Is ZANIA and ZANI about prostitution or adultery ?
-
but we have widow men right? And in cases of divorce it have been seen that the father gets the costudy of the children and the mother runs away with some other men. so in every society you would find children without mothers. Now can a married woman marry their father and give a mother figure to these children as well (polyandry). ?
But I am not speaking of widows or widowers. Polygamy is not to solve adults problems. They have choices and they can solve their problems. Even their children will not have problems that have to be solved by their parent getting married. If it's an economical problem, they are not different from other poor children with parents.
As I mentioned before, it's a solution to children who do not have fathers, not orphans who had fathers but died. It's to give them a father's figure who will help them integrate in the society like any other child. This is why it's about marrying their mothers, not fathers. There is no such a thing as a motherless child. Even if there were mothers who leave the child and disappear, this child does not have a problem. He already has a name. and a father. Single fathers are either widowers or divorced. Single mothers are either widows, divorced or mothers of fatherless children. It is these children who may have a problem integrating in the society.
Of course this is no more a problem in the West. The government and the society took care of it, so there is no "fear of being unfair to fatherless children" and thus no need for polygamy. -
But I am not speaking of widows or widowers. Polygamy is not to solve adults problems. They have choices and they can solve their problems. Even their children will not have problems that have to be solved by their parent getting married. If it's an economical problem, they are not different from other poor children with parents.
As I mentioned before, it's a solution to children who do not have fathers, not orphans who had fathers but died. It's to give them a father's figure who will help them integrate in the society like any other child. This is why it's about marrying their mothers, not fathers. There is no such a thing as a motherless child. Even if there were mothers who leave the child and disappear, this child does not have a problem. He already has a name. and a father. Single fathers are either widowers or divorced. Single mothers are either widows, divorced or mothers of fatherless children. It is these children who may have a problem integrating in the society.
Of course this is no more a problem in the West. The government and the society took care of it, so there is no "fear of being unfair to fatherless children" and thus no need for polygamy.Your argument is illogical. Do you assume that we dont have children without mothers ? Giving children a mother doesn't it help them integrate in the society as well? How does a child whos father ran away become more integrated in the society by having a step father than a motherless child whos mother ran away and now has a step mother?
And secondly you say that motherless children does not have a problem because they have a name. So you mean that this whole polygyny issue is about giving someone a name? So a married man shall cheat on his wife and sleep with the mother of a orphan in order to give that orphan a name ?? There is something wrong with the logic in this argument. I am sorry to say it, but I think its AS important for a child to have a mother as a father, or maybe it can be argued that its more important for a child to in fact have a mother, since its the mother who spends more time with the child. -
Your argument is illogical. Do you assume that we dont have children without mothers ? Giving children a mother doesn't it help them integrate in the society as well? How does a child whos father ran away become more integrated in the society by having a step father than a motherless child whos mother ran away and now has a step mother?
And secondly you say that motherless children does not have a problem because they have a name. So you mean that this whole polygyny issue is about giving someone a name? So a married man shall cheat on his wife and sleep with the mother of a orphan in order to give that orphan a name ?? There is something wrong with the logic in this argument. I am sorry to say it, but I think its AS important for a child to have a mother as a father, or maybe it can be argued that its more important for a child to in fact have a mother, since its the mother who spends more time with the child.Since you speak of a child whose mother ran away and belittle the importance of a name to a child, I understand that you are unable to get what I mean. will have to put it in another way. In the past, in England for example, these children were called bastards, illegitimate children, s.o.b, s.o w....I suppose you know of that. What does that mean? Could a child living with his father be treated that way? I am not talking political incorrectness here, and don't say mother and father are the same, because what I believe or what you believe is not what many societies believed or still believe. Mothers killed their babies to avoid, and make the baby avoid such a life. There are also children resulting from rape. All these children have mothers and no fathers. They are still a problem in many societies, especially in the middle east and Muslim countries where some of them lash the mother or even kill her and no one would take the "illegitimate child". Does this happen to children accepted by their fathers even if the mother fled away with a lover? Would this father have a problem getting married? No. Why then should his problem be solved by an already married woman? As for the mother of an illegitimate child, her marriage can be very problematic and the burden will fall on the child. Here comes this solution as the last resort.
-
I agree with you 100%. The four witness requirements clearly shows that we are talking about public sex, or husband swapping or wife swapping act.
A woman who cheats her husband and sleeps with another man or vice versa, its NOT up to the community to punish her, its only God who can do that, and the husband of course have the right to either forgive her or divorce her. So Simple is that.
"A woman who cheats her husband and sleeps with another man or vice versa, its NOT up to the community to punish her, its only God who can do that, and the husband of course have the right to either forgive her or divorce her. So Simple is that"
That is very naive. rotfl
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE4gGtpcGno
http//www.break.com/usercontent/2006/12/20/bike-racer-caught-cheating-198063
http//www.metacafe.com/watch/442607/guy_films_himself_cheating_and_gets_caught/
http//www.break.com/index/wife-caught-cheating.html#
http//mytings.net/video/cheating-husband-beaten-up-by
Its worse than stealing.
My favorite
http//dumpalink.com/videos/This-Guy-got-Caught-Cheating-on-his-Girl-6fd7.html
Koranic justice at its best
http//3.bp.blogspot.com/-iJFY46Db9HQ/Tkco5G7TurI/AAAAAAAACFU/tnDh-1Wcogw/s1600/Ten+Commandments.gif
-
Salaam Bigmo
WITT is quite right. I do not know why you laugh.
The only correction I would do to her post is that the address is for both spouses, not just the husband.If they want to forgive, as long as it was not public, which takes it to another dimension, no one would know about the incident and the spouse will not take it to the authorities. If, on the other hand, they want divorce, it has to be taken to the authority. The claimant will have to bear witness four times that the incident happened. This is in lieu of the 4 witnesses. The defendant's defense is to bear witness 4 times that the claimant was wrong. The result will be divorce.
This is per verses 246-9 -
Since you speak of a child whose mother ran away and belittle the importance of a name to a child, I understand that you are unable to get what I mean. will have to put it in another way. In the past, in England for example, these children were called bastards, illegitimate children, s.o.b, s.o w....I suppose you know of that. What does that mean? Could a child living with his father be treated that way? I am not talking political incorrectness here, and don't say mother and father are the same, because what I believe or what you believe is not what many societies believed or still believe. Mothers killed their babies to avoid, and make the baby avoid such a life. There are also children resulting from rape. All these children have mothers and no fathers. They are still a problem in many societies, especially in the middle east and Muslim countries where some of them lash the mother or even kill her and no one would take the "illegitimate child". Does this happen to children accepted by their fathers even if the mother fled away with a lover? Would this father have a problem getting married? No. Why then should his problem be solved by an already married woman? As for the mother of an illegitimate child, her marriage can be very problematic and the burden will fall on the child. Here comes this solution as the last resort.
Ok so because people of UK were a bunch of idiots in the past, we should have men sleeping around with 4 women? What about changing the negative attitude towards children? And do you think that a child is less a bastard because someone with 3 wives and a bunch of other children comes and sleep with this childs mother??
Now do you assume that all cultures are like the UK ? What about cultures were the childs name derive from his mother? If the mother ran away in this society would you suggest polyandry?
They are still a problem in many societies, especially in the middle east and Muslim countries where some of them lash the mother or even kill her and no one would take the "illegitimate child". Does this happen to children accepted by their fathers even if the mother fled away with a lover?
Yes yes we know that the world hates women. But you said polygyny was a solution for the child not for the adults? Ok so because the world especially middle east hates women and kill them we should have men with multiple wives?????? What about punishing the killers so these crimes dont happen? Would you cure women hating with more anti-women rules(polygyny)
Would this father have a problem getting married? No. Why then should his problem be solved by an already married woman? As for the mother of an illegitimate child, her marriage can be very problematic and the burden will fall on the child. Here comes this solution as the last resort.
Lol. So your point is that single moms cant get married again thats why we shall have married men sleeping with them. But single fathers dont have a problem getting married men so we dont need married women to sleep with them. But you just said that polygyny is not for adults? First of all, there are at least AS many women, who dont want to marry single fathers as there are men who dont want to marry single mothers. The majority of people regardless of gender, always try to marry counterparts who havent been married before. Secondly, there are still SOME people, both men and women who dont have a problem with getting married to single mothers or fathers if they like that person.
So your whole argument about that nobody wants to marry single mothers is flawed since I have seen many cases IN MIDDLE EAST where a woman with 2 children got married with a virgin man. But for the sake of the argument, if nobody wanted to marry a single mother, than why do you assume that a family father wanted to marry her? He would of course, as the rest also look after ''virgins''.
Again the problem with all your argument is, that it also applies for polyandry, which you of course cant tolerate like most muslims. To imagine a woman having more than one husband make the blood boil inside the muslims of anger, but having a man cheating on his wife by getting married again is quite fine. Muslims are mostly experts in practising these hateful dobbel standards which is the reason for why we have so much woman-opression which you suggest would be cured at least for her children, by having her getting married and fu*ked by a family father. What about proper human care???? Or what about encouraging single, virgin men to get married with single mothers out of love and compassion??
Secondly, I dont see anywhere in quran 4,3 talking about that nobody wants to marry a mother with a child etc. Its something YOU think because you have seen so much woman opression. And i am sorry to say it, but you cant solve anti-woman attitudes by having men cheating on their wives. -
"A woman who cheats her husband and sleeps with another man or vice versa, its NOT up to the community to punish her, its only God who can do that, and the husband of course have the right to either forgive her or divorce her. So Simple is that"
That is very naive. rotfl
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE4gGtpcGno
http//www.break.com/usercontent/2006/12/20/bike-racer-caught-cheating-198063
http//www.metacafe.com/watch/442607/guy_films_himself_cheating_and_gets_caught/
http//www.break.com/index/wife-caught-cheating.html#
http//mytings.net/video/cheating-husband-beaten-up-by
Its worse than stealing.
My favorite
http//dumpalink.com/videos/This-Guy-got-Caught-Cheating-on-his-Girl-6fd7.html
Koranic justice at its best
http//3.bp.blogspot.com/-iJFY46Db9HQ/Tkco5G7TurI/AAAAAAAACFU/tnDh-1Wcogw/s1600/Ten+Commandments.gif
hahaha I liked the last video loooooooooooool. its my favorite too. I know the ten commandments, and I agree with them. However, its the requirement of 4 witnesses who bother me, since its impossible to get 4 witnesses in cases of adultery?
-
Ok so because people of UK were a bunch of idiots in the past, we should have men sleeping around with 4 women? What about changing the negative attitude towards children? And do you think that a child is less a bastard because someone with 3 wives and a bunch of other children comes and sleep with this childs mother??
Please cool down.
At least we agree that they were a bunch of idiots.
Then they solved it in a better way changing the attitude towards these children.
We in our countries are still this bunch of idiots. Until we reach the wisdom of societies that changed the attitude towards the children, individuals can solve it in this way. This is an individual solution. It is not a law nor an obligation. It's "equity".
You are furious because you relate to the wife or the wife-to-be. You are unable to relate to a young woman with an illegitimate child in an unfair society, where her child would be cursed all his life and will never be accepted in the society. That's if they even survived. And one wouldn't know whether to feel sorry if they die or be happy for them for being free from a cruel life ahead.
And by the way, I haven't so far seen a "legitimate" polygamy. You see men following their desires and amassing women. But they never marry a broken woman with an illegitimate child. -
Please cool down.
At least we agree that they were a bunch of idiots.
Then they solved it in a better way changing the attitude towards these children.
We in our countries are still this bunch of idiots. Until we reach the wisdom of societies that changed the attitude towards the children, individuals can solve it in this way. This is an individual solution. It is not a law nor an obligation. It's "equity".
You are furious because you relate to the wife or the wife-to-be. You are unable to relate to a young woman with an illegitimate child in an unfair society, where her child would be cursed all his life and will never be accepted in the society. That's if they even survived. And one wouldn't know whether to feel sorry if they die or be happy for them for being free from a cruel life ahead.
And by the way, I haven't so far seen a "legitimate" polygamy. You see men following their desires and amassing women. But they never marry a broken woman with an illegitimate child.you said
You are unable to relate to a young woman with an illegitimate child in an unfair society, where her child would be cursed all his life and will never be accepted in the society. That's if they even survived. And one wouldn't know whether to feel sorry if they die or be happy for them for being free from a cruel life ahead
And do you think that the child would become legitimate because a family father marries her when everyone knows he is not the father?
And you didnt answered my question, what about societies where the childs name derives from the mother. Would you suggest polyandry?You are furious because you relate to the wife or the wife-to-be
It is you who relate it so, because you keep on insisting that a family father shall cheat on his wife by sleeping with a mother of a bastard child.
Okay so you say that a single mother with a bastard child, (which by the way wont happen if she was following islam) only have the options between dying or getting f*cked by a family father? -
Now do you assume that all cultures are like the UK ? What about cultures were the childs name derive from his mother? If the mother ran away in this society would you suggest polyandry?
If the child does not have a problem, why revert to polygamy or polyandry?
The verse starts by "If you fear not to be equitable to fatherless children". It's not a universal obligation.And do not cling to this notion of "name" in this childish way. I gave it as an example of what really happens in societies I am aware of. The qur'aan does not prohibit a woman giving her name to a child, and I know that.
Yes yes we know that the world hates women. But you said polygyny was a solution for the child not for the adults? Ok so because the world especially middle east hates women and kill them we should have men with multiple wives?????? What about punishing the killers so these crimes dont happen? Would you cure women hating with more anti-women rules(polygyny)
Who said anything about "you should"? Please liberate your mind from the notion of "polygamy is the man's God given right" and try to understand.
Or even better, read the verse and criticize me if you see that I said "you should marry more than a wife". On the contrary, I mentioned that the rule is to marry only the singles, but in extreme conditions, polygamy may be allowed.Lol. So your point is that single moms cant get married again thats why we shall have married men sleeping with them. But single fathers dont have a problem getting married men so we dont need married women to sleep with them. But you just said that polygyny is not for adults? First of all, there are at least AS many women, who dont want to marry single fathers as there are men who dont want to marry single mothers. The majority of people regardless of gender, always try to marry counterparts who havent been married before. Secondly, there are still SOME people, both men and women who dont have a problem with getting married to single mothers or fathers if they like that person.
Do you have a problem with comprehension or what? Or you just want to twist what I said to rant?
If you want to marry more than a man, be my guest. But please don't come up with stupid arguments and say I said it. -
Samia
Do you have a problem with comprehension or what? Or you just want to twist what I said to rant?
If you want to marry more than a man, be my guest. But please don't come up with stupid arguments and say I said it.Whats wrong with comprehension? Are you against comprehension because it expose your hypocrisy or dobbel standards? Personally, I dont have a problem with getting married with more than one man. Do you have a problem with polyandry?
But you kept on saying that a single mother only have the option between dying or getting raped by a family father who also cheats on his wife. Isnt THAT a stupid argument?Who said anything about "you should"? Please liberate your mind from the notion of "polygamy is the man's God given right" and try to understand.
Or even better, read the verse and criticize me if you see that I said "you should marry more than a wife". On the contrary, I mentioned that the rule is to marry only the singles, but in extreme conditions, polygamy may be allowed.Understand what? That the mother of bastard children should almost getting raped by family fathers?
If the child does not have a problem, why revert to polygamy or polyandry?
The verse starts by "If you fear not to be equitable to fatherless children". It's not a universal obligation.And do not cling to this notion of "name" in this childish way. I gave it as an example of what really happens in societies I am aware of. The qur'aan does not prohibit a woman giving her name to a child, and I know that.
But it is you who kept on metioning the name thing. I just reminded you that the child belongs to his mother as well, and thats why we also have societies where children are known from their mothers name, like in jewish societies. So your argument about having men cheating on their wives in order to give bastard children their name, would mean that we shall allow polyandry in jewish societies as well so bastard children could get a name.
You use very creative justifications in order to justify polygyny, but none of them makes sense. Seconldy I dont think 4,3 talks about polygyny at all.
-
Look WITT
Okay so you say that a single mother with a bastard child, (which by the way wont happen if she was following islam) only have the options between dying or getting f*cked by a family father?
I am afraid we are going to a low level of discussion, thanks to you.
Throw my rendition in the garbage and let's see what you understand from verse 43
-
Look WITT
I am afraid we are going to a low level of discussion, thanks to you.Throw my rendition in the garbage and let's see what you understand from verse 43
Dear sister Samia, Dont feel offended by my posts, I respect you a lot. But I was trying to say excately what you said in other words, so you could see how illogical your justification for polygyny is.
Regardless that polygyny is illogical and insulting for women as well as for men, the reason for I think 43 isnt about polygyny is because I dont think ''Nisa'' means women.
Peace
-
Sister Samia - Meet Whereisthetruth, a young woman with Pakistani background living in Sweden. She is fierce and has the heart of a tiger. But her heart is full of love and she is a very nice person.
Sister Whereisthetruth - Meet Samia, a wise woman from the UK that has a brilliantly logical mind, she has a heart full of love and she is a very nice person.
Can we get back to the cheating part? I still got problems with cheating actually meaning public sex. There must be a reason for the harsh punishment. Can't remember who pointed it out, but a hundred lashes is brutal. If executed in a professional manner it will kill you.
One good point made was that why should Allah punish adultery? It kinda gives itself a punishment (divorce, losing the kids etc)....
But the punishment of a hundred stripes fit the crime better if the crime is adultery.......
But it runs into problems in extra-ordinary circumstances.......Adultery is only adultery if the two persons involved have taken an oath to eachother. What if that oath excludes monogamy? Hypothetical argument; A man's oath to a woman can never include monogamy because if he is to marry one more woman he will by default break the monogamy oath to wife number 1.
Public sex runs into problems because of the actual number four. I find it very hard to grasp why a party of three is private but add one more person and it all of a sudden becomes public confused
Also it runs into problems with the society we live in today. Again playing the devil's advocate here; A pornographic film is not an act of zina (public sex) if it states on the back cover that you are not allowed to watch this movie in the presence of more than two more people..........I am being a little ridicilous here, but you get my point?I am leaning more and more towards my initial understanding, zina means uncommitted sex. It includes adultery if the act is done without committment and it includes public sex if the parties involved are not committed towards eachother, which probably would be the case in most public shows of the sexual nature, both before and now.
Of course, I have absolutely no proof because I do not speak arabic So help me out........please?
-
Dear sister Samia, Dont feel offended by my posts, I respect you a lot. But I was trying to say excately what you said in other words, so you could see how illogical your justification for polygyny is.
Regardless that polygyny is illogical and insulting for women as well as for men, the reason for I think 43 isnt about polygyny is because I dont think ''Nisa'' means women.
Peace
Of course I have the right to be offended when you put filthy words or ideas in my mouth.
I do not believe that nisaa' is "exclusively" women either, not that it cannot mean women.
"nisaa'" linguistically is plural of "ns' " not "imra'a ". "ns'" is to delay, leave behind.
....from which we have the Arabic expression of where a later agreement is impost on the debtor regardless , or because of his defaulting the payment. The quraanic expression of "nasi' " withregard to the prohibited months (937) was to delay them.
Having said that, , with respect to the context as in 4;127 means vulnerable children, orphans/ fatherless children AND mothers of fatherless children when they are not paid their "ajr".
In this verse we have the verb marry. The order cannot be to marry the vulnerable or fatherless children.So, I am still waiting to see, with regard to nisaa' not meaning women here who should be married if we fear not to be equitable to fatherless children?
Or maybe you do not think that "inka7u" means marry?
Or that they should marry the very vulnerable children they fear not to be fair to, and be unfair to them "by law" this time? -
Of course I have the right to be offended when you put filthy words or ideas in my mouth.
I do not believe that nisaa' is "exclusively" women either, not that it cannot mean women.
"nisaa'" linguistically is plural of "ns' " not "imra'a ". "ns'" is to delay, leave behind...from which we have the Arabic expression of where a later agreement is impost on the debtor regardless , or because of his defaulting the payment. The quraanic expression of "nasi' " withregard to the prohibited months (937) was to delay them.
Having said that, , with respect to the context as in 4;127 means vulnerable children, orphans/ fatherless children AND mothers of fatherless children when they are not paid their "ajr".
In this verse we have the verb marry. The order cannot be to marry the vulnerable or fatherless children.So, I am still waiting to see, with regard to nisaa' not meaning women here who should be married if we fear not to be equitable to fatherless children?
Or maybe you do not think that "inka7u" means marry?
Or that they should marry the very vulnerable children they fear not to be fair to, and be unfair to them "by law" this time?I did not put any filthy words in your mouth. It was you yourself who began to say that men should cheat on their wives by sleeping with mothers of children who were called bastards in the society, so these could get a name. Does this seems logically to you?
Ok so we both agree that nisa does not mean women only. Hence we are not talking about polygyny, since nisa can be males as well. What makes you think that yatama is fatherless children?
Secondly, I cannot see anything regarding multiple wives or husbands in this verse. Inkah7o means go and marry yourself according to you? So this is a big contradiction to surah noor where God says we shall marry off the singles. -
I did not put any filthy words in your mouth. It was you yourself who began to say that men should cheat on their wives by sleeping with mothers of children who were called bastards in the society, so these could get a name. Does this seems logically to you?
Ok so we both agree that nisa does not mean women only. Hence we are not talking about polygyny, since nisa can be males as well. What makes you think that yatama is fatherless children?
Secondly, I cannot see anything regarding multiple wives or husbands in this verse. Inkah7o means go and marry yourself according to you? So this is a big contradiction to surah noor where God says we shall marry off the singles.You see? you are repeating the same nonesense and attributing it to me.
As for the underlined line, you do not even comprehend what I said regarding this.
I am not discussing my understanding anymore with you, as it seems you really have a comprehension problem.
Waiting for a thorough explanation by you for this verse.
It's not enough to just say "nisaa'" means men too; "yatamaa" are not fatherless children, and there is no marrying second, third and fourth time.
Give a consistent explanation for the whole verse as I did. -
Sister Samia - Meet Whereisthetruth, a young woman with Pakistani background living in Sweden. She is fierce and has the heart of a tiger. But her heart is full of love and she is a very nice person.
Sister Whereisthetruth - Meet Samia, a wise woman from the UK that has a brilliantly logical mind, she has a heart full of love and she is a very nice person.
Can we get back to the cheating part? I still got problems with cheating actually meaning public sex. There must be a reason for the harsh punishment. Can't remember who pointed it out, but a hundred lashes is brutal. If executed in a professional manner it will kill you.
One good point made was that why should Allah punish adultery? It kinda gives itself a punishment (divorce, losing the kids etc)....
But the punishment of a hundred stripes fit the crime better if the crime is adultery.......
But it runs into problems in extra-ordinary circumstances.......Adultery is only adultery if the two persons involved have taken an oath to eachother. What if that oath excludes monogamy? Hypothetical argument; A man's oath to a woman can never include monogamy because if he is to marry one more woman he will by default break the monogamy oath to wife number 1.
Public sex runs into problems because of the actual number four. I find it very hard to grasp why a party of three is private but add one more person and it all of a sudden becomes public confused
Also it runs into problems with the society we live in today. Again playing the devil's advocate here; A pornographic film is not an act of zina (public sex) if it states on the back cover that you are not allowed to watch this movie in the presence of more than two more people..........I am being a little ridicilous here, but you get my point?I am leaning more and more towards my initial understanding, zina means uncommitted sex. It includes adultery if the act is done without committment and it includes public sex if the parties involved are not committed towards eachother, which probably would be the case in most public shows of the sexual nature, both before and now.
Of course, I have absolutely no proof because I do not speak arabic So help me out........please?
Uncommitted sex? That is not cheating. Its sex outside of committment that is cheating. I think what you are saying is that it does not matter whether a couple are legally married or not as long as they have some committment between them. If a party does something in hiding and in secret there must be a reason he is doing so.
If you mean casual sex then ther is no party that is raising the issue. Its always when somebody else is involved where people usually have confrontation. The Koran sees adultery as a crime, but it is not a crime like any other because adultery is a very complicated matter. But the goal of the verses is about slandering women. In many societies that could be enough to create a huge problem.
You are right, flogging a women is no easy matter. That is why the Koran gave strict standards for implimenting. A women usually can have a way out from the Koran. But as fas as God is concerned, that is the proper punishment. Not because it is transgressing God's commandment because it also transgresses somebody else.
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma3nBnRbmeA
Flogging is not a joke. Disturbing image. When Islam goes wrong.
-
You see? you are repeating the same nonesense and attributing it to me.
As for the underlined line, you do not even comprehend what said regarding this.
I am not discussing my understanding anymore with you, as it seems you really have a comprehension problem.
Waiting for a thorough explanation by you for this verse.
It's not enough to just say "nisaa'" means men too; "yatamaa" are not fatherless children, and there is no marrying second, third and fourth time.
Give a consistent explanation for the whole verse as I did.Calm down. Why do you feel so offended by comprehention?
What's wrong with comparing humans to other humans? If you think its ok for men to cheat on their wives but not ok for women to cheat on their husbands because We should not compare men to women than you are just repeating the same Saudi anti woman propaganda. You see here in three west We believe in EQUALITY between genders, We don't discriminate between genders as you do. If you don't want to sound more like a woman hater than why dont you let your husband or boyfriend sleep with a single mother ?Peace
-
Calm down. Why do you feel so offended by comprehention?
What's wrong with comparing humans to other humans? If you think its ok for men to cheat on their wives but not ok for women to cheat on their husbands because We should not compare men to women than you are just repeating the same Saudi anti woman propaganda. You see here in three west We believe in EQUALITY between genders, We don't discriminate between genders as you do. If you don't want to sound more like a woman hater than why dont you let your husband or boyfriend sleep with a single mother ?Peace
The reason why the Koran talked about accusing the women is because usually that is what causes the problem. There is no honor killing in Arab society over men except a few. Its always about women.
Middle EastIn 2008 a woman was killed in Saudi Arabia by her father for "chatting" to a man on Facebook. The killing became public only when a Saudi cleric referred to the case to criticise Facebook for the strife it caused.
A June 2008 report by the Turkish Prime Ministry's Human Rights Directorate said that in Istanbul alone there was one honor killing every week, and reported over 1,000 during the previous five years. It added that metropolitan cities were the location of many of these, due to growing Kurdish immigration to these cities from the East. In 2009 a Turkish news agency reported that a 2-day-old boy who was born out of wedlock had been killed for honor. The maternal grandmother of the infant, along with six other persons, including a doctor who had reportedly accepted a bribe to not report the birth, were arrested. The grandmother is suspected of fatally suffocating the infant. The child's mother, 25, was also arrested; she stated that her family had made the decision to kill the child.
A girl in Turkey was killed after her family heard a song and thought she had a boyfriend. In 2010 a 16-year-old girl was buried alive by relatives for befriending boys in Southeast Turkey; her corpse was found 40 days after she went missing. Ahmet Yildiz, 26, a Turkish physics student who represented his country at an international gay conference in the United States in 2008, was shot leaving a cafe in Istanbul. It is believed Yildiz was the victim of the country's first gay honor killing.
There are no exact official numbers about honor killings of women in Lebanon; many honor killings are arranged to look like accidents, but the figure is believed to be 40 to 50 per year. A 2007 report by Amnesty International said that the Lebanese media in 2001 reported 2?3 honor killings per month in Lebanon, although the number is believed by lawyers to be higher. On Aug 4th 2011 the Lebanese parliament agreed with a majority to abolish Article 562 which for years worked as an excuse for honor killing.
The Palestinian Authority, using a clause in the Jordanian penal code still in effect in the West Bank, exempts men from punishment for killing a female relative if she has brought dishonor to the family. Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, promised to change the discriminatory law, but no action has been taken. According to UNICEF, in 2000 two-thirds of all killings in the Palestinian territories were honor killings.
As many as 133 women were killed in the Iraqi city of Basra alone in 2006?79 for violation of "Islamic teachings" and 47 for honor killings, according to IRIN, the news branch of the U.N.'s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Amnesty International says that armed groups, not the government, also kill politically active women and those who did not follow a strict dress code, as well as women who are perceived as human rights defenders.
Jordan, considered one of the most liberal countries in the Middle East, still has instances of honor killings. In Jordan there is relatively little sex discrimination compared to other most other countries in the region, and women are permitted to vote, but men receive reduced sentences for killing their wives or female family members if they have brought dishonor to their family. Families often get sons under the age of 18?legally minors?to commit honor killings; the juvenile law allows convicted minors to serve time in a juvenile detention center and be released with a clean criminal record at the age of 18. Rana Husseini, a leading journalist on the topic of honor killings, states that ?under the existing law, people found guilty of committing honor killings often receive sentences as light as six months in prison?.
There has been public support in Jordan to amend Articles 340 and 98. In 1999 King Abdullah created a council to review the sex inequalities in the country. The Council returned with a recommendation to repeal Article 340. ?he cabinet approved the recommendation, the measure was presented to parliament twice in November 1999 and January 2000 and in both cases, though approved by the upper house, it failed to pass the elected lower house?. In 2001, after parliament was suspended, a number of temporary laws were created which were subject to parliamentary ratification. One of the amendments was that ?husbands would no longer be exonerated for killing unfaithful wives, but instead the circumstances would be considered as evidence for mitigating punishments?. In the interest of sex equality, women were given the same reduction in punishment if found guilty of the crime. But parliament returned to session in 2003 and the new amendments were rejected by the lower house after two successful readings in the upper house.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing