Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Free Minds Forum Icon
T

Truth_Seeker 0

@Truth_Seeker 0
About
Posts
31
Topics
2
Shares
0
Groups
0
Followers
0
Following
0

Posts

Recent Best Controversial

  • underage brides
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    I consider that a denial of women's rights. A woman, is a woman, is a woman...........

    Not coercing/pressuring/forcing a female CHILD into a life of misery by marrying her off to a much older MAN is denial of ?women?s? rights?! These are CHILDREN we are talking about, not women.

    A child, is a child, is a child, and marriage is not child?s play.

    And a homosexual, is a homosexual, is a homosexual. You are who you are. You understand that you will never find yourself physically attracted to a woman but feel that is your only option because it is what you believe God wants from you. In the process, you ruin your own and another person?s life because neither of you will ever know what it is to be in love with the one you are married to. Your lives together will be more like a business partnership, and eventually you will both end up being miserable and hating one another.

    One thing that you are not considering (because you know that you can never fall in love with a woman) and many fathers don?t seem to think about or perhaps even care about when they pressure or force their young daughter into an arranged marriage with a man the girl never spoke to (and sometimes never saw before the wedding) is her feelings/emotions. Young girls are attracted to young boys, and vice versa. Security and wealth mean nothing when one is not attracted to--and in the case of a much older man, repulsed by--the one they have to go to bed with every night. God gave humans the emotion of love for a reason, and love between a husband and wife is necessary for a peaceful and happy marriage. A father does not have the right to take something so precious away from his child. To do so is UN-Islamic.

    Rarely is there an arranged marriage where both husband and wife are happy. People will put on a happy face in front of others, but it?s a different picture behind closed doors, with much arguing, yelling, verbal and physical abuse. Many women never let on to just how unhappy they are. They know that leaving is not an option. Some hide is so well that their own husband and children don?t know.

    A few of my friends are from the Middle East. At a house party, one of the older women commented on how happy she was when her husband announced that he was taking on a second wife since it meant less time spent with him. There were nine women there. All the women there were in arranged marriages, either to cousins or other men their parents had chosen for them. Only one said she was happy because her husband didn?t mistreat her. All the others said they would have left/would leave their husbands if it were a choice but they all felt that leaving was not an option because of children, family ties, tradition, etc.

    Arranged marriages are rarely happy marriages and that makes them un-Islamic.

    All that other nonsense you wrote, well, it?s quite clear you don?t like females much so of course you don?t see things as they really are. You can write what you like but it doesn't make it true, especially since you are obviously not of sound mind. Perhaps it is a result of your struggling with denying yourself what you truly desire vs what society and what you think God wants from you.

    I believe that homosexuality is not a choice. I could tell one of my male cousins was from a very young age. Some of my best friends have been gay men. Luckily, they live in a society that is more accepting of them. I also believe that many verses in the Quran are mistranslated and misinterpreted, including those regarding homosexuals. You are who you are, and you cannot force yourself to be attracted to something you?re not programmed to. I'm sure God wants everyone to be happy. I can?t imagine God would care what you do behind closed doors as long as it?s consensual and you?re not hurting anyone. In my opinion, it is far worse for you to marry a woman under false pretenses. It would be unfair to her, and God does not like hypocrites. Be true to yourself, and also keep to yourself what you think is best for girls and women. You have no clue.

    Marriage & Divorce

  • The Myth that Women have to "Obey" their Husbands
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    Yes I would have married her to someone older. Most males who are three times older than a 10 year old menarchecal female are far too young to have passed through the andropausal stage.

    Ah... the girl hadn't reached puberty, so said the judge.

    http//articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/11/world/fg-childbride11

    An example for all the other girls?

    For you to say that there is nothing wrong with marrying a 10 year old child tells me that you're either joking or that there's something seriously wrong with you mentally. I certainly hope you were just joking.

    As for what the parents said... do you have proof?

    Well, not exactly, since I didn't record the conversation but I do have a great memory, so you will have to trust me when I say that that was exactly what they said.

    Questions/Comments on the Quran

  • The Myth that Women have to "Obey" their Husbands
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    ...As for the choice of words, dutiful sounds good. My first instinct is to say tomay-toes, tomah-toes. But the Quran chose the word obedient. If that also entails being dutiful, sounds good. Again, tomay-toes, tomah-toes. You have issues with the word obedient. Those are your issues, and you should work that out on your own. If you disagree with what i'm saying . . .if the shoe fits . . .

    Godbless,
    Anwar

    God did not choose that word. Men chose that word. That entire verse you refer to is completely mistranslated. I have already provided the true meaning of that verse but if you don't believe me, research it for yourself and you will learn the truth.

    Progod, that comment of yours about the women in this thread was uncalled for; not very nice of you. These are very wise, intelligent and obviously, highly educated women who know that they stand equal in the sight of God and also know that God did not command women to ?obey? their husbands. Given that equality for all human beings is promoted, it doesn?t make sense that God would command any adult to ?obey? another. The Qur?an certainly does not promote slavery and this degrading and demeaning word conveys a master-slave relationship.

    The Qur?an does not place men in charge of women. It does not create a hierarchy in which men are placed above women. Men--through fabricated hadith stories and the distortion of some Qur?anic verses pertaining to women--have done this. In particular, the incorrectly-translated verse 434 has traditionally been used to subordinate women to men. However, all throughout the Qur?an it is clear that men and women stand absolutely equal in the sight of God.

    I don?t have much time right now but next time I will share with you MY observations regarding the nature of men and women, and work and roles and all that great stuff some of you guys I?m sure can?t wait to hear about...but until then, I will leave you with these verses

    "One of His signs is that He created for you spouses like your selves so that you may live with them with affection and mercy - there are signs in this for people who reflect"

    ?The Believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another; they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil??

    peace

    Questions/Comments on the Quran

  • The Myth that Women have to "Obey" their Husbands
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    A conversation I overheard not too long ago

    Wife Dear husband, she is only 10 years old; she is not ready for marriage. And how could you possibly give her away to a man three times her age?! How could you possibly do such a thing without discussing it with me first?!

    Husband I am the captain of this ship and you must not question my decisions. The man has promised me that he will not sleep with her until she reaches puberty and I trust him.

    Wife Oh foolish husband o? mine, he will not keep his promise. I have seen him; I can tell. Call it woman?s intuition, but trust me, I can sense that he is not a good man. She is just a child and is not mentally, emotionally or physically ready for marriage, even upon reaching puberty. Please listen to me and don?t do this to our child. She will be miserable.

    Husband Silence! How dare you question my decisions!! My decision stands. I am the man here and you all must do as I say. She is to marry him next month.

    A few months later, she?s in the news

    http//www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/15/yemen.childbride/index.html

    Questions/Comments on the Quran

  • The Myth that Women have to "Obey" their Husbands
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    Peace

    And what an end TruthSeeker bravo

    Thank you, Marleya, but I suspect this discussion is not going to end any time soon...

    peace

    Questions/Comments on the Quran

  • The Myth that Women have to "Obey" their Husbands
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    Who takes that final decision? Or if both think that they are the perfect ones to lead, and hence their his/her decision must be implemented, what if that decision is very very important and no one wants to let go off it ?

    siki

    The more stubborn one, because disagreements can go on forever and, well, someone has to give in at some point. D

    A marriage should not have to be like a corporation with a "captain/CEO" making all final decisions but rather more like a partnership.

    Partnership A relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, as for the achievement of a specified goal.

    And that goal is, of course, the happiness of the wife... ;D

    As Marleya points out, a partnership IS possible.

    peace

    Peace.

    I look around me,and see muslim couples manage themselves,without,no obedience from non.I see couples discuss,and come to a mutual agreement,without nobody have to obey the other.

    I dont think a marrige is a ship,that are in need of one captain,there are two adults involved,and mutual agreements,must be the basic.Then there will be no chaos.To be a captain on a ship,you need education,so on a boat it is the person best fit to rule a ship,that is the captain.

    Marrige in Islam,is a contract,with mutual benefits.

    Every buisness beetween equals,is done with mutual agreement,why is that different,when a woman is involved?She has to be obedient?

    No,it is the same old,same old,thinking that a man,is always better equipted,than women,in deeling with life and truth,even when the reality shows us different.Men that kill their wifes,and dont think they are few,79% of all women gets killed by a man that they are in relationship with,or has been.Very often,this men are used to obedience from their wifes,and when they dont,bam.And the men belong to every corner in this world,and with religion or not religion.
    Muslim countries have choosen not to deal with their honory killings,that happen every day.Obedience is a key word here,in this sad storys,where men think that if a lady disobey,and by that deforme tha family honour,they can be killed.Jordan for example,have in their criminal laws,the reduced sentences,for husbands,brothers,fathers,that commit this kind of crimes,but most often cases do not go to court.

    Just forget obedience,and get your minds on mutual agreement.

    Questions/Comments on the Quran

  • The Myth that Women have to "Obey" their Husbands
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    Is there not a single Muslim who truly understands verse 434? Truth is only found in cleaving to Quran!

    (434) Men are the maintainers (qawwam) of women because Allah has made some of them excel the others and because they spend of their wealth. Hence the good women are obedient (qanitat), guarding the unseen which Allah has guarded. And those of them that you fear might rebel (nushuz), admonish them, and abandon them in their beds and beat (adriboo) them. Should they obey you, do not seek a way of harming them, for Allah is Sublime and Great!

    In the mosque, at hutbas and discussion circles, we have heard tafsir (interpretation) of this verse over and over again. That men and women were created to different roles. That women should be provided for by their husbands, and that the verse in fact prescribes a greater responsibility and hardship on the men. That the path of the woman is obedience to her husband, because obedience is the only way a woman can be happy. And that the ?admonishment? of the wife is encouraged by God, in order to steer the woman to the right path, as if women are some kind of animal to be trained.

    Do you question this verse? Question the tafsir. Question the tafsir a thousand times. The verse can be recited and memorized. But it is through constant engagement with prophecy that we may be guided to the light. And engagement only comes through questioning.

    The question of this tafsir must be answered, for there to be a religion of Islam. Most of the people recite the Quran but understand little. In this age of exploration, Islam will not survive unless understanding is raised for the ummah. The people called Sufis possess the understanding, but it is kept secret. But in this age of exploration, if the secrets are kept from the wider people, Islam as a religion will not survive. The people are thirsty from their recitation, their throats are draw and they are now in dire need of water. But water will not be given unless the people ask so ask your questions! Ask and ask again, to save the ummah from its peril!

    Let us now engage with this verse and see what deeper meaning is buried there for our benefit.

    Men are the maintainers (qawwam) of women because Allah has made some of them excel the others and because they spend of their wealth. Hence the good women are obedient (qanitat), guarding the unseen which Allah has guarded. And those of them that you fear might rebel (nushuz), admonish them, and abandon them in their beds and beat (adriboo) them. Should they obey you, do not seek a way of harming them, for Allah is Sublime and Great! (Verse 434)

    Men are the qawwam ? those who take care of and and provide for ? the women. The good women guard the unseen which Allah has guarded. The women to fear are those who create nushuz ? discord, hostility, dissonance. If you fear such women, leave them in their beds and beat, forsake or avoid them (adriboo).

    Indeed! Because the secret of the Quran is identical to the secret of the Torah, understood by the Comrades of the Kabbalah.?Men? and ?women?, ?husband? and ?wife? mean something much more than the physical understanding we have.

    Ancient knowledge has been remembered in the 20th century we each havemasculine and feminine aspects. Some call these aspects the anima and animus. But Torah and Quran teach the masculine and feminine aspects are more complex they are multiple eminations of God?s Names. The names God breathed into our bodies because we are made in the image of God. We all are have female and male aspects, in different balance. So these verses address humanity, physically male and female.

    If this seems implausible, then it is so only due to the groups who so fiercely defend the literal interpretation. But this book is a holy book! It?s not an agony aunt column in the local newspaper! The folly oftheir tafsir verges on blasphemy, but they don?t understand.

    In Kabbalah, the feminine name of God that we can realise within is called Shekhinah (Sakina in Arabic). The concept is complex, but is something close to the notion of the unconscious in psychoanalysis the field of language from whence all types of signification may play. But for the sake of our discussion, a simple way of thinking of it is that the Shekhinah is the source of all human creativity. If you paint a picture, then you engage with Shekhinah in a way. If you do an equation, similarly. But essentially, prayer and worship are acts of creativity, where we create an image to ourselves of God (something ultimately unimaginable). As we see with the acts of violence and hatred produced by people in the name of religion, clearly this creative name that has been breathed into us can be corrupted, if our creativity is not realised in a righteous fashion.

    But if we are seeking God, then it is the feminine name of creativity, of Shekhinah, that we must realise within ourselves, the first gate that must be entered, in order to ascend.

    So the feminine name comes first for the spiritual traveller. The Kabbalists call Shekhinah the ?poor girl?, because this emination is our creative spirit, and, on its own, is not capable of generating any light from God. Instead, it?captures? light from the higher name of God, Ti?fret, the source of prophecy. The words of the Quran itself (and the other holy books) derive from this name, that was realised to its fullest potential in men like Moses and Muhammed. Ordinary folk such as us cannot realise this name, but, through worship as creativity, we may find Shekhinah and, through worship as righteously guided creativity, our Shekhinah may be ?married? to Ti?fret, to prophecy.

    In this sense, our feminine aspect is ?maintained? by the light of our masculine aspect. If this is done, then we may move closer to God. In this sense, the masculine aspect of our psyche are commanded to ?spend out of their property?.

    The Shekhinah realised within us is righteous if it is obedient in ?marriage? to prophecy. That is, our creativities are ?good women?, ?obedient? and, importantly, ?guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded?. God and the higher spiritual realms are the unseen, but the feminine creativity within us can guard these realms. Guarding here means, protecting against the darkness that can fill our creative spirit if we do not guard this feminine aspect of ourselves, we can create evil in the name of religion, as we see happening again and again.

    The last part of the first then is an instruction and warning about how to treat ourselves, how to treat the creative emanation placed within us. ?Those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek.? If you fear your creativity will leave you and move to the darkness, try to make it righteous again, into the light. If that doesn?t work, and your prayers move you to darkness still ? or if you encounter a sect that exchanges love for hatred ? or enter a mosque where death is preached instead of love ? then creativity has been corrupted. If this happens, then beat the unrighteous creativity into submission stop praying and walk away from that mosque. God willing, something better might come your way.

    Mythopoetically, if our creative aspect turns unrighteous, becomes a creativity-in-discord, if the song we sing turns from a love song to disharmony, then our feminine aspect turns from Shekhinah into Lilith. Potiphar's wife, who tried to seduce Joseph to her bed, was Lilith. He was righteous and followed the path set down by this verse, because he recognized this potential seduction within himself and, instead of being tempted to join with it, left it at its bed and ran away, forsaking and avoid it (adriboo).

    To those who question this verse, to those who question the tafsir of this verse the verse is placed there, especially for you! You indeed have been doubting the dark creative spirits of others who read this verse, take its surface meaning, and perhaps justify it to do evil (such as beating other humans). And you are doing (God willing) what the later part of the verse instructs walking away from that interpretation.

    In your journey, always remember the first part of the verse the masculine light of prophecy will provide for our feminine aspect of creativity, and guide us to a righteous worship. So worship with us in this.

    May the wife within be wed happily to the husband within, that we might find balance, harmony not discord, righteousness not adultery, and perhaps ascend higher in our journey!

    FOR MORE OF THE TAILOR'S DOCTRINE, SEE
    http//community.beliefnet.com/profile/3dd92c69ac3187b92fdda7f9763c4119
    AND
    http//thegoodgarment.wordpress.com/

    Tailor, interesting analysis but this is too complex for even my mind to comprehend...hehe You have over-analyzed the passage. The Qur?an was not intended to be a puzzle but a simple, straightforward guide on how to live life in accordance with God?s plan. If translated properly (and this must be stressed because many verses pertaining to women are not), it?s quite simple and straightforward. It had to be, given that it was intended for all of humanity to follow. Reading it objectively and in relation to text preceding and following it, as well as keeping in mind that the overarching theme is ?fairness? and ?justice? for all, will guide you to the correct meaning.

    Also, just thought I'd point out that ?guarding the unseen?? is simply referring to guarding/protecting the unseen fetus in the womb. That's it, plain and simple.

    Questions/Comments on the Quran

  • The Myth that Women have to "Obey" their Husbands
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    Salaam Truth_Seeker
    Please forgive me if I say that your understanding of this verse is not different from that of "apologetic" traditionalists.
    And this is exactly what traditionalists say (underlined). But this sentence IS a statement, and should be a valid one. To be valid, "rijaal" and not men only should really be providors over "nisaa'" and not only women. To understand the real meaning of rijal and nisaa, please refer to the usage of these words in the quraan.

    Hello, Samia. Perhaps what I wrote wasn?t clear so I will explain it a bit further. What I stated is that Surah An-Nisa 34 is not addressed to husbands as believed by most Muslim men, but rather the entire community ? both men and women. It does not say that women should not or cannot be the providers/breadwinners as well as men, but rather who is responsible for providing a means of support given the following when a woman is pregnant. That particular responsibility during that time falls on men. It is not about who is superior or who should be obedient. It is about what is fair and just. It is to prevent a situation where a pregnant woman is abandoned or left to fend for herself, without much support from the community. This surely does not constitute a just situation. If children are the wealth and future of the community, the importance of protecting the function of childbearing (and childrearing) becomes self-evident.

    What Surah An-Nisa 34 is ensuring is that this does not happen. It calls upon men in general to assume responsibility for women in general when they are performing the vitally important function of childbearing (other passages in the Qur?an extend this also to childrearing). Thus the intent of this passage, which has traditionally been used to subordinate women to men, is in fact to guarantee women the material (as well as moral) security needed by them during the period of pregnancy when breadwinning can become difficult or even impossible for them.

    Does this mean that awoman who's not capable of bearing children is not "saliha"?
    What about unmarried women? Who is to provide for them?

    Samia, perhaps you skipped over this part
    ?Since only women can bear children (which is not to say either that all women should bear children or that women?s sole function is to bear children) ? a function whose importance in the survival of any community cannot be questioned ? they should not have the additional obligation of being breadwinners while they perform this function.?

    The verse is about ensuring that pregnant women will be properly cared for by designating men as providers during this time. It is intended to ensure justice in the community as a whole. It does not go beyond that, and it does not imply that women cannot also provide for themselves or their families. Most Muslim women I know do.

    ...and at the end of the day, it's only men who are providors! What about women who are providors (and they are not a negligeable percentage)?

    This is the wording in most translations of the Qur?an I have seen; this is also the wording posted on Wikipedia

    http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34

    Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. The Qur'an, chapter 4 (An-Nisa), verse 34 (translated by M. H. Shakir)

    This translation is completely off and really makes no sense. The piece parts just don?t fit together. It is ridiculously-translated verses like this that give people reason to criticize and not accept the Qur?an as the word of God. The part underlined is about some men having the means to be better providers, not about God making men superior to women (as it has traditionally been explained). Since it goes without saying that human beings must procreate for the human race to continue, this verse is about the division of functions pertaining to this to ensure justice in the community, and more so than anything else, to ensure justice for women by not subjecting them to abuse and hardship. It does not imply that women cannot or should not provide for themselves or others.

    So, no, Samia, it?s not only men who are providers. We all know that, and I?m sure that was the case back then, too. Since the Qur?an makes it clear that men and women stand absolutely equal in the sight of God, that is the interpretation that seems most appropriate for that particular verse which, again, is about ensuring that pregnant women will be properly cared for by designating men as providers during the time of childbearing.

    This passage is about caring for and protecting pregnant women, just as the distorted verse which now gives men the right to marry up to 4 girls/women of their choosing (usually young girls) was originally intended to protect and care for the orphans/fatherless children by marrying their mothers/widows. Again, the intent of this passage, which has traditionally been used to subordinate women to men, is to guarantee women the security needed by them during a period of time when breadwinning can become difficult or even impossible for them.

    Quraan is for humanity, not a "Muslim Ummah". The verse, if read correctly, should apply naturally to any ummah. Making men the sole providor is neither logical nor factual, and it does not apply even to a "Muslim Ummah".

    If read correctly it does apply to any community as it is a guide to ensure justice in any community. I said ?Muslim ummah? since we are discussing the Qur?an and communities who follow the teachings of this book have always been known as Muslim communities. And men are not made the sole providers, but in that particular verse, they are assigned the functions of being breadwinners for the reasons already stated.

    Samia, I?m just curious, what is your interpretation of Surah 4 verse 34?

    peace

    Questions/Comments on the Quran

  • The Myth that Women have to "Obey" their Husbands
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    The Myth that Women have to "Obey" their Husbands

    The believing husband and wife co-operate with mutual understanding and consideration. This originates from their innate believer personalities of being self-sacrificing, caring and understanding. There is not the slightest master-slave inclination in their relationship as they are devoted to Allah and take the Qur'an as their guide.

    "One of His signs is that He created for you spouses like your selves so that you may live with them with affection and mercy - there are signs in this for people who reflect" (Qur'an 3021)

    www.quranicpath.com | The Myth that Women have to "Obey" their Husbands

    Excellent point, AceOfHearts. Not only does the Qur?an make it clear that man and woman stand absolutely equal in the sight of God, but also that they are ?members? and ?protectors? of each other. The Qur?an does not create a hierarchy in which men are placed above women, nor does it pit men against women in an adversary relationship.

    However, in spite of the Qur?anic affirmation of man-woman equality, Muslim societies in general have never regarded men and women as equal, particularly in the context of marriage. Muslim men have always had more rights and privileges than Muslim women, including even the right to kill their women. The man imposed on the woman an artificially narrow existence, both physically and spiritually.

    Underlying the rejection in Muslim societies of the idea of man-woman equality is the deeply rooted belief that women, who are inferior in creation (having been made from a crooked rib) and in righteousness (having helped the Shaitan in defeating God?s plan for Adam), have been created mainly to be of use to men, who are superior to them.

    The alleged superiority of men to women, which permeates the Islamic (as well as the Jewish and Christian) tradition, is grounded not only in hadith literature but also in popular interpretations of some Qur?anic passages, such as Surah 4 An-Nisa? verse 34. These are generally cited to support the contention that men have ?a degree of advantage? over women. Muslim men have been wrongly told that ?Men are the managers of the affairs of women because men spend of their wealth on women. Virtuous women are, therefore, obedient?? As soon as the issue of women?s equality is raised by liberal Muslims, the immediate response by traditional Muslims is, ?But don?t you know that God says in the Qur?an that men are ?qawwamun? in relation to women and have the right to rule over them and even to beat them??

    It is assumed by almost all who read Surah 4 An-Nisa? 34 that it is addressed to husbands. The first point to be noted is that it is addressed to ?arrijal? (the men) and the ?an-nisa? (the women), which means that it is addressed to all men and women of the Islamic community. This is further indicated by the fact that in relation to all the actions that are required to be taken, the plural and not the dual form (used when reference is made to two persons) is found. Such usage makes clear that the prescriptions contained in this verse were not addressed to a husband or wife but to the Islamic ?ummah? in general.

    The key word in the first sentence of this verse is ?qawwamun.? This word has been translated variously as ?protectors and maintainers (of women),? ?in charge (of women),? ?having preeminence (above women),? and ?sovereigns or masters (over women).? Linguistically, the word ?qawwamun? means ?breadwinners? or ?those who provide a means of support or livelihood.? A point of logic that must be made here is that the first sentence is not a descriptive one stating that all men as a matter of fact are providing for women. What the sentence is stating, rather, is that men ought to have the capability to provide (since ?ought? implies ?can&quot. In other words, this statement, which popular Muslim culture and tradition have regarded as an actual description of all men, is, in fact, a normative statement pertaining to the Islamic concept of division of labor in an ideal family or community structure. The fact that men are ?qawwamun? does not mean that women cannot or should not provide for themselves, but simply that in view of the heavy burden that most women shoulder in childbearing and rearing, they should not have the additional obligation of providing the means of living as well at the same time.

    Continuing with analysis of the passage, we come next to the idea that God has given the one more ?strength? than the other. Most translations make it appear that the one who has more strength, excellence, or superiority is the man. However, the Qur?anic text does not accord superiority to men. Using an idiomatic expression which literally means ?some in relation to some,? the Qur?anic statement could mean either that some men are superior to some others (men or women) and that some women are superior to some others (men or women). The interpretation that seems to be the most appropriate contextually is that some men are more blessed with the means to be better providers than are other men.

    The next part of the passage begins with a ?therefore,? which indicates that this part is conditional upon the first if men fulfill their assigned function of being providers, women must fulfill their corresponding duties. Most translators describe this duty in terms of the wife being ?obedient? to the husband. The word ?salihat,? which is translated as ?righteously obedient,? is related to the word ?salahiat,? which means ?capability? or ?potentiality.? A woman?s special capability is to bear children, and she carries and protects the fetus in her womb until it can be safely delivered.

    What is outlined in the first part of this passage is a functional division of labor necessary for maintaining balance in any society. Men, who do not have to fulfill the responsibility of childbearing, are assigned the functions of being breadwinners. Women are exempted from the responsibility of being breadwinners in order that they may fulfill their function as childbearers. Since only women can bear children (which is not to say either that all women should bear children or that women?s sole function is to bear children) ? a function whose importance in the survival of any community cannot be questioned ? they should not have the additional obligation of being breadwinners while they perform this function. Thus, during the period of a woman?s childbearing, the function of breadwinning must be performed by men (not just husbands) in the Muslim ?ummah.?

    This division of functions is designed to ensure justice in the community as a whole. The two functions are separate but complementary, and neither is higher or lower than the other.

    The end. peace

    Questions/Comments on the Quran

  • Polygamy according to the Quran (Excerpt from QRT)
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    4129 ?and you will never be able that you be equitable between the women?

    Therefore, it?s not forbidden although comes with advice to proceed with caution -- mansions, designer gowns, luxury cars and a credit card for shopping ?til they drop. ;D

    http//www.jewelryexpert.com/ARTICLES/Fancy-Color-Diamonds.htm

    http//thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_86/11591073799ev0SM.jpg

    Then there are all the immaterial things as well and the list continues?

    peace

    Nun, that should be sufficient to compensate for the fact that a man will never be equitable between the women.

    Now about the prophet being an exceptional case, this is the point critics of Islam always bring up, saying that if he was such a holy and righteous man, why didn?t he stick to marrying widows and older women? Why did he go and marry a young virgin girl? Can anyone give a good reason as to why he would?ve married the much younger Aisha at his age?

    General Issues / Questions

  • Polygamy according to the Quran (Excerpt from QRT)
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    Thank you for taking the time to reply, Nun de Plume.

    MirupafshimMirupafshim...

    General Issues / Questions

  • Polygamy according to the Quran (Excerpt from QRT)
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    Edip Yuksel, Arnold Yasin or others, I'd appreciate an answer to the question about Aisha. Thank you.

    General Issues / Questions

  • Nick Names
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    In The Name of The Lord of ALL Creation. HIS.

    O People of Understaning, what's the matter with you?

    You've become like goats with the head stuck on the Earth, and the ass on the Light.

    What is this hiding.

    What is this fear from GOD's Creation instead of The GOD.

    What is this disregard among the Purity of the Lord.

    Are you among the Hypocrite?

    Be who you were meant to be because you cannot escape from the Lord of Thee.

    If HE wants, HE Will kill you with mosqituos.

    If HE doesn't, NONE can touch you.

    It's HIM who decides, don't you Comprehend?

    Repent to the Maker of People - to The LORD of Purity.

    And turn to your Real names, instead of fake masturbations of your own mind.

    Respect The GOD. And not the circumstances of the Evil.

    No wonder that there is so Little Understanding in this World.

    Most are obeyed to satan, but declare the belief in The GOD of the Worlds !!!

    Clean your Heart, Balance your Emotions with teh Love of The Lord.

    And Be among Truthfull.

    Drop your Masks. Those are for the Delluded.

    Be a Free Eagle on the Clear Sky. Not a frighened rat in the fog of the Might. The One who Does ALL. And little people see. Clean to Allow. The Light of your Love. HE is Most Compassionate. ANd Loves us ALL. Who LIVES HIS Word.

    Praise be to The GOD. The Clarifier of the Matters.

    Peace,
    R.H.-Ustahi

    ADDED

    From Savage Carrot People can use real names and still be asses or nicks and still be sincere.

    Ustahi's answer Yes they can, but then they are talkning from the bathroom of their home, and not from balcony where the Light is.

    Ustahi, it?s great that you?ve found God and great that you?re attempting to spread God?s message, but no one likes someone preaching AT them. That?s what you do. There appears to be no room for dialogue with you.

    You strike me as a very intelligent person but it is said that there is a fine line between genius and madness, and quite frankly, at times you sound like a somewhat mad religious fanatic who has lost touch with reality. I?m sorry to say this, but that?s how you come across in threads like this one, at least to me. Since you are not God, you are in no position to judge others, yet you are being quite judgmental with words such as those above. The scripture you posted (and your own thoughts that sound like scripture) may apply to other situations, but it does not apply to use of ?nick names? on the internet, and especially on this forum.

    1. Using a name other than our real names does not mean we are attempting to hide if the God knows and sees all that we say and do. Also, what does a person?s real or ?nick? name have to do with them being who they were meant to be? I do believe that my ?nick? represents who I am much better than the name which was chosen for me by my parents.

    2. Regarding ?What is this fear from God?s creation instead of the God??

    Let?s assume you have a sister and she comes here and confesses she?s a Quran Only believer. She says that she doesn?t believe in the Sunni Islam that her husband and all his relatives follow. At times she?s tried to teach them that the Islam they?re familiar with is not true Islam but whenever she does that, they just get angry and tell her she doesn?t know what she?s talking about and that she should keep such ridiculous ideas to herself, so she gives up. During Ramadan she pretends to fast the entire month and eats with the others before dawn but writes on here that she only fasts 10 days.

    She writes about other personal family matters thinking it?s no big deal because she has no reason to fear God?s creation. But her husband?s cousin is an occasional reader of this forum and he recognizes her name. He tells her husband and other relatives what she?s been writing about and how she?s wasting her time here. He also thought she was being a little too friendly and flirtatious with some of the male members of the forum (because after all, everyone knows that a compliment or a friendly reply is flirting). This made her husband and his family very angry, which resulted in a huge argument and her husband?s family looking at her as a fake, evil non-believer who couldn?t be trusted. Things were never the same after that.

    On top of that, an enemy of hers got word that she was on the internet so she began impersonating her and writing inappropriate things and openly flirting with men in chat rooms and forums with people from Kosova to ruin her reputation, and it worked. Her husband and his family believed the rumors and he divorced her, taking the kids from her as well.

    Not all of God?s creation is good and we do need to protect ourselves from them. Evil people who will try to do you harm exist on the net, too. Just because someone chooses to remain anonymous does not mean he/she has forgotten God or is up to no good...or talking from the bathroom! nope

    General Issues / Questions

  • Adam, Eve, Noah and Evolution
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    The generations before us were stronger, taller, had more intellect and lived longer lives ... look at the signs left of them .... we still can't figure out how they made the structures thousands of years ago, which we can barley make now with all our "technology". Look at the buildings carved out of the side of mountains in Petra ..... how did they do that?? when we can't even do that today??

    And all this time I thought the opposite was true; I thought they were shorter or at least didn't walk as straight as humans today, had less intellect/knowledge, and were lucky to live past forty. I think what you describe might be the aliens a lot of people believe visited our planet.

    http//www.geocities.com/magpiester/oldtestament.html

    In 1967 a book called Chariot of the Gods? was published, and within the space of five years it had become a best-seller in 38 countries and was translated into 26 languages. The author of the book was Erich Von Daniken, the managing director of a Swiss 5-Star Hotel. The claims made by Von Daniken in his work were bold and blasphemous. Von Daniken had been educated at the College of St-Michel in Fribourg, where even as a student, he had occupied all of his spare time studying ancient holy writings. His lengthy research led him to the following conclusions Humanoid aliens from a remote galaxy had visited the Earth around 10,000 years ago, apparently after an intergalactic war. These 'sons of the stars' created the human race in their own image by tinkering with the genes of the primates. The alien visitors so overawed their creations with their far superior technology that they were worshipped as gods. Evidence, such as artifacts and relics of the visiting ancient astronauts have been uncovered by archaeologists but unrecognised. Many of the fabulous stories in the Bible and other sacred books are actually accounts of the ancient spacemen intervening in human affairs.

    http//www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/2399/jesus.html

    Some even speculate that Jesus may have been one of these aliens of advanced intelligence and extraordinary powers. Who woulda thunkit!

    Questions/Comments on the Quran

  • Adam, Eve, Noah and Evolution
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    The Ark.. )

    Maybe it was a giant ufo, or some kind of genetic storage, requiring only a disc

    It was known as the UF-Ark, but people just called it ?Ark? back then. It wasn?t that large, however; only Noah, his family and his livestock were carried off on it, not all living creatures. The DNA of all other living organisms was simultaneously extracted with a SuperDuperDNAExtractor, manipulated to create additional organisms, and then transformed in the spacecraft?s hi-tech lab into data, which was then stored on a disk. This was done by highly intelligent aliens that humans now look like (they still walk among us, but there are very few of them). So, yes, you guessed right about the genetic storage.

    No, I am not kidding.

    Questions/Comments on the Quran

  • Adam, Eve, Noah and Evolution
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    Noah had a special machine teleport and shrink all the creatures on his ship so they were able to fit there, wait, I think the ship was actually really huge, but maybe all the creatures were just super small?

    Joe

    That?s partially true. There was a special machine involved but it didn?t do what you describe. Good guess, though.

    Questions/Comments on the Quran

  • Quran inheritance mistake
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    But truthseeker, what you are asking for is not rules to ditribute inheritance where there is no will, ehst you are asking for is a few millions of volumes contemplating every case in which a person dies and leaves anything to inherit. There are every kind of situation and each case is different, and many cases or all would be unfair from some point of view.

    I know of case upon case where males benefit most from the home of the parents, benefit from the domestic services of the sisters, from more largesse from the parents while they are young, and then marry and even if they live with the parents it is the sister or the sisters who really look after the parents, who mostly end moving out from their sons, because they just not only do not look after them but pester them, while they blame the wife for it. So, should the brothers get anything at all? Well, this is a kind of case that is not rare at all, quite the opposite. So, if you are making rules for a particular case, every particular case should get its rules. But then that would mean millions of volumes on rules of inheritance. That or not to make any rules at all and let people find what is fair once somebody dies if there is no will. But if you make rules to suit a particular case, you must make rules to suit EVERY particular case.

    I suppose you have written a will.

    Salaam

    If I were to do that, the only thing anyone would inherit would be a huge debt, and I don?t think they would like that very much.

    About the inheritance rules, I realize that going into more detail would get too complicated. I guess one would hope that in instances where the distribution appears to be unfair, people will do what is fair and just.

    Questions/Comments on the Quran

  • Quran inheritance mistake
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    My opinion and your humble opinion of what is fair are irrelevant unless; as huruf stated...

    Quicken? WillMaker Plus 2008
    by Nolo
    http//www.nolo.com/product.cfm/ObjectID/6E9ED903-C9B4-42E0-9C2E235DD87A0A8A

    God knows best.

    Peace

    Okay, I guess that would be the most logical answer. Thanks.

    Questions/Comments on the Quran

  • Adam, Eve, Noah and Evolution
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    Yes, that is my understanding. One could interpret this from AQ too.

    I assume you mean from a Quranic perspective? If so, if you read it literally, then you could argue for that. However, that is not my understanding, as I said, the story of adam is a parable. adam in Classical Arabic also means mankind, pattern/exemplar, means of access.

    I know, that is my understanding as well. Thank you for your reply.

    Questions/Comments on the Quran

  • Adam, Eve, Noah and Evolution
    T Truth_Seeker 0

    To me, "Eve" is significantly different from "hawaa/zauj".

    A comparison of the Biblical V Quran account was well done in this book
    http//www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Quran-Themes-London-Studies/dp/1860640095/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212176987&sr=1-8

    From my studies, the story of adam is a parable
    http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12703.msg102151#msg102151

    I am well aware of the Biblical vs the Quranic account. If the story is considered a parable, then were there primitive humans on earth before they came along? Are Adam and Eve/Hawaa or are they not thought to be the first humans on earth from which humanity derived?

    Questions/Comments on the Quran
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users