Support the mistress as well as the wife
-
Sisters farida, huruf and Brothers OPF and M.Mehdi,
First up, I apologize for offending anyone by addressing you as sisters, as apparently, no woman can be my sister other than my biological one. As for all your posts, I don't think I can effectively refute or deny any of your opinions because that is just what they are. Opinions and point of views. Out of your own thinking, personal experience and understanding. All we have is the Criteria to judge whether our opinions are right or wrong. How? Because God knows His creations best and He has given the Criteria to us so that we avoid our own (potentially) selfish desires. I was sad to see a post which said, "Polygyny is there to avoid conduct unseemly." Where did that come from? And here I thought that it was to be just to orphans. So, apparently there is no need to pursue self-restraint, struggle against your "nafs", averting your gaze and guarding your modesty. Just marry the one you think you love and you can avoid doing all that. Why did God has put natural desires in us only to ask us to suppress them, right? Where there is a will, there is a way. Sigh.
If one wants to understand the verses supposedly about polygyny, then all verses should be pondered over not just 43 and 44.
41 - "O mankind, fear and obey your Lord who created you from one self and He created from it its spouse (Zawjahah), and He scattered/distributed from them (B) many men and women, and fear and obey God who you ask each other about, and the relatives, that God is on you observing."
42 - And give the orphans their properties, and do not exchange the bad with the good, and do not consume their properties to your properties, that it was a great sin.
43 - And if you feared that you would not be just/equitable (tuqsitoo) to the orphans, so marry those allowed for you from the women twos, and threes, and fours, so if you feared that you not be fair (taAAdiloo), then one or what your rights owned/possessed, that (is) nearer that you not side away from justice.
44 - And give the women their dowries specified personally, so if they themself allowed for you something from it, so consume it with pleasure.
45 - And do not give the ignorant/foolish your properties, which God made for you to take care of , and provide for them from it and clothe them and say to them a good saying.
46 - And test the orphans until when they reached the marriage, so if you perceived from them correct guidance, pay to them their properties and do not eat it excessively hastening before they become old, and who is rich, he should refrain and who is poor, so he should consume with the kindness, so if you paid to them their properties, so call a witness on them and enough with God is enough for calculating.
47 - To the men a share from what the parents and the nearest/relations left, and to the women a share from what the parents and the nearest/relations left, from what lessened from it or increased , a share specified/stipulated.
48 - And if of the relations, and the orphans, and the poor oppressed attended the division, so provide for them from it, and say to them a saying (that is) kind/good.
49 - And those who, if they left behind them weak descendants should fear, fear for them, and so they fear and obey God, and they should say an accurate saying.
410 - That those who consume the orphans' properties/possessions unjustly, they eat in their bellies a fire, and they will burn from blazing fire.
Please ponder over these. I have been thinking about them for a good long time since my last post, and something doesn't seem right about the popular beliefs surrounding polygyny based on these verses. I mean, take the first verse. "God created you and your spouse from one self and then scattered many men and women from them". It doesn't say you and your "spouses". Spouse, one-for-one. The second verse states about orphans and their properties/wealth and the third one says if you fear of being unjust to an orphan... unjust but in what regard? The theme of the surrounding verse revolves around restoring orphan's properties/wealth back to them. So, plainly it indicates if you fear being unjust to orphans with regard to restoring their properties/wealth back to them, then do what to avoid it? Marry the permitted women twos, threes and fours? I admit this is the part which I am unable to understand fully at the moment (May God clarify this to me). But going with the understanding of polygyny, I fail to imagine how having multiple wives at the same time will prevent injustice to the orphans in regard to restoring their properties/wealth back to them. I am amazed about the understanding that you got from the verses. It's like taking the key words of the verse 43 (orphans + marry twos, threes and fours of permitted women + injustice) and understanding them as "if you (a married man) see around you there is injustice to orphans (who are occasionally translated to "vulnerable" women???), marry them (the orphans) or their mothers, upto 4 of them at a time, to avoid conduct unseemly".
So many questions with regard to that understanding. How did you understand orphans as vulnerable women? What happened to the property/wealth portion of the verses? Why do you think that only men can be the guardians of orphans, if the verses are addressed to all mankind? How did you match avoidance of conduct unseemly to multiple marriages, when the verse addresses injustice to the orphans in regard to restoring their properties/wealth back to them? How about looking at all the verse in the Book about orphans, and thinking about why are they only mentioned in context of their properties?
Anyway, I don't claim that I know the understanding these verses myself, maybe because they haven't applied to me, as yet. But I will not force an understanding upon myself just because of a need to understand everything in the Book. It will come to me in due time, God willing. I trust Him with that. But for the time being, all I can do is respect your opinions in this regard, as I believe, all of us are devoted to what we are taught and what we have studied of the Book (379).
Peace all
As salaam alaikum
Alhumdulliah .. another day to reflect,
The discussion about polygyny has been going on in another thread and some very well versed contributors, including yourself, are engaged in that discussion.
This thread is about reality and all I am asking is if monogamy is the right way, why is it not working in civilised societies like UK and USA and why do wife stand side by side with their adulterous husbands??? Most look down at women, like Ms Symonds, who often fall into this trap because the man promises them that he will soon leave his wife and marry her?even Monica Lewinsky believed that.
You said
I was sad to see a post which said, "Polygyny is there to avoid conduct unseemly."Why? Many acknowledge that having one wife is no ball game, so few have the guts to take on another. However a mistress (Ms Symons) can be exploited. Please see reply number 6 on this thread I don't think that men who have affairs are interested in marrying these women. It is a bit of rebellious fun. Marrying them would make it boring.
This is what goes on in real word4135O you who believe, stand with justice as witnesses to God, even if against yourselves, or the parents or the relatives. Even if he be rich or poor, God is more worthy of them, so do not follow your desires from being just. And if you twist or turn away, then God is Expert over what you do.
Best regards
farida -
And here I thought that it was to be just to orphans. So, apparently there is no need to pursue self-restraint, struggle against your "nafs", averting your gaze and guarding your modesty. Just marry the one you think you love and you can avoid doing all that. Why did God has put natural desires in us only to ask us to suppress them, right? Where there is a will, there is a way. Sigh.
Peace Sharp,
Don't you think, the widows from war for instance have enough on their shoulders to struggle with already? Why should they be denied the comfort of remarriage and the protection it entails? Yes and also the fulfilment of their sexual needs. Abstinence is not a good per say which, I guess is why we are encouraged to marry and "dwell in tranquility" with our spouses. sun
-
Peace all,
....
This thread is about reality and all I am asking is if monogamy is the right way, why is it not working in civilised societies like UK and USA and why do wife stand side by side with their adulterous husbands??? Most look down at women, like Ms Symonds, who often fall into this trap because the man promises them that he will soon leave his wife and marry her... even Monica Lewinsky believed that.
...
Why? Many acknowledge that having one wife is no ball game, so few have the guts to take on another. However a mistress (Ms Symons) can be exploited. Please see reply number 6 on this thread I don't think that men who have affairs are interested in marrying these women. It is a bit of rebellious fun. Marrying them would make it boring.
This is what goes on in real word4135 - O you who believe, stand with justice as witnesses to God, even if against yourselves, or the parents or the relatives. Even if he be rich or poor, God is more worthy of them, so do not follow your desires from being just. And if you twist or turn away, then God is Expert over what you do.
Best regards
faridaI apologize that I misunderstood your purpose of initiating this thread. You say that monogamy has failed in the "civilised" society and want to expose the hypocrisy of monogamy. Ask yourself something here. In that society, isn't there a fear of commitment in men there? You find men actually dreading marriage because that for them is being tied down, a trap, a burden for them. Br. Mehdi, as well as I have put a question towards you, what does marriage mean to you? Do you have the same feeling for it, as the so-called civilised word? Marriage between two people signifies love, devotion, dediction, affection, friendship and mercy between them (These attributes also confirmed by the Book, verse 3021). If you have that in a marriage, can you honestly tell me that men would feel the need to look for a "Ms. Symonds" in their society? Do you believe that your married life would become boring which would entail you to indulge in a "bit of fun and frolic"? The elements of real and civilized society that you are talking about don't believe in marriage in the above manner but just as a ritual, a convenience, a necessity and a societal requirement. If you feel that you don't want to marry, then don't, but stay chaste and refrain (2433). The worst thing you could do is marry for the wrong reasons and then get the feeling of restriction and boundaries. Using polygamy as an excuse to eliminate monogamous failures is addressing a one set of issues/problems with the solutions for a totally different set of issues/problems, which will not reduce marriage failures but would increase it.
As I understand it that you feel that this is a man's world and it is distressing for you and your solution is take down the man. Because that is what polygyny will do. If, the man is not able to deal fairly with all of his wives, they'll leave him but not before getting their share and thus the man would lose. Why don't you take the women up to what you think is man's level in this world? Why should women assent to marrying a man who from the outset cannot be expected to live up to the the real reason of marriage? Why should women be so "easy" to marry? The society that I come from is not as "civilised" as the one that you have in mind, but we do know what values of marriage are and that a husband is a raiment for his wife and a wife is a raiment for her husband (2187). Marriage is not only the vessel to extend your lineage but it is companionship, through thick and thin, and actually believing and living it.
I don't think that there is anything else that I can add to this thread, but I would like to say that I remember a couple of months ago, I read a novel by Ben Elton, titled, "High Society", which was about an MP attempting to legalise drugs because that would reduce the ills of society which result from their illegality, i.e. exploitation of the poor and the helpless, rise of drug lords in the society etc. I can't help but relate your assertions to that book. If extra-marital affairs are bad for the society, your solution is effectively to legalise them, rather than eradicating them. I am sorry but I would then have to say that the real world that you see is wrong and I won't change to reach any compromise with it nor would I even think of advising anyone else to.
Br. OPF,
41 - I disagree with your understanding. Considering the body of science says "evolution by common descent from an original point", I think you know what I'm implying. So there is no reason for "spouses" because from one comes two. I'm not great in Arabic, so does that mean sexual (in the sense of reproducing) spouses or just one partnered with the other?
And maybe 2432 - And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.
Aside from the singles, look at the two plural groups mentioned in 2432 and 43. But that needs knowledge of Arabic beyond me.
41 - What I understand is there is a "self" (nafs). From it (the self/nafs) came you (man or woman) and your spouse (man or woman). Isn't that simple? Why did God say "you and your spouse" and not "a man (Rijaal) and a woman (Nisaa)"? He was pretty specific, don't you think? You and your spouse... from one self/nafs... I am not sure but I think that is in line with the what your body of sciece says, no?
2432 - those among you who are single. Where are the singles from? Among us. Doesn't "Us"= a plural group. Similarly, those who are fit from a plural group of male slaves and those who are fit from a plural group of female slaves. I am sorry but I don't see any ambiguity.
Guardianship. Same as with 434.
434 - "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance) For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." Yousuf Ali
It says "Men are protectors of women", not "Man is protector of women". Plural against plural. Still doesn't tell me that one man can or should protect more than one woman, or how multiple wives help with the issue of the orphans.
Br. G.Omar,
Peace Sharp,
Don't you think, the widows from war for instance have enough on their shoulders to struggle with already? Why should they be denied the comfort of remarriage and the protection it entails? Yes and also the fulfilment of their sexual needs. Abstinence is not a good per say which, I guess is why we are encouraged to marry and "dwell in tranquility" with our spouses. sun
Br. G.Omar,
I apologize if I was not clear in my posts but I never implied that widows should not marry. Why is there a requirement that they should and can only marry the married-with-wife? Why are single/divorcees/spinsters out of bounds for them? The comfort, protection, fulfilment of the sexual needs can as well be obtained from marrying the single/divorcees/spinsters from among us, don't you think?
Peace
-
I have many many more things to say, but it is hard work to put everything in order and say it. So for the moment I will just say
that this Ms. Symonds happens to be the VERY FORTUNATE one mistress who was entertained with money and comforts. That is not all that usual with mistresses. The reality is that many are not supported by the mister, that the mistresses fence for themselves, earn their living and can consider themselves very fortunate if they are not exploited a little or a lot by the mister. Most mistresses instead of deserving to be called gold diggers, might deserve on the contrary considered shockingly generous. Do wives know when they are betrayed by their husband? How many wives go out of their way in order not know? How many wives are just too afraid of getting the awful shock that their husbands are betraying them, and don't trust themselves that they would be able or willing to cope with that humiliating and bitter knowledge?
So, I think that there is ample merit to Farida"s point.
Now, would poligamy solve this situation? Such as things are now, and much as I might wish for it, I doubt it very much. I am sadly sure that poligamy would be equally abused by men. They would find a new toy, they would find a new way of playing with their wives' and prospectives wives' feelings, and would still maintain their right (undeclaredly, just like now) to have mistresses and play with them also the new card of poligamy.*
It is more a problem of attitude, of values and moral uprightness which is never exacted of men, because when they fail in that department absolutely nothing happens to them and because being good rather than successful is not something that is respected or admired, many times it elicits pity or disdain. What is the incentive to being a good man? Only those who sincerely feel married to rightousness will uphold uprightness in their relationship with women in whatever category. Were there a big mass of upright and humble men we could spend time looking at what a society could do to provide the best possible means for the people to live with honesty and truthfulness in the manner that best answered every body's needs. Lacking that, I don't think any system or device will work. There is no magic formula.
As to the fact that if there was poligamy no woman would accept becoming a mistress... I believe that may be a few women would stick to that. Thinking that most would do is I think not to have measured the depth of the misters' scheeming, lying and manipulative abilities and lack of scruples. They would always have a reason for not now, not here, wor wwait just till... you get the picture.
As I said before, it was more the constraining of men rather than the "liberation" of women what was needed, but it is obvious that constraining men for now is not popular, noy politically correct, not wanted, so we'll just plod on till Allah gives us something else. This is our time, this is our test, and in sha Allah when it is our time He will rescue each of us.
*Recently there was a collective letter of Spanish Muslim women in which they expressed their bitter disappointment at the fact that their good faith and sincerity was being corresponded by their husbands indiscriminate use of their "right to poligamy" to get new wives (of course much younger and of course not needing any help). This is just a recent example of the kind of poligamy we are likely to get if we went for it. Not solution to problems, but feeding of the cock among hen feeling.
Salaam -
Peace all,
Peace
Salaam Sharp001 and everyone,
In that society, isn't there a fear of commitment in men there? You find men actually dreading marriage because that for them is being tied down, a trap, a burden for them.
It?s a free world so in a society where sex and women are freely available, no wonder men don?t want to commit to marriage.
Br. Mehdi, as well as I have put a question towards you, what does marriage mean to you?
Before I answer this question I would respectfully ask you two brothers if you are married. If not, it?s no use talking about a subject, regarding which you have no knowledge?
Marriage between two people signifies love, devotion, dediction, affection, friendship and mercy between them (These attributes also confirmed by the Book, verse 3021). If you have that in a marriage, can you honestly tell me that men would feel the need to look for a "Ms. Symonds" in their society?
So you think all this was missing from the life of Lord Archer whose wife was regarded as a ?fragrance" wife by the judge. Are you now saying that their marriage, which resulted in looking for Ms Symonds ?was an unhappy one; in other words that the poor man had good reasons?
Do you believe that your married life would become boring which would entail you to indulge in a "bit of fun and frolic
These are not my words but an input in this thread, by Roshan who happens to be honest and frank about his feelings regarding women.
If extra-marital affairs are bad for the society, your solution is effectively to legalise them, rather than eradicating them. I am sorry but I would then have to say that the real world that you see is wrong
It?s not for me to legalise polygyny; it was made halal by God, who gave us the Qur?an and if you can?t accept that then that?s your prerogative. Prophet Mohammad had more than one wife, so are you saying he legalised extra marital relations in the name of polygyny?
Why is there a requirement that they should and can only marry the married-with-wife? Why are single/divorcees/spinsters out of bounds for them? The comfort, protection, fulfilment of the sexual needs can as well be obtained from marrying the single/divorcees/spinsters from among us, don't you think?
When there is war, like in Iraq the result is a shortage of men, especially young men; have you not seen pictures from Iraq where in house after house there are only women and a few old men that is when polygyny is needed
Regarding you middle paragraph I would say this much; it is better that a woman should be married than that she should allow herself to become a mistress. She should demand her full dower and all her rights, because that is what will separate the men from the boys.
I was on phone while you posted this thread, dealing with the grief of a woman whose husband left her, as she could not have children. I also know of a family where the man took a second wife as his first wife could not have children. The first wife then took one of the children of the second wife as her own and thus both wives have a child calling them mother.
Polygyny in Islam is not a license to have more wives it?s but an instrument designed to stop men from using women, for their pleasure, without any responsibility. As I said it?s not easy to take a wife; you need to give her a dower, treat her justly, provide for the families and make sure you stay sane.
See below, in sis Huruf?s contribution, how women are taken as wives without any responsibility to support them; there must be a grave shortage of ?Real? Muslim men that women should put up with such poor excuses for men.There are loads who are abusing in the name of "religion" who pick and chose what suits them in the name of Polygyny.
Best regards
farida -
Peace all,
Br. OPF,41 - What I understand is there is a "self" (nafs). From it (the self/nafs) came you (man or woman) and your spouse (man or woman). Isn't that simple? Why did God say "you and your spouse" and not "a man (Rijaal) and a woman (Nisaa)"? He was pretty specific, don't you think? You and your spouse... from one self/nafs... I am not sure but I think that is in line with the what your body of sciece says, no?
2432 - those among you who are single. Where are the singles from? Among us. Doesn't "Us"= a plural group. Similarly, those who are fit from a plural group of male slaves and those who are fit from a plural group of female slaves. I am sorry but I don't see any ambiguity.
434 - "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance) For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." Yousuf Ali
It says "Men are protectors of women", not "Man is protector of women". Plural against plural. Still doesn't tell me that one man can or should protect more than one woman, or how multiple wives help with the issue of the orphans.
Peace
41 - I don't see how from one mental self comes two more - unless you mean a pregnant woman and her yet-to-be baby. On the other hand, you can see with your own eyes (after spending $$$;D) that bacteria are initially "one self" and split into two. No mention of "you and your spouse" on the other hand. Personally I believe that verse is a test. Why, because it caters to every interpretation. Some will read it and say it's referring to marriage. Others will link it to Adam and Eve since the idea that "many men and women came from those two" is conceptually next. But in other verses such as , God is proclaimed as THE reality. Again in - people have to seek refuge in THE reality. Then again in . I'm sure there are more, but the concept is clear cut. What reality do you believe in, one where God is this and that and such and such happened, where events seemingly violate physical law (i.e. "miracles" or THE reality we're in now? So in any case, I'd put my faith in reality and say that verse means exactly what that verse says. From A => A + B ==(insert 2 billion years)=> C + D + E...
42 - The whole point is that if the order in which things are given in the quran also reflect their priority, then singles would have higher priority than the plural groups mentioned. So polygyny would be a last resort.
Still doesn't tell me that one man can or should protect more than one woman, or how multiple wives help with the issue of the orphans.
Wouldn't you agree that it's a general statement? The reasons men are given that position are specified directly next to it. Inept men who don't fulfill the criteria have no right to being in that position - simple as that. Men DO have dominance in terms of strength, physical and otherwise, that's an undeniable reality. How do multiple wives help orphans? I agree - how so? In any case, the most important thing is the family structure - which is what orphans and homosexual-adoptees lack.
-
Salaam Sharp001 and everyone,
Salaam to you as well. Before I go on with my post, I'll make it easier for you (and me, as well) by declaring that I am not and haven't been married as yet, so you can ignore everything I write from this point onwards.
It's a free world so in a society where sex and women are freely available, no wonder men don't want to commit to marriage.
In a world where "sex and women are freely available", I say such women who are so easy deserve such men. An adulterer for an adultress and the wife should leave such a man. Impractical, you say? Trust in Him (God). If you are righteous, He will provide you one better. But I am sorry, your solution is "let the man marry the easy woman, so the good wife doesn't lose a husband and in fact gains a easy woman." So much for loyalty that the original wife harboured for her husband. Poor original wife, I say, definity not the mistress.
So you think all this was missing from the life of Lord Archer whose wife was regarded as a "fragrance" wife by the judge. Are you now saying that their marriage, which resulted in looking for Ms Symonds ...was an unhappy one; in other words that the poor man had good reasons?
"Poor man"?? It takes two to make a marriage work. If I, in any instance, implied that the man was a "saint" or the "aggrieved party", please try to see my "idealistic view" from my eyes. If the wife had done everything right, but even then the guy was a sleazeball, then, there is no reason to stick by his side or stay on with him. Get a divorce, leave him and start anew. Let the adulterer be with the adulteress. They are made for each other.
These are not my words but an input in this thread, by Roshan who happens to be honest and frank about his feelings regarding women.
I don't think that I can say anything about any other's feelings in this regard, nor do I find any reason to idolise his "honesty" and "frankness". If I were him, I definitely would feel ashamed of my "feelings" regarding other women (in my married state, of course) and try to "kill" my desires, rather than "go with the flow".
It's not for me to legalise polygyny; it was made halal by God, who gave us the Qur'an and if you can't accept that then that's your prerogative. Prophet Mohammad had more than one wife, so are you saying he legalised extra marital relations in the name of polygyny?
That is a very serious assertion, if you aren't 100% sure of those facts. Attributing something to God is a serious, serious matter. How you got that polygyny is halal, I am very interested in, and would like you to express you view on the "polygyny" thread, with Quranic references, of course. As far as Prophet Mohammad's case goes, again, three possible scenarios, in addition to the one that you mentioned.
(1) He had more than one wife before the command was revealed so, what was done was done, from that point onward.
(2) 3350 - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Yousuf Ali)Considering (2), isn't it possible that polygyny was specifically allowed to him, and not for the rest of the believers? and before you say "but it also says their (the believers) WIVES", I'd say, "their (the BELIEVERS) SPOUSES (not even wives)" NOT, "their (the BELIEVER'S) SPOUSES (not even wives)". Believer's spouse (singular), therefore Believers' spouses (plural).
(3) Can you tell me the "Arabic" word for ex-wives/deceased wives? If there is none, then, the wives could so easily include them, in addition to the current single wife.
If even one of the above scenarios is plausible, then how can you assuredly state that polygyny is made halal for believers by God in Islam?
When there is war, like in Iraq the result is a shortage of men, especially young men; have you not seen pictures from Iraq where in house after house there are only women and a few old men that is when polygyny is needed
Regarding you middle paragraph I would say this much; it is better that a woman should be married than that she should allow herself to become a mistress. She should demand her full dower and all her rights, because that is what will separate the men from the boys.
What I constantly fail to understand is how you are able equate the two scenarios above for justifying polygyny. Two, so opposite of scenarios. I think this, more than anything else, convinced me that we probably will not be able to see eye-to-eye in this thread.
As far as the Iraq war goes, Can you please tell me how many Iraqis of their 26 million population have died in this Iraq war? A million... 2 million? and that makes a dent in the male population how? Looking at the TV screen and extrapolating the plight of 10-20 families that you saw on an hour long program, to the whole of Iraq is very presumptuous to say the least. And don't tell me that migration hasn't occured to them... Oh wait... apparently it had occured to 4 million odd Iraqis who have migrated since Saddam's time. And please, if you say that the majority of the 4 million were male, then you are trying too hard to believe that the world cannot survive without polygyny, whether it wants to or not.
I was on phone while you posted this thread, dealing with the grief of a woman whose husband left her, as she could not have children. I also know of a family where the man took a second wife as his first wife could not have children. The first wife then took one of the children of the second wife as her own and thus both wives have a child calling them mother.
How touching, but at the same time so unnecessary, when the man could have so easily adopted, and thus would have provided "guardianship" to an orphan and offer him the protection and support that he needs. As for the husband who left the woman, no doubt that he was a jerk of the highest order if he left his wife in any circumstance and it was better to have been left by him than to have stuck it out with him. God might have planned something better for her that she deserved than him.
Polygyny in Islam is not a license to have more wives it's but an instrument designed to stop men from using women, for their pleasure, without any responsibility. As I said it's not easy to take a wife; you need to give her a dower, treat her justly, provide for the families and make sure you stay sane.
I think sister huruf said it in her post
"... measured the depth of the misters' scheeming, lying and manipulative abilities and lack of scruples. They would always have a reason for not now, not here, wor wwait just till... you get the picture..."
I do, sister huruf, I do... but I am not sure that everyone does...
See below, in sis Huruf's contribution, how women are taken as wives without any responsibility to support them; there must be a grave shortage of "Real" Muslim men that women should put up with such poor excuses for men.
... polygyny is supposed to inculcate a sense of responsibility in them.... rrrriiiigggghhhhttttt.
There are loads who are abusing in the name of "religion" who pick and chose what suits them in the name of Polygyny.
... only because they are people who are actually promoting the virtues of polygyny, how it is "halal" in Islam and justifying that since the Prophet had more than one wife, all believers should. Which brings us to question your real world, where "real" muslims/believers are apparently so little in number, that there is a more than a good chance that polygyny may be entered into with "unreal" muslims and open a pandora's box for all the women and children involved.
Best regards
farida... and to you, as well.
-
41 - I don't see how from one mental self comes two more - unless you mean a pregnant woman and her yet-to-be baby. On the other hand, you can see with your own eyes (after spending $$$;D) that bacteria are initially "one self" and split into two. No mention of "you and your spouse" on the other hand. Personally I believe that verse is a test. Why, because it caters to every interpretation. Some will read it and say it's referring to marriage. Others will link it to Adam and Eve since the idea that "many men and women came from those two" is conceptually next. But in other verses such as , God is proclaimed as THE reality. Again in - people have to seek refuge in THE reality. Then again in . I'm sure there are more, but the concept is clear cut. What reality do you believe in, one where God is this and that and such and such happened, where events seemingly violate physical law (i.e. "miracles" or THE reality we're in now? So in any case, I'd put my faith in reality and say that verse means exactly what that verse says. From A => A + B ==(insert 2 billion years)=> C + D + E...
Peace. No mention of you and your spouse? "khalaqakum" = created you, "min nafsin wahidatin" = from one self, "wakhalaqa" = and created, "minha" = from it, "zawjaha"= your spouse.
I agree about "THE reality", but it also say to believe in the "Unseen"... what "Unseen"? The "Unseen" which is told to us by God in the Book as it is the Truth. The Hadith of Abraham and the birds comes to mind. If you want to believe in what you can see, tell me something. How does the evolutionary process or reality fit in with "resurrection after death"? and I don't think that you can afford philosophical views if you are following a body of science.
42 - The whole point is that if the order in which things are given in the quran also reflect their priority, then singles would have higher priority than the plural groups mentioned. So polygyny would be a last resort.
I am afraid that we are both on separate track. How does the second portion of the verse denote polygyny again, when it mentions groups of both male AND female servants? By your understanding, then it denotes polygamy, not just polygyny.
Wouldn't you agree that it's a general statement? The reasons men are given that position are specified directly next to it. Inept men who don't fulfill the criteria have no right to being in that position - simple as that. Men DO have dominance in terms of strength, physical and otherwise, that's an undeniable reality. How do multiple wives help orphans? I agree - how so? In any case, the most important thing is the family structure - which is what orphans and homosexual-adoptees lack.
Simply put, for weak men, they are weaker women. For strong women, they are stronger men. So, what kind of a family structure do you have in mind in support of polygyny.
Peace
-
Salaam to you as well. Before I go on with my post, I'll make it easier for you (and me, as well) by declaring that I am not and haven't been married as yet, so you can ignore everything I write from this point onwards.
please try to see my "idealistic view" from my eyes. If the wife had done everything right, but even then the guy was a sleazeball, then, there is no reason to stick by his side or stay on with him. Get a divorce, leave him and start anew. Let the adulterer be with the adulteress. They are made for each other.
I
Salaam again
With all due respect I am not surprised that you are single and as you suggested I would from now on ignore every thing you write which includes?please try to see my "idealistic view" from my eyes As I am not interested in idealism I am talking about real world.
Best regards
farida -
I have many many more things to say, but it is hard work to put everything in order and say it. So for the moment I will just say
It is more a problem of attitude, of values and moral uprightness which is never exacted of men, because when they fail in that department absolutely nothing happens to them and because being good rather than successful is not something that is respected or admired, many times it elicits pity or disdain. What is the incentive to being a good man? Only those who sincerely feel married to rightousness will uphold uprightness in their relationship with women in whatever category. Were there a big mass of upright and humble men we could spend time looking at what a society could do to provide the best possible means for the people to live with honesty and truthfulness in the manner that best answered every body's needs. Lacking that, I don't think any system or device will work. There is no magic formula.
Salaam
Salaam again
Thank you for bringing to our attention what goes on in the real world.
Now, would poligamy solve this situation? Such as things are now, and much as I might wish for it
No? nothing will solve problems as long as such S.C. Muslims have cards to play in the name of ?Religion?.
What about the huge number of women entering in a monogamous marriage in the Indian sub continent that have to bring a dowry in order to be married. Nowadays they also have to earn to support themselves to be wives. Not only that, the dowers, paid to them have been fixed by Imams and set to 32 Rupees, which is less then 32 cents, whereas in the UK current rate is ?32.
Best regards
farida -
Salaam all,
I can't say I feel torn in this matter, because in fact everything is so much in the realm of speculation... As I said in a previous message, without reliable statisticas we are just getting hotheaded for nothing. May be there are in the appropriate ages a number of women equal to the number of men and a general match could be made, may be not, but the fact is that we do not know... but still we get upset. Why don't we try to find just what the situation is from the real figures? That is at least one certainty we might try to get.
Also, I would insist that the Qur'an outlook in whatever matter where action is required is one of real situations, where immediate problems are looked at and immediate ways to handle them are also offered. I think that more or less all in this forum see with dismay how many hadithists exert themselves to apply hadith by hook or crook simply by pretending to reproduce a world that doesn't exist and where hadiths, however surreal, would have to be applied. Aren't we doing that with the Qur'an also, try to make fit things that apply to a certain situation, to another which may have similar elements and dissimilar elements?
Real situations normally do not allow ideal solutions, neither of one type nor of another, but may be, if we don't get stuck in lineal thinking we may come up with "innovative and plural" solutions which likely will not please everybody ideally, but will make things workable for those who suffer the worst. But for that again we need the real data.
Such as things are in western societies, however, there are things that can be done and which are being done, which may not solve problems but improve morally and practically some situations. It is positive that in new codes and laws non matrimonial children are recognized and have rights to their fathers support and succession, in theory at least, equally with the matrimonial children. That is a step to make men responsible for their acts and of course of giving the children what is their right, and therefore also benefit their mothers. Paternity tests certainly have been determinant in that regard.
Regarding aya 4.3, after alll consideration, I am convinced that it is about marrying off the orphan and not about authorizing or enjoining poligamy. Whether from the whole qur'an poligamy is forbidden or not, I am not able to judge for now. May be I am not obliged to judge, may be it is for me a theoretical question and may be with all the facts of our real world at hand we may obviate the need for grueling discussions on "principle". However I am sincerely pained that this debate may be a source of "disencounter among" believing persons.
How things stand in this thread I will summarize
One thing on which we all basically agree is that monogamy is "the" situation we naturally and ideally all seek.
The other is that if figures and detailed knowledge were to indicate that monogamy will not satisfy everybody's leigtimate aspirations, some will say, well let some people have patience
and others, on the face of it, would say, let us get some responsible and contractually sound sharingThe practicability of either of those two options, from my point of view would be decided by the real figures, the real wills, the real capacities of people and society. For instance, no use insisting on some people to be patient if the patienting ones may not have the strength, or even the conviction to see it through to the end; we would again be in the "ilicit" situation we want to avoid, or if for instance, we decided on sharing, the disposition might be abused and applied for purposes for which it was not intended and hypocrisy would ensue.
May be we may continue debating the poligamy question as per the Qur'an in the other thread, and continue in this one with the situation as it is and could be getting some real data on countries societies and workable satistics. May be the United Nations population funds and other organisations has a site from which to get such statistics, apart from many other sources.
Salaam all
-
This thread is about reality and all I am asking is if monogamy is the right way, why is it not working in civilised societies like UK and USA and why do wife stand side by side with their adulterous husbands??? Most look down at women, like Ms Symonds, who often fall into this trap because the man promises them that he will soon leave his wife and marry her?even Monica Lewinsky believed that.
You said
Why? Many acknowledge that having one wife is no ball game, so few have the guts to take on another. However a mistress (Ms Symons) can be exploited. Please see reply number 6 on this thread I don't think that men who have affairs are interested in marrying these women. It is a bit of rebellious fun. Marrying them would make it boring.
This is what goes on in real wordPeace
Because divorce is tough, and it is so easy for men to lie and leave women with nothing.
For whatever reason the women still feel they love the man (no matter how insulting they are) and feel on a balance of pros and cons they would be better staying with the man (I do not understand this aspect of women).
Stability (evolutionary biology etc.).
Maintaining the status quo is easier than going into the unknown.Plus a mixture of the above points.
Roshan
p.s. I have rendered 43 if you have orphans that you cannot deal with, then of those that are women marry them off in two's three's and four's. Perhaps I am wrong. I have not read that verse for sometime now.
p.p.s. that woman who wrote the book is only doing so to earn money. She has no real serious points to add in discussions on mistresses, wives and their men. Good luck to her, I hope she attains financial stability.
-
Peace
Because divorce is tough, and it is so easy for men to lie and leave women with nothing.
Maintaining the status quo is easier than going into the unknown.
Plus a mixture of the above points.
Roshan
p.s.
p.p.s.Salaam Roshan
I welcome your input, because that is what we need; frank and honest discussion and we need to be candid and unbiased in our approach.
For whatever reason the women still feel they love the man (no matter how insulting they are) and feel on a balance of pros and cons they would be better staying with the man (I do not understand this aspect of women).
Stability (evolutionary biology etc.).Tell me about it, I am so bewildered about this attitude of some women, including Ms Symonds, who could well live an independent life, yet they continue to humiliate themselves and, in some cases tolerate abuse in the form of domestic violence.
I have rendered 43 if you have orphans that you cannot deal with, then of those that are women marry them off in two's three's and four's. Perhaps I am wrong. I have not read that verse for sometime now.
I will be very honest with you; I do not have sufficient command of Arabic to discuss any surah in detail. I am still learning, but I would say that polygyny is only practical in times of emergency, where extraordinary rules apply. All women are equal and there is no such thing as women who deserve the treatment of ?the other woman?.
that woman who wrote the book is only doing so to earn money. She has no real serious points to add in discussions on mistresses, wives and their men. Good luck to her, I hope she attains financial stability.
Of course Ms Symonds is cashing in on her experience as that is the only option she has. If she had had a share in Lord Archers wealth and status she would not need to resort to such despicable acts.
-
Salam,
First up, I apologize for offending anyone by addressing you as sisters, as apparently, no woman can be my sister other than my biological one.
I understood your statement above is meant in a sarcastic way and you don't believe what you posted?! Right? If so, I agree. Men and women can very much have platonic relationships and be brothers and sisters.
Br. Mehdi, as well as I have put a question towards you, what does marriage mean to you?
Before I answer this question I would respectfully ask you two brothers if you are married. If not, it?s no use talking about a subject, regarding which you have no knowledge?
Just wanted to clear up, originally the question about marriage was asked of br. Sharp001. However maybe it's not bad at all to get both your guys input on this. and to answer you question sis. Farida, yes, I am married and this january will make it 7 years.
edited to add question.
What needs does a marriage in general satisfy?
peace...
peace -
Peace. No mention of you and your spouse? "khalaqakum" = created you, "min nafsin wahidatin" = from one self, "wakhalaqa" = and created, "minha" = from it, "zawjaha"= your spouse.
I agree about "THE reality", but it also say to believe in the "Unseen"... what "Unseen"? The "Unseen" which is told to us by God in the Book as it is the Truth. The Hadith of Abraham and the birds comes to mind. If you want to believe in what you can see, tell me something. How does the evolutionary process or reality fit in with "resurrection after death"? and I don't think that you can afford philosophical views if you are following a body of science.
I am afraid that we are both on separate track. How does the second portion of the verse denote polygyny again, when it mentions groups of both male AND female servants? By your understanding, then it denotes polygamy, not just polygyny.
Simply put, for weak men, they are weaker women. For strong women, they are stronger men. So, what kind of a family structure do you have in mind in support of polygyny.
Peace
No mention of "created you and your spouse". More like, created you from a single being who also had a partner made from itself. If you notice who is addressed (mankind), there is no "created you and your spouse" - mankind and mankind's spouse? Come on, you're better than that.
The hadeeth of Abraham, I'll say I believe exactly what the quran said. Abraham died a long time ago and asserting that was a supernatural event without any method of verification doesn't work. The burden of proof is on you to prove that God broke his physical laws just to show Abraham his power. I don't believe God backtracks. The unseen? Remember that speech of George Bush - there are known knowns, unknown unknowns, etc, etc. You're forgetting that the body of science claims in no way, shape or form to completely understand and also accepts the "unseen". The only difference being that in science, God doesn't backtrack.
I am afraid that we are both on separate track. How does the second portion of the verse denote polygyny again, when it mentions groups of both male AND female servants? By your understanding, then it denotes polygamy, not just polygyny.
You're right. But polyandry is forbidden elsewhere . Simple. The problem here, as I said, would be the interpretation of the other groups. References to slavery? Orphans?
Simply put, for weak men, they are weaker women. For strong women, they are stronger men. So, what kind of a family structure do you have in mind in support of polygyny.
You do have a point there. The obvious would be hadeeth style "visitations" where each wife has a "turn" and can give up her "turn" if needed. In any case, I think we're trying to fit a square peg into a circular hole on bith sides here.
-
Salam,
I understood your statement above is meant in a sarcastic way and you don't believe what you posted?! Right? If so, I agree. Men and women can very much have platonic relationships and be brothers and sisters.
Peace Br. Mehdi,
Yes, you understood perfectly. It was a sarcastic remark and I agree with you assessment above.
Just wanted to clear up, originally the question about marriage was asked of Br. Sharp001.
What needs does a marriage in general satisfy?
I think I have answered that question in one of my posts above. The extract is
"...love, devotion, dediction, affection, friendship and mercy between them (These attributes also confirmed by the Book, verse 3021).... (feeling of) comfort, protection, fulfilment of the sexual needs ... extension of lineage."
Peace
Br. OPF,
No mention of "created you and your spouse". More like, created you from a single being who also had a partner made from itself. If you notice who is addressed (mankind), there is no "created you and your spouse" - mankind and mankind's spouse? Come on, you're better than that.
Oh, now I see how you are interpreting the verse. Apologies for realising so late. I can see that it is not "your spouse/partner" but actually "its spouse/partner"... something like mitosis or asexual reproduction... and "from them (the self/nafs and its partner) scattered many men and women"... Hmmm... never saw this verse in this light... thanks for pointing this out... I'll check with further reading if other similar verses are consistent with this understanding...
The hadeeth of Abraham, I'll say I believe exactly what the quran said. Abraham died a long time ago and asserting that was a supernatural event without any method of verification doesn't work. The burden of proof is on you to prove that God broke his physical laws just to show Abraham his power. I don't believe God backtracks. The unseen? Remember that speech of George Bush - there are known knowns, unknown unknowns, etc, etc. You're forgetting that the body of science claims in no way, shape or form to completely understand and also accepts the "unseen". The only difference being that in science, God doesn't backtrack.
I don't understand, Br. OPF, you believe when the Book hints that God broke physical laws in both 2259 and 2260, but then you also believe that God doesn't backtrack, or am I misunderstanding your point.
You're right. But polyandry is forbidden elsewhere . Simple. The problem here, as I said, would be the interpretation of the other groups. References to slavery? Orphans?
I concur that I also have not fully understood the interpretation... but in time, God willing.
Peace
-
I don't understand, Br. OPF, you believe when the Book hints that God broke physical laws in both 2259 and 2260, but then you also believe that God doesn't backtrack, or am I misunderstanding your point.
No, I believe that there would be a perfectly normal explanation for Abraham's event. What I meant to say was that God neither backtracks or breaks his own law (there's a verse on that somewhere), nor does God need to.
I concur that I also have not fully understood the interpretation... but in time, God willing.
Me neither.
peace
-
No, I believe that there would be a perfectly normal explanation for Abraham's event. What I meant to say was that God neither backtracks or breaks his own law (there's a verse on that somewhere), nor does God need to.
Hmm... and what about "resurrection after death"?
Peace
-
Hmm... and what about "resurrection after death"?
Peace
The same way we were made? It's all over the quran.
-
The same way we were made? It's all over the quran.
So, let me get this straight. As understood it, we were initially made from "a self/nafs and its partner" from which we (mankind) came (I assume that it took a substantial amount of years). Along the way, many have reproduced and died and here we stand as of today.
So what you are asserting for the "Period of Judgement/Resurrection" is that before that period, everyone will die and they will be judged as they are born and they are about the die "again" but before dieing they will reproduce so that we can come into existence again, so that we can be judged.
If I gotten this wrong somehow, can you please explain or point me out to a thread where your understanding of the said phenomenon is discussed.
Peace.