Support the mistress as well as the wife
-
Salaam to you as well. Before I go on with my post, I'll make it easier for you (and me, as well) by declaring that I am not and haven't been married as yet, so you can ignore everything I write from this point onwards.
please try to see my "idealistic view" from my eyes. If the wife had done everything right, but even then the guy was a sleazeball, then, there is no reason to stick by his side or stay on with him. Get a divorce, leave him and start anew. Let the adulterer be with the adulteress. They are made for each other.
I
Salaam again
With all due respect I am not surprised that you are single and as you suggested I would from now on ignore every thing you write which includes?please try to see my "idealistic view" from my eyes As I am not interested in idealism I am talking about real world.
Best regards
farida -
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
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.
Salaam
Salaam again
Thank you for bringing to our attention what goes on in the real world.
Now, would poligamy solve this situation? Such as things are now, and much as I might wish for it
No? nothing will solve problems as long as such S.C. Muslims have cards to play in the name of ?Religion?.
What about the huge number of women entering in a monogamous marriage in the Indian sub continent that have to bring a dowry in order to be married. Nowadays they also have to earn to support themselves to be wives. Not only that, the dowers, paid to them have been fixed by Imams and set to 32 Rupees, which is less then 32 cents, whereas in the UK current rate is ?32.
Best regards
farida -
Salaam all,
I can't say I feel torn in this matter, because in fact everything is so much in the realm of speculation... As I said in a previous message, without reliable statisticas we are just getting hotheaded for nothing. May be there are in the appropriate ages a number of women equal to the number of men and a general match could be made, may be not, but the fact is that we do not know... but still we get upset. Why don't we try to find just what the situation is from the real figures? That is at least one certainty we might try to get.
Also, I would insist that the Qur'an outlook in whatever matter where action is required is one of real situations, where immediate problems are looked at and immediate ways to handle them are also offered. I think that more or less all in this forum see with dismay how many hadithists exert themselves to apply hadith by hook or crook simply by pretending to reproduce a world that doesn't exist and where hadiths, however surreal, would have to be applied. Aren't we doing that with the Qur'an also, try to make fit things that apply to a certain situation, to another which may have similar elements and dissimilar elements?
Real situations normally do not allow ideal solutions, neither of one type nor of another, but may be, if we don't get stuck in lineal thinking we may come up with "innovative and plural" solutions which likely will not please everybody ideally, but will make things workable for those who suffer the worst. But for that again we need the real data.
Such as things are in western societies, however, there are things that can be done and which are being done, which may not solve problems but improve morally and practically some situations. It is positive that in new codes and laws non matrimonial children are recognized and have rights to their fathers support and succession, in theory at least, equally with the matrimonial children. That is a step to make men responsible for their acts and of course of giving the children what is their right, and therefore also benefit their mothers. Paternity tests certainly have been determinant in that regard.
Regarding aya 4.3, after alll consideration, I am convinced that it is about marrying off the orphan and not about authorizing or enjoining poligamy. Whether from the whole qur'an poligamy is forbidden or not, I am not able to judge for now. May be I am not obliged to judge, may be it is for me a theoretical question and may be with all the facts of our real world at hand we may obviate the need for grueling discussions on "principle". However I am sincerely pained that this debate may be a source of "disencounter among" believing persons.
How things stand in this thread I will summarize
One thing on which we all basically agree is that monogamy is "the" situation we naturally and ideally all seek.
The other is that if figures and detailed knowledge were to indicate that monogamy will not satisfy everybody's leigtimate aspirations, some will say, well let some people have patience
and others, on the face of it, would say, let us get some responsible and contractually sound sharingThe practicability of either of those two options, from my point of view would be decided by the real figures, the real wills, the real capacities of people and society. For instance, no use insisting on some people to be patient if the patienting ones may not have the strength, or even the conviction to see it through to the end; we would again be in the "ilicit" situation we want to avoid, or if for instance, we decided on sharing, the disposition might be abused and applied for purposes for which it was not intended and hypocrisy would ensue.
May be we may continue debating the poligamy question as per the Qur'an in the other thread, and continue in this one with the situation as it is and could be getting some real data on countries societies and workable satistics. May be the United Nations population funds and other organisations has a site from which to get such statistics, apart from many other sources.
Salaam 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.
You said
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 wordPeace
Because divorce is tough, and it is so easy for men to lie and leave women with nothing.
For whatever reason the women still feel they love the man (no matter how insulting they are) and feel on a balance of pros and cons they would be better staying with the man (I do not understand this aspect of women).
Stability (evolutionary biology etc.).
Maintaining the status quo is easier than going into the unknown.Plus a mixture of the above points.
Roshan
p.s. I have rendered 43 if you have orphans that you cannot deal with, then of those that are women marry them off in two's three's and four's. Perhaps I am wrong. I have not read that verse for sometime now.
p.p.s. that woman who wrote the book is only doing so to earn money. She has no real serious points to add in discussions on mistresses, wives and their men. Good luck to her, I hope she attains financial stability.
-
Peace
Because divorce is tough, and it is so easy for men to lie and leave women with nothing.
Maintaining the status quo is easier than going into the unknown.
Plus a mixture of the above points.
Roshan
p.s.
p.p.s.Salaam Roshan
I welcome your input, because that is what we need; frank and honest discussion and we need to be candid and unbiased in our approach.
For whatever reason the women still feel they love the man (no matter how insulting they are) and feel on a balance of pros and cons they would be better staying with the man (I do not understand this aspect of women).
Stability (evolutionary biology etc.).Tell me about it, I am so bewildered about this attitude of some women, including Ms Symonds, who could well live an independent life, yet they continue to humiliate themselves and, in some cases tolerate abuse in the form of domestic violence.
I have rendered 43 if you have orphans that you cannot deal with, then of those that are women marry them off in two's three's and four's. Perhaps I am wrong. I have not read that verse for sometime now.
I will be very honest with you; I do not have sufficient command of Arabic to discuss any surah in detail. I am still learning, but I would say that polygyny is only practical in times of emergency, where extraordinary rules apply. All women are equal and there is no such thing as women who deserve the treatment of ?the other woman?.
that woman who wrote the book is only doing so to earn money. She has no real serious points to add in discussions on mistresses, wives and their men. Good luck to her, I hope she attains financial stability.
Of course Ms Symonds is cashing in on her experience as that is the only option she has. If she had had a share in Lord Archers wealth and status she would not need to resort to such despicable acts.
-
Salam,
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.
I understood your statement above is meant in a sarcastic way and you don't believe what you posted?! Right? If so, I agree. Men and women can very much have platonic relationships and be brothers and sisters.
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?
Just wanted to clear up, originally the question about marriage was asked of br. Sharp001. However maybe it's not bad at all to get both your guys input on this. and to answer you question sis. Farida, yes, I am married and this january will make it 7 years.
edited to add question.
What needs does a marriage in general satisfy?
peace...
peace -
Peace. No mention of you and your spouse? "khalaqakum" = created you, "min nafsin wahidatin" = from one self, "wakhalaqa" = and created, "minha" = from it, "zawjaha"= your spouse.
I agree about "THE reality", but it also say to believe in the "Unseen"... what "Unseen"? The "Unseen" which is told to us by God in the Book as it is the Truth. The Hadith of Abraham and the birds comes to mind. If you want to believe in what you can see, tell me something. How does the evolutionary process or reality fit in with "resurrection after death"? and I don't think that you can afford philosophical views if you are following a body of science.
I am afraid that we are both on separate track. How does the second portion of the verse denote polygyny again, when it mentions groups of both male AND female servants? By your understanding, then it denotes polygamy, not just polygyny.
Simply put, for weak men, they are weaker women. For strong women, they are stronger men. So, what kind of a family structure do you have in mind in support of polygyny.
Peace
No mention of "created you and your spouse". More like, created you from a single being who also had a partner made from itself. If you notice who is addressed (mankind), there is no "created you and your spouse" - mankind and mankind's spouse? Come on, you're better than that.
The hadeeth of Abraham, I'll say I believe exactly what the quran said. Abraham died a long time ago and asserting that was a supernatural event without any method of verification doesn't work. The burden of proof is on you to prove that God broke his physical laws just to show Abraham his power. I don't believe God backtracks. The unseen? Remember that speech of George Bush - there are known knowns, unknown unknowns, etc, etc. You're forgetting that the body of science claims in no way, shape or form to completely understand and also accepts the "unseen". The only difference being that in science, God doesn't backtrack.
I am afraid that we are both on separate track. How does the second portion of the verse denote polygyny again, when it mentions groups of both male AND female servants? By your understanding, then it denotes polygamy, not just polygyny.
You're right. But polyandry is forbidden elsewhere . Simple. The problem here, as I said, would be the interpretation of the other groups. References to slavery? Orphans?
Simply put, for weak men, they are weaker women. For strong women, they are stronger men. So, what kind of a family structure do you have in mind in support of polygyny.
You do have a point there. The obvious would be hadeeth style "visitations" where each wife has a "turn" and can give up her "turn" if needed. In any case, I think we're trying to fit a square peg into a circular hole on bith sides here.
-
Salam,
I understood your statement above is meant in a sarcastic way and you don't believe what you posted?! Right? If so, I agree. Men and women can very much have platonic relationships and be brothers and sisters.
Peace Br. Mehdi,
Yes, you understood perfectly. It was a sarcastic remark and I agree with you assessment above.
Just wanted to clear up, originally the question about marriage was asked of Br. Sharp001.
What needs does a marriage in general satisfy?
I think I have answered that question in one of my posts above. The extract is
"...love, devotion, dediction, affection, friendship and mercy between them (These attributes also confirmed by the Book, verse 3021).... (feeling of) comfort, protection, fulfilment of the sexual needs ... extension of lineage."
Peace
Br. OPF,
No mention of "created you and your spouse". More like, created you from a single being who also had a partner made from itself. If you notice who is addressed (mankind), there is no "created you and your spouse" - mankind and mankind's spouse? Come on, you're better than that.
Oh, now I see how you are interpreting the verse. Apologies for realising so late. I can see that it is not "your spouse/partner" but actually "its spouse/partner"... something like mitosis or asexual reproduction... and "from them (the self/nafs and its partner) scattered many men and women"... Hmmm... never saw this verse in this light... thanks for pointing this out... I'll check with further reading if other similar verses are consistent with this understanding...
The hadeeth of Abraham, I'll say I believe exactly what the quran said. Abraham died a long time ago and asserting that was a supernatural event without any method of verification doesn't work. The burden of proof is on you to prove that God broke his physical laws just to show Abraham his power. I don't believe God backtracks. The unseen? Remember that speech of George Bush - there are known knowns, unknown unknowns, etc, etc. You're forgetting that the body of science claims in no way, shape or form to completely understand and also accepts the "unseen". The only difference being that in science, God doesn't backtrack.
I don't understand, Br. OPF, you believe when the Book hints that God broke physical laws in both 2259 and 2260, but then you also believe that God doesn't backtrack, or am I misunderstanding your point.
You're right. But polyandry is forbidden elsewhere . Simple. The problem here, as I said, would be the interpretation of the other groups. References to slavery? Orphans?
I concur that I also have not fully understood the interpretation... but in time, God willing.
Peace
-
I don't understand, Br. OPF, you believe when the Book hints that God broke physical laws in both 2259 and 2260, but then you also believe that God doesn't backtrack, or am I misunderstanding your point.
No, I believe that there would be a perfectly normal explanation for Abraham's event. What I meant to say was that God neither backtracks or breaks his own law (there's a verse on that somewhere), nor does God need to.
I concur that I also have not fully understood the interpretation... but in time, God willing.
Me neither.
peace
-
No, I believe that there would be a perfectly normal explanation for Abraham's event. What I meant to say was that God neither backtracks or breaks his own law (there's a verse on that somewhere), nor does God need to.
Hmm... and what about "resurrection after death"?
Peace
-
Hmm... and what about "resurrection after death"?
Peace
The same way we were made? It's all over the quran.
-
The same way we were made? It's all over the quran.
So, let me get this straight. As understood it, we were initially made from "a self/nafs and its partner" from which we (mankind) came (I assume that it took a substantial amount of years). Along the way, many have reproduced and died and here we stand as of today.
So what you are asserting for the "Period of Judgement/Resurrection" is that before that period, everyone will die and they will be judged as they are born and they are about the die "again" but before dieing they will reproduce so that we can come into existence again, so that we can be judged.
If I gotten this wrong somehow, can you please explain or point me out to a thread where your understanding of the said phenomenon is discussed.
Peace.
-
What I meant to say was that God neither backtracks or breaks his own law (there's a verse on that somewhere)
Reference, please?
The sleeper of the caves story is pretty much against "God's law"(chapter 1.
And as Sharp001 mentioned, 2259, among others.
We have to translate the words accurately. We can't make reality fit into the quran. The quran should do that on it's own. Not accusing you of that, however.
peace
Sorry to be offtopic, but I believe it's relevant to the discussion at hand.
-
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?
i never said poor lord archer in any of my posts, did i? are you such an extremist that if someone says something to one degree of a position that you automatically infer that they must be in favour of some distant end of a spectrum?
i'll thank you to not put words in my mouth
neither of them are victims, but i don't have respect for people who participate at one point and then drop the dime on someone later... we have a word for that, it's called a rat
but i can see from your posts to myself and others, and i reiterate, that you are very extreme in your assumptions
before you shoot your mouth off make sure your brains are loaded
-
You're right. But polyandry is forbidden elsewhere . Simple. The problem here, as I said, would be the interpretation of the other groups. References to slavery? Orphans?
Surprisingly, polyandry is not forbidden with a clear commandment (though you may deduce this indirectly) Specially in 4-24 , it is an erroneous translation/interpretation by most of the translators.
siki
-
Salaam all,
May be we may continue debating the poligamy question as per the Qur'an in the other thread, and continue in this one with the situation as it is and could be getting some real data on countries societies and workable satistics. May be the United Nations population funds and other organisations has a site from which to get such statistics, apart from many other sources.
Salaam all
Salaam alaikum
Alhumdulliah ..Yet another day to reflect,
Beleive me I am not at all angry with anyone who is participating in this thread I just wanted Bro Shap001 to understand that I am only taking about what goes on in real word.
Huruf, there is no chance of collecting statistics in the near future so let?s look around for some real evidence ? I have a friend, who works at Dior perfume counter and she tells me how several of her customers buy perfumes for their mistresses. There is this regular customer at her store ( an Englishman), who always buys two sets of exactly the same Dior goods from her and if she does not have a pair of the same he doesn?t buy. Yesterday he spent ?421 on trinkets for his two ladies.
Can you see how he is trying to be fair to both, except that only one is called his wife and the other one will always be the other woman (unless he?s secretly married to both which would then emerge at his death).Best of regards
farida -
Salam,
Just wanted to clear up, originally the question about marriage was asked of br. Sharp001. However maybe it's not bad at all to get both your guys input on this. and to answer you question sis. Farida, yes, I am married and this january will make it 7 years.
edited to add question.
peace...
peaceSalaam brother Medhi,
It?s good to know that, Alhumdulillah you are married. Since you know the reality of marriage I do not need to discuss it with you. Every marriage is different and makes its individual demands on the couple involved. What works for one does not necessarily mean it works for others. Haven?t you noticed how sometimes you look at a couple and wonder; how can they put up with each other.
I understand you wanted me to respond to this
What needs does a marriage in general satisfy?.As I see it there is a difference between needs and wants; a good marriage would satisfy most needs, whereas a bad marriage will not satisfy even the basic needs but sometimes the basic needs are satisfied but it?s the demands (want) which may make it a failure.
A good husband knows what to do and so does a good wife and since you are happily married I?m sure you don?t expect me to tell you what is needed in a satisfactory relationship.
However do not expect all your needs to be fulfilled in a marriage; there will always be something missing like one spouse snoring away when the other is trying to sleep; brickwall my poor husband (sleep IS a basic need)It?s all about perception and reality, make the most of each other?s company and give as much as you can, As ?in giving you receive?. peace
Best regards
Farida -
i never said poor lord archer in any of my posts, did i? are you such an extremist that if someone says something to one degree of a position that you automatically infer that they must be in favour of some distant end of a spectrum?
i'll thank you to not put words in my mouth
neither of them are victims, but i don't have respect for people who participate at one point and then drop the dime on someone later... we have a word for that, it's called a rat
but i can see from your posts to myself and others, and i reiterate, that you are very extreme in your assumptions
before you shoot your mouth off make sure your brains are loaded
Peace AaRon
I only asked you a question? ,
You may not have respect for any of the people involved in that triangle nor am I asking you to respect them, I am exposing here, what goes on in a real monogamous world...that's all
Calm down, there is no need to be disrespectable and judgemental ... Ok....handshake
Please understand I am no extremist, I believe in taking middle ground and be just even if involves someone like Ms Symonds
Best regards
Farida -
So, let me get this straight. As understood it, we were initially made from "a self/nafs and its partner" from which we (mankind) came (I assume that it took a substantial amount of years). Along the way, many have reproduced and died and here we stand as of today.
So what you are asserting for the "Period of Judgement/Resurrection" is that before that period, everyone will die and they will be judged as they are born and they are about the die "again" but before dieing they will reproduce so that we can come into existence again, so that we can be judged.
If I gotten this wrong somehow, can you please explain or point me out to a thread where your understanding of the said phenomenon is discussed.
Peace.
Reference, please?
The sleeper of the caves story is pretty much against "God's law"(chapter 1.
And as Sharp001 mentioned, 2259, among others.
We have to translate the words accurately. We can't make reality fit into the quran. The quran should do that on it's own. Not accusing you of that, however.peace
Sorry to be offtopic, but I believe it's relevant to the discussion at hand.
The verse - verses!
Who runs that site, by the way? As for how anything will happen after our deaths, who knows? The quran only says it'll happen and states that it won't violate any laws of God, that's all I need to know, and that's all that needs to be known.
Surprisingly, polyandry is not forbidden with a clear commandment (though you may deduce this indirectly) Specially in 4-24 , it is an erroneous translation/interpretation by most of the translators.
siki
Can you explain? How is polyandry practical, even?
-
How is polyandry practical, even?
OPF,
Warning I am not advocating polyandry. I am just answering this particular part of your post because in fact I think there is an actual problem that will get worse and which is being answered precisely with polyandry
I think it was posted in free-minds forums, but I am not too sure. It is the selective abortion of female embryos in India and in China. Concerning India I read that now people bon at the time when the selective abortions became common have now reached marriable age. But, as ti was to be expected, there are no eligible women for all, so some look for hind wives in Bangladesh, others perpetrate a sneaky kind of polyandry, where one brother finds a wife, and once they are married she finds out the man brought a borther co-husband as a bonus. The article didn't say whether there were sudden deaths of newly dead wives on the shock of finding the bonus or not. I for one would have died or at least run away and not have stopped till the next galaxy at least.
Be it as it may, it is really not funny, but it is real, and it will become still more real. I suppose nobody wants polyandry, and I am most certainly not recommending it, but has anybody any idea as to how to face this catastrophe? And I am not so worried about the sexual urge of men, that would be the simplest of all. I mean the whole human situation.
Salaam