Quick Question About Women
-
As pe the Qur'an there are the same restrictions on marriage, exactly the same for men and for women. Whatever a woman can marry, a man can, and viceversa. No aya of the Qur'an says different. Any difference is due to legislation instroduced through history by humans, not by God in His revelation, therefore those differences do not bind anybody.
Peace huruf, bookish,
I think we should first look at 5/5 and the word wal-mu'antu
before we can categorically conclude that some things are for men only.I slightly agree with hawk99 and possibility Israfell too.
The example is provided by hawk99, the word or muchsanat is feminine because ta' (ُ existed in the last.
Peace
-
I do not know what you are getting at, I doubt that you Earthdom are saying the same as Hawk. You sdhould give a proper explanation of what you mean. The morphological shape of feminine plural in Arabic are not fresh news, so what are you getting at with that. The only thing you can get from there is that in fact nothing, abolutely nothing is being forbidden to believing women, but on the other hand believing men are very clearly forbidden to marry believing women muhsanaat or muhsanaat of the women of the book UNLESS the men pay them their retribution, "UJUR, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues. if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost".
And I do not see AT ALL how in 5.5 it is being forbidden anything to believing women. ?Do you mean to say that believing women are forbidden to marry muhsinin believing men? How can that be when in that same aya God is ordering men to marry being muhsinin and fulfilling their manly obligations, like UJUR? Women are not being ordered to pay UJUR nor to approach the men desiring chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues. Does that mean that women can approach men not desiring chastity but lewdness and secret intrigues?
How far can go muslim males' self blinding in order to get some edge over women? I am very concerned about that. Is it so precious, so aboslutely necessary for that kind of male to have that edge? How does it feel? Makes it feel like a god or like a demi-god or what? It beats me.
It is really unfathomable that an aya where men are prohibited to approach women except with decency and with due payment of UJUR can become by some unfathomable magic an aya in which something is being forbidden to women. ?My God, my God, my God! I am dumbfounded. May be a psychiatrist could do something?
Salaam
-
?What silence and what non silence? ?Have you read the Qur'an attentively? Where does it allow to men and not to women? Where does it say is is ONLY for men such a thing? Nowhere.
Salaam
Salaam huruf,
I don't really know what you mean by attentively...but I agree I may have missed something. I happened to read the English translation as I don't know Arabic. I'd be glad if you could write a short article on this to explain the issue.
-
Fare thee well,
Quran tells not to marry disbelievers, idol worshippers and simply people with a bad moral character because they will drive you onto a highway to Hell. It does not say that you cannot marry people who label themselves differently as long as they are monotheists, and even some people who are misguided and trinitarian Christians may simply be able to become converted into monotheism. Many Christians are misinformed and not intentionally polytheists and also they do not really mean to do wrong but they are good moral people except for being misled.
If we reason this way, a majority of muslims cannot marry even people from their own labeled religion because elements of polytheism is present there too.
Point is, it is vain to reason this way because no matter religious views polytheism might be present making marriage invalid.
What should be avoided is partners with an immoral character rather than religious alignment. I suppose you can work out who are viable yourselves.
God bless you
-
I do not know what you are getting at, I doubt that you Earthdom are saying the same as Hawk. You sdhould give a proper explanation of what you mean. The morphological shape of feminine plural in Arabic are not fresh news, so what are you getting at with that. The only thing you can get from there is that in fact nothing, abolutely nothing is being forbidden to believing women, but on the other hand believing men are very clearly forbidden to marry believing women muhsanaat or muhsanaat of the women of the book UNLESS the men pay them their retribution, "UJUR, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues. if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost".
And I do not see AT ALL how in 5.5 it is being forbidden anything to believing women. ?Do you mean to say that believing women are forbidden to marry muhsinin believing men? How can that be when in that same aya God is ordering men to marry being muhsinin and fulfilling their manly obligations, like UJUR? Women are not being ordered to pay UJUR nor to approach the men desiring chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues. Does that mean that women can approach men not desiring chastity but lewdness and secret intrigues?
How far can go muslim males' self blinding in order to get some edge over women? I am very concerned about that. Is it so precious, so aboslutely necessary for that kind of male to have that edge? How does it feel? Makes it feel like a god or like a demi-god or what? It beats me.
It is really unfathomable that an aya where men are prohibited to approach women except with decency and with due payment of UJUR can become by some unfathomable magic an aya in which something is being forbidden to women. ?My God, my God, my God! I am dumbfounded. May be a psychiatrist could do something?
peace handshake
-
Salaam
That's why I PM'ed one of the moderators to take disciplinary action on Israfeel for trolling, spamming, talking nonsense and spewing falsehood.
Anyway Israfeel is now banned for a month.
Israfeel is just confusing new-comers especially non-muslims who are willing to learn about islam on this forum.ForTheTruth,
IMHO Man of Faith made a really valid and acceptable point.I also recommend reading this article
http//www.quran-islam.org/articles/quranic_law_for_marriage_(P1165).html
God only tells the believing men AND believing women NOT to marry people who commit shirk (people who set up partners with God)Regards,
Yuliana -
Salaam
That's why I PM'ed one of the moderators to take disciplinary action on Israfeel for trolling, spamming, talking nonsense and spewing falsehood.
Anyway Israfeel is now banned for a month.
Israfeel is just confusing new-comers especially non-muslims who are willing to learn about islam on this forum.Regards,
YulianaSalaam sis,
Is there a special post why he got banned?
I did not read everything he wrote and I disagree maybe on 99% of what he said but it looks to me that he did nothing wrong to get a ban.
salaam,
Bender -
Peace,
This is a public forum to discuss things about faith, in as polite a way as we can....so let's keep things as clean as we can.
Agreed
You shall invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind enlightenment,
and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who has strayed
from His path, and He knows best who are the guided ones. -
peace FTT,
well i do agree with you about chapter 4 verse 34 but a women can also be a supporter.. .
You may find this helpful, from here
"supporters/maintainers" (Arabic qawwamoon, root Qaf-Waw-Miim) occurs in the same form in
4135 (stand / stand up / support / maintain with justice as witnesses to God)
58 (stand / stand up / support / maintain for/to God as witnesses with justice).M. Asad The expression qawwam is an intensive form of qa'im ("one who is responsible for" or "takes care of" a thing or a person). Thus, qama ala l-mar'ah signifies "he undertook the maintenance of the woman" or "he maintained her" (see Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, p2995). The form qa'im can be found in 45 and 597.
It should be noted that the occurrences of 4135, 58 and 45, 597 cancel out some male-centric translations, such as "charge of" (M. Pickthal), "managers of" (Arberry, Hilali/Khan/Saheeh), "superior to" (Rodwell) which simply do not fit once cross referenced. It refers to a wider duty of care/responsibility, such as providing for the family/household which is discussed in several verses , and is the default role/duty for men, but not the only role as it can depend on situation. Contrast this to The Quran never mentioning managing one's wife or being in charge of her and the correct meaning becomes obvious. In fact, there is not one example of God addressing the husband/wife relationship in this manner, e.g. all examples involving decisions between marriage partners are in the reciprocal Arabic word form, e.g. "taraadaa" , "tashaawar" , which means they are mutual. If society is to be governed by mutual consultation , then naturally this principle should apply to the most basic social unit, the family, and done with what is maruf (honourable, known/recognised as good, befitting, fairness, kindness), see 2231, 419.If one wishes to refer to Traditional Ahadith/narrations, the meaning of maintenance/support for this word is also present, e.g. the use of "taqumu AAalayhinna" (look after them) in Bukhari volume 3, book 34, number 310.
Lastly, the actual verse of 434 clarifies/limits the scope of meaning of "qawwamoon" to maintenance, i.e. because of God bestowing more on some of them than on others and with what they spent (perfect tense, i.e. an action done/completed) of their money. To state the obvious, without spending on someone, a person cannot be regarded as a supporter/maintainer of them, whether male or female."...bima (with what) faddalaAllahu (God preferred) baAAdahum (some of them) AAala (over/above/on) baAAdin* (others)..." *masculine
This likely refers to al rijal (the men) as indicated by keeping the same suffix reference later in the sentence, i.e. its logical and contextual flow. Note that 432 says "some of YOU over others" whilst 434 says "some of THEM over others" - which implies that in 432 it is referring to one pool of people (i.e. humankind, i.e. men and women), whilst 434 is referring to two groups of people, hence "THEM" i.e. referring to the men.
See "baAAdahum AAala baAAdin" / "some of them above others" in 2253 and 1721, and also 653 "baAAdahum bi baAAdin" / "some of them with others", for a comparison. However, there are three theoretically possible interpretations of this phrase
with what God preferred on some (men/women) over others (men/women)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men/women)The keyword being "some". Thus, whichever way it is translated it proves the obvious, that not all men are preferred/bestowed equally, and/or not all men are preferred/bestowed more than women. Also, the term "preferred" is general, unless made specific in context, and in this case may refer to distribution of wealth, e.g. inheritance, as mentioned by similar phrasing in 432. Since spending of wealth is mentioned separately, the preference likely refers to the fact that men do not have the physical burden of pregnancy, birth and suckling, hence are in a more favourable position to work/provide, by default.
It should be noted that some traditional commentators interpret this phrasing to suggest men are preferred to women with respect to various things but this is completely disproven by the Arabic itself, as the masculine plural is used in the phrase. The masculine plural in Arabic either refers to an all male group or male+female group, NEVER all female group. To add to this point, the same phrasing is used for preferring some messengers to others and some prophets to others and yet The Quran repeatedly tells us not to make distinction among them. The best person according to The Quran is whoever is the most righteous/pious/God-conscious . It should also be kept in mind that each person will be judged according to how they conducted themselves with what they have been given . In other words, with privilege comes responsibility.
As we can see, The Quran is not stating a fixed rule, i.e. that all men are the maintainers/supporters of women, they are only so if they fulfill the criteria and it is referring to the wider duty of care/responsibility men have as mentioned above. It is conditional. -
Salaam
That's why I PM'ed one of the moderators to take disciplinary action on Israfeel for trolling, spamming, talking nonsense and spewing falsehood.
Anyway Israfeel is now banned for a month.
Israfeel is just confusing new-comers especially non-muslims who are willing to learn about islam on this forum.ForTheTruth,
IMHO Man of Faith made a really valid and acceptable point.I also recommend reading this article
http//www.quran-islam.org/articles/quranic_law_for_marriage_(P1165).html
God only tells the believing men AND believing women NOT to marry people who commit shirk (people who set up partners with God)Regards,
YulianaThank you for your comment and the link that you provided
-
peace FTT,
You may find this helpful, from here
"supporters/maintainers" (Arabic qawwamoon, root Qaf-Waw-Miim) occurs in the same form in
4135 (stand / stand up / support / maintain with justice as witnesses to God)
58 (stand / stand up / support / maintain for/to God as witnesses with justice).M. Asad The expression qawwam is an intensive form of qa'im ("one who is responsible for" or "takes care of" a thing or a person). Thus, qama ala l-mar'ah signifies "he undertook the maintenance of the woman" or "he maintained her" (see Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, p2995). The form qa'im can be found in 45 and 597.
It should be noted that the occurrences of 4135, 58 and 45, 597 cancel out some male-centric translations, such as "charge of" (M. Pickthal), "managers of" (Arberry, Hilali/Khan/Saheeh), "superior to" (Rodwell) which simply do not fit once cross referenced. It refers to a wider duty of care/responsibility, such as providing for the family/household which is discussed in several verses , and is the default role/duty for men, but not the only role as it can depend on situation. Contrast this to The Quran never mentioning managing one's wife or being in charge of her and the correct meaning becomes obvious. In fact, there is not one example of God addressing the husband/wife relationship in this manner, e.g. all examples involving decisions between marriage partners are in the reciprocal Arabic word form, e.g. "taraadaa" , "tashaawar" , which means they are mutual. If society is to be governed by mutual consultation , then naturally this principle should apply to the most basic social unit, the family, and done with what is maruf (honourable, known/recognised as good, befitting, fairness, kindness), see 2231, 419.If one wishes to refer to Traditional Ahadith/narrations, the meaning of maintenance/support for this word is also present, e.g. the use of "taqumu AAalayhinna" (look after them) in Bukhari volume 3, book 34, number 310.
Lastly, the actual verse of 434 clarifies/limits the scope of meaning of "qawwamoon" to maintenance, i.e. because of God bestowing more on some of them than on others and with what they spent (perfect tense, i.e. an action done/completed) of their money. To state the obvious, without spending on someone, a person cannot be regarded as a supporter/maintainer of them, whether male or female."...bima (with what) faddalaAllahu (God preferred) baAAdahum (some of them) AAala (over/above/on) baAAdin* (others)..." *masculine
This likely refers to al rijal (the men) as indicated by keeping the same suffix reference later in the sentence, i.e. its logical and contextual flow. Note that 432 says "some of YOU over others" whilst 434 says "some of THEM over others" - which implies that in 432 it is referring to one pool of people (i.e. humankind, i.e. men and women), whilst 434 is referring to two groups of people, hence "THEM" i.e. referring to the men.
See "baAAdahum AAala baAAdin" / "some of them above others" in 2253 and 1721, and also 653 "baAAdahum bi baAAdin" / "some of them with others", for a comparison. However, there are three theoretically possible interpretations of this phrase
with what God preferred on some (men/women) over others (men/women)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men/women)The keyword being "some". Thus, whichever way it is translated it proves the obvious, that not all men are preferred/bestowed equally, and/or not all men are preferred/bestowed more than women. Also, the term "preferred" is general, unless made specific in context, and in this case may refer to distribution of wealth, e.g. inheritance, as mentioned by similar phrasing in 432. Since spending of wealth is mentioned separately, the preference likely refers to the fact that men do not have the physical burden of pregnancy, birth and suckling, hence are in a more favourable position to work/provide, by default.
It should be noted that some traditional commentators interpret this phrasing to suggest men are preferred to women with respect to various things but this is completely disproven by the Arabic itself, as the masculine plural is used in the phrase. The masculine plural in Arabic either refers to an all male group or male+female group, NEVER all female group. To add to this point, the same phrasing is used for preferring some messengers to others and some prophets to others and yet The Quran repeatedly tells us not to make distinction among them. The best person according to The Quran is whoever is the most righteous/pious/God-conscious . It should also be kept in mind that each person will be judged according to how they conducted themselves with what they have been given . In other words, with privilege comes responsibility.
As we can see, The Quran is not stating a fixed rule, i.e. that all men are the maintainers/supporters of women, they are only so if they fulfill the criteria and it is referring to the wider duty of care/responsibility men have as mentioned above. It is conditional.Thank you for clearing that up for me brother
-
Salaam huruf,
I don't really know what you mean by attentively...but I agree I may have missed something. I happened to read the English translation as I don't know Arabic. I'd be glad if you could write a short article on this to explain the issue.
I really do not know what you yourself were trying to reason out. The aya is saying that we should not deprive ourselves of the good things which are legal for the people of the book and it includes marriage, but the only way believing muhsinin men can approach believing women or women of the book is decently without seeking lewdness nor secret affairs and paying them UJUR. So I really cannot see from where you derive any silence as to what believing women can do or not do. Obviously the good things are for them as much as for men.
Salaam
-
Why can?t a Muslim woman marry a non-Muslim man? i been wondering this lately
Peace ForTheTruth
Personally I would say that a Muslim woman is not allowed to marry "people of the book"
because the laws of Islam is not binding on the Christian or Jewish man regarding marriage.
Whereas Islamic law is binding on the Muslim man if he were to marry a Jew or a Christian
Therefore the Christian or Jewish man would not be bound by these laws and the muslim
woman would not be living according to the laws of Islam.-
Dowry 2/37
-
5/5
-
Reconciliation 2/226
-
Divorce, Sura 65, Divorce (Al-Talaaq)
-
Waiting period
-
Chastity 5/5
-
Husband as provider 65/7
-
Menopause 65/4
-
Arbitration 4/35
-
Witnesses 65/2
-
Rights to live in the home 65/1,
God bless
peace
-
-
You are talking about a particular legal set up, and therefore about the laws being enforced in particular countries at particular times. But that is not in any way binding for the Qur'an which does not contain such law.
On the other hand, that is really nonsense when you talk about countries which do not have that kind of laws and don't care whether a person is cristian or muslim or whatever, the law is the same for all. Men and women of any religion live under the same laws. It is the particular laws of those countries or times which says that the woman is bound by the law of the husband, something which the Qur'an does not state, but never mind, it has been imposed. -where does the Qur'an say that the woman must live by the law of the husband? As far as I know, nowhere.
So that prohibition for women is part of the men's law and not of God's law.
Salaam
-
I dont want to keep talking about my mother but i want to prove a point that a women with 4 kids can provide for her children my mother was my father and mother she provided for us worked 3 jobs and we had everything we need alhamduliah but for a guy to apply that the men is only the provider makes me sick i guess sometime people need to get out of there bubble
-
Fare thee well,
This provider thing comes from harsh living conditions 1400 years ago. It is more than just provider but also protector and these things you can probably guess about.
Sure a woman can fend for herself, but I guess it was lot harder back then.
You need to put yourself into their place, more than a millennia ago. It was probably no easy thing for a mother to get a job and provide for her children alone. Jobs were more physical and demanding and you had no cars or commuter systems.
Men were likely necessary to a wider extent than they are today and with no man to stay around was probably dangerous. No sufficient policing system as today and highwaymen lurking in the wild. Since Quran was written 1400 years ago it portrays the life conditions back then.
Nevertheless, the verse talking about men is not to say that men are dominant leaders and superior to women, only that their role is to defend and support the family. The verse is along with so many others intentionally misinterpreted to favor men while it tells families simply that men are commanded by God to take responsibility for their close ones and go out and bring bread for the table and protect their family against evil predators. Apart from this, the relationship is about equality, tranquility and harmony. God tells that both genders have their strong points and none is better than the other.
In the verse about provider, God means when he says men has certain strong qualities not that they are better but that they are the qualities of protectors of families and to bring home food. Simply study the anatomy of humans and instinctive behavior and you can clearly see that the man is designed more for cruelty and protection, especially in a less developed society where the features were even more handy.
And sorry for replying to a previous post that was already off-topic. It just annoys me slightly that people use these verses to claim men are superior to women while they simply have different qualities. The warmth of a woman is, for example, good for rearing children and such things. Anyway, they complement each other.
Leave your reptile brain behind please and use it when it is needed, like in times of emergency.
God bless you
-
I think that women have always worked, many times much harder than men, but it has not been appreciated, because they were not in a position of power. It depends on each society how women are exploited or not exploited. It does not depend on the historical time. The fat thar men are stronger in fact helps them to make women work for them. So it is not a matter of being able to work more, but of being willing.
In 4.34 the Qur'an makes clear in what God has favoured one sex over the other and it does not say a word about strength. However it says that they owe the women wealth and support. And what the women have that the men do not have is the ability to deliver children. And what the men have and the women don't is the freedom of the burden of having a body prepared for delivering children. That freedom God gives the men so that they participate in society by contributing wealth and support. And the ability to have children God says that
" righteous women are devout and guardians for the non seen with which God guarded"
What is what women guard and men do not guard and whose guard God has entrusted to women? the delivery of children, right? For which she reports to God and not to anybody else, and the reason for which also it says in Aya 4.1 ...Reverence God... and reverence the wombs.
There has been an insidious insistence on relating anything the quer'an says about women as responding to the desires or wishes or aspirations or whims or dreams of males, as if the reproduction of the species was a mere accident or a rare occurrence. The life of women does not revolve around the the males as if they were the sun a the woman a planet, but revolves rather around the birth of children in her strict fucntion as a female.
As person independently of the reproductive function, obviously a woman may love a man more than her children or not, but she is an individual and will have the make up of a individual being, like all human beings do.
Salaam
-
Salaam sis,
Is there a special post why he got banned?
I did not read everything he wrote and I disagree maybe on 99% of what he said but it looks to me that he did nothing wrong to get a ban.
salaam,
BenderCalling a woman who marries non-Muslim man a prostitute and her children with the man are bastards are right?
Twisting Qur'an verses is right?
Lying about Quran is right?
Calling a person 'dog' for defending dogs from being called unclean by Mohammedans is right?
Making bold and false allegations against Quranists is right?
Yes, all his views must be accepted according to you.
Banning an extremist Salafi on a forum is haraam.
-
Calling a woman who marries non-Muslim man a prostitute and her children with the man are bastards are right?
Twisting Qur'an verses is right?
Lying about Quran is right?
Calling a person 'dog' for defending dogs from being called unclean by Mohammedans is right?
Making bold and false allegations against Quranists is right?
Yes, all his views must be accepted according to you.
Banning an extremist Salafi on a forum is haraam.
Salaam sis,
I do not want a fight with you &
I was just asking a simple question, why he got banned, that's all. And like I said I did not read everything he wrote.RED no that is not right, I did not read that post of him.
GREEN you are shocked by this? I have seen much much muuuuuuuuch worse then this from other members here.
BLUE What do you mean? What is a lie about The Quran?
BROWN I did not read this.
PURPLE It's not right to make false allegations, but it is totally ok if he thinks miniskirts are immodest. I guess you have also some opinions.
ORANGE I did not say that, but yes I think ALL his views must be accepted as long as he keeps himself to the forum rules.
PINK Did he say he is a salafi or are you assuming it?
I guess banning someone because of his belief is not one of the forum rules.Salaam,
Bender -
Salaam sis,
I do not want a fight with you &
I was just asking a simple question, why he got banned, that's all. And like I said I did not read everything he wrote.RED no that is not right, I did not read that post of him.
GREEN you are shocked by this? I have seen much much muuuuuuuuch worse then this from other members here.
BLUE What do you mean? What is a lie about The Quran?
BROWN I did not read this.
PURPLE It's not right to make false allegations, but it is totally ok if he thinks miniskirts are immodest. I guess you have also some opinions.
ORANGE I did not say that, but yes I think ALL his views must be accepted as long as he keeps himself to the forum rules.
PINK Did he say he is a salafi or are you assuming it?
I guess banning someone because of his belief is not one of the forum rules.Salaam,
BenderStrong devoted Sunni = Ahl al-Hadith = Salafi
Sorry to say bro but I never said that he deserved to be banned because of his belief but because of his behavior and nonsense that he talked.Just read previous posts and pages on this thread and you can find the post that you colored in red.
