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

[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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.