Are these allegations true? (Genuine question.)

[Broken Arrow]

I'm sure there have probably been many threads of this kind, so apologies. Nevertheless....I recently finished reading 'Infidel' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in which (I imagine the book is already familiar/infamous to many) she tells her life story; raised as a Muslim in Somalia, then her later loss of faith, emigration to Holland and entrance into the Dutch parliament. She went from being a devout Muslim to an uncompromising critic not only of Muslim people/countries/way of life, but of the Qu'ran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam itself. The two main reasons for this, as far as I could see, were that (according to her) Islam itself involves promotion of;

a) Aggression towards non-Muslims
b) Subservience of women and their ill-treatment by men.


She mentions injunctions in the Qu'ran to wage holy war on infidels, and for husbands to beat wives who are not sufficiently submissive. She also relates a story that the Prophet Muhammad was promised a girl for a wife when she was age six, the marriage being consummated when the girl was nine, the Prophet being around age fifty-three.




Before reading this book, I generally preached tolerance towards all lifestyles, and that no-one really has the right to arrogantly and patronizingly criticise another culture, unless the oppressed in that culture were calling out for help (or could be assumed to be.) Now I'm not so sure. While I respect Islam as a religion and a cultural tradition, I would feel enjoined to speak out critically of the aforementioned elements if they are indeed true.

So that is my question, before I enter truly into this opinion; are the above fair accusations to level at Islam, or are they not representative of some/most/all Islam?

 

[Malaikah]

Firstly, I would like to thank you for being open minded enough to ask for the Muslims perspective before believing it unquestioningly.

I haven't got time to provide you with a complete answer, but the women is not truthful. She lies, exaggerates, takes thing out of context and goes completely out of her way to make the most decent things in Islam look bad. She mixes up culture and religion. She is foul-mouthed and does nothing but incite hatred.

a) Aggression towards non-Muslims

Context is important. If the non-Muslims are attacking the Muslims, then you can't possible expect us to let then go on with it without fighting back.

In general however Muslims are to treat non-Muslims well. The classic example sited here is that of the Prophet Muhammad's pbuh jewish neighbour. He used to throw insults at him and put his rubbish in his yard. But the Prophet didn't retaliate. One day the Prophet noticed the absence of the man (and his abuse) and so inquired about him, found that he was sick, and so went to visit him. The Jewish man was so astounded that he converted to Islam.

b) Subservience of women and their ill-treatment by men.

That is false. No one is allowed to treat any one badly. It is true that between husband and wife (only) husband is given the role of the leader of the family, so his word goes, however he must consult with his wife, consider her opinion and treat her well. Ill treatment is forbidden.

She mentions injunctions in the Qu'ran to wage holy war on infidels,

Probably taken out of context, and wars always have a reason. They never happen "just because".

and for husbands to beat wives who are not sufficiently submissive.

False, hitting the wife lightly in a way that does not cause harm and not on the face has been made permissible only as a last resort in the case of a manifestly disobedient wife who is indulging in some very wrong action.

She also relates a story that the Prophet Muhammad was promised a girl for a wife when she was age six, the marriage being consummated when the girl was nine, the Prophet being around age fifty-three.

That is correct, (although I am not sure how old the Prophet was, certainly 40+) however this was the cultural norm of the time, and was completely accepted. Age gaps didn't mean much to the Arabs of that time. Therefore we can't judge him based on the standards of our own time. Not to mention his wife loved him dearly, so I don't see one what bases anyone can object to this.

Hope that helps.

 

[The_Prince]

I'm sure there have probably been many threads of this kind, so apologies. Nevertheless....I recently finished reading 'Infidel' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in which (I imagine the book is already familiar/infamous to many) she tells her life story; raised as a Muslim in Somalia, then her later loss of faith, emigration to Holland and entrance into the Dutch parliament. She went from being a devout Muslim to an uncompromising critic not only of Muslim people/countries/way of life, but of the Qu'ran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam itself. The two main reasons for this, as far as I could see, were that (according to her) Islam itself involves promotion of;

a) Aggression towards non-Muslims
b) Subservience of women and their ill-treatment by men.


She mentions injunctions in the Qu'ran to wage holy war on infidels, and for husbands to beat wives who are not sufficiently submissive. She also relates a story that the Prophet Muhammad was promised a girl for a wife when she was age six, the marriage being consummated when the girl was nine, the Prophet being around age fifty-three.




Before reading this book, I generally preached tolerance towards all lifestyles, and that no-one really has the right to arrogantly and patronizingly criticise another culture, unless the oppressed in that culture were calling out for help (or could be assumed to be.) Now I'm not so sure. While I respect Islam as a religion and a cultural tradition, I would feel enjoined to speak out critically of the aforementioned elements if they are indeed true.

So that is my question, before I enter truly into this opinion; are the above fair accusations to level at Islam, or are they not representative of some/most/all Islam?

that is abit of a paradoxal statement, since you live in a society full of what you just said your against, which is being bad to women and treating them as low class people, and on top of that your culture has a huge history up to this day of being agressive to minorities and people not of white origin.

so go on and speak out against it in your society, go speak out against strip bars, sex slaves, women selling themselves like trash on tv, the large number of assaults by men on women etc, on top of that go speak out against the daily racism that happens in scotland. that would be a good start for you instead of conerning yourself with Islam from the words of a lady who faked her citizenship and got deported by the netherlands! sheesh.

 

[Broken Arrow]

that is abit of a paradoxal statement, since you live in a society full of what you just said your against, which is being bad to women and treating them as low class people, and on top of that your culture has a huge history up to this day of being agressive to minorities and people not of white origin.

so go on and speak out against it in your society, go speak out against strip bars, sex slaves, women selling themselves like trash on tv, the large number of assaults by men on women etc, on top of that go speak out against the daily racism that happens in scotland. that would be a good start for you instead of conerning yourself with Islam from the words of a lady who faked her citizenship and got deported by the netherlands! sheesh.

Hey, steady on! As the previous poster was good enough to notice, I have obviously come here with an open mind, asking this question. The racism and sexism that has been, and still is (although to a lesser extent) prevalent in Britain is a great source of embarrassment and regret to both myself and the majority of the population. However, there is a difference; Britain today condemns any type of discrimination, whereas, at least as I was led to believe by Ali, this is not necessarily the case in Islam/Islamic countries. I do not deny that racism and sexism exist in Britain and/or the West generally, they certainly do. But the majority of people are appalled by these injustices, and the governments strongly condemn them. While I recognize the need to speak out against such things in my own country (and I do, thanks) what would be of more concern to me would be a state that actually sanctions such injustice, because in such a society there would not even be the chance of moving towards fairness.

Firstly, I would like to thank you for being open minded enough to ask for the Muslims perspective before believing it unquestioningly.

And you for answering me fairly.

It is true that between husband and wife (only) husband is given the role of the leader of the family, so his word goes, however he must consult with his wife, consider her opinion and treat her well.

False, hitting the wife lightly in a way that does not cause harm and not on the face has been made permissible only as a last resort in the case of a manifestly disobedient wife who is indulging in some very wrong action.

For the other things, I'll try and look up the scripture that was cited. For now, though, I have enough to disagree about in the above quotes! My main question is simply: why? Why would a man automatically take this role? Why is he more qualified to make decisions than his wife? And why is it permissible for a man to (however gently) strike his wife if she is 'disobedient'?

That is correct, (although I am not sure how old the Prophet was, certainly 40+) however this was the cultural norm of the time, and was completely accepted. Age gaps didn't mean much to the Arabs of that time. Therefore we can't judge him based on the standards of our own time.

Here it seems you almost commit yourself to agreeing with what I am about to say: If we can't judge things from a millennium and a half ago based on today's standards, and if the Prophet Mohammad merely reflects the 'cultural norm of his time', then why should we not judge all of Islam in this way? Why would we not apply the same reasoning to a strongly patriarchal system that was maybe suited to a desert-dwellers' society around 1500 years ago, but to many now seems to give women an unfair deal?

 

[Malaikah]

For the other things, I'll try and look up the scripture that was cited. For now, though, I have enough to disagree about in the above quotes! My main question is simply: why? Why would a man automatically take this role? Why is he more qualified to make decisions than his wife?

It isn't so much about qualification and the like. It is based on division of responsibilities based on what the genders are more capable of doing. I can't give you a definite answer to this one, however, in Islam the husband is given the duty of taking care of the family. He is responsible other his wife and children. He has to provide for them, so he is the one responsible for making the money and making sure everything is running well. This is the responsibility given to the husband. And I think you would appreciate that part of fulfilling this responsibility is having the rest of the family take you seriously and listen to you and let you have the final say. Otherwise how else can you fulfil your role?

That role can't be given to women, they have their own things to worry about, specifically looking after the kids. I don't think anyone in their right minds can doubt that it is the women who are innately built for this role, especially in early years. It would be a great burden then for the women to have the role of being mother and having authority and responsibility other the whole family.

But I would like to emphasis that in no way does this mean that the husband has to right to abuse his authority. That is clearly against the way of the Prophet. He used to treat his wives very well, always valued their opinions and would consult them and would go to great lengths to avoid hurting them. This is part of the husbands responsibility.

And why is it permissible for a man to (however gently) strike his wife if she is 'disobedient'?

But why not? If the alternative is divorce? The purpose of him hitting her (lightly) is a last resort effort to get the wife to come back to her senses, in a case where the alternative would be divorce, and the negative consequences of divorce would be much worse than that of a light hit.

Also note that the hitting can only take place when the husband is clearly in the right and the wife is wrong, and wrong is something very serious that it would require the husband to go to great lengths to try to correct, that the husband has already tried talking to his wife and failed, he has abandoned her bed in the attempt to make her see the seriousness of the situation and this has also failed, and then, and only then would it be permissible for him to hit her lightly as a last resort.

What you should notice here is that Islam has actually places a major restriction on domestic violence and totally forbids it, thereby protecting women. If you understand this you should also be able to understand why it is a blatant lie for people to claim that Islam allows wife beating.

Here it seems you almost commit yourself to agreeing with what I am about to say: If we can't judge things from a millennium and a half ago based on today's standards, and if the Prophet Mohammad merely reflects the 'cultural norm of his time', then why should we not judge all of Islam in this way? Why would we not apply the same reasoning to a strongly patriarchal system that was maybe suited to a desert-dwellers' society around 1500 years ago, but to many now seems to give women an unfair deal?

Not quite. Islam is a religion that Allah intended to last until the last day, and it was designed as such.

In principle a man is perfectly with in his rights to marry a girl of any age as long as she has reached puberty (I don't know if this applies to very extreme cases where the girl might reach puberty at say, five because of a defect). Similarly an older woman may marry a much younger boy as well, provided he has reached the age of puberty.

Some may argue that this can lead to abuse of the child, and that is rather correct. In the context of the Prophets society, there was nothing to worry about. The context of most modern societies, most people would be worried that the man is a paedophile, and rightly so because it is something extremely unusual for this day and age. Islamic law is flexible enough to take into account such social variations, and it would be permissible for government institutions to place restrictions on the age of marriage based important social elements, in order to protect the young girl.

But keep in mind that this does not mean we are changing Islam to suit something else, rather such flexibilities are already a part of Islamic law.

Oh, and by the way, I am a Muslim woman and I have never ever felt like Islam has given me an unfair deal. Rather I am proud of the protection and honour Islam has bestowed upon women, and had given us important rights well before other societies received them.

Hope that helps!

 

[Broken Arrow]

It isn't so much about qualification and the like. It is based on division of responsibilities based on what the genders are more capable of doing. I can't give you a definite answer to this one, however, in Islam the husband is given the duty of taking care of the family. He is responsible other his wife and children. He has to provide for them, so he is the one responsible for making the money and making sure everything is running well. This is the responsibility given to the husband. And I think you would appreciate that part of fulfilling this responsibility is having the rest of the family take you seriously and listen to you and let you have the final say. Otherwise how else can you fulfil your role?

That role can't be given to women, they have their own things to worry about, specifically looking after the kids. I don't think anyone in their right minds can doubt that it is the women who are innately built for this role, especially in early years. It would be a great burden then for the women to have the role of being mother and having authority and responsibility other the whole family.

But I would like to emphasis that in no way does this mean that the husband has to right to abuse his authority. That is clearly against the way of the Prophet. He used to treat his wives very well, always valued their opinions and would consult them and would go to great lengths to avoid hurting them. This is part of the husbands responsibility.

I appreciate that you say you can't give me a definite answer, but then....there does indeed seem to be no answer as to how it is fair that it will always be assumed that the man is 'head of the family' and has the final say. You say that it is based on what the different genders are more capable of doing, but I don't really see the basis for such an assumption. Can there not be women who are suited to earning the family's income and making important decisions? Can there not be a couple who work best as equal wage-earners and decision-makers? Surely it's not written in stone what men and women's natural 'roles' are? And why may men have more than one wife, but not vice versa? (Unless that isn't true?)

Quote:
And why is it permissible for a man to (however gently) strike his wife if she is 'disobedient'?

But why not? If the alternative is divorce?

This I strongly disagree with. Firstly, I think that there is no situation between two people that cannot be solved by mature and equal discussion. If there is a situation that cannot be resolved, then a parting of the ways is far preferable to resorting to violence. Firstly, I think that domestic violence has at least as many bad consequences as divorce; it can (and should, really) lead to resentment on the part of the person being subjected to violence, it is deeply traumatic for the children if they are aware of their parents physically fighting, it teaches children that if a conflict cannot be resolved through words, violence will do, and it also leaves substantial room for abuse of the rule and thus abuse of the wife. Secondly, it doesn't actually solve anything at all - a husband hitting a wife to make her obey is a very different thing to a solution; it is simply a wife obeying, without anything being resolved. I don't really understand the horror towards divorce - sure its a terrible and sad thing, but I think that a situation where feelings are pressed down and the wife simply obeys a husband following the use of hitting is a much less healthy alternative for both the couple and the children.

Also note that the hitting can only take place when the husband is clearly in the right and the wife is wrong, and wrong is something very serious that it would require the husband to go to great lengths to try to correct, that the husband has already tried talking to his wife and failed, he has abandoned her bed in the attempt to make her see the seriousness of the situation and this has also failed, and then, and only then would it be permissible for him to hit her lightly as a last resort.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that it should ever need to go to those lengths. If a wife has done something sufficiently offensive to the husband - had an affair, beaten a child etc. then perhaps a divorce is for the best. Plus, if a man had been similarly bad - would it be ok for the wife to hit him to 'bring him to his senses'?

 

[aamirsaab]

...Can there not be women who are suited to earning the family's income and making important decisions? Can there not be a couple who work best as equal wage-earners and decision-makers?

Yes for both questions

Surely it's not written in stone what men and women's natural 'roles' are?

No they are not. However certain genders are more suited to certain jobs in terms of phsyiology and psychology.

And why may men have more than one wife, but not vice versa? (Unless that isn't true?)

Ah polygamy - this always manages to get into a thread. Basically, 4 is the maximum one CAN have, provided one is actually able to fund/care for each of the wives. It is not obligatory to have more than one wife. Polyandery (many husbands to one wife) generally occurs in low economical areas so it is more of a cultural thing - I'm not sure what the islamic ruling is on this though (I don't think there is one at all)

This I strongly disagree with. Firstly, I think that there is no situation between two people that cannot be solved by mature and equal discussion.

Absolutely.

If there is a situation that cannot be resolved, then a parting of the ways is far preferable to resorting to violence.

Indeed. I believe the verse you are refering to actually has different interpretations, one of them being that it doesn't mean literally hit them. Unfortunately not everyone who reads that verse actually understands it properly.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that it should ever need to go to those lengths. If a wife has done something sufficiently offensive to the husband - had an affair, beaten a child etc. then perhaps a divorce is for the best.

Indeed. It is not comulsory to hit your wife .

Plus, if a man had been similarly bad - would it be ok for the wife to hit him to 'bring him to his senses'?

It would be equally wrong.

 

[جوري]

we get a new one of these every few weeks... a new avant-garde crusader comes to ask the questions that us Muslims like to hide in the closet... eh I think I'll sit this one out while assuming an incurably servile "female-type" role...

peace!

 

[Bittersteel]

a) Aggression towards non-Muslims

search for Misquoted verses of the Quran in the forum search.
about the military conquests done by Muslims,imposition of religion/culture it was done by everyone else centuries ago even by the noble Dutch and the British.
I am not trying to justify.It's that those military conquests and aggression were rather the personal ambition of leaders.
The Spread of Islam has not always been by the sword.There had been many peaceful conversions like in the SouthEast regions of Asia if I am not mistaken.

 

[Malaikah]

Before I continue, I would like to point out something very important here. A person does not choose a religion, or follow a religion based on secondary issues, such as those that we are discussing here. It would be impossible, our minds are way to limited and subjective to ever be able to tell which religion is best based on these kinds of issues, especially because only God knows best what it is better for us. Rather we choose a religion based on which religion has the best theology, i.e. the belief system. Islam wins in that respect, hands down. Once a person accepts that Islam is a divine religion sent down to humanity by God, then they have no choice but to accept that the rulings of the religion come from God and are best for us, even if we can not always see it that way.

I appreciate that you say you can't give me a definite answer, but then....there does indeed seem to be no answer as to how it is fair that it will always be assumed that the man is 'head of the family' and has the final say. You say that it is based on what the different genders are more capable of doing, but I don't really see the basis for such an assumption. Can there not be women who are suited to earning the family's income and making important decisions? Can there not be a couple who work best as equal wage-earners and decision-makers? Surely it's not written in stone what men and women's natural 'roles' are? And why may men have more than one wife, but not vice versa? (Unless that isn't true?)

How are women meant to provide for the family when they are prgnant and looking after their little babies? To force them to would be just cruel. That doesn't mean they can't work, they have the right to, but they can't be forced to.

And no, women can not have multiple husbands mainly for the simple reason of not being able know who the father of the child is. Now one might argue that we have genetic testing now to be able to tell, but this is only a new invention and is not accessible to much of the world anyway, and does not solve many other issues. For example, if the husbands both want to have kids they have to wait for the wife to finish with the first child, which is about nine months for the pregnancy about at least a month before another child can be conceived, and the rivalry between the husbands would be unbelievable, and difficult for the woman to control, especially during emotional times such as pregnancy and when the child is still young. There are many other reasons, which I am sure should be obvious if you just think about it a little more.

Also, through history you will find that the norm has always been for men to have multiple wives, never the other way around. This is because men are more able to fulfil their role of as head of the family, protector and provider even if they have multiple wives, but it just doesn't work the other way around.

This I strongly disagree with. Firstly, I think that there is no situation between two people that cannot be solved by mature and equal discussion.

I think it would be impossible for you, or anyone else, to know that.

If there is a situation that cannot be resolved, then a parting of the ways is far preferable to resorting to violence.

Not always.

Firstly, I think that domestic violence has at least as many bad consequences as divorce; it can (and should, really) lead to resentment on the part of the person being subjected to violence, it is deeply traumatic for the children if they are aware of their parents physically fighting, it teaches children that if a conflict cannot be resolved through words, violence will do, and it also leaves substantial room for abuse of the rule and thus abuse of the wife.
Secondly, it doesn't actually solve anything at all - a husband hitting a wife to make her obey is a very different thing to a solution; it is simply a wife obeying, without anything being resolved. I don't really understand the horror towards divorce - sure its a terrible and sad thing, but I think that a situation where feelings are pressed down and the wife simply obeys a husband following the use of hitting is a much less healthy alternative for both the couple and the children.

Firstly, the husband and wife would be idiotic to let the children see. Secondly, we are talking about very light hitting only, in a manner that doesn't cause harm and as a last resort, wife the aim of knocking her wife back into her senses, and only if the husband thinks it will be effective. This is not domestic violence.

There is no room to abuse this rule with out deliberately twisting it and knowing that what he is doing is wrong. Such a person clearly doesn't care about following the religion properly and would probably hit his wife just to satisfy his anger, whether the religion forbade it or not. (and no, he is not allowed to hit his wife just to satisfy his anger).

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that it should ever need to go to those lengths. If a wife has done something sufficiently offensive to the husband - had an affair, beaten a child etc. then perhaps a divorce is for the best. Plus, if a man had been similarly bad - would it be ok for the wife to hit him to 'bring him to his senses'?

But no one has made you a spokesperson for the billion or so couples out there and their billion or so different situations. At least statistically speaking there would be situations where this would be effective. If you really think divorce is better than a light hit than you clearly don't understand how traumatic and negative the effects of divorce can be, especially on the children.

As you have already mentioned, in most cases, all it really takes is for the husband and wife to sit down and talk things over to fix the problem. This is what Islam tells couples to do first, and only if that doesn't work are they to move on to stage two. So then even you would have to admit that it would very rare for couples to even reach the step about hitting lightly.

And no, the wife doesn't hit the husband, any one should be able to understand why. Many men are arrogant that way and are likely to hit back. How is that a protection for women?

 

[Intisar]

LOL Ayan Hirsi herself has proven to be a money-hungry idiot to not only to Muslims, but not to Non-Muslims as well. You can find many contradictions between all of her books, you should take nothing she says into consideration.

She is just repeating the same b/s we Muslims hear all the time, and it falls on deaf ears each time.

I doubt she actually took the time to think through her allegiations towards Islam. She's just another blind idiot in it for the money.

As for your above statements, I was going to take the time to rebut each of them..but I see the work is already done.

 

[Malaikah]

^That is right sis. Honestly, after she started describing herself as a "Muslim atheist", I can't believe that anyone actually takes anything she says seriously.

 

[Trumble]

Secondly, we are talking about very light hitting only, in a manner that doesn't cause harm and as a last resort, wife the aim of knocking her wife back into her senses, and only if the husband thinks it will be effective. This is not domestic violence.

Yes it is. It really is terribly sad you seem think otherwise.

 

[rav]

And no, the wife doesn't hit the husband, any one should be able to understand why. Men are arrogant that way and a re likely to hit back. How is that a protection for women?

Excuse me? Are you labeling men as so arrogant that they will hit a women if she ever hit us? I'm not sure what kind of assumptions you have of men, but I assure you that it is insulting for you to label me (as a male), as someone who would ever be so "arrogant" as you put it.

Could you also provide me with such an Islamic text of how men are labeled "arrogant"?

 

[Malaikah]

Sorry rav I don't mean to offend.

I didn't mean it as a sweeping generalisation (although I realise now that is how it came across).

I just meant to say there a some men, and I believe they are a significant amount, who will hit back if a woman ever dared to hit them, especially those very influenced by their culture where they see men as superior to women.

And I am sure we can all appreciate that the danger to the wife of a husband hitting back is much greater than that danger to the husband if the wife were to hit back (in general).

Yes it is. It really is terribly sad you seem think otherwise.

Well, I will take God's law over man's law any day.

 

[Broken Arrow]

we get a new one of these every few weeks... a new avant-garde crusader comes to ask the questions that us Muslims like to hide in the closet... eh I think I'll sit this one out while assuming an incurably servile "female-type" role...

peace!

I'm just going to re-post this there so you can read it back to yourself and see how immature it is.

If all you feel you can manage is to be presumptuous and offensive then why not just keep your thoughts to yourself? I have not come here with some petty hope of 'making Muslims feel uncomfortable' or something. I have just read some things that trouble me, and I would like to hear it from 'the horse's mouth' as it were, before I come to any conclusions. Reading the OP (and charitably) would have helped.

For example, aamirsaab if what you say is true then I am indeed heartened. How representative do you think what you describe is of all Islam? I mean, are the accusations just total fabrications, or do they apply to only certain parts of the world or what? (I appreciate that you've given me answers largely to do with the Qu'ran and I'm now asking about various cultures.)

But no one has made you a spokesperson for the billion or so couples out there and their billion or so different situations.

Well I won't make the obvious reply here, since I appreciate that then the debate soon becomes about the existence of Allah, and that isn't (strictly) what this is about. All I can do is try and speak genuinely about how I see things. I don't see a problem with people doing that if it can lead to enlightened discussion and sharing of ideas.

She is just repeating the same b/s we Muslims hear all the time, and it falls on deaf ears each time.

When criticisms 'fall on deaf ears each time' is perhaps when people start to mutter about 'dogmatism' etc.

I doubt she actually took the time to think through her allegiations towards Islam. She's just another blind idiot in it for the money.

Well look...I'm not going to get all righteously indignant on Ali's behalf, I don't really know anything about her or her motivations. But this is someone who fled things that (to me, at least, with respect) seem horrific ie. female circumcision, arranged and unwilling marriage, and that, at least in her life experience, appeared to be directly sanctioned by Islam. To call her a 'blind idiot in it for the money' and to say that her criticisms will always fall on deaf ears serves to make her argument appear much more cogent.

Honestly, after she started describing herself as a "Muslim atheist", I can't believe that anyone actually takes anything she says seriously.

I have never seen that description, but I'll take your word for it. Nowadays, as far as I can see, she refers to herself simply as 'atheist'. Perhaps she was referring to her being culturally 'Muslim' but in terms of belief, athiest?


Malaikah, my main problem is that your arguments, reasonable as they are, seem largely to be based around what will 'work out best' or something. It works best if a man is the head of the house, it solves a problem if a man gently hits his wife to end a dispute, and this is better than divorce, which is messy, sad and riven with bad consequences....

Obviously I cannot claim to be objectively right, as I said, I can only say how I feel....and I'm just being painted a picture of a marriage where the functioning of the family unit is put above all else. Perhaps you think this is right; I am not so sure. If a man has hitting, even only as a very last resort, to resolve disputes, and a woman will always be expected to demur to her husband, then I can't see how a healthy and loving marriage can arise from this. I know this is just my opinion, I can't speak for etc etc...but my experience of relationships is that the only healthy way for them to function is if neither person has precedence, and arguments are allowed to happen. (I know you'll say that this can happen in Islamic marriages as well.) But if an argument seems never-ending, then perhaps an impasse has been reached between the two people, at which point it would be healthier to separate rather than sidestep or repress the problem.

 

[glo]

we get a new one of these every few weeks... a new avant-garde crusader comes to ask the questions that us Muslims like to hide in the closet... eh I think I'll sit this one out while assuming an incurably servile "female-type" role...

peace!

By the very nature of this forum, newcomers will come with their individual questions ... some of which will be repeated over and over.
(Believe me, I feel like that when with every thread that is started about the trinity ... you get that sinking feeling ... )

It looks to me like Broken Arrow is asking some genuine questions, and we should give him a chance to do so, and reply with patience and kindness.

I think you are very wise, Ambrosia - if someone is not in the right frame of mind to enter discussions with patience and kindness, it may be better to stay out of it.

Welcome, Broken Arrow!
I hope you enjoy your stay here, and find some answers to your questions.

Peace

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

a) Aggression towards non-Muslims

First of all thank you for taking time to find out the truth, may Allah bless you with his divine guidance.

The Quran has many quotes such as "kill the disbelievers wherever you see them", an ayyat quoted very infamously yet seems to always be out of context. You see this was actually during a war in which the jews betrayed the muslims, so naturally the general of the muslim army feared for the muslims being slaughtered and thus called for the traitors to be executed. It is understandable for traitors to be executed, especially those who betray the trust of God and his Messenger sallallahi alaihi wasallaam.

Other then that islam teaches to be merciful, just, and forebearing. But dont expect the muslims to hold patience too long, we are also taught to stand up for ourselves against oppression, and stand up for our brothers and sisters (other muslims around the world) if they be oppressed ! Standing up here could indeed mean fight for them, but for that we need a whole state ready and we need scholars to research on the matter and declare it. So far this hasnt happened for a long time... so relax .

If you read history of islam you may find that during the caliphate of Umar ibn Al-Khattab the ummah had expanded far to the east and west submitting all the countries to islam, this happened when muslims all over where being oppressed and could not follow their religion properly, they were forced to either hide their faith or follow the religion of the country in which they abided so the muslims had no choice but to spread islam, and muslims always gave a choice for those under their protection to practise their religion freely. This was only to stop oppression and spread the message, you see the people were given a choice, they could either pay the jizya (which is a tax which goes COMPLETELY to the poor and needy and only the rich may pay this, and try to understand that this jizya goes even to non-muslims in all fairness, this was a plan from Allah to stop world hunger if only the people would submit) and if the people did not pay jizya then they must be prepared to fight! (look at this noble cause, the muslims are willing to fight for the better of all the poor people, is this not beautiful?)

b) Subservience of women and their ill-treatment by men.

lol sorry i find this one so funny, i recall jewish womens treatment, and even secular womens treatment and when i compare and contrast i cant help but laugh at this statement. We are taught to treat our women with the utmost dignity, love them, take care of them. Please take some time out to read how the prophet sallallahi alaihi wasallaam treated his beloved fatimah (his daughter radhiallahu ta'ala anhu) and how he treated his wives and how he encouraged the treatment of the mother. He would always get up for his daughter out of respect, once his suckling mother approached at old age and he stepped back to lay the shawl for her out of respect so she sits comfortably, he would always keep his breath fresh with siwaak out of love for his wives so they do not get harmed. These are just a few petty examples, but it amazes me that when islam allows a light hitting due to excessive disobedience and indulgence in whats forbidden people start getting shocked. why do people always love to question Gods divine knowledge like they know it all, do you not know the treatment of other men, how common is wifebeating even amongst the non-muslims, how common is the ill-treatment and idolising of women. treating women like objects etc, islam diminishes all of this yet people slander it.
and it is indeed slander for it is taken completely out of context and taken out of its frame, it is twisted and perverted what they say. May Allah grant us all guidance and keep us away from their lies.

Ameen ya rabb..

 

[Malaikah]

I have never seen that description, but I'll take your word for it. Nowadays, as far as I can see, she refers to herself simply as 'atheist'. Perhaps she was referring to her being culturally 'Muslim' but in terms of belief, athiest?

She mentioned it in an interview once, and she explained it to mean roughly what you said- but just that attitude, to think someone can be Muslim by culture just goes to show that she doesn't understand what it means to be Muslim at all. At the end of the day being Muslim is about how you feel inside before anything else, it doesn't matter how Muslim you feel or look, if you are not Muslim on the inside then it means nothing.

Malaikah, my main problem is that your arguments, reasonable as they are, seem largely to be based around what will 'work out best' or something.

I am not really sure what you mean here.

Obviously I cannot claim to be objectively right, as I said, I can only say how I feel....and I'm just being painted a picture of a marriage where the functioning of the family unit is put above all else.

If you mean that you are getting the impression that Islam gives high priority to the function of the family, then yes that is indeed the case.

Perhaps you think this is right; I am not so sure. If a man has hitting, even only as a very last resort, to resolve disputes, and a woman will always be expected to demur to her husband, then I can't see how a healthy and loving marriage can arise from this. I know this is just my opinion, I can't speak for etc etc...but my experience of relationships is that the only healthy way for them to function is if neither person has precedence, and arguments are allowed to happen. (I know you'll say that this can happen in Islamic marriages as well.) But if an argument seems never-ending, then perhaps an impasse has been reached between the two people, at which point it would be healthier to separate rather than sidestep or repress the problem.

But of course you are correct. No one is implying that the hit itself is actually meant to do anything other than try to get the wife to see the seriousness of the situation at hand. The hit isn't meant to solve the problem itself, how can it? And if after that things still do not work out, then of course they can divorce. The hit might or might not be effective at softening the wife, and if it doesn't work, and the couple can't see how they can continue together with such a difference between them, then it is up to them to seek divorce if they feel that is what they need.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

(Believe me, I feel like that when with every thread that is started about the trinity ... you get that sinking feeling ... )

lol respected Glo, i never get this feeling, infact i get happy and think, time to tell someone else the TRUTH!! may Allah guide one and all Ameen!