Support the mistress as well as the wife
-
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.
-
farida
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
Salaam alaikum Elke,
Please I did not judge you at all I merely replied to you thread. Now that I know more about you I would say how could you be in her shoes? You?re a woman who has been given rights by Allah(swt) to demand her status and not to allow anyone to use you as mistress.
None has right to take a woman as his mistress, because Allah swt has given equal status to all women. You say that you could have been in her shoes, which goes to show the dilemma of a single woman. Your strength comes from your faith & guidance, whereas women like MS Symonds, do not have that guidance. They are under the illusion that they have equal rights.However why you?re not yukking at the man involved here, is due to living in a culture where only men are allowed to behave badly?
I feel you have somewhat misunderstood the purpose of this thread, which is to point out the hypocrisy of the ?monogamous? society and to direct attention to the plight of women who are being abused by men like Lord Archer and we are not discussing homosexuals but heterosexuals.
Think carefully; what I am saying is that this society that claims to have given equal rights to women by establishing monogamy, are actually denying women their rightful status. Here you see two women abused (the wife and the mistress) while Lord Archer comes away scot-free. He appears on TV; he writes books and he and his wife hold parties frequented by high profile people. I would not be surprised if it emerged that Lord & the Lady Archer sleep in separate bedrooms, in the end it?s all about keeping up appearances.
What we need is for more single women like you to come out and discuss how ?alone in matter of heart? a single women can be. Of course it?s your decision not to want to go Ms Symonds way, alhumdullilah you have children and friends with you, but that does not mean the problem does not exist.
Regards and peace
farida
3370 O you who believe, be aware of God and speak only the truth. -
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
As salaam alaikum
Alhumdulliah .. another day to reflect,
The discussion about polygyny has been going on in another thread and some very well versed contributors, including yourself, are engaged in that discussion.
This thread is about reality and all I am asking is if monogamy is the right way, why is it not working in civilised societies like UK and USA and why do wife stand side by side with their adulterous husbands??? Most look down at women, like Ms Symonds, who often fall into this trap because the man promises them that he will soon leave his wife and marry her?even Monica Lewinsky believed that.
You said
I was sad to see a post which said, "Polygyny is there to avoid conduct unseemly."Why? Many acknowledge that having one wife is no ball game, so few have the guts to take on another. However a mistress (Ms Symons) can be exploited. Please see reply number 6 on this thread I don't think that men who have affairs are interested in marrying these women. It is a bit of rebellious fun. Marrying them would make it boring.
This is what goes on in real word4135O you who believe, stand with justice as witnesses to God, even if against yourselves, or the parents or the relatives. Even if he be rich or poor, God is more worthy of them, so do not follow your desires from being just. And if you twist or turn away, then God is Expert over what you do.
Best regards
farida -
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.
Peace Sharp,
Don't you think, the widows from war for instance have enough on their shoulders to struggle with already? Why should they be denied the comfort of remarriage and the protection it entails? Yes and also the fulfilment of their sexual needs. Abstinence is not a good per say which, I guess is why we are encouraged to marry and "dwell in tranquility" with our spouses. sun
-
Peace all,
....
This thread is about reality and all I am asking is if monogamy is the right way, why is it not working in civilised societies like UK and USA and why do wife stand side by side with their adulterous husbands??? Most look down at women, like Ms Symonds, who often fall into this trap because the man promises them that he will soon leave his wife and marry her... even Monica Lewinsky believed that.
...
Why? Many acknowledge that having one wife is no ball game, so few have the guts to take on another. However a mistress (Ms Symons) can be exploited. Please see reply number 6 on this thread I don't think that men who have affairs are interested in marrying these women. It is a bit of rebellious fun. Marrying them would make it boring.
This is what goes on in real word4135 - O you who believe, stand with justice as witnesses to God, even if against yourselves, or the parents or the relatives. Even if he be rich or poor, God is more worthy of them, so do not follow your desires from being just. And if you twist or turn away, then God is Expert over what you do.
Best regards
faridaI apologize that I misunderstood your purpose of initiating this thread. You say that monogamy has failed in the "civilised" society and want to expose the hypocrisy of monogamy. Ask yourself something here. In that society, isn't there a fear of commitment in men there? You find men actually dreading marriage because that for them is being tied down, a trap, a burden for them. Br. Mehdi, as well as I have put a question towards you, what does marriage mean to you? Do you have the same feeling for it, as the so-called civilised word? Marriage between two people signifies love, devotion, dediction, affection, friendship and mercy between them (These attributes also confirmed by the Book, verse 3021). If you have that in a marriage, can you honestly tell me that men would feel the need to look for a "Ms. Symonds" in their society? Do you believe that your married life would become boring which would entail you to indulge in a "bit of fun and frolic"? The elements of real and civilized society that you are talking about don't believe in marriage in the above manner but just as a ritual, a convenience, a necessity and a societal requirement. If you feel that you don't want to marry, then don't, but stay chaste and refrain (2433). The worst thing you could do is marry for the wrong reasons and then get the feeling of restriction and boundaries. Using polygamy as an excuse to eliminate monogamous failures is addressing a one set of issues/problems with the solutions for a totally different set of issues/problems, which will not reduce marriage failures but would increase it.
As I understand it that you feel that this is a man's world and it is distressing for you and your solution is take down the man. Because that is what polygyny will do. If, the man is not able to deal fairly with all of his wives, they'll leave him but not before getting their share and thus the man would lose. Why don't you take the women up to what you think is man's level in this world? Why should women assent to marrying a man who from the outset cannot be expected to live up to the the real reason of marriage? Why should women be so "easy" to marry? The society that I come from is not as "civilised" as the one that you have in mind, but we do know what values of marriage are and that a husband is a raiment for his wife and a wife is a raiment for her husband (2187). Marriage is not only the vessel to extend your lineage but it is companionship, through thick and thin, and actually believing and living it.
I don't think that there is anything else that I can add to this thread, but I would like to say that I remember a couple of months ago, I read a novel by Ben Elton, titled, "High Society", which was about an MP attempting to legalise drugs because that would reduce the ills of society which result from their illegality, i.e. exploitation of the poor and the helpless, rise of drug lords in the society etc. I can't help but relate your assertions to that book. If extra-marital affairs are bad for the society, your solution is effectively to legalise them, rather than eradicating them. I am sorry but I would then have to say that the real world that you see is wrong and I won't change to reach any compromise with it nor would I even think of advising anyone else to.
Br. OPF,
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.
41 - What I understand is there is a "self" (nafs). From it (the self/nafs) came you (man or woman) and your spouse (man or woman). Isn't that simple? Why did God say "you and your spouse" and not "a man (Rijaal) and a woman (Nisaa)"? He was pretty specific, don't you think? You and your spouse... from one self/nafs... I am not sure but I think that is in line with the what your body of sciece says, no?
2432 - those among you who are single. Where are the singles from? Among us. Doesn't "Us"= a plural group. Similarly, those who are fit from a plural group of male slaves and those who are fit from a plural group of female slaves. I am sorry but I don't see any ambiguity.
Guardianship. Same as with 434.
434 - "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance) For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." Yousuf Ali
It says "Men are protectors of women", not "Man is protector of women". Plural against plural. Still doesn't tell me that one man can or should protect more than one woman, or how multiple wives help with the issue of the orphans.
Br. G.Omar,
Peace Sharp,
Don't you think, the widows from war for instance have enough on their shoulders to struggle with already? Why should they be denied the comfort of remarriage and the protection it entails? Yes and also the fulfilment of their sexual needs. Abstinence is not a good per say which, I guess is why we are encouraged to marry and "dwell in tranquility" with our spouses. sun
Br. G.Omar,
I apologize if I was not clear in my posts but I never implied that widows should not marry. Why is there a requirement that they should and can only marry the married-with-wife? Why are single/divorcees/spinsters out of bounds for them? The comfort, protection, fulfilment of the sexual needs can as well be obtained from marrying the single/divorcees/spinsters from among us, don't you think?
Peace
-
I have many many more things to say, but it is hard work to put everything in order and say it. So for the moment I will just say
that this Ms. Symonds happens to be the VERY FORTUNATE one mistress who was entertained with money and comforts. That is not all that usual with mistresses. The reality is that many are not supported by the mister, that the mistresses fence for themselves, earn their living and can consider themselves very fortunate if they are not exploited a little or a lot by the mister. Most mistresses instead of deserving to be called gold diggers, might deserve on the contrary considered shockingly generous. Do wives know when they are betrayed by their husband? How many wives go out of their way in order not know? How many wives are just too afraid of getting the awful shock that their husbands are betraying them, and don't trust themselves that they would be able or willing to cope with that humiliating and bitter knowledge?
So, I think that there is ample merit to Farida"s point.
Now, would poligamy solve this situation? Such as things are now, and much as I might wish for it, I doubt it very much. I am sadly sure that poligamy would be equally abused by men. They would find a new toy, they would find a new way of playing with their wives' and prospectives wives' feelings, and would still maintain their right (undeclaredly, just like now) to have mistresses and play with them also the new card of poligamy.*
It is more a problem of attitude, of values and moral uprightness which is never exacted of men, because when they fail in that department absolutely nothing happens to them and because being good rather than successful is not something that is respected or admired, many times it elicits pity or disdain. What is the incentive to being a good man? Only those who sincerely feel married to rightousness will uphold uprightness in their relationship with women in whatever category. Were there a big mass of upright and humble men we could spend time looking at what a society could do to provide the best possible means for the people to live with honesty and truthfulness in the manner that best answered every body's needs. Lacking that, I don't think any system or device will work. There is no magic formula.
As to the fact that if there was poligamy no woman would accept becoming a mistress... I believe that may be a few women would stick to that. Thinking that most would do is I think not to have measured the depth of the misters' scheeming, lying and manipulative abilities and lack of scruples. They would always have a reason for not now, not here, wor wwait just till... you get the picture.
As I said before, it was more the constraining of men rather than the "liberation" of women what was needed, but it is obvious that constraining men for now is not popular, noy politically correct, not wanted, so we'll just plod on till Allah gives us something else. This is our time, this is our test, and in sha Allah when it is our time He will rescue each of us.
*Recently there was a collective letter of Spanish Muslim women in which they expressed their bitter disappointment at the fact that their good faith and sincerity was being corresponded by their husbands indiscriminate use of their "right to poligamy" to get new wives (of course much younger and of course not needing any help). This is just a recent example of the kind of poligamy we are likely to get if we went for it. Not solution to problems, but feeding of the cock among hen feeling.
Salaam -
Peace all,
Peace
Salaam Sharp001 and everyone,
In that society, isn't there a fear of commitment in men there? You find men actually dreading marriage because that for them is being tied down, a trap, a burden for them.
It?s a free world so in a society where sex and women are freely available, no wonder men don?t want to commit to marriage.
Br. Mehdi, as well as I have put a question towards you, what does marriage mean to you?
Before I answer this question I would respectfully ask you two brothers if you are married. If not, it?s no use talking about a subject, regarding which you have no knowledge?
Marriage between two people signifies love, devotion, dediction, affection, friendship and mercy between them (These attributes also confirmed by the Book, verse 3021). If you have that in a marriage, can you honestly tell me that men would feel the need to look for a "Ms. Symonds" in their society?
So you think all this was missing from the life of Lord Archer whose wife was regarded as a ?fragrance" wife by the judge. Are you now saying that their marriage, which resulted in looking for Ms Symonds ?was an unhappy one; in other words that the poor man had good reasons?
Do you believe that your married life would become boring which would entail you to indulge in a "bit of fun and frolic
These are not my words but an input in this thread, by Roshan who happens to be honest and frank about his feelings regarding women.
If extra-marital affairs are bad for the society, your solution is effectively to legalise them, rather than eradicating them. I am sorry but I would then have to say that the real world that you see is wrong
It?s not for me to legalise polygyny; it was made halal by God, who gave us the Qur?an and if you can?t accept that then that?s your prerogative. Prophet Mohammad had more than one wife, so are you saying he legalised extra marital relations in the name of polygyny?
Why is there a requirement that they should and can only marry the married-with-wife? Why are single/divorcees/spinsters out of bounds for them? The comfort, protection, fulfilment of the sexual needs can as well be obtained from marrying the single/divorcees/spinsters from among us, don't you think?
When there is war, like in Iraq the result is a shortage of men, especially young men; have you not seen pictures from Iraq where in house after house there are only women and a few old men that is when polygyny is needed
Regarding you middle paragraph I would say this much; it is better that a woman should be married than that she should allow herself to become a mistress. She should demand her full dower and all her rights, because that is what will separate the men from the boys.
I was on phone while you posted this thread, dealing with the grief of a woman whose husband left her, as she could not have children. I also know of a family where the man took a second wife as his first wife could not have children. The first wife then took one of the children of the second wife as her own and thus both wives have a child calling them mother.
Polygyny in Islam is not a license to have more wives it?s but an instrument designed to stop men from using women, for their pleasure, without any responsibility. As I said it?s not easy to take a wife; you need to give her a dower, treat her justly, provide for the families and make sure you stay sane.
See below, in sis Huruf?s contribution, how women are taken as wives without any responsibility to support them; there must be a grave shortage of ?Real? Muslim men that women should put up with such poor excuses for men.There are loads who are abusing in the name of "religion" who pick and chose what suits them in the name of Polygyny.
Best regards
farida -
Peace all,
Br. OPF,41 - What I understand is there is a "self" (nafs). From it (the self/nafs) came you (man or woman) and your spouse (man or woman). Isn't that simple? Why did God say "you and your spouse" and not "a man (Rijaal) and a woman (Nisaa)"? He was pretty specific, don't you think? You and your spouse... from one self/nafs... I am not sure but I think that is in line with the what your body of sciece says, no?
2432 - those among you who are single. Where are the singles from? Among us. Doesn't "Us"= a plural group. Similarly, those who are fit from a plural group of male slaves and those who are fit from a plural group of female slaves. I am sorry but I don't see any ambiguity.
434 - "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance) For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." Yousuf Ali
It says "Men are protectors of women", not "Man is protector of women". Plural against plural. Still doesn't tell me that one man can or should protect more than one woman, or how multiple wives help with the issue of the orphans.
Peace
41 - I don't see how from one mental self comes two more - unless you mean a pregnant woman and her yet-to-be baby. On the other hand, you can see with your own eyes (after spending $$$;D) that bacteria are initially "one self" and split into two. No mention of "you and your spouse" on the other hand. Personally I believe that verse is a test. Why, because it caters to every interpretation. Some will read it and say it's referring to marriage. Others will link it to Adam and Eve since the idea that "many men and women came from those two" is conceptually next. But in other verses such as , God is proclaimed as THE reality. Again in - people have to seek refuge in THE reality. Then again in . I'm sure there are more, but the concept is clear cut. What reality do you believe in, one where God is this and that and such and such happened, where events seemingly violate physical law (i.e. "miracles" or THE reality we're in now? So in any case, I'd put my faith in reality and say that verse means exactly what that verse says. From A => A + B ==(insert 2 billion years)=> C + D + E...
42 - The whole point is that if the order in which things are given in the quran also reflect their priority, then singles would have higher priority than the plural groups mentioned. So polygyny would be a last resort.
Still doesn't tell me that one man can or should protect more than one woman, or how multiple wives help with the issue of the orphans.
Wouldn't you agree that it's a general statement? The reasons men are given that position are specified directly next to it. Inept men who don't fulfill the criteria have no right to being in that position - simple as that. Men DO have dominance in terms of strength, physical and otherwise, that's an undeniable reality. How do multiple wives help orphans? I agree - how so? In any case, the most important thing is the family structure - which is what orphans and homosexual-adoptees lack.