that she was in. But the thing is she gave into it. 2268 comes into mind.
2268 - "The Evil one threatens you with poverty and bids you to conduct unseemly. Allah promiseth you His forgiveness and bounties. And Allah careth for all and He knoweth all things." (Yusuf Ali)
In the end, she turned out to be nothing but a gold digger, hiding behind a preceived notion of "seeking true love".
Peace
Do you genuinely believe a "brother/sister-like relationship" would work between unrelated heterosexual male & females? Seriously? What makes you think that, because it really doesn't look like the case in reality. Quranic commandments reinforce quranic commandments and lead away from bad, not towards. In any case, polygyny is permitted quranically and if you don't like it, you know what you have to do.
-
Do you genuinely believe a "brother/sister-like relationship" would work between unrelated heterosexual male & females? Seriously? What makes you think that, because it really doesn't look like the case in reality. Quranic commandments reinforce quranic commandments and lead away from bad, not towards. In any case, polygyny is permitted quranically and if you don't like it, you know what you have to do.
Br. OPF,
I can see that you are furiously in favour of polygyny, which I respect. But I will say that I did indicate in my post to which you have responded above, that the only need that can be fulfilled by polygyny is sexual, which you have just asserted above. I would again ask, is there any other need that polygyny can satisfy? It's a simple question and not intended to be a condescending one. I am just interested in know what the real world is meting out nowadays.
Peace
-
Salam Br. Sharp001,
On the first paragraph.. got it!
Sorry if I missed something...For the second paragraph, what I was trying to imply is the condition for polygyny in 43 is so very difficult to adhere to that it becomes virtually impractical in today's world. I mean think about it. You are only allowed multiple marriages if you fear injustice to the orphans. Can anyone tell me what possible forms of injustice could there be to orphans, which would prompt another marriage?
This is why I asked about if you think men who have kids then abondon the women and children do you think this would fit into injustice?
that the only need that can be fulfilled by polygyny is sexual, which you have just asserted above. I would again ask, is there any other need that polygyny can satisfy? It's a simple question and not intended to be a condescending one. I am just interested in know what the real world is meting out nowadays.
Br. there is much more to marriage than sex. If sex is the only bond that holds a marriage together, I'd doubt that that marriage would last long. There is much more in the spiritual, mind, and soul of another person that contribuites to a good marriage and partnership that goes beyond mere sex. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with sex, but that there's much more than just sex. So to think that any marriage (not only poly).. is just for sex, imo, is an unrealistic view.
What needs does a marriage in general satisfy?
Peace.. peace
-
this woman is not a victim, she is a willing participant... she milked men for what she could, and when things weren't going her way she blew the whistle
anyone who thinks that one gender cheats any more or any less than the other is simply fooling themself
Salaam everyone
Alhumdullilah another day!AaRon so its Poor Lord Archer ?he was milked??he was not a participant just poor man and this yuk woman blew the whistle on this brilliant writer who managed to sell his books from jail and is still doing very well in this monogamous society?
Make the most of monogamyBest regrds
-
exactly dear
that's why i yucked up there Farida (first part of aaron's statement) and no i am not defending the guys...
second statement; sure, except if they all cheat homosexually...
peacelk
brickwallhere we go another truth seeker who thinks the world is only what the Uk and USA. It is much bigger and the two most populated countries China and India have no statistics showing more women cheating than man.
You are disgusted with the idea of women getting anything in return..No she should have quietly served this man in a society professing monogamy huh?
Is this your new world order?
Best regards -
Sis. farida,
I think I lost the connection there. If many woman are left in need of protection because of war, does it necessarily mean that one should marry them to offer the needed protection.
As for Ms. Symonds, it was really unfortunate that she was exposed to the society that she was in. But the thing is she gave into it. 2268 comes into mind.2268 -Yusuf Ali)
Peace
As salaam alaikum
Alhumdulliah for giving us another day to reflect.
I was just being sarcastic when I implied that a married woman should marry another man. I was just trying to make a point that the cycle won't end at polygyny. It will keep snow-balling upto the point where people would not be considering whether it is unjust to any of the people involved in a polygamous relationship, especially the children.
The cycle ends in polygyny but in case of polygyny it can go on and on and children can have common father and one mother and all could have lived happily ever after, with long queues to STD clinics.
If you remember this ideology was tried several times before; one example is the cult of sheri Baghawan which despite getting lot of publicity did not take off and today there is lot of freedom available but still most prefer the nuclear family.the condition for polygyny in 43 is so very difficult to adhere
Yes 43 make it very difficult to follow polygyny but in a situation when there is an emergency like in Iraq both men and women should think of the rights due to these vulnerable persons, who are without protection ?(often translated as Orphans) it is in this situation I understand 44 that you are to give them their due sadaqah in the form of charity to be taken into the family and if they take it then its fine or if they remit then there is no blame on you.
What happened to the taking them under your protection as a sister? .
You are being unrealistic as OPF has questioned you in his last reply. Allah does not shy away from saying what may appear to you something trivial; as you can see Qur?an is very frank ?just because you call your wives your mother they do not become so, nor do your adopted sons becomes your sons, hence if you call some woman your sister she would not become your sister ?
The only need I can possibly think marriage can fulfil are sexual. Every other need can be fulfilled under a brother/sister relationship
Have you ever pondered the sexual need of a woman, who was used to having regular sex while married and then all of a sudden is deprived of that fulfilment?
Women suffer terribly when deprived of bodily satisfaction; it does not matter how much they loved their husbands and feeling guilty, as if they are in some way wrong to feel this is an added agony? Sadly many eastern cultures shy away from talking about the sexual needs of men and woman and have not bothered to do any research on the plight of singles, men or women ?
I have done quite a lot of research on this subject and only Allah swt knows what sort of hell a woman goes through when she suddenly losses her sexual relationship. The pain she goes through and the urges she faces? these subjects have never been discussed in eastern culture whereas the west acknowledges these factors.
This leaves the impression that only western women have an appetite for sex ?.Everyone should do an honest study on the plight of single women, who are used to having sex and due to loss of her husband is deprived of it."The Evil one threatens you with poverty and bids you to conduct unseemly. Allah promiseth you His forgiveness and bounties. And Allah careth for all and He knoweth all things." (
Exactly Allah(swt) cares for all for married as well as single for men as well as women for belivrs as well as some one like Ms. Symonds, who
In the end, she turned out to be nothing but a gold digger, hiding behind a preceived notion of "seeking true love".
Polygyny is there to avoid conduct unseemly.
Best regards
farida -
I agree with sister Farida that even if a particular person, in this case a woman, is quite capable and willing of controlling sexual needs, it doesn't mean, it cannot mean, it most surely doesn't mean that every woman can or will, and why should she. Besides it is not exactly a physical sexual matter, it is more a global personality matter. You don't separate different aspects of a person just because intellectually you are caapable of analysing separately things that in reality (in nature, if you like) come together. Man-woman relationship is not a matter of just sexual immediate satisfaction, shaking bodily to your hearts content, it is a more global thing, I would even say a philosofical question of completion or completitude of the person entity and value and personal life, and personal life has an other-sex dimension that it is not legitimate nor wise to disregard. Nobody disregards it, and therefore we have many things, including mistresses if this dimension cannot be lived in any other way. And you may throw in a greed aspect or as many aspects as you want, but it is not fair nor charitable to ignore that most likely there is this other-sex factor at the bottom of it. And in fact it may be a very cruel thing to throw the greed accusation against somebody who may have become greedy as a substitute for something she couldn't have, in the same way that people who lack physical expression of affection end up eating sweets like mad and cheat themselves that eating sweets is good, because they cannot stand the guilt and sense of lack of worth of not being able to get affection.
May be a person can satisfy sexual physical urges by other means than relationship with the opposite sex, but, to name just one thing, what about motherhood? Many women might give up having a husband, they would never give up having children, others might would give up children but at least want a husband, and still others, even if they can live a good part of their lives without a partner, need to know what to have a partner means and undergo the transformation that that brings to a person, and it is not only not legitimate to tell them "you can't have it, and that is it", because their wish is perfectly legitimate and a means to know life, to know themselves, to know in short and a way which is blessed and commended by the Creator. So, do we have a conflict? At an individual level it is abundantly clear that we do have a conflict. At a societal level, that is what I am traying to get at when I speak about statistics and knowing how many.
Statistics are real poison because today they stand in lieu of real knowing. On the other hand there are things for which statistics are really, really useful, like doing global calculations for global purposes. For instance
It would be bad usage of statistics to measure every person height and then take the mean and make school banks for the mean, even if there are very few people who have that height. It would be wiser to make diferent sizes in the amounts that those sizes come in real life.
If we want to have a social solution to the global needs of women -or men- we must first determine what those needs are, how many women have each one of those needs; what those women see as something they would never be willing to forego, and what they would forego if need be, what would they accept as a compromise for the sake of the general welfare, what they wouldn't what are their sexual tastes and what completentary tastes would be willing to accommodate... Then have also proper and equeally thorough statistics on males.
Then we might know how many males are available to satisfy the amount of females or females' needs and to satisfy themselves and their needs. To speak without actual data is very difficult and we end up putting up principle against principle, when every principle is respectable. I am sure that if things are brought to the practical, real level (which is what seems to have been done in the Qur'an, which wasn't speaking in abstract, it was speaking of actual situations), we may find out that finally we are very constructive, practical an compassionate people when we "know" what there is to do.
Now, what militates against taking stock of what we have as far as real females and males are concerned. We are up against a few taboos. Not only against poligamy, but also against touching the "sexual orientation" (as they say now), sexual lack of appetite or excess of it, comfortableness of present usages even if they kill us or even if they don't kill us but would be much perfected...
I would have never imagined myself asking for it, but here I am we need thorough, careful and detailed statistics.
Salaam all
-
brickwallhere we go another truth seeker who thinks the world is only what the Uk and USA. It is much bigger and the two most populated countries China and India have no statistics showing more women cheating than man.
You are disgusted with the idea of women getting anything in return..No she should have quietly served this man in a society professing monogamy huh?
Is this your new world order?
Best regardsfarida
you're way off... for everything you think you understand about me. But for sure, i could have been in her shoes often, specially these last years after my divorce and i never accepted that kind of relation. I like it "clean" and equal. And i have been in the position of the wife - with the difference that i left. So again i yuck on them all and i pay the prize, which is to be lonely most times and to take care of myself financially.
Best regards to you too...
lk
btw, i live in africa, not the uk, nor the us - never even put a foot there - you really jump to conclusion quite fast
-
Peace all,
i could have been in her shoes often, specially these last years after my divorce and i never accepted that kind of relation. I like it "clean" and equal.
yes bravo
and i pay the prize, which is to be lonely most times and to take care of myself financially.
(
peace
-
Sisters farida, huruf and Brothers OPF and M.Mehdi,
First up, I apologize for offending anyone by addressing you as sisters, as apparently, no woman can be my sister other than my biological one. As for all your posts, I don't think I can effectively refute or deny any of your opinions because that is just what they are. Opinions and point of views. Out of your own thinking, personal experience and understanding. All we have is the Criteria to judge whether our opinions are right or wrong. How? Because God knows His creations best and He has given the Criteria to us so that we avoid our own (potentially) selfish desires. I was sad to see a post which said, "Polygyny is there to avoid conduct unseemly." Where did that come from? And here I thought that it was to be just to orphans. So, apparently there is no need to pursue self-restraint, struggle against your "nafs", averting your gaze and guarding your modesty. Just marry the one you think you love and you can avoid doing all that. Why did God has put natural desires in us only to ask us to suppress them, right? Where there is a will, there is a way. Sigh.
If one wants to understand the verses supposedly about polygyny, then all verses should be pondered over not just 43 and 44.
41 - "O mankind, fear and obey your Lord who created you from one self and He created from it its spouse (Zawjahah), and He scattered/distributed from them (B) many men and women, and fear and obey God who you ask each other about, and the relatives, that God is on you observing."
42 - And give the orphans their properties, and do not exchange the bad with the good, and do not consume their properties to your properties, that it was a great sin.
43 - And if you feared that you would not be just/equitable (tuqsitoo) to the orphans, so marry those allowed for you from the women twos, and threes, and fours, so if you feared that you not be fair (taAAdiloo), then one or what your rights owned/possessed, that (is) nearer that you not side away from justice.
44 - And give the women their dowries specified personally, so if they themself allowed for you something from it, so consume it with pleasure.
45 - And do not give the ignorant/foolish your properties, which God made for you to take care of , and provide for them from it and clothe them and say to them a good saying.
46 - And test the orphans until when they reached the marriage, so if you perceived from them correct guidance, pay to them their properties and do not eat it excessively hastening before they become old, and who is rich, he should refrain and who is poor, so he should consume with the kindness, so if you paid to them their properties, so call a witness on them and enough with God is enough for calculating.
47 - To the men a share from what the parents and the nearest/relations left, and to the women a share from what the parents and the nearest/relations left, from what lessened from it or increased , a share specified/stipulated.
48 - And if of the relations, and the orphans, and the poor oppressed attended the division, so provide for them from it, and say to them a saying (that is) kind/good.
49 - And those who, if they left behind them weak descendants should fear, fear for them, and so they fear and obey God, and they should say an accurate saying.
410 - That those who consume the orphans' properties/possessions unjustly, they eat in their bellies a fire, and they will burn from blazing fire.
Please ponder over these. I have been thinking about them for a good long time since my last post, and something doesn't seem right about the popular beliefs surrounding polygyny based on these verses. I mean, take the first verse. "God created you and your spouse from one self and then scattered many men and women from them". It doesn't say you and your "spouses". Spouse, one-for-one. The second verse states about orphans and their properties/wealth and the third one says if you fear of being unjust to an orphan... unjust but in what regard? The theme of the surrounding verse revolves around restoring orphan's properties/wealth back to them. So, plainly it indicates if you fear being unjust to orphans with regard to restoring their properties/wealth back to them, then do what to avoid it? Marry the permitted women twos, threes and fours? I admit this is the part which I am unable to understand fully at the moment (May God clarify this to me). But going with the understanding of polygyny, I fail to imagine how having multiple wives at the same time will prevent injustice to the orphans in regard to restoring their properties/wealth back to them. I am amazed about the understanding that you got from the verses. It's like taking the key words of the verse 43 (orphans + marry twos, threes and fours of permitted women + injustice) and understanding them as "if you (a married man) see around you there is injustice to orphans (who are occasionally translated to "vulnerable" women???), marry them (the orphans) or their mothers, upto 4 of them at a time, to avoid conduct unseemly".
So many questions with regard to that understanding. How did you understand orphans as vulnerable women? What happened to the property/wealth portion of the verses? Why do you think that only men can be the guardians of orphans, if the verses are addressed to all mankind? How did you match avoidance of conduct unseemly to multiple marriages, when the verse addresses injustice to the orphans in regard to restoring their properties/wealth back to them? How about looking at all the verse in the Book about orphans, and thinking about why are they only mentioned in context of their properties?
Anyway, I don't claim that I know the understanding these verses myself, maybe because they haven't applied to me, as yet. But I will not force an understanding upon myself just because of a need to understand everything in the Book. It will come to me in due time, God willing. I trust Him with that. But for the time being, all I can do is respect your opinions in this regard, as I believe, all of us are devoted to what we are taught and what we have studied of the Book (379).
Peace all
-
41 - I disagree with your understanding. Considering the body of science says "evolution by common descent from an original point", I think you know what I'm implying. So there is no reason for "spouses" because from one comes two. I'm not great in Arabic, so does that mean sexual (in the sense of reproducing) spouses or just one partnered with the other?
And maybe 2432 - And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.
Aside from the singles, look at the two plural groups mentioned in 2432 and 43. But that needs knowledge of Arabic beyond me.
But going with the understanding of polygyny, I fail to imagine how having multiple wives at the same time will prevent injustice to the orphans in regard to restoring their properties/wealth back to them
Guardianship. Same as with 434.