women/ females/ orphans in Surah Nisa, 4:3
-
Iran has more men than women, the Iran, Iraq war killed many men, still it has more men.
I would like my birthplace Iran to have more women too, to stop all the hideous ill treatment of women.How would having more women help reduce ill treatment of women? Economic and financial independence, literacy, reduced discrimination, etc. might, but not larger numbers?
-
Now tell me Sarah, having indulged in India bashing, why do millions of Bangladeshi illegal immigrants go to settle there?
Bangladesh too is a poor nation like India, both were colonized by the British, so you can't use the colony excuse?
If Hindu India is such a baaad, baaaad, place, why do Bangladeshi illegal immigrants go to settle there in millions?
Why flee their Muslim homeland for such a bad nation?
Having indulged in the bashing of one South Asian nation, surely you can answer about the millions of Bangladeshi illegal immigrants in India? Why this attraction for a non Muslim neighbouring, fellow colonized country? ???
I have nothing against South Asia, I did praise Buddhist Sri Lanka,
I have not blamed India for anything, it was merely an example, and more importantly, an example almost everyone, anywhere in the world, is familiar with.
Your assertion that Bangladeshis go to India is baseless. Bangladeshi emigrants go to many different countries, depending on their level of skill and access to visas. Main reasons for emigration? Political problems, and lack of jobs. It's not just to India, it's also to US, UK, Australia, Canada. In mainland Europe, you have Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Norway, Sweden. And a lot of unskilled workers go to countries like Kuwait and Malaysia. There are also many skilled workers who go abroad in search of jobs.
As for India having done better, just think of its size. It also protects its domestic industries, and doesn't allow imports in goods other countries in the SAARC are actually more efficient. This has been a major point of contention for the SAFTA. Secondly, Bangladesh topped the most corrupt country list 5 years in a row. http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4353334.stm
How are the people supposed to give their best efforts if there is no scope to do so?
I hope you are aware, since you have greatly praised India, that even though it has done very well in many respects, there are still many problems?
"These relative ratings are enlightening, especially since India is way behind other South Asian countries in the World Bank-International Monetary Fund (IMF) Doing Business Index for 2010. Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh, the Maldives and Sri Lanka are all ranked higher"
Read more http//www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/uneven-growth-makes-india-uncompetitive-globally-comment_100246675.html#ixzz0WTrqDkUi
-
AND why migrate in millions from Bangladesh to India, if its so bad? ???
I would've bashed Hindus had I been born that, as it happens, I'm not.You clearly don't know much about South Asia.
Migration goes in both ways
http//www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Bangladesh-MIGRATION.html
Hindu refugees fled Bangladesh because of political problems caused by anti-liberation, fundamentalist forces. Chakma refugees fled the Indian state of Tripura and now live in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. It's Indian propaganda that only Bangladeshis migrate into India, and that the reverse does not happen.
-
Since 1947 there has been a regular interchange of population between India and what is now Bangladesh, with Hindus migrating to India and Muslims emigrating from India. There was also substantial migration between Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) and West Pakistan until the 1971 war. Before and during the war, an estimated 8 to 10 million Bengalis fled to India; most of these refugees returned after the independence of Bangladesh was firmly established. Although more than 100,000 Biharis who had sided with Pakistan during the war later migrated to Pakistan, an estimated 238,000 Biharis were still living in 66 refugee camps in Bangladesh at the end of 1993, despite a repatriation agreement signed in 1992.
In 1993, repatriation began of an estimated 56,000 Chakma refugees from the Indian state of Tripura to the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. They had fled unrest in this area. As of May 1997, 47,000 Chakma refugees still live in northeastern India. In 1991?92 about 265,000 Rohingyas?Muslims from Myanmar?fled to Bangladesh to escape repression. Beginning in 1994, over 200,000 of these refugees have returned home to Myanmar (Burma). However, as of 1999, around 22,000 Myanmar refugees still resided in southern Bangladesh in two camps. The repatriation process was suspended in 1997 but resumed in 1998. Nevertheless, the number of returns has been very limited (only 450 between 1998 and 1999) due to procedural difficulties. The UN has urged the governments of both Bangladesh and Myanmar to accelerate the process. Also, talks have been initiated regarding refugee self-reliance programs for those refugees who cannot or will not return. Reforestation and community support activities have been discussed has possible ways to lessen any adverse consequences of refugee presence. Bangladeshi authorities have not responded favorably to the proposed self-reliance programs for refugees, reiterating their position that all refugees must return to their homeland.
As of 2000, there were approximately 988,000 migrants living in Bangladesh. The net migration rate was -0.5 per 1,000 population. The government viewed the emigration level as too low, and the immigration level was deemed satisfactory.
Read more http//www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Bangladesh-MIGRATION.html#ixzz0WTvE2JPA
Read more http//www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Bangladesh-MIGRATION.html#ixzz0WTvE2oPA
-
An unfortunate Bangladeshi incident, man was desperate for a son, poured acid into his daughter's mouth! Poor child is scarred for life
http//www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=100568
If attacking one South Asian is allowed, why not another? ???It is a horrifying act of violence.
What has acid violence got to do with this thread? If you don't see the personal attack you are making, you must be really blind...and oh, of course, quite illogical hmm
and you claim to be not racist?
-
Why is wanton polygamy less of a sin than any idolatry?
Whom does idolatry hurt like polygamy hurts women & children?
That is supposing that God has allowed polygamy in the Quran, I don't see evidence of that.
Idolatry is a different kind of sin, it's not directed at people but at God, so therefore, it doesn't hurt people, except in an indirect way.
-
can every non Arab spend years of his\her prime learning Arabic?
- They don't have to.
Even if I learn Arabic, it won't help, I can only tell some stuff to some people, anyone else can misinterpret anything, also even Saudi Arabs don't speak the Quranic Arabic anymore.
-It doesn't concern you what other people do in terms of misinterpretation. What you should be concerned about, like everyone else, is standing up for what's right.
All men don't want to be just, however most Muslims do want to be free of Allah's fire.
-So?
Allah has threatened Muslims with hellfire for turning non believers or for polytheism, but He did leave a leeway for polygamy.
- That's the interpretation of corrupt people, and you agree that it's true, when it may not be.
So a man can well take on a second wife, he might feel that as long as he's sharing time equally between first wife & this one, he's not destined for Hell in the afterlife.
-if the Quran allows polygamy, if
Crimes need to be prohibited, not simply discouraged from this & that verse.
-like?Isn't theft, robbery, pedophilia etc prohibited in most nations, or are they simply discouraged?
-there is a punishment, that is what acts as discouragement, if it does. Most criminals do it despite the prohibition. Without prohibition, you can't have a punishment.
So why doesn't Allah prohibit?What was the bigger neccessity of prohibiting idolatry & polythesm over wanton polygamy?
-I am saying that both are prohibited.I have Italian born Catholic neighbours, they pray before statues of Virgin Mary & many saints, they think God is Trinity, I don't think thats evil.
-Neither do I. Do I think it's wrong towards God, yes.However, walking in with a second wife when someone has a wife & (maybe) kids is evil.
-Yes, the first wife and her kids are hurt, and emotionally scarred, and they often find themselves in financial trouble as often the husband doesn't pay.So why isn't other, not neccessary sorts of polygamy forbidden in a similar way?
-it is. The Quran doesn't support polygamy. Verses have to be twisted, conjunctions have to be altered, to show that the Quran 'apparently' supports polygamy.so in your opinion, so called traditions are right?
-
Not the percieved door san, the real door. I can show you the many places where Allah says that He'll burn idolators, Trinitarians & atheists in Hellfire, but nowhere has Allah said that He'll burn other sorts of polygamists in Hellfire who don't meet these exact stipulations.
The Quran doesn't prescribe punishments for piracy, rape, polygamy, bestiality etc.
It's not a rule book, and never claims to be so. It just says that it's complete and that it's all you need for salvation.
-
However, if so many people are incapable of translating the simplest stuff, then that simply shows that there's something majorly wrong in Islamic instructions.
Hardly, it only shows how deeply entrenched the level of corruption is, such that they don't translate anything without reference to baseless hadith.
-
We can't really verfy with others very well, unless we have knowledge of Arabic, if its true that all or most previous translators had it wrong.Also, knowledge of Arabic wouldn't help, we'd need to know Classical Arabic, which would require years of study on Muslims parts, given the demands of modernity, this isn't feasible for a billion plus people.
Than how do we know that what we're accepting is a true translation or some saccharine sweetened translation to appeal to modern tastes???
There isn't much that needs to be studied. There are a few points of contention, like polygamy, inheritance laws, 'houris' that need to be dealt with, if one so chooses. It's not necessary to study the Quran, verse by verse, to do what's right? You don't even need the Quran to be a good person, just follow your conscience. Just be a good person and stand up and speak out for what's right, fearlessly. Personally, I think it's a guide, and a good one. I don't think it's compulsory.
Saccharine translation? Well, most dictionaries/ word by word translations would let you know if it was such.
-
World avarage is skewed due to the shortage of women in China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, & much of the Muslim world which has more men, this is due to abortion, infanticide, ill treatment of women in all those societies etc.
In societies where women are treated well, although more men than women are born, somewhere between 102 to 107 men per 100 women, finally women outlive men & there are more women than men in those nation.
Fawzia seems to delight in muslim men illtreating women and doing nasty things to them. Seems to relish to be able to talk about that and only about that as much as possible. Never mind, I still am going to comment on those paragraphs.
No need to illtreat women or kill them for the population to be have a great surplus of males. That, for instance, would be very logic in a country for example like Pakistan where haalf the population is under twenty. Since at birth females are fewer and only as years go by more males die so that there are fewer than females old age, it is only logical that the younger the total population the more numerous the males. That would account overall for a larger male population. To pick other factors apart from that more in depth analysis should be done.
As to what it was like in sixth century Arabia, I suppose it should be the subject of historical study by people with the knowledge and skills for that kind of analysis, if the material exist for it. It is very possible that there was no female surplus, but it is also possible at the same time that many people, males and females, did not marry. From what I read in one of Mernisi's books, which I think has been referred to in this thread, there were plenty of unwed mothers, whose life was probably far from easy. Those of wed mothers were also probably far from easy... The push of islam in favour of marriage I think that served the purpose of distributing problems and assets more evenly and give more stability and protection to children.
Salaam
-
It is very possible that there was no female surplus, but it is also possible at the same time that many people, males and females, did not marry. From what I read in one of Mernisi's books, which I think has been referred to in this thread, there were plenty of unwed mothers, whose life was probably far from easy. Those of wed mothers were also probably far from easy...
Salaam
and in the event of no female surplus, who do you think ought to have wedded those widowed women? men with a lot of money who took on second, third and fourth wives, or men taking on a single wife in a monogamous relationship.
Unless you have a situation where you have a lot of unmarried young men, and old men with many wives (something explicity discouraged in Surah 24 where the single are encouraged to marry, presumably other single people), the polygamy supporter's argument that
"men had multiple wives because there were too few men since many died in battle, and so these women couldn't find any single men to marry, and therefore had to marry well off, already married men, and become their second/third/ fourth wives"
falls flat on its face.
-
My understanding of 4.3 and of many other ayas of the Quran similarly addressed is that it is adressed to all, to the whole community in a distributive way. That is, it is addressed to the whole community and each of the things requested to those susceptible of carrying it out within the community. I do not think it is stating who can or cannot carry in the community, it is saying that those able (and willing) to marry, should be married to those in need, that is, to the mothers of the fatherless. The general push is that of everybody assuming responsibility, not shrinking from it. Instead of having countless unwed mothers, build stable families and take up the social burdens. And no one in particular is addressed, but the whole community, because on the whole falls tha burden of social solidarity and justice.
Understanding it this way we do not get in any need to choose between marry or marry off. Everything falls on the whole community, who should also support those of its members who more directly untertake to wed and may thus stretch themselves. And it must, the whole community, watch so that fatherless children do not suffer and that they reach adulthood and are handed what is rightfully theirs.
Salaam