Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Women- a right to say no?
-
18-04-2009 11:26pmI'm sure most people have heard about the Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan who are protesting against the new family laws being brought in. One of these laws forbids them from refusing sex to their husband unless they're sick. When Shiite Muslim women protested against the law, they were pelted by men with rocks and told they're 'slaves to Christianity' and whatnot
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=7339871
Obviously, these men are completely wrong in attacking these women, but it got me thinking- what are the boundaries of the verse:
“When the man (i.e. the husband) calls his wife for a need of his, then she should go, even if she is at the stove.”
Are Muslim women being bought into so-called 'freedoms' of the west which actually end up being detrimental to them? When a person chooses to get married, are they the at their partner's disposal, or is it simply a case of being sensitive to the needs and feelings of one's spouse? Is this simply another situation where two different ways of thinking clash because the 'western philosophy' offers women things that may seem attractive but simply don't work out well in practice? Like the expectation that all women want to work outside the home which is all part of being the 'modern' woman and having it all- "Yes you can work... but we will promote men over you... and we'll expect you to juggle family life too... but you are a strong, independent woman, by the way!"
Non-muslims talk of equality, but Muslims speak of justice- which works better in the long run?0
Comments
-
Afganistan Taliban folllow a very strict word for word interpretation of the Quaran if I recall correctly. (love to know where they got we can starve you from).
Not sure about your points though. For most people I know it would of made sense back in the 70-80's but certainly not now.0 -
Of course she should have the right to say "No". If the Husband doesn't like it, he should end the marriage if he is that desperate.
Anyway, I think they are changing the law after the protests.0 -
Like the expectation that all women want to work outside the home which is all part of being the 'modern' woman and having it all- "Yes you can work... but we will promote men over you... and we'll expect you to juggle family life too... but you are a strong, independent woman, by the way!"
Now, you might still find you come up with a similar question. I just think you need to stretch a bit more to get there.
So, reactivating Freud's old question, what does a woman want? Was all that Western feminism just a call for attention? Would it have been quietened by a few boxes of Milk Tray at the right moment? I don't claim to know, but I expect not.
There are realities in Western society. It just isn't built yet. But, for me, I'd prefer a society where realities can be articulated, rather than one that seeks to close enquiry. Yes, the reality of equality is quite distant from the idea. Should the response be to give up? Maybe. But then you need to consider what "justice" might mean.Afganistan Taliban folllow a very strict word for word interpretation of the Quaran if I recall correctly. (love to know where they got we can starve you from).
I'm certainly not defending the law. I'm just trying to see the thing as it is rather that as it can be spun. I'd guess what it is saying is not that a husband can lock his wife up and starve her. But that if a wife isn't fulfilling her obligations to the marriage contract, the husband can neglect his obligations.0 -
Afganistan Taliban folllow a very strict word for word interpretation of the Quaran if I recall correctly. (love to know where they got we can starve you from).
Not sure about your points though. For most people I know it would of made sense back in the 70-80's but certainly not now.Of course she should have the right to say "No". If the Husband doesn't like it, he should end the marriage if he is that desperate.But I don't think the situation is encapsulated in a statement like "we will promote men over you", in a context where a male version of the same grievance might be "she expects to be paid the same as me and shag off early every day to pick up her kids".I'd guess what he means is he feels the obligation of a husband to provide financially for his wife does not apply where the wife denies him reasonable conjugal rights. I know it can be argued that, in a society where wives might be utterly dependent on husbands for material needs, this is an enormous hardship.But that if a wife isn't fulfilling her obligations to the marriage contract, the husband can neglect his obligations.0 -
True, and I wouldn't promote this kind of bribery, but it must be said that there's a deal made on either side and four days of holding out without any actual reason is pretty cruel for the husband, really
Eh? and here we have an assumption the only desire is one-sided and if the husband wants to go without the wife would be more than happy to be left alone?
Anyway I see nothing "cruel" about it for the husband tbh0 -
Advertisement
-
The message isn't that men don't have issues too, it's that perhaps women are being told what they should want by the new feminist ideals when in fact their religion provides an answer which is better for them in the long run.
I’m not suggesting you are trying to refute this, they’re just points that I think are valuable to have in the back of the mind when this kind of issue is discussed. In Irish terms, we might recall Alice Glenn’s comment that a woman voting for divorce would be like a turkey voting for Christmas, or surveys that suggest more men than women voted against the so-called pro-life amendment.
Women are partners in the creation of whatever rules they face – which I think is what Margaret Atwood was trying to get at in The Handmaid's Tale.If a man is complaining about a woman having to go home early to collect their kids, maybe they should try asking why exactly she is expected to compete two full time jobs at the same time at the exact same proficiency as a male who has one. The fact is that this ideology that 'west is best' in all respects just doesn't work all over the world
(That said, we might also note how the balance of myths works in favour of women here. The image of the harassed mother juggling career and family is so frequently presented that we can easily relate to the issue. Do we relate as easily to the image of the work left behind to be done by people who can’t claim family as a reason to bunk off?)True, and I wouldn't promote this kind of bribery, but it must be said that there's a deal made on either side and four days of holding out without any actual reason is pretty cruel for the husband, really
I mean, I know we can have illusions about what's real in our lives and what isn't. But surely a contract to exchange sex and babies for food is concubinage rather than marriage. Which isn’t to knock concubines. I mean, a fair proportion of the world’s population must be descended from concubines.Eh? and here we have an assumption the only desire is one-sided and if the husband wants to go without the wife would be more than happy to be left alone?
That said, I’m really just imagining this to be the case. I honestly haven’t a clue what the real position is.0 -
I’ve no idea what availability of contraception is like in Afghanistan, but I’d suspect that assumption probably has more relevance in a context where sex is inextricably linked with pregnancy. There are other Hadiths, IIRC, where women are instructed not to deliberately avoid sex when fertile, and there’s an issue over anal sex as well as a method of avoiding conception.
That said, I’m really just imagining this to be the case. I honestly haven’t a clue what the real position is.
Goodness imagine if that were true - the implication would be they're signing into law that all married women without any problems conceiving would have to stay permanently pregnant :eek:0 -
Goodness imagine if that were true - the implication would be they're signing into law that all married women without any problems conceiving would have to stay permanently pregnant :eek:
I know it all sounds a bit brutal, but tbh this is probably just part of our common human ancestry. I suppose what I'm saying is that married women probably did and do spend a lot (but not necessarily all) of the time pregnant in traditional societies. Maybe, in that environment, it would make sense to support a law that copperfastens your husband's obligation to support you if you keep churning out the babies (assuming that the law also has that effect).0 -
At the risk of getting far to deeply into something that I know little about, I thought that in many societies breast feeding was used as a method of spacing births. I can recall reading in some African societies a wife has to ask her husband's permission to stop breastfeeding - the significance being that she's effectively asking when he wants her to have another child.
Breastfeeding is only effective to delay fertility if it's done exclusively and very regularly. As soon as the baby starts sleeping through the night or solids are introduced, fertility returns. This means that breastfeeding is only 100% (if even) reliable up until the baby is around six months of age, at least in our society. Not sure at what age they introduce solids in other parts of the world though, could be sooner, could be later.0 -
Eh? and here we have an assumption the only desire is one-sided and if the husband wants to go without the wife would be more than happy to be left alone?
Anyway I see nothing "cruel" about it for the husband tbhI think the issue at stake is where private space ends and public space begins.I’ve no idea what availability of contraception is like in Afghanistan, but I’d suspect that assumption probably has more relevance in a context where sex is inextricably linked with pregnancy.
Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an “...Kill not your children on a plea of want; We provide sustenance for you and for them;” (Al-Qur’an 6:151)
Allah (swt) also mentions in the Qur’an “Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you: verily the killing of them is a great sin.” (Al-Qur’an 17:31)
Both these verses seems to convey the same message but on scrutiny we realize that the first verse is meant for poor parents, who fear that if one more child is born in the family neither they will be able to survive nor the child, thus Allah (swt) says we provide sustenance for you and for them. In the other verse Allah (swt) says We shall provide sustenance for them and as well as for you, referring to rich parents who feel that if they have less children they can concentrate on them better and give them better education and quality life. Here Allah (swt) reverses the order and mentions first the children and then the parents.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I do feel that it is cruel to withhold sex from one's spouse for prolonged periods of time- in fact, it's the first stage of punishing them for disobedience in Islam
What about the women who have been forced into arranged marriages? They might not be attracted to their spouses in the slightest. Is it not cruel to expect sex from them on a regular basis?
I don't think is so much of 'west knows best', but more to do with basic human rights. If a woman agrees with the sentiment being discussed, well then that's fine. If she doesn't though, where does that leave her?0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »Equality is justice, anything less is unjust.
There are two children- one is disabled, the other is able bodied- should they still be treated the same, even if one of them has special needs which must be fulfilled? How about if I feed my dog with fish food because I want to have equality among my pets?
Men and women have different needs and roles in life and for them to get justice, they must be given special and specific treatment to fulfil that.What about the women who have been forced into arranged marriages? They might not be attracted to their spouses in the slightest. Is it not cruel to expect sex from them on a regular basis?
I don't think is so much of 'west knows best', but more to do with basic human rights. If a woman agrees with the sentiment being discussed, well then that's fine. If she doesn't though, where does that leave her?
http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/Family/Marriage/article01.shtml
"Marriage in Islam is a social contract that requires the consent of both parties. Neither the bride nor groom can be forced into a marriage."
http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=1788
`Â'ishah narrates that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "A virgin's consent must be sought for marriage."
To this `Â'ishah commented: "But a virgin is too bashful."
The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: "Her silence is her consent." I]Sahîh al-Bukhârî[/I
Buraydah narrates that once, a woman came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: “O Messenger of Allah, my father married me to my cousin in order to raise his social standing, but I do not want to be married to him.”
The Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave her the option of annulment. At this point, she said: “I have already reconciled myself to my father’s decision, but I wanted it to be known that women have a say in the matter.”
[Sunan al-Nasâ’î (3269), Sunan Ibn Mâjah (1874), and </EM>Musnad Ahmad (25043) and authenticated by Shu`ayb al-Arna`ût et al in Tahqîq Musnad Ahmad (41/493)]
At the end of the day, if a woman has married the man of her own free will (inkeeping with Islamic rules) and does not have any reason not to want to have sex with her husband, she is literally in the first stage of punishing him for something he didn't do.
0 -
To this `Â'ishah commented: "But a virgin is too bashful."
The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: "Her silence is her consent." I]Sahîh al-Bukhârî[/I
Silence is her consent, does that really stand up in today's society ?
I like the fact that in Islam girls are better being "bashful" but then its expected that they will go against their fathers wishes on something as important as marrage.At the end of the day, if a woman has married the man of her own free will (inkeeping with Islamic rules) and does not have any reason not to want to have sex with her husband, she is literally in the first stage of punishing him for something he didn't do.
I dont see your logic ? Does the women not have a right to just say no, even if she is getting back at her husband for something small he may have done ?0 -
At the end of the day, if a woman has married the man of her own free will (inkeeping with Islamic rules) and does not have any reason not to want to have sex with her husband, she is literally in the first stage of punishing him for something he didn't do.
I don't understand this comment Jannah. 'Not any reason not to want sex with her husband' -- what does that mean? Who determines whether a reason is good or not? I mean, if you don't want to, you just don't want to. Why would that be seen as a punishment? Since when did men become sex-crazed troglodytes that need a 'valid' reason for their lady to decline?
I thought sex was an intimate exchange, based on mutual lust and want, not a marital duty for the woman?`Â'ishah narrates that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "A virgin's consent must be sought for marriage."
To this `Â'ishah commented: "But a virgin is too bashful."
The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: "Her silence is her consent." I]Sahîh al-Bukhârî[/I
Well, in societies where women are second class citizens, what do you realistically think the odds are that she'll decline? What are the repercussions for her and her family?
And even if it is un-islamic (personally I interpret that passage differently) you can hardly deny that it happens all the time in Islamic societies?0 -
I don't understand this comment Jannah. 'Not any reason not to want sex with her husband' -- what does that mean? Who determines whether a reason is good or not? I mean, if you don't want to, you just don't want to. Why would that be seen as a punishment? Since when did men become sex-crazed troglodytes that need a 'valid' reason for their lady to decline?
I thought sex was an intimate exchange, based on mutual lust and want, not a marital duty for the woman?
Sex is highly regarded in Islam- a woman should not feel it is a chore and if she is so disgusted by having regular sex with the man she married, she might want to get a divorce or suggest he gets another wife to relieve her of this 'burden'. However, the vast majority of women view marital sex for what is is- sadaqah or loving charity towards one another. A really great writer who explain this well is Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood:
"Sexual intimacy become sadaqah is performed for the happiness and satisfaction of the spouse before one's own satisfaction. It is encouraged and blessed between loving spouses so long as what is done does not hurt, abuse, exploit or denigrate one's partner. In an Islamic marriage, neither partner should ever try to force the other one to do anything which is distasteful or unpleasant or painful to them. Marital rape should never take place, or abuse of the wife."
"Since Muslims should only have sex with their marriage partner, both partners not only have a duty to be faithful, but to honour and satisfy the needs of their spouses. If either side neglects this duty for no good reason, it is bound to cause suffering, depresion or lead to the breakdown of the relationship, and is considered grounds for a divorce. Obviously, there come times when there are good reasons for refraining from sexual intimacy, such causes as illness, menstruation, exhaustion, grief, and so on. Only an extremely selfish person should try to insist at these times. Pleasant wooing is a different matter of course."
"The Prophet was very concerned about male sexual selfishness, which was commonplace in his society as it frequently is in many others. He urged his male followers to respect their wives and cherish them, They were not to fling themselves upon their women as if they were no more than animals, or just satisfying their own irges and then leave their women disappointed and frustrated, while they dropped off to sleep."
"A Muslim man should not satisfy his need of her until he has satisfied her need of him" - al-GhazzaliWell, in societies where women are second class citizens, what do you realistically think the odds are that she'll decline? What are the repercussions for her and her family?And even if it is un-islamic (personally I interpret that passage differently) you can hardly deny that it happens all the time in Islamic societies?Silence is her consent, does that really stand up in today's society ?I like the fact that in Islam girls are better being "bashful" but then its expected that they will go against their fathers wishes on something as important as marrage.I dont see your logic ? Does the women not have a right to just say no, even if she is getting back at her husband for something small he may have done ?0 -
I would by no means call them 'second class citizens', owing to the vast amount of verses which tell people to respect their mothers OVER their fathers and the general appreciation for the dignity and rights of women. Women decline suitors for many reasons- and they DO decline them- most Muslim women get more than one offer of marriage- there is no rule that says they have to say 'yes' at the first person that approaches them. Her family can only guide her- if they insist she says yes, it's completely unislamic
And are you also saying that women in Islamic societies don't face any pressure from their parents to accept a proposal?Correction- forced marriages occur frequently in asian societies in general- look at India- yet people like to pin these problems to a religion rather than what it is- a backwards state of mind. It is denounced by Islam, yet people still incredibly are unable to remove the blame from Islam itself. I've yet to read anything from a scholar which goes against women having a right to say no to a marriage, so in fairness, however you interpreted the passage, it doesn't seem to be the general opinionSex is highly regarded in Islam- a woman should not feel it is a chore and if she is so disgusted by having regular sex with the man she married, she might want to get a divorce or suggest he gets another wife to relieve her of this 'burden'0 -
So why are there so many countries that don't honour these verses?Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran, Somalia etc -- do you really think that women are being treated with equal respect and dignity?
How could Islam condone the maltreatment of women when its first revert was a woman (Khadijah)? Practices such as wearing the burqa, isolation of women in their homes, female circumcision, and the banning of girls' education all come from various tribal traditions and have no basis in Islam. We are told that men and women were created from a single soul, which explicitly shows to us that there is no dominance on either side. However, Islam does believe in justice for either side, and because men and women are not the same and have different roles to fulful in life, this justice does not necessarily mean 'equality' which would assume that men and women are exactly the same, which they are not. Therefore, Islam treats women like women and not merely like 'weak' men.And are you also saying that women in Islamic societies don't face any pressure from their parents to accept a proposal??No, I didn't pin it to a certain religion -- I was merely asking if you deny that forced marriages take place in Islamic societies??Let's do a bit of role reversal. Say it's the husband who has a really low sex-drive. Is his wife allowed to take another husband to relieve him from his 'burden'?
However, if a woman is not being satisfied by her husband, it is grounds for divorce, particularly if her husband is impotent. In Iran a woman can divorce their husband if he is unable to satisfy her- and that's not simply impotence, but satisfaction in general0 -
If she is punishing her husband- by all means, it is valid to withhold sex from him. My point is that, since it is considered a punishment towards one's spouse to do so, it should not be taken lightly and just thought of as "meh, not now, go away"
Does the law prohibit both Wife AND Husband from withholding sex ?
My understanding was its only the wife. I have yet to read a ruling that prohibits a man to withhold sex.0 -
Islam is a religion built on the democratic principals of consultation (shura), building consensus (ijma), finally leading to independent judgement (ijtihad).
And in your opinion, which current Islamic societies does the above apply to?
And, which current Islamic societies do not practice any of the things that
you describe un-Islamic?
I am genuinely curious!0 -
Advertisement
-
Does the law prohibit both Wife AND Husband from withholding sex ?
My understanding was its only the wife. I have yet to read a ruling that prohibits a man to withhold sex.
Lol, well you probably never came across it because it's not exactly the most common of circumstances!! But, it does happen and women have rights if their husband withholds sex too.
Islamic Law urged the husband to have good marital relationship with his wife; Allaah Says (what means): {And live with them in kindness.} [Quran 4:19] Among the most confirmed rights on him, is that he should have sexual intercourse with his wife according to her will and according to his ability. </SPAN></B>
http://islamweb.org/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=119794&Option=FatwaIdAnd in your opinion, which current Islamic societies does the above apply to?
And, which current Islamic societies do not practice any of the things that
you describe un-Islamic?
I am genuinely curious!0 -
I'm in no way implying that the woman usually wants to have sex any more often than the man- the fact is that if a man doesn't want to have sex, there's no way around it, whereas if a woman doesn't- well, there's technically room for persuasion.
You mean like rape? Sexual abuse? Why is the husband allowed to deny sex on a prolonged basis but the wife is not? - Apologies did not see your reply to this in earlier post.I do feel that it is cruel to withhold sex from one's spouse for prolonged periods of time- in fact, it's the first stage of punishing them for disobedience in Islam
I believe the law stands at four days? That is hardly a prolonged period of time.But it's a different way of thinking- for us, if someone's having an affair or whatever, that's their problem, but in Islam there's a lot more of a pro-active response (whether or not people agree with that)
Like public floggings? Prison? Stonings? Beheadings? Gangrapes - I particularly note that one. That's not pro-activism.
On the other hand Afghanistan is emerging from a dark and troubled past. People, and Irish people in particular should remember that marital rape was perfectly legal in this country until not all that long ago.
AFAIK not many other Islamic countries have the same law giving the wife a fixed length of time she can withhold sexual relations.0 -
You mean like rape? Sexual abuse? Why is the husband allowed to deny sex on a prolonged basis but the wife is not? - Apologies did not see your reply to this in earlier post.
I believe the law stands at four days? That is hardly a prolonged period of time.
Like public floggings? Prison? Stonings? Beheadings? Gangrapes - I particularly note that one. That's not pro-activism.
On the other hand Afghanistan is emerging from a dark and troubled past. People, and Irish people in particular should remember that marital rape was perfectly legal in this country until not all that long ago.
AFAIK not many other Islamic countries have the same law giving the wife a fixed length of time she can withhold sexual relations.
I think you should read the other posts I have mad before making such harsh and infounded statements. Islam most definitely DOES NOT allow martial rape, or gang rape for that matter. Neither would they inflict anyone with such severe punishments for refusing sex.
"It is a vice in a man to assault his unprepared wife, seeking to satisfy his own lust and leaving her before she could achieve her own fulfillment…" Imam al-Ghazali in his Ihya' (vol. 2: 49-50)
Anas ibn Malik that the Messenger of Allah [ peace and blessings be upon him ] is reported to have said:
One of you should not fulfil one's [ sexual ] need from one's wife like an animal, rather there should be between them foreplay of kissing and words.
Sûrah al An'am 6.120
”Abandon all harm (ithm), whether committed openly or in secret.”
Sûrah an Nâs 4.119
'O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will...'
Shayk Ibn Taymiyya said:
It is obligitory for the husband to have intercourse with his wife as much as is needed to satisfy her, so long as this does not exhaust him physically or keep him away from earning a living
Ibn Qudaamah al-Hanbali said:
Intercourse is a duty on the man - ie the husband should have intercourse with his wife- so long as he has no excuse. this is also the opinion of Maalik
0 -
I think you should read the other posts I have mad before making such harsh and infounded statements. Islam most definitely DOES NOT allow martial rape, or gang rape for that matter. Neither would they inflict anyone with such severe punishments for refusing sex.
What what did you mean by there's "technically room for persuasion"...
Apologies, honestly my comments weren't aimed it Islam or Muslims, moreso at the cultural, judicial, political etc., set up of some countries, which also happen to be predominantly Muslim. I know a few Muslims (of Algerian and European origin) who get as angry as I do about these things.
The new law in Afghanistan I thought decreed that a man did not have to go without sex for more than four days if his wife didn't have a reason to withhold it... surely under this law you could foresee a man on the fifth day enforcing his right?
And you cannot deny the horrible crimes that have been committed, on people, for the heinous crimes of listening to music, dancing etc. I read last weekend about a young woman who was beaten to death by her husband for writing poetry in Kabul. Guess what, he was not punished and is free to go about his business, I don't care hat rationale is used to justify this - law,religion,culture......... it doesn't matter. It's still wrong.
Sharia law is responsible for human rights abuses. Or do you deny that a woman who is raped, is treated as an adultress and punished accordingly? Because that has been documented. Even up to the death penalty. If you cannot admit that there are serious problems with the interpretation and implementation with these things in certain countries then something is wrong.
What usually happens with Muslims, is even if they do not agree with something, will not condemn outright but actually try to excuse it.0 -
I think you should read the other posts I have mad before making such harsh and infounded statements. Islam most definitely DOES NOT allow martial rape, or gang rape for that matter. Neither would they inflict anyone with such severe punishments for refusing sex.
Sorry, those punishments I mentioned have been meted out for the crime of adultery, whether that 'adultery' was consensual or not.0 -
You can't take these passages so literally and nit pick at them- the general message is that if a woman is too embarrassed to say no to a suitor outright (as is the situation here- and it can be an issue if both families know eachother well which happens often in these cases) then her not giving permission is enough to stop the marriage from occuring. If anything, this is better than insisting the woman needs to say 'no' outright as it is easier for the woman to simply not consent.
Your explaination for "Her silence is her consent" is completely the opposite, it seems to be an explaination for "Her silence is her refusal"
Unless i am missing something in the explaination? Even if not taking the passage literally, you have changed it around to mean to complete opposite somehow0 -
Jannah, how can Turkey be a secular and an Islamic society at the same time?
Is an Islamic society also separated from religion?
And, which laws should be followed in an Islamic society -- man made or those given by god?
Furthermore I find it really interesting that you are so adamant that Islam in itself is not a common denominator for the problems that seem to be quite prevalent in many countries where Islam is the main religion. And, out of 55 countries where the main population is muslim you can only find two that 'kind of work'?
Why, in your opinion, does it not work in the other 53?0 -
What what did you mean by there's "technically room for persuasion"....Apologies, honestly my comments weren't aimed it Islam or Muslims, moreso at the cultural, judicial, political etc., set up of some countries, which also happen to be predominantly Muslim. I know a few Muslims (of Algerian and European origin) who get as angry as I do about these things.surely under this law you could foresee a man on the fifth day enforcing his right?And you cannot deny the horrible crimes that have been committed, on people, for the heinous crimes of listening to music, dancing etc. I read last weekend about a young woman who was beaten to death by her husband for writing poetry in Kabul. Guess what, he was not punished and is free to go about his business, I don't care hat rationale is used to justify this - law,religion,culture......... it doesn't matter. It's still wrong.
One day when I rode behind Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), he said (to me): Do you remember any Poetry of Umayya b. Abu Salt. I said: Yes. He said: Then go on. I recited a couplet, and he said: Go on. Then I again recited a couplet and he said: Go on. I recited one hundred couplets (of his poetry).
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 166:
Narrated Ubai bin Ka'b:
Allah's Apostle said, "In eloquence there is magic and in poetry there is wisdom"
If complete lunatics want a ridiculous reason to beat their wives to death, they'll take it. But that doesn't mean that it is the fault of the religion. It is obviously against Islam to take justice into one's own hands and he, as a murderer, should have been punished accordingly. Just because he was not charged justly doesn't mean this is the right judgement islamically. If I was to take such a simplistic view of it, I could say "Hey, look at what happened with OJ Simpson- he murdered two people and got away with it even though he was obviously guilty- therefore secular legal systems don't work". It just isn't accurate.Sharia law is responsible for human rights abuses. Or do you deny that a woman who is raped, is treated as an adultress and punished accordingly? Because that has been documented. Even up to the death penalty. If you cannot admit that there are serious problems with the interpretation and implementation with these things in certain countries then something is wrong.What usually happens with Muslims, is even if they do not agree with something, will not condemn outright but actually try to excuse it.Jannah, how can Turkey be a secular and an Islamic society at the same time?And, which laws should be followed in an Islamic society -- man made or those given by god?Furthermore I find it really interesting that you are so adamant that Islam in itself is not a common denominator for the problems that seem to be quite prevalent in many countries where Islam is the main religion. And, out of 55 countries where the main population is muslim you can only find two that 'kind of work'?
At the end of the day, Islam is a belief which has laid out its principles very clearly- if rulers think they can pick and choose to suit their own needs, they can do so, but ultimately that injustice is their own doing and will not lead to happiness. However, it would be extremely wrong to think that ALL Muslim societies are failures- just like it would be wrong to say all secular societies are successes (Hitler was voted democratically in a secular society only to begin a huge bloody war and committed mass genocide of Jews- go figure).
An example of how much good it does to have a ruler who implements Islamic policies properly can be seen in Saudi Arabia's King Faisal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_of_Saudi_Arabia) who introduced many highly successful and revolutionary reforms. There are also the two Moroccan Kings Mohammed VI and Muhammad III who both sought to build a modern democracy and use tolerant interpretations of the Quran (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,394869,00.html) They were still working from the same book as the extremists and the fanatics, but it's their insights and ability to see the bigger picture which allowed them to be successful and fair in ruling their countries0 -
Biologically, it's easier for a woman to get in the mood, without getting into the gory details of it allI believe that a truly Islamic society accomodates for all religions and points of view and allows people not only to practice Islam, but to do their own thing, if we are to remember that "There is no compulsion in religion."just like in the same way you don't seem to be able to tell me how each of the 55 Muslim countries' legal systems don't work.(Hitler was voted democratically in a secular society only to begin a huge bloody war and committed mass genocide of Jews- go figure).At the end of the day, Islam is a belief which has laid out its principles very clearly- if rulers think they can pick and choose to suit their own needs, they can do so, but ultimately that injustice is their own doing and will not lead to happiness. However, it would be extremely wrong to think that ALL Muslim societies are failures
And if it is wrong to think that all muslim societies are failures, which in your opinion, are not? And please don't say Turkey again -- give me an example of a society that actually consider itself Islamic.
Do you consider Saudi Arabia a democracy by the way?
If so, please define your interpretation of democracy.0 -
Advertisement
-
Please, link with scientific evidence for this claim??
http://www.parenting.com/article/Child/Parenting-Guides/Talking-to-Kids-About-Sex-21335549I see. Pretty much like any current European society then? I hope the irony isn't lost on you.What we were discussing Jannah was practices that you claim are completely un-Islamic but that still are prevalent in muslim societies such as isolating women, not allowing women to get education, driving cars, forcing women to wear the veil, honour killings, forced marriages, FMG etc.But hey, since you also bring up freedom of religion I'll just (off the top of my head) throw in a few countries where some (or all) of the above take place: Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudia Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Jordan, Yemen, Turkey, Indonesia, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, UAE, Kuwait, Algeria, Qatar, Oman, Baharain, Morocco. Just to name a few.
How does the Lebanon belong in there?! Lebanon is a secular country and only 60% of the population is Muslim.
Palestine actually are a lot more tolerant than one would think, since they are living in an area where their people are under attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_Palestinian_territories
The PA does not have a constitution; however, the Basic Law provides for religious freedom, and the PA generally respects this right in practice.[1] The Basic Law was approved in 2002 by the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) and signed by then-President Yasir Arafat. The Basic Law states that Islam is the official religion but also calls for respect and sanctity for other "heavenly" religions (such as Judaism and Christianity) and that the principles of Shari'a (Islamic law) shall be the main source of legislation.
... In general all matters related to personal status (i.e., inheritance, marriage, and divorce) are handled by such courts, which exist for Muslim and Christians.
I don't know where you got the idea that Turkey has no freedom of religion- it's very much take it or leave it when it comes to religion. Alcohol is freely available and the hijab is not compulsory- in fact, it's banned in most government buildings- nobody is 'forced' to be a Muslim, although 99.8% CHOOSE to be. This is obvious because Turkey is a secular state and doesn't even have any 'official' religion, despite the huge majority of Muslims. There are also many churches and synagogues throughout the country.
Indonesia, one again, is an extremely tolerant country:
The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respected this right in practice. There was no change in the status of respect for religious freedom by the Government during the reporting period, and government policy continued to contribute to the generally free practice of religion.
The Algerian Constitution states that "freedom of creed and opinion is inviolable" (Article 36); it prohibits any discrimination based on "opinion or any other personal or social condition or circumstance" (Article 29) and Morocco is much the same.
So why do they do things that are wrong if they ARE un-Islamic? Well seeing as how many of the worst offenders of human rights you have listed are the poorest and contain badly educated people, then misinterpretation is the main cause. If the wrong things people are doing have Islamic roots, then why are all Muslims not doing the same? And why are they getting slated by their fellow Muslims? I could give countless examples of this and anyone is able to find articles of true Muslims fighting out at these un-Islamic actions, but one example is http://www.twocircles.net/2009apr04/indias_muslims_denounce_taliban_whipping_girl_un_islamic.htmlAh, good ole Goodwin's law!! Does that justify anything? Such a pointless and irrelevant thing thing to throw into an argument.So what you are saying is that no Islamic society has managed to interpret Islam correctly?Ibn Hazm ... wrote a large and detailed commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analects, that abstruse work on logic. Interestingly, Ibn Hazm appears to have had no trouble relating logic to Islam - in fact, he gives illustrative examples of how it can be used in solving legal problems drawn from the Shari'ah. Nothing illustrates the ability of Islam to assimilate foreign ideas and acclimatize them better than Ibn Hazm's words in the introduction to his work: "Let it be known that he who reads this book of ours will find that the usefulness of this kind of work is not limited to one single discipline but includes the Koran, hadith, and legal decisions concerning what is permissible and what is not, and what is obligatory and what is lawful."http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198203/science.the.islamic.legacy-science.in.al-andalus.htm
And all of this while the rest of Europe was wallowing in the dark ages of the Medieval period.
"Islam, with its tolerance and encouragement of both secular and religious learning, created the necessary climate for the exchange of ideas. The court of Cordoba, like that of Baghdad, was open to Muslims, Jews and Christians alike, and one prominent bishop complained that young Christian men were devoting themselves to the study of Arabic, rather than to Latin - a reflection of the fact that Arabic, in a surprisingly short time, had become the international language of science, as English has today."And does that mean that the muslim population in those countries (and in Europe too where plenty of 'un-Islamic' practices take place within the muslim communities) have also got it wrong?And if it is wrong to think that all muslim societies are failures, which in your opinion, are not? And please don't say Turkey again -- give me an example of a society that actually consider itself Islamic.Do you consider Saudi Arabia a democracy by the way? If so, please define your interpretation of democracy.0
Advertisement