Islam and Women?

Filan

I know it's probably the longest running debate of all...but I've yet to see it here...How does Islam view the role and rights of women? Is there Islamic women here? Interested in reading their experiences. I'm not in anyway opposed to Islam...think it has many admirable traits...just wondering what members opinions are
Alan

kmick

I have no idea - apparently they are equal. Recently there was a prominent islamic female politician who was gunned down for refusing to wear the veil. This constant debate on all things Islamic is getting boring. Most Islamic thinking on things seems to be stone age from a western liberal point of view. Women within Islam generally seem content however so lets leave them to it.

wes

kmick wrote:

I have no idea - apparently they are equal. Recently there was a prominent islamic female politician who was gunned down for refusing to wear the veil.

That was a minister in Pakistan, seems to have been the work of a lone nut btw. Btw Pakistan has no problem with Women in power. Benazir Bhutto was the democratically elected head of state and she never wore the veil. Neither has my mother, sister, grand mother, and great grand mother etc.

The treatment of Women vary widely depending on the country, so I can't really give you an answer. Someplace's are very forward thinking and some aren't. Some like the Women in my family choose not to wear the Hijab or veil etc, so are liberal comparatively speaking.

the_new_mr

Hi Alan. You're very welcome to the Islam forum.

Women in Islam is one subject that is talked about and talked about. I'm not a women myself so a word for me is probably only worth about a tenth of that of a Muslim woman but I'll try my best to make my point.

God is very clear in the Quran of the position of women in Islam.

An-Nisa:124
"whereas anyone - be it man or woman - who does [whatever he can] of good deeds and is a believer withal, shall enter paradise, and shall not be wronged by as much as [would fill] the groove of a date-stone."

Al-Ahzab:35
"VERILY, for all men and women who have sur*rendered themselves unto God, and all believing men and believing women, and all truly devout men and truly devout women, and all men and women who are true to their word, and all men and women who are patient in adversity, and all men and women who humble themselves [before God], and all men and women who give in charity, and all self-denying men and self-denying women, and all men and women who are mindful of their chastity, and all men and women who remember God unceasingly: for [all of] them has God readied forgiveness of sins and a mighty reward.

Ghafir:40
"[There,] anyone who has done a bad deed will be requited with no more than the like thereof, whereas anyone, be it man or woman, who has done righteous deeds and is a believer withal - all such will enter paradise, wherein they shall be blest with good beyond all reckoning!"

So, as far as God is concerned, men and women are equal in His sight.

As for women's rights, it's fair to say that Islam started a revolution completely unheard of anywhere in the world at the time and to this day, Yvonne Ridley (the woman who was captured by the taliban but later converted to Islam upon her release) believes that women are protected much better in the Quran then they are in modern day western law.

In Islam, women are completely entitled to their own money. Their husbands may not take any of it without her permission. He isn't even entitled to know how much she has. This mightn't seem like a big deal now but consider that this kind of thing was only allowed very recently in the western world.

Women are highly honoured in Islam. There is a whole chapter entitled Mary (peace be upon him) the mother of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the Quran places Mary, the wife of Pharaoh and other women (peace be upon them all) in very high esteem.

Unfortunately, most of the discrimination that goes on against women in the Muslim world (in Saudi Arabia for example) is down to that particular culture and has nothing to do with Islam. This is something unfortunate but hopefully we'll leave these dark ages (as Wes put it in another thread) behind soon.

All the Muslim women I know are sick and tired of hearing the idea that they are oppressed etc because they wear the veil and stuff. People say that they are not free but they say that they are more free by wearing it. And as Wes pointed out, there are plenty of women who don't wear the veil as it is their choice. That's not to say that it's better not to wear it but just to outline that it's their choice.

My friend told me about a woman he knew who converted to Islam. He saw her again within two weeks of when she converted and she was wearing hijab. My friend was little surprised and a bit curious as he said that it usually takes a little while before a convert gets used to the idea of hijab. The woman replied that she felt more free than before by wearing the hijab. She went on to explain that it's like having a remote control in her hand so she could decide what other people see of her. So she could say "This is a man I don't know, I'll only show him my face and hands. This is a close relative, I can show him my hair. This is my husband, I'll show him whatever I want."

And I'd just like to add that I think that it tends to be a bit misleading when making comparisons between Islam and the other societies to say something like "Most Islamic thinking on things seems to be stone age from a western liberal point of view." as if to imply that the Islamic way of doing things isn't liberal. I know what people mean when using liberal in this context but I'd just like to stop this kind of terminology really if possible as it can tend to be quite misleading.

Hope that helped. Please keep in mind that I'm not a scholar. Just a humble boards user

superman12345

With respect the_new_mr, for the sake of Ijtihad, Islam is far more ambivalent regarding women than you would portray:
Excluding the Hadith (which in some cases are quite shockingly negative in their portrayal of women, but for this purpose I shall exclude due to their in some cases dubious authenticity and their negativity), the Koran in a number of locations would support a different view of women:

Let us start with the most famous example:

Surah 4:34:
N.J. Dawood: "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them...As for those [women] from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart, and beat them"
Abdullah Yussuf Ali: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means...As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) chastise them (lightly)"

Furthermore, in Sharia Law, based on the Koran, Male and Female Rights are quite strictly differentiated:
Women are entitled to lesser amounts of inheritance than men (half what their brothers get) - which though it may have been an improvement on the law at the time of the writing of the Koran, should no longer be viewed as appropriate. (Which, let's not forget is by understood by Muslims to be divine Law)

Surah 4:11:
N.J. Dawood: "God has thus enjoined you concerning your children: A male shall inherit twice as much as a female".
Abdullah Yussuf Ali: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance) to the male, a portion equal to that of two females"

(Some Muslims would argue this is due to the fact that the woman should receive a dowry)

Furthermore, while Muslim men can divorce their wives by simply repeating saying "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you", there is a "cooling off" period of 3 months or so divinely sanctioned regarding a woman's right to divorce her husband.

Surah 2.228
N.J. Dawood: "Divorced Women must wait, keeping themselves from men, three menstrual courses"
Abdullad Yusuf Ali: "Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods"
(Based on this apparently in some countries, some husbands say "I divorce you, I divorce you" as a threat to their wives)

Along standard Semitic lines, Women are considered "unclean" and therefore not to be touched during their period - though I can't be bothered to search out the various Surah on that.
(The joke "Can I own Canadians" email which is available on the Agnostic and Atheist forum on boards includes a line regarding unclean women mentioned in the Bible)
On the plus side, women do not have to fast during their period - though they do have to make up this time later. (I know some Muslim girls who like to pretend that they are fasting anyway so that people don't know they are on their period).


Some of the sayings of Ali (Mohammed's son in Law) are even more negative than those of the Hadith of Sunni Muslims.

I suggest that you read "The Trouble with Islam Today" by Irshad Manji. It covers some of the ambivalence within the Koran from a Muslim Feminist perspective (For the Mods of this site, she is a believing Muslim endorsed by an American Iman). Her website is also available at muslim-refusnik.com.

On the positive side, apparently Mohammed suggested at some stage in some Hadith that if anyone had any questions regarding Islam when he wasn't around they should go to his wife Aisha, which some Muslim women take to mean that women should have a high place in their religion. From the Hadith, Aisha does appear to have been quite the woman.
(That said, the Koran does tell the wives of Muhammed that they were not to talk to strangers):
Surah 33.32:
N.J.Dawood: "Wives of the Prophet, you are not like other women. If you fear God, do not be too complaisant in your speech...Stay in your homes..."
Abdullah Yussuf Ali: " O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the other women: if ye do fear (Allah), be not too complaisant of speech... And stay quietly in your houses..."

Some (minor) sects within Islam allow for fully integrated male and female sections of their mosques, however most are completely separate. (Not too sure what the situation in Ireland is - perhaps some of the boards posters could inform us).

Regarding the Hijab, don't forget that in the Koran it is a requirement and not an option (regardless of how the_new_mr describes it):
u.a.
Surah 33:59:
N.J. Dawood: "Prophet, enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers to draw their veils close round them. That is more proper, so that they may be recognized and not be molested"
Abdullah Yussuf Ali: " O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garmmets over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested"

Also don't forget the requirement for 4 (male) witnesses for a successful prosecution of rape, the fact that men are allowed up to 4 wives, that a woman is to be locked in her house until she dies for lewdness etc., etc.

There are some positive surah to be sure, but let's not get carried away on the wonderful position of women in Islam.

the_new_mr

Hello superman12345. Welcome to the Islam forum. You share your nickname with the name of my favourite superhero.

I'd ask you to read the forum charter. Your post isn't exactly keeping with rule #1.

Forum Charter - Hobbes wrote:

Let me make something absolutly clear in this forum. It is for the open discussion of the religon for those who are following it or for those who may have honest questions about it. IT IS NOT FOR YOU TO VENT, OR FOR MUSLIMS TO HAVE TO DEFEND THIER FAITH FROM ATTACK.

Concerning the first verse that you quoted (surat An-Nisaa:34), this has already been well covered on this forum more than once. In short, I personally am of the (humble) opinion that the correct interpretation of the Arabic word udrubhina is to leave them in their house (a trial separation period signaling the final stage). In any case, even the other interpretation of chastise is meant to be very lightly. Like a small tap and is only meant to be symbolic.

The inheritance thing has also already been covered. Women may get half of that of a man in some cases but they may also get more in others. In yet other cases, a woman may receive a share and a man doesn't.

There are two main factors when in it comes to inheritance. These are:
a) Closeness to the deceased
b) Responsibility.

The man is religiously obligated in front of God to provide for his family whereas the woman isn't. And, as mentioned, there's the dowry.

Consider the following example.

A man dies leaving 150,000 to one son and one daughter. Let's call them, Ali and Sally (it rhymes ). Ali gets 100,000 while Sally gets 50,000.

Then, later on, they get married. Ali may pay 25,000 as dowry to his future wife. Let's say that Sally's future husband also pays her 25,000 as dowry. Now they're on 75,000 each.

Sally, unlike Ali, doesn't have to spend anything out of her 75,000 except on herself. Ali, on the other hand, is obligated to support his new family with this money. Add to that the fact that Sally receives the reward of someone giving to charity in God's eyes if she decides to spend a single cent on her own family and it's clear that it's not as unfair as people think.

superman12345 wrote:

Based on this apparently in some countries, some husbands say "I divorce you, I divorce you" as a threat to their wives

Regrettably, this does happen. But this is appalling behaviour and is condemned by all Muslim scholars and regular decent Muslims alike. You can't blame a religion on the actions of some bad eggs. Every religion has its bad followers.

Also, I think you've misunderstood the verse. The "cooling off" period as you put it is for divorced women regardless of who initiated the divorce. I guess that it could be to be sure that the woman isn't pregnant with the previous husband's child but there could also be other reasons unknown to us.

Concerning the "unclean" business. There's nothing that says that they shouldn't even be touched. Just no sexual activity they take a break from prayer and fasting.

And I'm not sure how you're interpreting that verse but there's no mention of the wives of the Prophet being told not to talk to strangers. Only to not be soft in speech.

I'd like to point out that quoting verses out of context in this kind of broken manner is not on when the proceeding text is so vital to the preceding text and will warrant a serious warning or permanent ban in the future.

Al-Ahzab:32
"O ye wives of the Prophet! Ye are not like any other women. If ye keep your duty (to God), then be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire (to you), but utter customary speech."

superman12345 wrote:

Some (minor) sects within Islam allow for fully integrated male and female sections of their mosques, however most are completely separate. (Not too sure what the situation in Ireland is - perhaps some of the boards posters could inform us).

The only requirement is that men and women aren't mixed during prayer. This may be in the same room and, as far as I know, there's no harm in that. I know for a fact that during Friday prayers in Galway, men and women are in the same room (community center hall) but at the masjid (a house), there's a separate room for women. This is done more because of practicality and since people may like to spend extended lengths of time in the mosque, it allows the women to quite literally let their hair down and take off their veils as they are only in the company of other women.

And on the subject of hijab, I apologise if I gave the wrong impression in my previous post. There's no question that, as far as the Quran is concerned, they are required to wear it. What I meant was that they shouldn't be forced by the men in their family to wear it.

With respect superman12345, it seems to me that you've only read one side of the story. I would suggest to you that simply reading a book by one author doesn't really put you in a good position to make such a point.

superman12345

Apologies the_new_mr, I hadn't originally intended to be so critical. So thank you for giving me enough room to clarify (or enough rope to hang myself with).

Actually I've read quite a few books on Islam as well as a no. of the websites. Having done so, I have been very irritated by the polarity that exists regarding Islam on the internet and in the various books - there seem to be mostly only sycophantic books like that of Karen Armstrong's, to the hate and anger books and webpages of others (e.g. Ibn Waraq).
Your post, to which I responded, reminded me too much of the "everything is just peachy in Islam" viewpoint became the point of discharge for a significant amount of that irritation.
Ironically in view of this, I reached for Ibn Waraq's book to respond to your post thus becoming part of the problem which had irritated me in the first place.
(You might have also noticed though, that I also used two translations of the Koran as well as Wikipedia and Irshad Manji's book as sources for the response).

Personally, I feel that the most significant reason for the polarity regarding Islam and especially the anger shown in the "Ex-muslim" websites is the stifling of debate or contrary opinion within Islam. I feel that this suppression is in some way due to a "victim complex" in the Muslim world that seeks reassurance in certainty and that the result of this is that those who seek change are forced to break from Islam to look for change (which also explains their anger).

I have found some books and websites refreshing - as mentioned above
Irshad Manji's book "The trouble with Islam today" (Recipient of the Simon Wiesenthal Award for Valor, and Oprah Winfrey's "Chutzpah Award") and this website:
http://www.ijtihad.org/

In her book, Irshad puts forward the point that rather than suppress the existence of ambiguities and contradictions in the text, they could or should be embraced to allow for dynamism and an ability to adapt to more modern times and on her website (muslim-refusenik.com) is the following quote:

"Suppose Allah, in His infinite wisdom, intended for the Quran to contain conflicting statements so that we Muslims would have an incentive to think, analyze, probe, question and think some more, rather than swallowing its passages uncritically? It's worth noting that the Quran has about 200 verses telling us to pray but about 600 verses calling on us to reflect."

For the day that's in it (i.e. International Women's Day), here is a link to something else:
http://www.ijtihad.org/Hijab.htm

the_new_mr

superman12345 wrote:

Actually I've read quite a few books on Islam as well as a no. of the websites.

Fair enough. It was wrong of me to say that you obtained your opinion from reading just one book so I apologise for that.

superman12345 wrote:

there seem to be mostly only sycophantic books like that of Karen Armstrong's, to the hate and anger books and webpages of others (e.g. Ibn Waraq).

I had to look up sycophantic to see what it meant. I don't think you've used it quite correct since, as far as I know, Karem Armstrong is still a non-Muslim.

In any case, you are right that there exists this polarity. However, this is mainly because there are correct sources of Islam and books and sites that attack it using ignorance as their main weapon. Personally, when I want to read about Buddhism for example, I go to a Buddhist website. I may read some "neutral" (note the double quotes) website on Buddhism but I would tend to take it with a pinch of salt (or more likely a whole salter full).

Some people tend to have a personal vendetta against Islam and so why would anyone bother reading those "sources". They're only going to try their best to discredit Islam.

Then there's the Ijtihad website and others like it like Irshad's site. There is a certain amount of truth in websites like this. That's the bit where they say that scholars have closed the doors of ijtihad and do not attempt to interpret religious texts with relation to the modern world. Actually, that's not entirely true as there are plenty of scholars doing that now (Hamza Yusuf is one example of an English speaking scholar but there are others in other languages). In general though, there is a bit of frustrating close mindedness to new interpretation which has come particularly apparent in the last century or so.

But this with respect to things like interest in banks for example. Is it permissible or is it forbidden? Some scholars tend to say "let's stay on the safe side and just put it under usury" whereas I heard one other scholar say that "interest is a new word in the Arabic language and is different to usury".

I'm not a scholar and I don't know for sure what God thinks is okay and I pray for guidance to what is right and protection from what is wrong. But I happen to know of a situation at the time of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) where one Muslim man wanted to take part in a battle but had borrowed some money from a Jewish citizen of Medina and given his shield as insurance for the loan. The man wanted the shield back so he could go to battle but the Jewish man refused and insisted that he got his money back first.

The Muslim man went to the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) stating his case with the feeling that the Jewish man should give him his shield. The Prophet said that the Jewish man was in the right and the Muslim man should give him the money he owed if he wanted it back.

This story is one example of how fairly Jews were treated in Medina. But it also puts forward the idea of the loan. What were the conditions of the agreement? Was there interest involved or was it simply that the Jew would obtain ownership of the shield if the Muslim man couldn't pay him back by a given time? I'd like to find out more about this example if possible but you see how it makes you think.

Anyway, back to our point. Although sites like Ijtihad and Irshad Manji's site may have the right base, they are clearly full of rubbish as well. That article on hijab that you linked to is so full of rubbish. They make women in Islam out to be prisoners of Islamic thought or something like that. What about women Islamic scholars like Abla Al-Kahlawy?

I will admit that there are a number of problems in a number of Muslim countries with respect to women. But, honestly, this is because these countries are polluting religion with their own cultures and then calling the whole thing Islam which is very mis-representative of Islam as a result. Saudi Arabia is one example of such a country.

And the "victim complex" you mentioned is another by-product of this kind of thinking. Take Egypt for example. It's got problems and there are some bad laws (such as the ridiculous "honour killing" law) but, in general, it's pretty good when it comes to how a woman should be viewed in Islam. The women are treated with respect and, although the Quran is clear on the fact that hijab is a religious obligation, women are usually left to decide for themselves. If a woman decides to wear it because of social pressures then she is not wearing it to please God and there are likely woman who are doing this but this is completely against the spirit of Islam. One meaning of Islam is submission to God. Wearing hijab for anyone or anything other than for God goes against this very idea.

So, I would say that everything is just peachy in Islam but not everything is peachy with the way Islam is being carried out in a number of countries.

superman12345 wrote:

You might have also noticed though, that I also used two translations of the Koran

Yes, I did notice that actually but that is what made the quoting out of context even worse (the fact that it was done twice). You know the deal now anyway so kindly refrain from doing it again.

Irshad Manji website wrote:

Suppose Allah, in His infinite wisdom, intended for the Quran to contain conflicting statements so that we Muslims would have an incentive to think, analyze, probe, question and think some more, rather than swallowing its passages uncritically?

This is a good point and one that I knew already without having her point it out. But I don't believe that it goes to the extant that she talks about. As I understand it, her idea of interpretation means more or less leaving out Islamic law altogether which God in the Quran is very clear about not breaking.

It's worth noting that the Quran has about 200 verses telling us to pray but about 600 verses calling on us to reflect.

I'd read this before. This is not new knowledge but it's nice to remember that. An old Islamic scholar from the past once said (loose translation) "Contemplating for an hour is better than a year of worship".

God knows best.

superman12345

Thanks for your reply the_new_mr,

Yes, Karen Armstrong is a non-Muslim. I found her book to be quite poor for something that was supposed to be written by an academic - poorly referenced and using statements like "some academics say" - without mentioning who these academics are, where they wrote their stuff, what percentage of "all academics" they are, what are opposing opinions etc. Her book was a polemic and not an analysis.

I have put in words some of my thoughts on some aspects of Islam and your insight would be appreciated. (This is getting off topic, so perhaps it should be moved elsewhere).

In the new film "Ghost Rider", with Nicholas Cage,

the main character sells his soul to the devil to prevent his father dying from cancer. The devil cures his father's cancer but has the father killed anyway - complying with the letter but not the spirit of the agreement with Nicholas Cage's character.

From my perspective, it seems to me that the actions of some Muslims are sometimes similar - following the letter but not the spirit of the law. (I do apologise for the unfortunate comparison to the devil here - I couldn't think of another example of this type - I think there might be some examples involving Genies etc. But I hope you get my drift anyway. Also please note, that I do not wish to accuse Muslims of intentionally breaching the spirit of the Koran)

For example regarding Riba in the Koran:

From what I've heard, the prohibition on riba is to prevent the predation of vulnerable (and poor, illiterate etc.) people by unscrupulous moneylenders - in particular through the use of penal penalty clauses which mean that the principle owed is doubled or tripled if a payment is missed by one day, thus ensuring the the vulnerable person is in debt for their entire life.

It seems perverse to interpret it to prevent, for example, a Muslim from getting a mortgage on a house:
Look at it this way:
One can either rent a house, or else rent the money to buy a house.
If the economics of the situation favour the latter (as for example they would have in Ireland 10 years ago), then to force someone to rent a house and attempt to save for a house, while the cost of the house is rising far faster than one's ability to save for it, seems wrong and is simply a misunderstanding of the concept of Riba (IMVHO).

Regarding Mortgages, the Law of Contract regarding Penalty Clauses and Statutory Regulation governing money lending practices is far stricter so that the evils that the ban on Riba was set up to prevent don't apply.
(This is without going near the reality that modern fiat currency is no longer the same as pre gold standard monetary systems.)

Also in a modern competitive economic environment banks compete to lend money at lower and lower rates; there is a significant choice of banks - unlike money lending in 7th Century Arabia.
Furthermore where the person borrowing money is not an illiterate vulnerable person, but an educated person balancing risk and reward, the situation is not the same as that described in the concept of Riba.
(There is a also a concept of "inequality of bargaining position" in the Law of Equity, which would cover this)

This area of the Law is covered in the Law of Equity in Common Law (as it exists in Ireland, England, Canada, India, NZ, Australia etc.).
There are concepts in Equity which are very similar to the explanation of Riba as I have outlined it above -

The doctrine of "Undue Influence" - where the Court can reverse a contract or a transaction where someone in a position of power (a doctor, religious advisor etc.) has got what appears to be an unfavourably beneficial bargain with the person over whom they have that power (patient, believer etc.)
The doctrine of "Unfair Bargain" - which covers something similar a poor illiterate person who enters an unfair contract with a person who preys on their illiteracy.
The doctrine of "Equitable Estoppel" - where for example if your neighbour builds a house on your land, mistaking it to be his, and you know about it, then when he finishes jump in and try to take the house, you will be "estopped" from taking the house afterwards, as you had not informed him of his mistake. etc.

Setting up a Law for all time requires flexibility and an ability to adapt to the times. Society today is very different to that that existed in 7th Century Arabia - it is far more complex in many ways.
The strength of the Law of Equity regarding this change is that it is composed of maxims (basically "eternal" truths):
"You must come to Equity with your hands clean"
"He who seeks Equity must do Equity". etc.
These basic concepts stay the same, yet their application changes depending on context.

I find the idea that interpretation that the ban on Riba should be understood to prevent a well educated person from getting a mortgage in a statutorily regulated environment while NOT protecting - for example - a poor illiterate farmer from selling his farm to a slick businessman for a pittance, despite the fact that it is now worth millions to be slightly perverse and not in keeping with its true meaning.

Please feel free to comment.


(edit: added spoiler. Some of us want to see the movie. )

the_new_mr

superman12345 wrote:

In the new film "Ghost Rider", with Nicholas Cage,

the main character sells his soul to the devil to prevent his father dying from cancer. The devil cures his father's cancer but has the father killed anyway - complying with the letter but not the spirit of the agreement with Nicholas Cage's character.

(spoiler added-Hobbes)

Haven't seen this film but have been wanting to see it. Way to spoil the film plot for me there.

superman12345 wrote:

From my perspective, it seems to me that the actions of some Muslims are sometimes similar - following the letter but not the spirit of the law.

I think it would have been better if you could have found another analogy other than the devil but anyway...

I know what you're trying to say. Sometimes, I think this to myself but I think it's more to do with understanding. I think that, in most cases, a lot of Muslims are simply ignorant of what is the right thing to do (sometimes through no fault of their own) but sometimes there is no question that they do things which are clearly not what was intended.

One example of this is that if two people get divorced and remarry three times then the woman must marry another man first and divorce him before she can marry the first man again. I guess this is to stop people from just going mad on the divorcing thing and mucking everyone about (especially any children in the marriage).

Anyway, I'm sorry to say that some people find themselves in a situation where they've divorced three times but want to get remarried. What happens is that they pay a man to marry the woman and divorce her so that she can marry the first man again. There is even a common term for this middle man. He is known as "the bridge". I, and many others, think is absolutely ridiculous and I'm sure the Prophet would not approve of such behaviour. Who are these people trying to fool here?!!

As it happens, most of your thoughts are the arguments of scholars who argue against the idea that Riba is to be simply defined as interest. The definition of Usury (which is what Riba is usually translated as) is:

1 archaic : INTEREST
2 : the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; especially : the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates
3 : an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money

The archaic meaning seems to simply mean interest according to this dictionary and it's this simple Riba=Interest equation that makes a lot of Muslims fear the idea of interest and is also enough for there to be a question mark in my mind as to what exactly is the right thing to do.

However, I remember what I said in the last post about an Islamic scholar said that the word interest (fawayed in Arabic) is a new word and therefore Riba doesn't necessarily mean interest and the case should be more closely examined. Perhaps the following verses support the idea that Riba is a form of unfair interest?

Al-Imran:130
"O you who have attained to faith! Do not gorge yourselves on usury, doubling and re-doubling it - but remain conscious of God, so that you might attain to a happy state;"

An-Nisa:161
"and [for] their taking usury although it had been forbidden to them, and their wrongful devouring of other people's possessions. And for those from among them who [continue to] deny the truth We have readied grievous suffering."

Also, there is the hadith where the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) is meant to have said "You are more aware of the matters of your world (meaning your life)"

So, with that last hadith in mind, it does certainly seem reasonable to think that paying a mortgage is more suitable all round than trying to rent and save for a house. One thing that tends to be missing in most Muslim countries is the system of renting a place until you own it which is where you just basically buy the house off the owner in installments.

Anyway, one thing is for certain, and that is we're not going to reconcile this difference of opinion amongst scholars on this matter here on boards.ie but I do at least agree with what your point of view.

Only God knows for sure what is right and I pray that He doesn't let me or any other Muslims get involved in anything we shouldn't.

Osman

Greetings,

If I may also post this extract from Muhammad's (pbuh) last sermon:

"O People,
It is true that you have certain rights in regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives, only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste."

Regards

DinoBot

Osman wrote:

Greetings,

If I may also post this extract from Muhammad's (pbuh) last sermon:

"O People,
It is true that you have certain rights in regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives, only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste."

Regards

A well known speech, Yet its strange that if that were given today it would come across extreamly sexist. I do wonder if people still think that way with regard to "their women" ? or do muslims see this speech was given for that time only ?

What are the rights women have over men in the context of the speech above ?

Do muslims see it as their right to decide the friends of their women ?

Osman

Greetings Dinobot,

Hope you are well.

I am by no means a scholar and do not consider myself to be knowledgeable in the least, but Inshaa'Allah (by Allah's will) I will give your questions a shot.

Muslims do see the speech as being for all times, and not just for that time only.

What are the rights women have over men in the context of the speech above ?

To my understanding, it refers to their right to be treated kindly, and their right to be provided for by their husband. These rights may seem very basic and obvious, but it is important to note that Muhammad's teachings were revolutionary at the time, as women had very little status.

Do muslims see it as their right to decide the friends of their women ?

As a Muslim living in the west, I often find it very difficult to identify with and associate with traditional Islamic values. To my understanding, this right would be in return for the husband providing for the wife, as Islam upholds the concept of Justice. It is to be noted, that as a Muslim, the man would be just and would not be unreasonable. To be unreasonable in this manner would go against the teachings of Islam. If at any point, a relationship becomes oppressive then a woman is encouraged to seek a divorce.

Apologies if I have gone off on a tangent.

Regards