Misconceptions about women in Islam (Mature Answer to All Question)

[غزالی]

Misconceptions about women in Islam

There are some misconceptions that have been widely propagated about women and their rights in Islam. These misconceptions are often repeated by some that maliciously seek to defame Islam and Muslims. Women throughout the past centuries of Islam have been honored, respected, and dignified. The crimes of some who deviate do not reflect upon the principles and laws on which Islam is based. We shall present some answers to these common misconceptions that have been publicized about women's rights in Islam and the position of women in Islam in general. In this presentation I will try to clarify the position of the true Islam (Submission) From my Authentic Religious Material on the status of women.

Following are the links to authentic material on any topic on women, Click to Read the topic .A neutral, serious search is required to remove misconceptions.


Contents

1- Introduction

• women's freedom, liberation and equal rights

2 -Status of Women Throughout the Ages

• Women in the Pre-Islamic Societies and Civilizations
  
• Status of women in Indian Society
  
• Status of women in Chinese Society
  
• Status of women in Greek Society
  
• Status of women in Roman Society
  
• Status of women in Jewish Society
  
• Status of Women in Christian Society

3 - Women's Rights in Islam

• Equality of Men & Women
• Women as Infants, Children and Daughters
• Women as Wives
• Women as Mothers
• Women as kinfolks and Neighbors

4 - Equality of Men & Women in Islam

• Eqaulity in Basic Humanity
• Equality in Religious Obligations
• Equality in Rewards and Punishments,
• Equality in Ownership & Financial Transactions
• Equality in Honor & Nobility
• Equality in Education
• Equality in Social Responsiblities

5 - Misconceptions About Women's Rights

• Polygyny in Islam
• Power of Guardianship in the Marriage Contract
• Power to Divorce is with the Husband
• Financial and Moral Responsibilities of the Household
• Wife Discipline
• On Hijab (Covering Head and Face)
• On Honor Killings
• Blood Money
• Women's Right of Inheritance
• Testimony of Women
• Travel Without a Male Guardian
• Women's Right to Work

Conclusion

[sirajstc]

jazakallah kahair

[Jenell]

Yes, Jazakallah Kahair brother. In the American society, we (brothers & sisters) often times forget or second guess Islam's teachings regarding women. We have to remember that we cannot take advice from non-muslims/intellects who's entire objective is to deface Islam.

AsSalamu Alaikum

[Ummu Sufyaan]

:sl:
*bump...

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[غزالی]

Yes, Jazakallah Kahair brother. In the American society, we (brothers & sisters) often times forget or second guess Islam's teachings regarding women. We have to remember that we cannot take advice from non-muslims/intellects who's entire objective is to deface Islam.

AsSalamu Alaikum

well said. wa alykum salam.

[__Sarah__]

JazakAllah. I have had a recent debate with someone over polygamy in Islam, and I couldn't come up with any concrete justification. This helped.

[__Sarah__]

But one thing which I would like to be clarified. What if one wife does not wish to have another's presence? What does a man do in such a condition?

[جوري]

subscribes................

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam

Why does Islam allow polygyny but prohibits polyandry?

A lot of people, including some Muslims, question the logic of allowing Muslim men to have more than one spouse while denying the same ‘right’ to women.

Let me first state emphatically, that the foundation of an Islamic society is justice and equity. Allah has created men and women as equal, but with different capabilities and different responsibilities.


Men and women are different, physiologically and psychologically. Their roles and responsibilities are different. Men and women are equal in Islam, but not identical.
Surah Nisa’ Chapter 4 verses 22 to 24 gives the list of women with who you can not marry and it is further mentions in Surah Nisa’ Chapter 4 verse 24 "Also (prohibited are) women already married"
The following points enumerate the reasons why polyandry is prohibited in Islam:

1. If a man has more than one wife, the parents of the children born of such marriages can easily be identified. The father as well as the mother can easily be identified. In case of a woman marrying more than one husband, only the mother of the children born of such marriages will be identified and not the father. Islam gives tremendous importance to the identification of both parents, mother and father. Psychologists tell us that children who do not know their parents, especially their father undergo severe mental trauma and disturbances. Often they have an unhappy childhood. It is for this reason that the children of prostitutes do not have a healthy childhood. If a child born of such wedlock is admitted in school, and when the mother is asked the name of the father, she would have to give two or more names! I am aware that recent advances in science have made it possible for both the mother and father to be identified with the help of genetic testing. Thus this point which was applicable for the past may not be applicable for the present.

2. Man is more polygamous by nature as compared to a woman.

3. Biologically, it is easier for a man to perform his duties as a husband despite having several wives. A woman, in a similar position, having several husbands, will not find it possible to perform her duties as a wife. A woman undergoes several psychological and behavioral changes due to different phases of the menstrual cycle.

4. A woman who has more than one husband will have several sexual partners at the same time and has a high chance of acquiring venereal or sexually transmitted diseases which can also be transmitted back to her husband even if all of them have no extra-marital sex. This is not the case in a man having more than one wife, and none of them having extra-marital sex.

The above reasons are those that one can easily identify. There are probably many more reasons why Allah, in His Infinite Wisdom, has prohibited polyandry.

Dr. Zakir Naik

http://islam.thetruecall.com/modules...rticle&sid=271

[Darth Ultor]

I saw something funny on youtube. A documentary. A white American woman passed by a woman who I think was from Iran wearing the headscarf and she told her, "Hey, you're in America now. You don't have to wear that."

The Muslim woman kinda smiled and responded, "I know, I'm wearing it out of choice."

One more thing: Married Jewish women in the more religious circles cover their hair. So do women of certain Christian denominations like the Amish.

[Thucydides1987]

My refutations, madam :p

#1: Firstly, I don't see the logic in your point on the identification of the parents. The importance of the father in the identification of a child is only valid in patriarchal societies, which are based on the transfer of the father's name onto the child -- that is the key in identifying an individual and in allowing the person to function socially. In the 21st century, especially in the West, that practice is only a matter of choice for married couples, since patriarchy has been abolished more or less -- there is no necessity for the father's name to be transferred onto the child. Many a time, parents' last names become hyphenated and this is passed onto the child. Sometimes, even, the wife's name alone is passed onto the child, and not the husband's -- it's all a matter of the couple's preference. Secondly, there is no reason why a child would not know his father in a polyandrous marriage, as the family will still be one unit living under the same roof. With regard to your example of a school, I think that since the child's polygamous family is living within a society of monogamous standards, it would be only pragmatic to put down the name of the child's biological father in the marriage.

#2: "Man is more polygamous by nature as compared to a woman." -- This is not a valid justification for the forbidding of polyandry. Just because a man is by nature more polygamous, doesn't mean that women wouldn't prefer to have many partners. Maybe less women would want polygamy in comparison to men, but it does not make it socially 'equal' and 'just' to denying these women the same things that men -- simply because they are the majority with that preference -- are able to do.

#3: In the 21st century, there are caretakers and nannies that a woman can hire if she is having difficulties in caring for all her children. Also, you have to remember that, in a polyandrous marriage you will have fewer children because there is only one woman, so the task of childcare is easier. In addition to this, there are multiple husbands, all of whom could financially support the family; in fact, I would say that in a polyandrous marriage, because it involves less kids, the family would be easier to manage due to a better flow of income (with the multiple husbands working), and less resources required to sustain the progeny.

#4: Where are you getting this information? With your logic, wouldn't the husband, then, in a polygynous marriage be at risk of getting some STD from his wives? I see no difference in the risk of contracting venereal diseases, whether in polyandrous or polygynous relationships.

Adieu.

[Thucydides1987]

By the way, I'm responding to Muslim Woman's post.

[CosmicPathos]

^^ your refutations are verbal diarrhea. What is the relationship between 21st century and hiring of maids? You are suggesting its a modern phenomenon? Prophet Muhammad pbuh was actually raised up by a nanny for some period of time.

[Thucydides1987]

I wasn't making some historical comparison; my point was that, a woman can get help in caring for her children. And it's not verbal diarrhea, perhaps you should read it more attentively, instead of dismissing it immediately.

[جوري]

My refutations, madam :p

What took you so long? we were all awaiting your 'refutation'

#1: Firstly, I don't see the logic in your point on the identification of the parents. The importance of the father in the identification of a child is only valid in patriarchal societies, which are based on the transfer of the father's name onto the child -- that is the key in identifying an individual and in allowing the person to function socially. In the 21st century, especially in the West, that practice is only a matter of choice for married couples, since patriarchy has been abolished more or less -- there is no necessity for the father's name to be transferred onto the child. Many a time, parents' last names become hyphenated and this is passed onto the child. Sometimes, even, the wife's name alone is passed onto the child, and not the husband's -- it's all a matter of the couple's preference. Secondly, there is no reason why a child would not know his father in a polyandrous marriage, as the family will still be one unit living under the same roof. With regard to your example of a school, I think that since the child's polygamous family is living within a society of monogamous standards, it would be only pragmatic to put down the name of the child's biological father in the marriage.

The logic of it is lost to only you for several reasons.
1- it is perfectly natural in the west for people to end up with incestuous relationships with their siblings, for when a man sows a few wild oats and doesn't claim them, there is a very large potential that his off spring would end up marrying each other one day or better yet simply bed hopping and popping some freaks out!
2- it is a matter of inheritance, again might not be particularly of importance to westerners, but the rest need to have what is rightfully theirs so that other folks don't come steal and claim what doesn't belong to them. You might not see logic, but we see no thought maturity in what you've written. It is your personal opinion and everyone has an opinion. Islam doesn't run on opinions but on God's law!

#2: "Man is more polygamous by nature as compared to a woman." -- This is not a valid justification for the forbidding of polyandry. Just because a man is by nature more polygamous, doesn't mean that women wouldn't prefer to have many partners. Maybe less women would want polygamy in comparison to men, but it does not make it socially 'equal' and 'just' to denying these women the same things that men -- simply because they are the majority with that preference -- are able to do.

Actually you'd need to survey women to see if they want to have multiple partners. These are in fact atheist studies and you may google 'New scientist' article on the biology of men to see what is consistent with logic. Again if you don't make it legal for a man to have more than one wife he'll simply go off and have more than one mistress like so:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...-mistress.html

happens in the civilized west all the time, and with his wife's and rest of the population's knowledge. Thus, though taking more than one wife ISN'T AN INJUNCTION. It is certainly an allowance. Now if we are going to speak of 'forbidding' how about we start with 'forbidding' siblings from marriage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6424937.stm

again in the civilized west, brother and sister having multiple children.. or 'forbid' gay marriages first before taking the leap for what is actually more logical and consistent with the nature of man!
.

Adieu.

Funny line from someone who doesn't believe in God even funnier still the other drivel you've spewed but I suppose without atheists we wouldn't have jesters on this forum and every board needs a few!

all the best

[Thucydides1987]

1- it is perfectly natural in the west for people to end up with incestuous relationships with their siblings

"Perfectly natural"? Incestuous relationships are strongly frowned upon in the West, and people utterly abhor anyone who involves themselves in such things. You should see the scandals and condemnations that such individuals receive in instances where such stories end up in the media.

2- it is a matter of inheritance, again might not be particularly of importance to westerners, but the rest folks need to have what is rightfully theirs so that folks don't come steal and claim what doesn't belong to them.

You're right, it doesnt matter in the West, because as I have said, patriarchy has been abolished in our society.

Actually you'd need to survey women to see if they want to have multiple partners. These are in fact atheist studies and you may google 'New scientist' article on the biology of men to see what is consistent with logic. Again if you don't make it legal for a man to have more than one wife he'll simply go off and have more than one mistress like so:

If a man really wants to, and feels that he has the ability to philander, he'll do it, trust me -- regardless of whether he has 1 or 5 wives. Polygamy will not deter him in that regard.

You realize that you're not arguing at all, but just spewing your biased anti-Western and anti-atheist sentiment at me? In whatever places that you do make an argument, you just restate what was already written down by Muslim Woman -- except with much less taste. And on top of this you're obsessed with topic which have nothing to do with this discussion -- like incestuous relationships.

Yea, and also I don't know why you're so bothered by the quick introduction and conclusion in my response, I was just trying to be friendly.

[جوري]

"Perfectly natural"? Incestuous relationships are strongly frowned upon in the West, and people utterly abhor anyone who involves themselves in such things. You should see the scandals and condemnations that such individuals receive in instances where such stories end up in the media.

If you wanted to stop such abhorrences then it will take a little more than angry comments?.. When a guy donates in a sperm bank anonymously and tons of women choose the same donor, (as an example) that is exactly the risk you are taking, except the condemnations seem to only occur when people learn of the incest. Quite possible the majority of incestuous relationships in the west go unaccounted for!
You are a hoot. Please give some thought to what you write before writing no?

You're right, it doesnt matter in the West, because as I have said, patriarchy has been abolished in our society.

who abolished it? your lack of interest in a family unit doesn't reflect society at large, east or west!

If a man really wants to, and feels that he has the ability to philander, he'll do it, trust me -- regardless of whether he has 1 or 5 wives. Polygamy will not deter him in that regard.

Your point being? We are stating that very much a certain percentage of the population will go on doing just that, it is best legalized than mocked by the same hypocrites who fornicate with either gender and take no responsibility for those whom they fathered!

You realize that you're not arguing at all, but just spewing your biased anti-Western and anti-atheist sentiment at me? In whatever places that you do make an argument, you just restate what was already written down by Muslim Woman -- except with much less taste. And on top of this you're obsessed with topic which have nothing to do with this discussion -- like incestuous relationships.

That seems like an adequate assessment of your alleged 'refutations' whether or not you like the style in which it was written is utterly inconsequential-- incest is very much a product of the societal changes you desire to introduce to us as civilized and modern!

Yea, and also I don't know why you're so bothered by the quick introduction and conclusion in my response, I was just trying to be friendly.

This is my brand of friendly too!

all the best

[Thucydides1987]

who abolished it? your lack of interest in a family unit doesn't reflect society at large, east or west!

Uhh, no one person abolished it; it had been a process throughout the 20th century, with various social movements, especially the feminist movement in the latter part of the century. Also, you don't know anything about me, or what my opinions on family are; I was talking about facts, and if you live in the West (especially in North America), you would know that many married couples don't necessarily follow the tradition of taking the husband's name as socially representing the family, nor do they pass it on to their children.

incest is very much a product of the societal changes you desire to introduce to us as civilized and modern!

Why don't you tell me who is trying to introduce incest to Islamic countries? I'm intrigued by this.

We are stating that very much a certain percentage of the population will go on doing just that, it is best legalized than mocked by the same hypocrites who fornicate with either gender and take no responsibility for those whom they fathered!

Never was this discussion a matter of legalizing polygamy. Why don't you look back at the posts; you'll see that it was about the social equality and justice behind polygyny and polyandry.

[IAmZamzam]

vale's lily, you really do need to save your anger for when it is called for, instead of always thinking that it is called for.

[جوري]

Uhh, no one person abolished it; it had been a process throughout the 20th century, with various social movements, especially the feminist movement in the latter part of the century.

abolished what exactly? what the hell are you talking about male eunuchs?

Also, you don't know anything about me, or what my opinions on family are; I was talking about facts, and if you live in the West (especially in North America), you would know that many married couples don't necessarily follow the tradition of taking the husband's name as socially representing the family, nor do they pass it on to their children.

We know about you what you choose to disclose here and that is what we are arguing against, it is neither truthful nor factual.. come back after you've done a formal survey with proper statistics defining gender roles and what folks in 'north america' want or don't want!

Why don't you tell me who is trying to introduce incest to Islamic countries? I'm intrigued by this.

Islamic society isn't set up for incest... there are no sperm banks, there is no bed hopping without knowing your partners name.. there are no children out of wedlock with potential to marry each other..
if you intrigue easily perhaps you need a hobby to foster self-esteem!

Never was this discussion a matter of legalizing polygamy. Why don't you look back at the posts; you'll see that it was about the social equality and justice behind polygyny and polyandry.

These are mere semantics legality should be based first and foremost on equality and social justice. Equality however doesn't mean sameness. Men and women aren't the same nor have they the same needs and we have already stated that your vision of 'equality' and 'justice' is nonsensical at best. we are not looking for personal opinion rather what is sensible, stands the test of time, makes sense for society at large and benefiting to all its members!

all the best

[جوري]

vale's lily, you really do need to save your anger for when it is called for, instead of always thinking that it is called for.

did someone elect you as an arbiter of the affairs on this forum? I am never angry when I write-- have you any clue of my state of mind? Perhaps you'd like to make a separate thread on that -- I am however growing impatient of your little tidbits on every other post that I partake in. Either Write of the subject at hand or direct your grievances against what I write directly to the mods and let them decide whether or not it falls along the lines of 'anger or rudeness'

all the best

[IAmZamzam]

I said nothing of rudeness. "Rude" is just a word that people use to refer vaguely to anything they or their society personally and emotionally finds distasteful or unsavory or against their irrational biases, even when it has nothing to do with actual ethics (which is why the phrase "ethics and etiquette", which you'll find in rule books for instance, is never called a redundancy). "Rude" is not a word you'll often hear me using. In fact, I have some very rude things to say about the term itself.

Perhaps "vitriol" would be a better term than "anger", as it amounts to the same without necessarily referring to any specific emotional motivation. Really, I know that I chew people out more than I should, but at least I do it only when provoked. I really am getting tired of seeing you pour contempt in droves upon others every single time you open your mouth. Bluntness can be a very good thing, but not when it's the only thing.

[جوري]

I said nothing of rudeness. "Rude" is just a word that people use to refer vaguely to anything they or their society personally and emotionally finds distasteful or unsavory or against their irrational biases, even when it has nothing to do with actual ethics (which is why the phrase "ethics and etiquette", which you'll find in rule books for instance, is never called a redundancy). "Rude" is not a word you'll often hear me using. In fact, I have some very rude things to say about the term itself.

I was saving web-space by lumping your impression along with the atheist as the message I had for you both is one!

Perhaps "vitriol" would be a better term than "anger", as it amounts to the same without necessarily referring to any specific emotional motivation. Really, I know that I chew people out more than I should, but at least I do it only when provoked. I really am getting tired of seeing you pour contempt in droves upon others every single time you open your mouth. Bluntness can be a very good thing, but not when it's the only thing.

As stated, if you have a grievance don't elect yourself an arbiter when there is a button to your anatomical left that you may simply click on and complain to anyone who'll listen. I haven't 'opened my mouth' for you to construe tone of voice nor body language a part of your very fallible conclusion. You have several options.
1- report
2- ignore
3- do better

all the best

[CosmicPathos]

vale's lily, you really do need to save your anger for when it is called for, instead of always thinking that it is called for.

what made you think it was "anger?" An assumption on your part?

I cant think of anything with which to address an ignorant atheist like thuclyides or however you spell it except with mockery!

@ the atheist: the refuter, LOOOL. What did you exactly "refute?"

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Can my dear brother and sister just forgive each other, or at least acknowledge each other's problems and try to resolve it through personal messaging? I am sure your just misunderstanding each other.

On topic; That's a wonderful site Sister, really useful information, thanks for posting.

[Thucydides1987]

I cant think of anything with which to address an ignorant atheist like thuclyides or however you spell it except with mockery!

Thanks, I appreciate your politeness. I'm just trying to write something legitimate; I've argued my points as best I could, and I don't think what I was saying was unreasonable. All I get in response, however, is your mockery and ridicule; instead of trying to respond to my points like an adult, you pick the most insignificant parts of what I said and use that as an object for your contempt.

At least, I thought that I may learn something more about Islam by having a proper discussion with Muslims. Instead I get this.

[Thucydides1987]

I said nothing of rudeness. "Rude" is just a word that people use to refer vaguely to anything they or their society personally and emotionally finds distasteful or unsavory or against their irrational biases, even when it has nothing to do with actual ethics (which is why the phrase "ethics and etiquette", which you'll find in rule books for instance, is never called a redundancy). "Rude" is not a word you'll often hear me using. In fact, I have some very rude things to say about the term itself.

Well done! :)

[CosmicPathos]

Thanks, I appreciate your politeness. I'm just trying to write something legitimate; I've argued my points as best I could, and I don't think what I was saying was unreasonable. All I get in response, however, is your mockery and ridicule; instead of trying to respond to my points like an adult, you pick the most insignificant parts of what I said and use that as an object for your contempt.

At least, I thought that I may learn something more about Islam by having a proper discussion with Muslims. Instead I get this.

of course why would you think what you said was unreasonable? is not that the whole reason of your atheism i.e. what you think is not unreasonable and what theists thinks is unreasonable? Duh.

You get mockery because you deserve one! Especially for the nature of your self-proclaimed "refutation" which had no intellectual weight to it whatsoever. But I am sure it made you feel good about yourself that "hey, I can make arguments [no matter how silly] and delude myself into believing that I can refute people."

[Thucydides1987]

Especially for the nature of your self-proclaimed "refutation" which had no intellectual weight to it whatsoever

Dude, then ARGUE against me, lol. Don't just sit there saying it has no intellectual weight. I feel like all you're doing is bluffing.

[CosmicPathos]

Dude, then ARGUE against me, lol. Don't just sit there saying it has no intellectual weight. I feel like all you're doing is bluffing.

how can i make a sensible argument against a non-sensical one? I already showed that you were immensely false when you brought in the "nanny" part and associated it with the 21st century. i think that alone was enough to show the shallowness.

[Thucydides1987]

I already showed that you were immensely false when you brought in the "nanny" part and associated it with the 21st century

And I pointed out to you that I wasn't making a historical comparison; you seemed to have ignored that, didn't you?

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam

But one thing which I would like to be clarified. What if one wife does not wish to have another's presence? What does a man do in such a condition?

In my country ( Bangladesh ) , a man must take wife's permission before taking another wife. Otherwise he may get in prison for 6 months up to one year or more.
But to my knowledge , this condition is not mentioned in Quran or Hadith.

It's up to the husband to decide if he can deal wives justly . If he can fulfill the criteria , then does not matter if wife gives permission , he can do it.

And Allah Knows Best.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam /Peace

.. in a polygynous marriage be at risk of getting some STD from his wives? I see no difference in the risk of contracting venereal diseases, whether in polyandrous or polygynous relationships.

.

well , doctors can explian the matter well. I guess , as God created men & women differently , it's not harmful for men to have physical relationship with 4 wives . But somehow it's not safe for women to have close intimacy with more than one man in same day . And God knows Best.

The main point here is God allows polygamy for men and did not prescribe women to have more than one husband . Beleivers must not challenge God but must say , we hear and we obey. That's the characteristics of any beleiver.

The ' mature' answers/ logic - those are given / explained by human being - U may not agree with these ..no problem .

For us Muslims , it's enough that God says so . If all the doctors of the world ' prove ' that polygamy creates major health risk for men , still it will be valid for Muslim men till the last day.

[purple]

Salaam



In my country ( Bangladesh ) , a man must take wife's permission before taking another wife. Otherwise he may get in prison for 6 months up to one year or more.
But to my knowledge , this condition is not mentioned in Quran or Hadith.

It's up to the husband to decide if he can deal wives justly . If he can fulfill the criteria , then does not matter if wife gives permission , he can do it.

And Allah Knows Best.

:sl:

Not if she puts it in the marriage contract. She is entitled to divorce if she disapproved of it before marriage and let her husband know about it before marriage! Otherwise if he marries another women and his current wife refused already in the marriage contract. He has no choice but to divorce his first wife.

I am surprised as woman you find it completely acceptable for man to marry knowing his wife dislike it. I don’t.
:wa:

[Asiyah3]

#1: Firstly, I don't see the logic in your point on the identification of the parents. The importance of the father in the identification of a child is only valid in patriarchal societies, which are based on the transfer of the father's name onto the child -- that is the key in identifying an individual and in allowing the person to function socially. In the 21st century, especially in the West, that practice is only a matter of choice for married couples, since patriarchy has been abolished more or less -- there is no necessity for the father's name to be transferred onto the child. Many a time, parents' last names become hyphenated and this is passed onto the child. Sometimes, even, the wife's name alone is passed onto the child, and not the husband's -- it's all a matter of the couple's preference. Secondly, there is no reason why a child would not know his father in a polyandrous marriage, as the family will still be one unit living under the same roof. With regard to your example of a school, I think that since the child's polygamous family is living within a society of monogamous standards, it would be only pragmatic to put down the name of the child's biological father in the marriage.

Peace,

Are you saying that it's not important for a child to know who his/her own father is? I know you were talking about the father's name being transferred to the child, but the piece you replied to talked about knowing who the father is (and also the name thing), if I understood correctly.

#2: "Man is more polygamous by nature as compared to a woman." -- This is not a valid justification for the forbidding of polyandry. Just because a man is by nature more polygamous, doesn't mean that women wouldn't prefer to have many partners. Maybe less women would want polygamy in comparison to men, but it does not make it socially 'equal' and 'just' to denying these women the same things that men -- simply because they are the majority with that preference -- are able to do.

I think that those women who want to have many partners, would prefer to get a divorce from one husband and then go to the other instead of living and starting a family with 4 at the same time.

#3: In the 21st century, there are caretakers and nannies that a woman can hire if she is having difficulties in caring for all her children.

I disagree. Do you think it's practical to take care of 10 children at the same time? I don't. I think this is much easier for a man.

About nannies, if she plans on leaving the babies at the hands of nannies, she should think twice before having one. A child needs it's mother.

Also, you have to remember that, in a polyandrous marriage you will have fewer children because there is only one woman, so the task of childcare is easier.

What do you mean? How will a woman have fewer children in a polyandrous marriage? Isn't it the other way round?

In addition to this, there are multiple husbands, all of whom could financially support the family; in fact, I would say that in a polyandrous marriage, because it involves less kids, the family would be easier to manage due to a better flow of income (with the multiple husbands working), and less resources required to sustain the progeny.

Men aren't this nice (no offence, but to be realistic).

#4: Where are you getting this information? With your logic, wouldn't the husband, then, in a polygynous marriage be at risk of getting some STD from his wives? I see no difference in the risk of contracting venereal diseases, whether in polyandrous or polygynous relationships..

I agree.

[Thucydides1987]

I just want to say thank you for not screaming at me like someone else I know on these forums :p

Are you saying that it's not important for a child to know who his/her own father is? I know you were talking about the father's name being transferred to the child, but the piece you replied to talked about knowing who the father is (and also the name thing), if I understood correctly.

Well, assuming that in the polyandrous marriage the family lives together under one roof, the child would obviously know his/her biological father. I'm not assuming here that the woman gives birth to children from men who abandon her (I feel like that's what you think I said); I'm saying that this family lives united, like any other modern polygamous family.

What do you mean? How will a woman have fewer children in a polyandrous marriage? Isn't it the other way round?

Well let's think about it. In a polygynous marriage, where you have (let's say) one man and 3 women, he could essentially impregnate them all almost at the same time, so in an ideal situation you will have 3 children in 9 months. In comparison, in a polyandrous marriage, with one woman and 3 men, since she is the only female, only 1 child would be born to the family in 9 months. That's why I was saying that in a polyandrous marriage (1 woman, and 2+ men) there would be less children.

About nannies, if she plans on leaving the babies at the hands of nannies, she should think twice before having one. A child needs it's mother.

I agree with you, but I didn't mean to say that the nannies should do all the raising; only that they should help the mother if necessary. I would feel very sorry for a woman who had to give birth to 10 children, as you exemplified :p

Men aren't this nice (no offence, but to be realistic).

Perhaps, lol. I think it's a matter of culture, though. We should remember that the earliest human societies were matriarchal (with a woman being the leader), and polyandry was a common practice in them. So it's not necessarily within the realm of impossibility -- humans have done this, and in fact there are some tribes today that still practice it.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam

:sl:

I am surprised as woman you find it completely acceptable for man to marry knowing his wife dislike it.

Sis , it does not matter what we like /dislike / approve , the important matter is if Allah made it lawful or not .

And Allah Knows Best.

[CosmicPathos]

And I pointed out to you that I wasn't making a historical comparison; you seemed to have ignored that, didn't you?

once a mistake is pointed out, anyone can try to cover it up. And that is precisely your tactic here.

[purple]

Salaam



Sis , it does not matter what we like /dislike / approve , the important matter is if Allah made it lawful or not .

And Allah Knows Best.

:sl:

Actually it does matter. A marriage that is not built on trust will break down, especially if the husband has the audacity to marry another woman behind his wife back. What kind of a person is that? Did the prophet did that to any of his wives? I recall there was hadith posted in this forum about how the prophet peace be upon him stopped one man marrying another woman and he actually took the current wife feeling into consideration. I will try and look for it. I remember reading on this forum and Glo commented how merciful the prophet peace be upon him was. We are not animals whereby it perfectly okay to lie and betray us. This is not what Islam is about. Plus a lot of scholars SAID we can put it in our marriage contract. What does that tell you? That our feeling doesn’t matter? Fortunately it does.

Also I am not saying it is unlawful. But we still have a right on whether we choose to be in polygamy relationship be it as a first wife, second wife, third or fourth...

:wa:

[Asiyah3]

Well, assuming that in the polyandrous marriage the family lives together under one roof, the child would obviously know his/her biological father. I'm not assuming here that the woman gives birth to children from men who abandon her (I feel like that's what you think I said); I'm saying that this family lives united, like any other modern polygamous family.

Peace,

I'm sorry, I still don't understand this point. In a polygamous family there is only one man who can be the father. In a polyandrous family there's (let's say) 4 men at the same time. When the woman becomes pregnant, how could the child or mother obviously know the baby's biological father when she sleeps with 4 men at the same time?

Well let's think about it. In a polygynous marriage, where you have (let's say) one man and 3 women, he could essentially impregnate them all almost at the same time, so in an ideal situation you will have 3 children in 9 months. In comparison, in a polyandrous marriage, with one woman and 3 men, since she is the only female, only 1 child would be born to the family in 9 months. That's why I was saying that in a polyandrous marriage (1 woman, and 2+ men) there would be less children.

True, you're right. May be this is one of the reasons why Allah has allowed polygamy. In Islam, we are encouraged to have a lot of children.

Regarding the family having better income in polyandry, a Muslim man isn't allowed to marry a second wife, unless he's able to spend on his families (along with treating the women fairly).

I agree with you, but I didn't mean to say that the nannies should do all the raising; only that they should help the mother if necessary.

Okay.

I would feel very sorry for a woman who had to give birth to 10 children, as you exemplified :p

I would actually envy her (in a good way), not in polyandry of course. Allah will definitely reward her.

'A'isha, the wife of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), said: A woman came to me along with her two daughters. She asked me for (charity) but she found nothing with me except one date, so I gave her that. She accepted it and then divided it between her two daughters and herself ate nothing out of that. She then got up and went out, and so did her two daughters. (In the meanwhile) Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) visited me and I narrated to him her story. Thereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: He who is involved (in the responsibility) of (bringing up) daughters, and he accords benevolent treatment towards them, there would be protection for him against Hell-Fire. (Saheeh Muslim, Book #032, Hadith #6362)

We should also remember the purpose of life. We aren't here for this life's temporary amusement.

Perhaps, lol. I think it's a matter of culture, though. We should remember that the earliest human societies were matriarchal (with a woman being the leader), and polyandry was a common practice in them. So it's not necessarily within the realm of impossibility -- humans have done this, and in fact there are some tribes today that still practice it.

I don't know about those tribes. However, I pretty much doubt men would handle it so nicely these days.

[Thucydides1987]

When the woman becomes pregnant, how could the child or mother obviously know the baby's biological father when she sleeps with 4 men at the same time?

Well, you can work something out. For example, as silly as this may sound, all the other husbands except for the one you want to conceive with can use contraceptives. But if you really don't know, you can just get a DNA test; that's one capability we never had before.

We should also remember the purpose of life. We aren't here for this life's temporary amusement.

Here we obviously differ vastly :p I do believe that this life is it. However, I don't want to spend it just philandering around and over-satisfying my base desires. I strive to (and will always) cultivate my faculties as much as I can; just like Socrates famously said, "an unexamined life is not worth living." Although, not that there is anything wrong with desire -- after all, it's part of your nature; the important part is identifying what is good desire and what is harmful, as well as not stepping beyond the boundaries of moderation.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

..all the other husbands except for the one you want to conceive with can use contraceptives. .

huh , what if all husbands want baby or don't want baby but did not use contraceptives ?


.

you can just get a DNA test.

but DNA will be done when a baby is born. It's husband's duty to take care of wife all the time including her whole pregancy period. what if all husbnads deny that it's not my baby but yours , so I won't spend now , u do ?


Also , it's not Islamic to go for DNA test to decide who is the real father after each baby is born .. a woman has one husband and he MUST be the father of the child.

PS. Did u talk to any doc about the risk of men and women having relationship with 4 persons at a time ? If a woman specially pregnant woman has 4 partners , is that good or bad for her ?

[Ummu Sufyaan]

But if you really don't know, you can just get a DNA test; that's one capability we never had before.

not everyone has access to DNA testing and it certainly wasn't around until relatively recent.

[Thucydides1987]

Also , it's not Islamic to go for DNA test to decide who is the real father after each baby is born .. a woman has one husband and he MUST be the father of the child.

I don't understand. You don't 'decide' who the real father is by getting a child's DNA test, you find out. And why would it be unislamic to get a DNA test?

[Thucydides1987]

not everyone has access to DNA testing and it certainly wasn't around until relatively recent.

Why does everyone not have an access to a DNA test if they request it of their doctor? That procedure should be covered by the health care plans of most Western countries (well, except maybe the US).

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ Peace

.... you find out. And why would it be unislamic to get a DNA test?

A Muslim woman has only one husband . So , she does not need a DNA test to
' find out' who is the daddy of her child.

A Muslim husband / any Muslim must not suspect wife / any Muslim lady that she has relationship with others. Here is the related verse:

And those who accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever, they indeed are the Fasiqoon (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allah).

( سورة النور , An-Noor, Chapter #24, Verse #4)

And Almighty Allah Knows Best.

[جوري]

Why does everyone not have an access to a DNA test if they request it of their doctor? That procedure should be covered by the health care plans of most Western countries (well, except maybe the US).

you should take a course on medical ethic:..
http://www.amazon.com/Medical-Ethics...2375758&sr=8-2
paternity isn't determined by DNA tests.. else every sperm donor would end up responsible financially for his sown wild oats.. I am not sure what is more absurd, your brand of ethos or the accommodations societal financial and medical that have to be made to sustain it. If you have to complicate a formula this much with all those hilarious variables you add and tweak for anyone to make some semblance of sense of what you are saying then it simply nullifies itself as truth. Further, no sane country would squander its resources and tax payers money on paternity tests, it wouldn't even make it as a top ten list of priorities simply because you decidedly so declared that an excellent option under the guise of progress or freedom. More importantly and perhaps a factor you can't at all account for with your admirable imagination is how many women would want to have more than one husband and how she'd fairly divide her time between them, child birth and periods included..

We again suggest that you reflect a little before you write!

all the best

[Thucydides1987]

paternity isn't determined by DNA tests

You're talking about the testing of Mitochondrial DNA, which only provides the maternal line of a person. Nuclear DNA would provide you with the evidence that you need about the father.

What YOU say is so absurd. How do you think criminal investigators help rape victims (who were impregnated) find out about the father of their child? It's all through DNA profiling. I swear I am not going to respond to you any longer, it's all such a waste of my time.

[جوري]

You're talking about the testing of Mitochondrial DNA, which only provides the maternal line of a person. Nuclear DNA would provide you with the evidence that you need about the father.

No-That ISN'T AT ALL what I am talking about. I am talking about ethics in medicine, you know there is such a thing!- I have provided you with a link for a pioneer in the field and I recommend you do some light reading before gauging in topics clearly outside your field of expertise-- From the book or similar to it, you'll come to learn that for instance a woman who became pregnant and later divorced, her ex. is still responsible for child support even if at a later date he comes to learn that he isn't the biological father of said child. I'd recommend you not throw around terms or make presumptive statements simply because you believe that you are educated.. the terms come out funny, and I understand how impressed you are with your person, but believe me it isn't having the effect you are hoping for on others!

What YOU say is so absurd. How do you think criminal investigators help rape victims (who were impregnated) find out about the father of their child? It's all through DNA profiling. I swear I am not going to respond to you any longer, it's all such a waste of my time.

Try not to be so literal and linear in your thought process it makes it rather boring on top of absurd to reply to you!
and I'd recommend indeed that you not respond and keep that 'swear' to whatever god you pray to, as you only serve to humiliate and embarrass yourself on multiple levels!

all the best

[CosmicPathos]

You're talking about the testing of Mitochondrial DNA, which only provides the maternal line of a person. Nuclear DNA would provide you with the evidence that you need about the father.

What YOU say is so absurd. How do you think criminal investigators help rape victims (who were impregnated) find out about the father of their child? It's all through DNA profiling. I swear I am not going to respond to you any longer, it's all such a waste of my time.

how the heck you concluded that she was talking about mitochondrial dna testing? You just wanted to throw that out there to sound smart, did not you? There was no suggestion of mt DNA whatsoever, yet you brought it in and also tried to put "icing on the cake" by using the term "nuclear." Not impressed at all, I learnt all that in grade 8.

[جوري]

I learnt all that in grade 8.

regrettably that is exactly where he is stuck, not only are his visions of a free world puerile at best and not remotely in concert with any country's ethics, social structure or even economic spending (on the periphery) he compounds it with utmost sophomoric expostulations on Islamic jurisprudence, his attempts at 'refutations' energy-sapping and mind numbing, and he completely misses the point-- I hazard say he doesn't read past one line.. I am starting to believe that atheists at large are incapable of an abstract thought, their definition of logic confined to a very basic and telescopic view, mix in the formula a little pomposity, delusions of grandiosity and the frequent drive by shootings with the threat of leaving as if we're all awaiting those tinkles of wisdom and there you have it. Perfect prototype summed up in a paragraph!

ugh..

:w:

[Ummu Sufyaan]

Why does everyone not have an access to a DNA test if they request it of their doctor? That procedure should be covered by the health care plans of most Western countries (well, except maybe the US).

becuase some people live in remote areas. some people live in countries that arent really developed enough and therefore dont have accesses to DNA testing...there are alot of reasons why people may not have have accesses to DNA testing. not everyone has it easy.

in fact you will probably find that the people who do indeed practice polygamy come from poverty stricken background and backgrounds that, in comparison to some other areas in the world, may not be as developed. so where DNA testing would most be needed, it may not even be available anyway.

[Ramadhan]

Why does everyone not have an access to a DNA test if they request it of their doctor?

So anyone in Saparua, Maluku can march straight to their local hospital and demand a DNA test?

Oooh.... you are sooo smart...you...

atheists are friggin' smart, aren't they?

[Insaanah]

But if you really don't know, you can just get a DNA test

This is of no relevance to us. The husband-wife union is such that when the wife discovers she is pregnant, the husband and wife both acknowledge that inshaaAlla (God-willing) they will become the parents of that child and give thanks to God and pray for the well-being of mother and baby. In these early stages, there are problems such as morning sickness etc, which the husband helps her through. He sees her going through this for carrying his child, and helps her. In the "find out who the father is" society, she wouldn't yet know who the father is. DNA testing means at the point the woman discovers she is pregnant she has no idea whose child she is carrying until she reaches a certain number of weeks gestation required to perform the test. All the potential fathers wait to find out if they are the one, and she waits to see who is the father. A society where you have to do tests to find out who the father of your child is, is not a society even remotely encouraged by Islam. Even if there was a test that could tell you as soon as you discovered you were pregnant who the father was, that makes no difference. No tests should ever be involved to determine parentage. Clear lineage should be established at all times - the unborn child has an unwavering right to that. And we do not have to do tests to find out. Muslim women enjoy that knowledge and certainty that their husband is the father of their child, from the word go. We Muslims have so much to be thankful for.

And actually, we don't even need to give scientific reasons for why polyandry is not allowed. The reason we don't do it is this: we obey the rules set by our Creator. And He forbade it. Simple.

Peace.