women/ females/ orphans in Surah Nisa, 4:3
-
What about we develop a website dedicated to explaining the Sura, visually?
a lot of people would benefit from that.
Wherever there is a need to let people see the "visuals", Qur'aan narrates that in such a manner that the reader could also see/visualize the incident/episode/incident.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/006.%20Al%20Anaam/temp%2002%206.104b.gif
You, the Messenger pronounce, "Indeed to you people has been brought from your Sustainer Lord the "Visualizer"http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/006.%20Al%20Anaam/temp%2002%206.104e.gif
Therefore whoever focused/visualized then it is indeed for his own person.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/006.%20Al%20Anaam/temp%2002%206.104f.gif
And whoever remained blind to it then the effect is upon that self.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/006.%20Al%20Anaam/temp%2002%206.104d.gif
And I am not upon you people, certainly, the Guard/onlooker .http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/006.%20Al%20Anaam/6.105a.gif
And this is how We rotate/centrifuge the Aa'ya'at so that people may say, " you threshed, examined/explained exhaustively", and so that We may make it distinct/apparent/manifest from all angles for the people to comprehensively know/understand it.http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/006.%20Al%20Anaam/006.%20Al%20Anaam%20B.htm
-
Is there any other verse in the Quran, with the exception of 43 that could possibly be interpreted as allowing a second marriage to an already married man? The one about not being married to two sisters refers to a past event, not a new marriage after the revelation of the Quran.
If there isn't, that would suggest that polygamy was never allowed for the believing man.
This is declaring the prohibition that you might gather two sisters in your marriage fold, NOT second marriage, and is clarified that this injunction is not to be applied retrospectively but prospectively. An act done in the past cannot be undone, it had to be overlooked to avoid legal complications/problems for people.
For another quote please refer to 4129.
-
as in you can't marry a woman's sister after divorcing her?
you can marry with your ex wife's sister, and incase you divorce your ex wife's sister too, then you can remarry your first ex wife the sister of your latest ex wife.
-
you can marry with your ex wife's sister, and incase you divorce your ex wife's sister too, then you can remarry your first ex wife the sister of your latest ex wife.
I know that's technical, but do you have any example of this? That would be "plin-plan" in my language--a term for an undecided man (you know, sort of like 'ping-pong'
OK. no one have to answer this one.
offtopic
Peace ;D
-
Islam completely destroyed, utterly annihilated the pre Islamic society. The defeated people didn't simply get defeated, they ceased to exist.
No pre Islamic pagan existed to tell his or her side of the events! Thats' the difference.
Hardly. Just look at 'undivided India.' Almost every 'Muslim person in present day Bangladesh or India has Hindu ancestors. They weren't wiped out, they converted. A lot of people convert because it is convenient. For instance, there are many people in Bangladesh and in India who converted to Christianity to benefit from missionary organisations and in order to overcome low/untouchable caste restrictions placed on them.
Your argument doesn't really hold. You have no proof that they were killed
-
Evedence? Ridiculous! How many pre Islamic pagans of Saudi Arabia or Yemen do you know? How many such pagans, worshipping allat, al Uzza, al Manat do you know existed from the 10th, 11th etc centuries, after Islam please?
As the Quran & if you're willing to accept hadiths, hadiths say,they existed before Islam. Are they existing in KSA or Yemen today?
What proof do you have that they were 'annihilated' as opposed to conversion?
-
Although at birth there are a few less female children, as women are healthier, if not ill treated, they can & do outliv men, leading to a sex ratio favoring women in the total population.
This isn't about present day society. I am asking about demographics in 7th century Arabia. So, I think we can reasonably imagine the reverse. i.e. women are less healthy, they suffer ill treatment, and maybe they are outlived by men. Wouldn't that lead to a sex ratio favouring men in the total population, even without taking into consideration female infanticide?
-
Women outlive men in virtually every nation, however due to ill treatment, in your Bangladesh, men outlive women!
Seriously Sarah! Aren't you a University student?Well, if you weren't making a personal attack, you wouldn't have brought up Bangladesh when it doesn't come at the top of some list concerning ill treatment, harassment, of women. You picked out Bangladesh only because it happens to be the country I come from.
Your second statement is also a personal attack
-
Wiped out means that they are now dead or convered! If they accepted Islam, they'd surely now be pro Islam, rather than write from the point of view of the society which was destroyed by Muhammad & Co.
I guess? It is well known that in the past (Mughal times) a lot of Hindus in Bangladesh converted to Islam. A lot of lower caste Hindus were also coerced into converting to Christianity by missionaries in exchange for food, schooling and other forms of help. I am quite sure these people are pro-'Muslim' and pro-'Christian' respectively. Why shouldn't the same apply?
People aren't too concerned with the religion of their ancestors, but tend to believe in the religion they were born and brought up with.
Why does it matter what the point of view of their ancestors was?
-
So in most nations, upto old age, men outnumber women. However, as women outlive men in most nations, in the total population of many nations, there're indeed more women.
I think we are more concerned not with the overall ratio, but the ratio at and around the 'marriageable age' or when the woman might have children.
-
I know I know, first you didn't understand demographics, then you will ridicule me & then give up.
All I spoke of were facts.
I would like Muslims to be more like nations like Sweden or Norway, which promote women's rights,NOT from the Bible, but from modern ethics.
Well obviously Muslim countries should be more like Sweden or Norway, where women's, LGBT, human rights are better protected. I don't disagree with you on that. Why would I?
I just disagree that women's rights, and what the Quran says, are contradictory.
Just think of the book and what it says in the light of the time it was first applied, i.e. 7th century Arabia.
-
However, if I DARE mention Pakistan or Bangladesh, I'm termed racist?
Isn't it racist if you mention Indian witches or ratios? D
Or is it all right to mention India as its Hindu majority, but not Muslim nations? ???
Hardly. India and China happen to be large countries, and potential future superpowers. Hence, they are always in the news, and I just brought it up as an example. It's got nothing to do with India being a Hindu majority country. It would be racist if I did a specific search for problems in Iran, and said, 'Hey Fawzia, look what happens in your Iran...'
You picked out Bangladesh only because that's where I come from.
-
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