The Myth that Women have to "Obey" their Husbands
-
Whereas the Quran does give the man the upperhand in the Quran (in wordly affairs only), and I do believe that when the Quran says that a man can hit his wife, that does not mean hit her to hurt her (we all can hit someone in a way that does not hurt the person we hit), but hit her to admonish her after he has already spoken to her and has even not slept with her to protest her rebellious behavior and attitude.
Which word in Quran could be taken to have granted "upper hand" to husband? Protecting/protector does not mean "upper hand". Rijjal does not necessarily mean "husbands", rather men are assigned the duty to protect women and that should be taken as laying a general principle.
If one believes that "Quran says that a man can hit his wife" and Quran does not prescribe the strength of hitting, how could anyone impose "decency in hitting"? This is self contradictory statement. And remember 'hitting' needs some evidence apparent on the body, throwing a flower on someone is never accepted as hitting.
In whatever manner and context words from Root are used, one thing is a must that it will make that thing prominent and evident. We use it for giving example, that makes the point prominent, evident, distinct. We use it for going out in the land, that makes the people prominent, evident to others. We use it for hitting and that hitting leaves a mark, prominent and evident. And when the husband makes her wife to exit from the Bed Room the strained relations become publically known which were hitherto only known to husband and wife. Removal of wife from sleeping in the Bed Room makes evident and prominent to every member of the family that relations peculiar between a husband and wife, that take place only inside the bed room, are broken. So long husband and wife are sleeping inside the bed room no one can perceive that both are not indulging in peculiar relationship and thus about the cleavage. This provided an opportunity to other members of the family to intervene.
As for the conduct prescribed for husbands is thisIn the presence of this straightforward command how a believer could perceive that Allah permitted any husband to "hit his wife"? These three words have nowhere been used in the Quran collectively, attracting our focus on this Ayah.
-
(ع Ata? = He consented; or complied with what was desired of him.
24.54 Say Comply with what Allah and the messenger desire of you (comply with the divine system established by the message) But if they turn away, then he is only responsible for his obligation, and you are responsible for your obligations. If you comply (with the divine system) you will be guided. The messenger?s duty is only to convey the clarity.
The messenger only delivers the message. If someone does not comply with what is required of him or become ?nashiz? the messenger is not required to take any action. He cannot beat him ?even lightly?
It is difficult to understand how some people can think that Allah gave them the authority that others shall obey them. And they think that this authority is given them just because they are male and others are female.
Salaam.
Thank you Tlepsh!
-
Peace,
Farida. Rijaal means men. Any adult human male. What are the Quran's standards for a man to live by (this doesn't make or break his being a rajl)? Godbless,
AnwarSalaam brother Anwar,
Lets discuss one point at a time and, as you have better knowledge of Arabic, could you please comment on what Arnab said in her post about the meaning of rijal, what is the root word and what does it signify?
If a rijal is an adult man what word do we use for a boy especially when discussing inheritence?Salam,
An Evaluation of the word rajul
Hebrew
From Strong's Hebrew Dictionary and Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Definitions
Strong's # H7270
ragal
raw-gal'
A primitive root; to walk along; but only in specific applications, to reconnoitre, to be a tale bearer (that is, slander); also (as denominative from H7272) to lead about - backbite, search, slander, (e-) spy (out), teach to go, view.BDB Definition
- to go on foot, spy out, foot it, go about, walk along, move the feet
1a) (Qal) to be a tale-bearer, slander, go about
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to slander
1b2) to go about as explorer, spy
1c) (Tiphel) to teach to walk
Part of Speech verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong?s Number a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number 2113
Strong's # H7272
regel
reh'-gel
From H7270; a foot (as used in walking); by implication a step; by euphemism the pudenda - X be able to endure, X according as, X after, X coming, X follow, () foot (), X great toe, X haunt, X journey, leg, + piss, + possession, time.BDB Definition
- foot
1a) foot, leg
1b) of God (anthropomorphic)
1c) of seraphim, cherubim, idols, animals, table
1d) according to the pace of (with preposition)
1e) three times (feet, paces)
Part of Speech noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong?s Number from H7270
Same Word by TWOT Number 2113a
From the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament
2113 - ragal
Hebrew Word ragal
Strong's Cross Reference 7270, 8637,
Definition go on foot, spy out. - Denominative verb.Derivative TWOT Number 2113a
Derivative Transliteration rekel
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference 7272
Derivative Definition foot.Derivative TWOT Number 2113b
Derivative Transliteration ragli
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference 7273
Derivative Definition foot soldier.Derivative TWOT Number 2113c
Derivative Transliteration marge lot
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference 4772
Derivative Definition place of the feet, feet (Rth_34, Rth_37; Dan_106).regel. Foot. This primary, feminine noun is found only in Hebrew, Aramaic, and some later Semitic dialects. It appears 245 times in the OT. In the overwhelming number of occuffences it means the "foot/feet" of human beings. However, it is also used in poetic passages in an anthropomorphic sense for an attribute of God (Exo_2410) and for God's transcendent nature (2Sa_2210; Psa_1810) and similar passages. It is applied to the "living beings" of Ezekiel's prophetic vision (Eze_17ff) to the seraphim (Isa_62), and cherubim (2Ch_313). Although the greater number of usages are in the plural (Exo_2314), it follows general Semitic grammar and as with other paired organs of the body appears in the dual (Isa_283) and on rare occasion in the singular (Deu_25). Although it usually means "foot" there is some limited extension to the "leg" (Deu_25). It is used in referring to the feet of cattle (Gen_3314), undefined animals (Job_3915), birds (Gen_89; Lev_1121-23), and unclean creatures such as insects and other arthropods (Lev_1142). It is used of the feet of Pharaoh pef sonified as a beast (Eze_322) and of idols (Psa_1157). regel is used with many extended meanings such as "pace" (Gen_3314), "time" or "number of times" (Exo_2314) and "leg of a table" (Exo_2526). Since walking was the primary means of travel during the centuries of Israel's history, the term took on many colloquial meanings. Some of these are not unlike modern expressions, while others are difficult to interpret in modern speech. A fine example is in the plea of Jacob before Laban (Gen_3030), the Hebrew says literally, "at my feet, " however the versions all seek better sense to fit the context. The RSV reads "wherever I turned, " KJV "since my coming." Both are closer to the actual sense. The root regel also implies "presence" (Deu_1124), .'swiftness" (2Sa_21, "immediacy" (Num_2019). It is used in connection with the "big toe" in warfare (Jdg_16-7) and in rituals (Ex). Some of the most interesting usages are in euphemistic expressions for bodily excretions (Jdg_324; 1Sa_243 ), for unkempt appearance as in mourning (1Sa_1924), to show homage at the feet (2Ki_437 and numerous other passages). In a rare usage (Isa_720) it is used of the pubic hair (i.e. hair of the legs). The main force of the word throughout the OT is the individual whose feet are mentioned as traveling or holding dominion.
ragli. Men on foot, foot soldiers. A secondary adjective developed from the noun reget, ragli appears twelve times in the OT in historical contexts (Exo_1237.
Aramaic
From Strong's Hebrew Dictionary and Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Definitions
Strong's # H7271
regal
reg-al'
(Aramaic); corresponding to H7272 - foot.BDB Definition
- foot
Part of Speech noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong?s Number corresponding to H7272
Same Word by TWOT Number 2988
2988 - re gal
From the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament
Aramaic Word re gal
Strong's Cross Reference 7271
Definition foot. Used as in Hebrew, but not as broadly in the limited material of BA.From Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament
Foot
regel (H7272), "foot; leg." Regel is a word found in many Semitic languages, referring to a part of the body. In the Old Testament, the word is used a total of 245 times, with its first occurrence in Gen_89.
Regel may refer to the "foot" of a human (Gen_184), an animal (Eze_2911), a bird (Gen_89), or even a table (a rare usage; Exo_2526, KJV). The word's usage is also extended to signify the "leg" "And he had greaves of brass upon his legs, and a target of brass between his shoulders" (1Sa_176). Regel is used euphemistically for the genital area; thus urine is "water of the legs" (2Ki_1827) and pubic hair is "hair of the legs" (Isa_720). The foot's low place gave rise to an idiom "From the sole of the foot to the crown of the head" (cf. Deu_2835), signifying the "total extent of the body."
"Foot" may be a metaphor of "arrogance" "Let not the foot of pride come against me, and let not the hand of the wicked remove me" (Psa_3611). It is used to represent Israel "Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them" (2Ki_218 ).
In anthropomorphic expressions, God has "feet." Thus God revealed Himself with a pavement of sapphire as clear as the sky under His "feet" (Exo_2410). The authors of Scripture portray God as having darkness (Psa_189) and clouds of dust beneath His "feet" (Nah_13), and sending a plague out from His "feet" (Hab_35). His "feet" are said to rest on the earth (Isa_661); the temple is also the resting place of His "feet" "...And I will make the place of my feet glorious" (Isa_6013). Similarly, the seraphim had "feet," which they covered with a pair of wings as they stood in the presence of God (Isa_62); the cherubim had "feet" that Ezekiel described (Eze_17).
The Septuagint gives the following translations pous ("foot" and skelos ("leg".From The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Foot
foot (, reghel, , karsol (only twice in parallel passages 2Sa_2237 = Psa_1836, where it probably means ankle); , pous) The dusty roads of Palestine and other eastern lands make a much greater care of the feet necessary than we are accustomed to bestow upon them. The absence of socks or stockings, the use of sandals and low shoes rather than boots and, to an even greater degree, the frequent habit of walking barefoot make it necessary to wash the feet repeatedly every day. This is always done when entering the house, especially the better upper rooms which are usually carpeted. It is a common dictate of good manners to perform this duty to a visitor, either personally or through a servant; at least water for washing has to be presented (Gen_184; Luk_744). This has therefore become almost synonymous with the bestowal of hospitality (1Ti_510). At an early date this service was considered one of the lowest tasks of servants (1Sa_2541), probably because the youngest and least trained servants were charged with the task, or because of the idea of defilement connected with the foot. It was, for the same reason, if rendered voluntarily, a service which betokened complete devotion. Jesus taught the greatest lesson of humility by performing this humble service to His disciples (Joh_134-15). The undoing of the latchets or leather thongs of the sandals (Mar_17; Luk_316; Joh_127) seems to refer to the same menial duty.
Often the feet and shoes were dusted on the highway, as is being done in the Orient to this day, but if it were done in an ostentatious manner in the presence of a person or a community who had refused hospitality to a stranger, it was understood in the same sense in which the cutting in two of the tablecloth was considered in the days of knighthood it meant rejection and separation (Mat_1014; Act_1351).
The roads of the desert were not only dusty but rough, and the wanderer was almost sure to ruin his ill-made shoes and wound his weary feet. A special providence of God protected the children of Israel from this experience during the long journey through the wilderness. ?Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell, these forty years? (Deu_84; Deu_295).
In the house shoes and sandals were never worn; even the most delicate would put on shoes only when going out (Deu_2856). The shoes were left outside of the house or in a vestibule. This was especially done in the house of God and at the time of prayer, for whenever or wherever that might be, the law was ?Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground? (Exo_35; Jos_515; Act_733). This custom still prevails among the Moslems of our day. Probably it was the idea of defilement through contact with the common ground which gave rise to its moral application by the Preacher, ?Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God? (Ecc_51 (Hebrew 417)).
Nakedness of the feet in public, especially among the wealthier classes, who used to wear shoes or sandals, was a token of mourning (Eze_2417 and probably also Jer_225 and Isa_202-4). A peculiar ceremony is referred to in Deu_259, Deu_2510, whereby a brother-in-law, who refused to perform his duty under the Levirate law, was publicly put to shame. ?And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.? See also Rth_47, Rth_48.
Numerous are the phrases in which the word ?foot? or ?feet? is used in Biblical language. ?To cover the feet? (1Sa_243) is synonymous with obeying a call of Nature. ?To speak with the feet? is expressive of the eloquence of abusive and obscene gesticulation among oriental people, where hands, eyes and feet are able to express much without the use of words (Pro_613). ?To sit at the feet,? means to occupy the place of a learner (Deu_333; Luk_1039; Act_223). Vanquished enemies had to submit to being trodden upon by the conqueror (a ceremony often represented on Egyptian monuments; Jos_1024; Psa_86; Psa_1101; compare Isa_4923). James warns against an undue humiliation of those who join us in the service of God, even though they be poor or mean-looking, by bidding them to take a lowly place at the feet of the richer members of the congregation (Jam_23). We read of dying Jacob that ?he gathered up his feet into the bed,? for he had evidently used his bed as a couch, on which he had been seated while delivering his charge to his several sons (Gen_4933). ?Foot? or ?feet? is sometimes used euphemistically for the genitals (Deu_2857; Eze_1625). In Deu_1110 an interesting reference is made to some Egyptian mode of irrigating the fields, 'the watering with the foot,' which mode would be unnecessary in the promised land of Canaan which ?drinketh water of the rain of heaven.? It is, however, uncertain whether this refers to the water-wheels worked by a treadmill arrangement or whether reference is made to the many tributary channels, which, according to representations on the Egyptian monuments, intersected the gardens and fields and which could be stopped or opened by placing or removing a piece of sod at the mouth of the channel. This was usually done with the foot. Frequently we find references to the foot in expressions connected with journeyings and pilgrimages, which formed so large a part in the experiences of Israel, e.g. Psa_9112, ?lest thou dash thy foot against a stone?; Psa_9418, ?My foot slippeth?; Psa_1213, ?He will not suffer thy foot to be moved,? and many more. Often the reference is to the ?walk,? i.e. the moral conduct of life (Psa_732; Job_2311; Job_315).
Figurative In the metaphorical language of Isa_527 ?the feet? are synonymous with ?the coming.?Arabic
From Project Root List
Ra-Jiim-Lam = to go on foot, urge with foot, walk, tie by the feet, let (a female) suckle her young, be curly (hair), set free with his mother. rajjala - to comfort anyone, comb the hair, grant a respite. tarajjala - to go down without rope. rijlatun - vigour in walking. rijlun - foot, soldiers, good walker, tramp. arajil - hunters, pedestrian. rajulun - male human being, man, a person with heir. rajilun - foot, footmen (slow walkers). rijlain - two feet. arjul (pl.) - feet.
Salam,
Arnab - to go on foot, spy out, foot it, go about, walk along, move the feet
-
(ع Ata? = He consented; or complied with what was desired of him.
24.54 Say Comply with what Allah and the messenger desire of you (comply with the divine system established by the message) But if they turn away, then he is only responsible for his obligation, and you are responsible for your obligations. If you comply (with the divine system) you will be guided. The messenger?s duty is only to convey the clarity.
The messenger only delivers the message. If someone does not comply with what is required of him or become ?nashiz? the messenger is not required to take any action. He cannot beat him ?even lightly?
It is difficult to understand how some people can think that Allah gave them the authority that others shall obey them. And they think that this authority is given them just because they are male and others are female.
I agree. See below
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=10365.msg52193#msg52193 -
Peace Farida,
Maybe you think the women I've met are wierd, and I don't know you to judge you either. But many people aren't good at recognizing their own faults in general and women are not excluded from that. Many people walk in the world with their heads high always projecting, but they hardly ever turn inwards to know themselves, the good and the bad, and become okay with that and try to fix what they know is wrong. And many people's egos are built on their insecurities and arrogances. Men and women. Many people know what they know and that's all they want to know. Men and women. But i've seen what I've seen and I've done my best to process everything as fairly as I can. And I've tried to observe as much as I can. I think most people are going to Hell anyway, but I definitely see some different trends among men and women. I think within those trends lie real strenghts and weaknesses. I don't believe in oppressing anyone, man or woman. And I believe godly men and women need to be given full respect. And I also see in the Quran that men should treat women with respect and it tells us how to best deal with the situations that present themselves and women need to treat men with respect and it lays out how they are to best do that. I'm not one for overly political-correct talk, nor do I clinge to cultural cliches or feel obligated to uphold cultural taboos, old-school or new-school. I do my best to just see it how it is. Many people will reject because of buzz words and phrases and mindsets that they believe are progress, and I think most people have got it wrong, even if they think they are civilized for what they believe.
Man = rajl or Imru'un.
Men = rijaal.The root has to do with walking and foot/leg, but it came to mean man for some reason or another, as in adult male human being.
The words for boy are fataa (Literally youth, and in some instances can mean very young man, this word can also mean servant.), ghulaam (can also be used for servant), sabeeyun (almost literally 'a lad' and walad. Radee'un is an infant boy.
These are the words for boys that I can remember. In the inheritance passages I see dhakar and unthaa used more, i.e. males and females, with no age distinction made.
As for when a boy becomes a man . . . physiologically. I think we can see from nature and observation that that is anywhere between 15 and 20 years of age. Now if we are talking about good sense, responsibility and good judgement even children can learn and be taught this, but in today's world we focus more on letting kids be kids instead of training them to be good adults. For males there is an age of full strength, where a 15 year old COULD be big but does not have the full strength of an adult man yet. There is no such thing really as a 'real' man and a 'false' man. It's more along the lines of a responsible, sensible, prudent man. And this is produced from how we teach and treat them while they are still boys. Just like irresponsible men are most times the product of what they were taught (intentionally or unintentionally, from televison, their peers, and their families).
As for the word 'hit them' in the Quran. Hit doesn't mean beat up. Hit doesn't necessarily even mean to do harm. We hit each other every day, in jokes, in play and sometimes to do harm to each other. I think the Quran in many places makes it clear that we are not to take things too far, and that we are not to oppress or wrong anyone, nor do harm to those who do not try to cause us harm. If we take all of the Quran into context we would see that the Quran is not saying 'beat them up' or 'hit them with strength and fury.' But if people can't even get it right on how many women they can marry and why, why do we expect them to get it right for that passage? The hit is not emotional, nor is it a license for men to take their anger out on them. The Quran says that we are not to take our rage out on anyone, but to control our rage. That verse is to give the man a last resort to bring sense to that woman. And if she doesn't come to sense after that, a divorce is inevitable. The only other option is abuse and oppression and the Quran says that that is wrong. We must stand for justice and what is right and best, and we cannot force the ungodly or the lost to find God or find their way. We can find plenty of verses that would tell us the mind we need to have and the extent to which we are supposed to take things. But I'm not going to apologize or try to change something that seems to be the most straightforward usage of that word in Arabic, just because it sounds bad to people who don't want to understand the Quran anyway. The fact is that their are relationships all over the world where couples hit each other in non-abusive ways for different reasons and I would not call those relationships abusive. It is when it becomes real violence motivated by a will to do harm or over assert one's self when there is a poblem. If a man is abusive to his wife that is one thing, but if she's acting crazy and he strikes her in a controlled way, not to hurt her and not cuz he's enraged at her, but to bring her to her senses, I don't see that that is bad. Same thing if my wife smacks me cuz I'm going too far and don't have my act straight then I need to realize what I'm doing and correct my ways. Sometimes we all need to be smacked back into sense. Now that doesn't mean a smacking-free for all. And I think men and woman should totally avoid as much as is possible hitting each other. Because it rarely leads to any good. But if that last resort doesn't work we're lost and those who want to help us need to let us go, and let us fall if that is what we are intent on doing. The point is if you believe in all of the Quran and hence you believe in mercy and you love and respect your wife you don't want to take your anger out on her if she's gone too far, you just want to see her come to her senses. But people who want to criticize the Quran and pick and choose, Muslim or non-Muslim alike, will find much ammunition for their devilish ways. Because the book is meant for those who consider, study and have faith in all of it.
Godbless,
Anwar -
-
Peace Farida,
Maybe you think the women I've met are wierd, and I don't know you to judge you either. But many people aren't good at recognizing their own faults in general and women are not excluded from that. Many people walk in the world with their heads high always projecting, but they hardly ever turn inwards to know themselves, the good and the bad, and become okay with that and try to fix what they know is wrong.
Salaam brother Anwar
Thank you for your excellent detailed response, but before we go further let me correct you that the above response was not from me. As for me I have met many weird women AND men. I often find myself at a loss when I see them paying no attention to their own actions especially those who claim to be practicing Muslims. After all the Qur?an ask us again and again to investigate our own selvesAnd I believe godly men and women need to be given full respect
Exactly! But we must not forget that one cannot demand respect; one must earn it.
Man = rajl or Imru'un.
Men = rijaal.The root has to do with walking and foot/leg, but it came to mean man for some reason or another, as in adult male human being.
This is what I have been trying to understand; why God uses a word, to do with walking, for men.
I have come across studies on men suggesting that Modern men are denied their full potential in a modern working environment which has a detrimental effect on men. Nowadays males in general are locked in an office atmosphere and work with little use of their physical strength; do they really like it?
I have also heard that builders or plumbers or forest workers enjoy their jobs much more than highly paid office workers who often suffer from stress and frustrations. In UK last year a very highly paid successful lawyer was killed, by the police, in a gun fight.
He had all one could ask for but after a minor row with his wife he went berserk and started firing randomly at people in his neighbourhood. No one suspected that anything was wrong with him and questions were asked if it was work related stress but soon all discussions died down as no one wants to be politically incorrect.
My son complained a lot when he was doing office work in front of a computer and now he is working in China, in an atmosphere where he is, interacting with other people. When I asked him, just as I was writing this reply, why he used to moan a lot about his office work, his reply was I just like to be kept on the move. ....that I?ve always thought being in an office environment limits people?s capacity. Another rijaal in my household worked with horses and dreams of the day when he could resume that. Grooming and training horses was something he really enjoyed.
So, instead of blaming the opposite sex let us evaluate our present work system to see how it is working against us.(if you saw the movie ?fight club? you?ll remember this issue was addressed in it.)
In today?s world education has become a commodity We are encouraged to get educated so that we can cash on it later. In the past education was done to gain enlightenment now it is done to get better paying jobs and physical work is held in low regard these days. So men are not appreciating jobs for which they are physically specifically suited. The same goes for women who think it beneath them to waste their education on raising children and the word housewife has become demeaning, Everyone is eager to cash in on their education.These are the words for boys that I can remember. In the inheritance passages I see dhakar and unthaa used more, i.e. males and females, with no age distinction made.
This is interesting as you can see that role of being physical is not relevant here so God uses simple words for males and females.
As for when a boy becomes a man . . but in today's world we focus more on letting kids be kids instead of training them to be good adults.
I couldn?t agree with you more.
There is no such thing really as a 'real' man and a 'false' man. It's more along the lines of a responsible, sensible, prudent man
Yes it?s true, for both men and women, but often you will hear phrases call for men to act like men or calling women not ladylike so these phrases deal with our expectations from the opposite genders.
As for the word 'hit them' in the Quran. Hit doesn't mean beat up.....The Quran says that we are not to take our rage out on anyone, but to control our rage......We must stand for justice and what is right and best, and we cannot force the ungodly or the lost to find God or find their way. ....
I too believe that the verses deal more with controlling your anger and deal with it in stages, rather than lash out at the weaker sex. I am convinced that the verse deals with the issue of domestic violence, which often occurs after some provocation, resulting in a sudden loss of self control followed by violence, later regretted by both parties.
But before we go down to stage of hitting it will be better if after discussing rijaal we discuss what is meant by as this comes straight after
Blessed are those who strive to honour their covenant to God.
peace -
Peace Farida,
Maybe you think the women I've met are wierd, and I don't know you to judge you either. But many people aren't good at recognizing their own faults in general and women are not excluded from that. Many people walk in the world with their heads high always projecting, but they hardly ever turn inwards to know themselves, the good and the bad, and become okay with that and try to fix what they know is wrong. And many people's egos are built on their insecurities and arrogances. Men and women. Many people know what they know and that's all they want to know. Men and women. But i've seen what I've seen and I've done my best to process everything as fairly as I can. And I've tried to observe as much as I can. I think most people are going to Hell anyway, but I definitely see some different trends among men and women. I think within those trends lie real strenghts and weaknesses. I don't believe in oppressing anyone, man or woman. And I believe godly men and women need to be given full respect. And I also see in the Quran that men should treat women with respect and it tells us how to best deal with the situations that present themselves and women need to treat men with respect and it lays out how they are to best do that. I'm not one for overly political-correct talk, nor do I clinge to cultural cliches or feel obligated to uphold cultural taboos, old-school or new-school. I do my best to just see it how it is. Many people will reject because of buzz words and phrases and mindsets that they believe are progress, and I think most people have got it wrong, even if they think they are civilized for what they believe......
I think this is the best of your posts,brother Anwar..it
s better than that one about the utopian Quranic society where girls have to keep their grades lower than boys at school and women not trying to apply for higher jobs than their husbands and not even for the same jobs!! and where friendship between girls and boys "isnt necessary"..its really not segregation..its something even weirder..
Theres nothing wrong in trying to find mercy and abominate prejudice..God knows better,all were trying to do is to "listen to what is being said, and then follow the best of it." 3918
God doesnt order,encourage or acknowledge evil,or even the "slightest bit of it".. Progress and liberty are sought values,when we come to better understanding to ourselves and our world.. If humanity is marching from the Anthropocentric prejudice to an Ecocentric justice...its called progress..
When it marches from totalitarianism to individualism -a value the Quran asserts..thats progress.. When it marches from nationalism to globalization..thats progress..
When the time comes and we see women preaching in the religious institutions and leading prayers,more women as judges,prime ministers and country leaders,I`ll be happy with this progress.."I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire
-
Sa'dah,
I think this is the best of your posts,brother Anwar..it
s better than that one about the utopian Quranic society where girls have to keep their grades lower than boys at school and women not trying to apply for higher jobs than their husbands and not even for the same jobs!! and where friendship between girls and boys "isnt necessary"..its really not segregation..its something even weirder..Non o my posts said anythign about girls keepint their grades lower than boys or not trying to apply for higher jobs than their husbands or the same jobs. This really makes me angry that you completely miscontrued what I'm saying. So i'll keep it short, I never said that.
I do however believe that very close freindships between non-related boys and girls IS UNNECESSARILY. I've never taken that back. And nothing I've said has negated any of that.
Progress and liberty are sought values,when we come to better understanding to ourselves and our world..
Sure, I can agree with that.
If humanity is marching from the Anthropocentric prejudice to an Ecocentric justice...it`s called progress.
.Sure, I like that too. I read Eurocentric at first. I'm glad I read it again and was wrong. ) God does things best, and there is no subsitute for God's creation. We need to respect it and learn from it. It is what cultured us and took care of us so that we could become what we are. If we destroy it or give it no importance we destroy and give no importance to ourselves.
When it marches from totalitarianism to individualism -a value the Quran asserts..that`s progress.
Well . . . I think we have enough of this. The fact that we are individuals is just a fact. But there's no need to be individualistic. We need some more communal conscience, honestly. But personal responsibility is definitely a value the Quran asserts, not individualism. That word individualism conveys selfishness and self-centeredness.
When it marches from nationalism to globalization..that`s progress..
Hmmmm. Nationalism is negative, I do believe that. But globalization has alot of negative meanings as well. I can agree with the idea that we are citizens of the world, and were born into the world and humanity, hence all of that should be important to us instead of being overly occupied with ourselves. HOWEVER, with that said to function as a community a community must look out for itself and be exlusivist at the very least in its morals and values, not watering them down or accepting immorality or evil for the sake of not appearing to be nationalist, and trying to be globalists. But the Quran says the welfare of the people should still be a mission of ours, but we also need to prioritize. The Quran does not tell us to prefer non-believers over those who believe in the Quran.
When the time comes and we see women preaching in the religious institutions and leading prayers,more women as judges,prime ministers and country leaders,I`ll be happy with this progress..
Hmmmm. I agree and disagree with this. Women being able to address issues that matter to them and those they care about is important. Women being able to contribute their experience as women in decision making processes I think is also important. Women leading prayers? I don't think there is a need to 'lead' prayers, but if women want to call us to pray on something I have no problem with that. Women as leaders of nations? The Quran brings up Bilqis, but she had a close counsel of men to counteract her and I'm not sure how she got into power or how Abyssinian power in Saba worked. But she ended up pledging allegiance to Solomon (God bless him) which can be understood as a correction of that situation (the idol worship and a woman being in such a capacity in that land). I'm not too sure about that, but I'm throwing that out there as a real possibility.
I really don't care too much (sorry to sound rude) if you'd be happy with that, seeing it as progress. But I respect your right to have an opinion. But I think you are fully biased and are not willing to really think on all of what I have said here.
By the way, thanks Farida for showing some objectivity and retrospection so far. As for the man, walking connection. I would not see this as a concept invented by the Quran. It is a classical Arabic concept which could be connected to what you are suspecting. But at the point that the word came to mean 'man' as well, that usage becomes cemented no matter what it might have been connected to (the etymology of the word). Singular is rajl and plural is rijaal(the word can also mean stately people or people of great reputation i.e. personalities. Rijaalaat is also used when this is meant). I see where you are coming from, but like I said etymology shows the thinking involved in how a word came to mean what it did but once it gains an established meaning you can't back step, unless you are using sound grammatical principles of the language. Like woman came from the german wife (of) man. And evolved into woman. But not every woman is the wife of a man. You see? We could probably go through the dictionary and get thousands of meanings like this. But I see your point, although I would never, ever try to apply that to the Quran or any usage of the word in Classical Arabic.
Godbless,
Anwar -
By the way, thanks Farida for showing some objectivity and retrospection so far. As for the man, walking connection. I would not see this as a concept invented by the Quran. It is a classical Arabic concept which could be connected to what you are suspecting. But at the point that the word came to mean 'man' as well, that usage becomes cemented no matter what it might have been connected to (the etymology of the word). Singular is rajl and plural is rijaal(the word can also mean stately people or people of great reputation i.e. personalities. Rijaalaat is also used when this is meant).
Godbless,
AnwarSalaam brother Anwar,
I too think that not all men are rijaal and this is a title suited only for those who live up to certain standards of Qawamoon.
I am still searching for a rijal whose life is devoted to doing his part as Qwamon for the oppressed and who understands his role in society and who would do all he can to lead a good example.
The only international figure of a rijal that I can think of is the one who spent thirty years in jail, fighting for the right of his people and while he was locked away his wife was a source of support for him. However when he came out he was saddened to see that his wife had betrayed his cause. This rajl simply seperated from his wife and I have not heard anyone who talks ill about him. I hope you can see who I am talking about.
peaceSalaam brother Anwar,
-
Peace,progod..
Sa'dah,
Non o my posts said anythign about girls keepint their grades lower than boys or not trying to apply for higher jobs than their husbands or the same jobs. This really makes me angry that you completely miscontrued what I'm saying. So i'll keep it short, I never said that.
No? then what did you mean by" But I don't believe that men and women in general but Quranic men and women in particular should be competing for the same jobs or competing against each other in the same schools,"?what else do you mean by "should not be competing"?
I do however believe that very close freindships between non-related boys and girls IS UNNECESSARILY. I've never taken that back.
Friendship is a feeling,and it
s an individual choice,you cannot tell someone that its unnecessary to feel like that towards someone,just because hes a man or shes a woman..all of us compete towards goodness"And the believing men and women, they are allies to one another. They order good and deter from evil, and they uphold the communion, and they contribute towards betterment and they obey God and His messenger. God will have mercy on them; God is Noble, Wise."(971)
"Contribute towards betterment" to me seems like a continuous work without any preferred types of segregation..Well . . . I think we have enough of this. The fact that we are individuals is just a fact. But there's no need to be individualistic. We need some more communal conscience, honestly. But personal responsibility is definitely a value the Quran asserts, not individualism. That word individualism conveys selfishness and self-centeredness.
Well,any so-called "movement" begins a label of one word or two to express its direction,and there are many reform movements that reach a fanatic stage..Every action has an equal and opposite reaction,and with time and experience,goodness survives..As in the negative aspects of globalization you mentioned,with time,it will become more human,and less savage..
Hmmmm. I agree and disagree with this. Women being able to address issues that matter to them and those they care about is important.
Why should it be confined to"the issues that matter to them and those they care about?" there are women who care about the whole community and the whole humanity..Women as leaders of nations? The Quran brings up Bilqis, but she had a close counsel of men to counteract her
I beg your pardon? a close council of men? who said they were only of men? the Quran says"She said ?O commanders, advise me in this matter of mine, for I will not take a decision until you give testimony. They said ?We are people of strength and mighty in power. But the decision is yours, so see what you will command.? The verses are talking about an advising council,who helped the democratic queen Bilqis making decisions,they said that "the decision was hers"! where`s the counteraction in that?????
and I'm not sure how she got into power or how Abyssinian power in Saba worked. But she ended up pledging allegiance to Solomon (God bless him) which can be understood as a correction of that situation (the idol worship and a woman being in such a capacity in that land). I'm not too sure about that, but I'm throwing that out there as a real possibility.
One thing for sure,the Quran doesn
t criticize the womanhood of Belqis,or wrong her rein.. The only criticism was her and her people prostrating to the sun"?Will they not prostrate to God who brings out what is hidden in the heavens and the Earth, and He knows what you hide and what you declare??.. And the Quran doesnt mention what happened after Belqis had believed in God and submitted to him-GOD-As for that story of Belqis surrendering her throne-because she wronged herself by being a queen nope,it`s a traditional story that has nothing to do with the Quran.. we hear it every day from the self appointed scholars..I really don't care too much (sorry to sound rude) if you'd be happy with that, seeing it as progress. But I respect your right to have an opinion. But I think you are fully biased and are not willing to really think on all of what I have said here.
I am biased,I`m a fanatic when it comes to the cause of freeing our minds from the mental barriers of sexism,racism,nationalism and sectarianism..
Peace,
-
I didn't really read your message. So if that is ignorant of me, sorry. But I do believe that women should obey their husbands. But overall they should obey God. And if the two contradict God comes first.
Ungodly, abusive men and ungodly, disobedient women cause dysfunctional marriages.
Godbless,
AnwarPeace,
Respectfully.I think you should definetely read the post above and keep it in mind because it speaks volumes.
It tells me that a man and a woman, husband and a wife, are equal and they shold obey their Creator, equally, which tells me that we are all humans and gender doesn't give you advantage.Human being, like everything and everyone else, should obey The Exalted God, The Most Powerful.
Titles such as wife, husband, sister, father, director, poet, construction worker, PR person, sales person, pesident, police officer,.... are just titles we came up with.
We should all obey The Exalted God The Most Wise.Peace.
-
Peace,
Alen and Sa'dah, I'm not going to spend hours trying to help you understand a position that you don't want to understand anyway. To you is your way and to me mine. I think all of my posts have said enough and if you take all of them into consideration you just might see where I am coming from. But I'm not going try to help you guys understand my point while you argue with me tooth and nail because you don't like the way I say things or just flat out disagree with me. To you your way and to me mine.
Farida,
That's fine. I believe in using the Arabic language in a strict way, just considering the literal meanings or other meanings connected to grammar, no more. I am not interested in interpreting words in a way that betrays their real meanings, linguistically and grammatically. To you your way and to me mine. By the way, I do know who your talking about. Nelson Mandela. Thanks for the fun quiz. I didn't see the point to it, but hey, it's all good.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Why should it be confined to"the issues that matter to them and those they care about?" there are women who care about the whole community and the whole humanity..
Yes. It is really remarcable how women figure prominently, sometimes exclusively or woverwhelmingly in assciations and organizations for welfare and help of people, but that as soon as these organisations become strong and important through their work, they are gradually taken over by men at the top posts who then become important and get more money for the work tht women did for much less and where they were not able to lift them, they won't have women manage them once the acquire a certain standing.
Of course there are some men also in relie and help. I am talking and about relative numbers and how we come to this gratuitous importance and ability of men to manage where it is rather a question of ability to throw women out once the hard work is done.
Salaam
-
Farida,
That's fine. I believe in using the Arabic language in a strict way, just considering the literal meanings or other meanings connected to grammar, no more. I am not interested in interpreting words in a way that betrays their real meanings, linguistically and grammatically. To you your way and to me mine. By the way, I do know who your talking about. Nelson Mandela. Thanks for the fun quiz. I didn't see the point to it, but hey, it's all good.
Godbless,
AnwarSalaam
I am sorry brother Anwar you are contridicting your self; in your earlier posts you were selective about only the reasonable, godly men who should be obeyed. If all rijaal are all men then who are you to pick out the reasonable ones if God does not differenciate between rijalaan, unless not all men are rijal and this is something one has to earn with ones deeds just like Nelson Mendela, who has earned the respect of all and I mentioned him as I have yet to come across a muslim rijal like him.
peace -
Peace Farida,
Salaam
I am sorry brother Anwar you are contridicting your self; in your earlier posts you were selective about only the reasonable, godly men who should be obeyed.I'm sorry too. You misunderstood me. I repeatedly said in my past posts that a man/men are adult human males, and that does not figure into their prudence, godliness, responsibility or behavior. Being a man is a matter of biology and biological maturation. When the term rajl/rijaal is factored in there is no such term as 'real' men, or 'real' women. There is muruwah, which is manhood, and that might have some cultural attatchments that are connected to the definition. But this
real man' stuff is a cultural interpretation of what peolple expect of men (you even admited that) besides just being adult human males. As far as I have seen it does not apply to the word rajl and rijaal. I don't think we should mix cultural interpretations (which differ from culture to culture) with the plain, straightforward definitions of words.If all rijaal are all men then who are you to pick out the reasonable ones if God does not differenciate between rijalaan, unless not all men are rijal and this is something one has to earn with ones deeds just like Nelson Mendela, who has earned the respect of all and I mentioned him as I have yet to come across a muslim rijal like him
I totally disagree with this rijaal means more than biological man idea. Even the worse, most despicable of men are still rijaal. It is not something you earn it is something that an adult human male just IS. Instead of talking about rijaal you need to use other virtues that the Quran encourages. Just, godly, prudent, patient, perservering, forgiving. These are real virtues that are good for all of us to have but that do not define whether we are men (rijaal) or women (nisaa'. However they may define whether we are good men or good women.
I think I have made myself clear here. Number 1, rijaal is plural and it means men. So no one man can be a rijaal. Secondly, being a man has nothing to do with one's virtues as it concerns the word rajl, but everything to do with one's biological maturation as a male human being.
I hope I've explained myself well, and hence you can see that I have not been contradicting myself. You might consider nelson mandela to be a good man (rajl tayyib, jayyid, etc), or even an ideal man (rajl mithali) but his goodness has nothing to do with his being a man. Again rajl is the singular and rijaal is the plural.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Yes. It is really remarcable how women figure prominently, sometimes exclusively or woverwhelmingly in assciations and organizations for welfare and help of people, but that as soon as these organisations become strong and important through their work, they are gradually taken over by men at the top posts who then become important and get more money for the work tht women did for much less and where they were not able to lift them, they won't have women manage them once the acquire a certain standing.
Of course there are some men also in relie and help. I am talking and about relative numbers and how we come to this gratuitous importance and ability of men to manage where it is rather a question of ability to throw women out once the hard work is done.
Salaam
Peace,Huruf,
I dont know much about what youre saying about welfare organizations and associations,I know most of their founders are women,but I dont know about the gruesome things that happen to them,you must be experienced with this kind of work..I just began working with two of my best friends-a boy and a girl-in an animal welfare organization and theyre really both encouraging,and enlightening,Ive also learned about that great woman named "Ingrid Newkirk"the co-founder of PETA ,how that she was introduced to the animal rights concept by a man-Alex Pacheco-whom she founded the organization with,she grew very fast because of her good organization and sense of practicality where Pacheco was short,but they never tried to throw each other out.. I find her example a good one of passionate work and determination..and shes still there standing..
