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

  • Thread starter Thread starter غزالی
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 53
  • Views Views 14K
غزالی

غزالی

Elite Member
Messages
260
Reaction score
77
Gender
Male
Religion
Islam
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
2 -Status of Women Throughout the Ages


3 - Women's Rights in Islam

4 - Equality of Men & Women in Islam

5 - Misconceptions About Women's Rights

Conclusion



 
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
 
Jenell said:
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
Click to expand...

well said. wa alykum salam.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.php?name=News&file=article&sid=271
 
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.
 
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.
 
^^ 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.
 
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.
 
Thucydides1987 said:
My refutations, madam :p
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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/tvshowbi...y-Sir-Michael-Gambon-68-father--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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1389847 said:
1- it is perfectly natural in the west for people to end up with incestuous relationships with their siblings
Click to expand...

"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.

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1389847 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1389847 said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thucydides1987 said:
"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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
This is my brand of friendly too!

all the best
 
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1389860 said:
who abolished it? your lack of interest in a family unit doesn't reflect society at large, east or west!
Click to expand...

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.


τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1389860 said:
incest is very much a product of the societal changes you desire to introduce to us as civilized and modern!
Click to expand...

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

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1389860 said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 


Thucydides1987 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top