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?
Comments
-
Sigh. You claimed that biologically, it is easier for the woman to get in the mood. And you still haven't provided any scientific evidence. Backing up your statements with a link to a parenting site doesn't really hold up.
We're not talking about the 7th century Arabia. We are talking about today, you know -- 2009.
Lol!! You hope the knowledge isn't lost on me?? Please do tell me Jannah, how did that region end up Islamic again? Oh yes, that's right -- they ALL converted out of their own free will right? No one was killed, they all just decided to become muslims?? ROFL, you gotta love the cherry picking!!!Before Christians began the crusades to force people to be their religion, Islam told people 'Let you have your religion and I will have mine' and 'there is no compulsion in religion'. I hope the knowledge isn't lost on you.
And -- in 7th century Arabia, muslims were a minority. Is that relevant at all? How familiar are you with the history of that time?
I don't know if you choose to misinterpret my posts or if you really are unable to grasp the context. You have constantly insisted that certin practices are completely un-Islamic. Such as honour killings, isolation of women, forced marriages, complusion of veil, no education etc etc. The countries I mentioned are countries where some or all of the un-Islamic practices take place.
Indonesia -- FMG. Turkey -- honour killings. Lebanon -- check out women's rights please, and that goes for Palestine, Morocco and Algeria too.
If it's poverty and lack of education, why do these practices take place within the muslim communities in Europe too? They estimate that there are at least one honour killing a month in Britain, in Denmark they've had to change the law in order to prevent arranged marriages, and in all of Scandinavia the've had to set up different organizations for muslim women who've had to go underground because the threat from their familes is so big. And are they really getting slate by their fellow muslims? Because I haven't seen any muslims take to the streets after terror attacks like Bali, 7/7, Madrid, Mumbai, etc. And there has been no outrage from the muslim communities in Scandinavia either, despite several horrendous honour killings.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/...n_islamic.html
Several mosques in Europe have been found preaching hatred and violence towards the west. Talk about biting the hand that is feeding you???
Saudi Arabia is not exactly a poor country and yet they have no freedom for either women or people belonging to other religions. How many churces, temples or synagouges would you find in SA?
But! It seems like all these people, according to you, have got it all so wrong so wrong. How can it be, that scholars and clerics, who have studied the Quran for all their lives STILL manage to get it so wrong???0 -
Well sadly people don't do all that many research projects on such topics- that said, nobody has evidence to disprove it either. However, it seems fairly obvious to me that if a man is not fully in the mood for sex, it is impossibly to actually perform the sexual act, whereas women do not need to perform in such a way. Both sexes get in the mood at the same rate, I don't dispute that, I'm saying that it simply is biologically impossible to have sex if the man is not in the mood, whereas this is not the case with womenYou claimed that biologically, it is easier for the woman to get in the mood. And you still haven't provided any scientific evidence.
The point is that we have seen that Islamic societies CAN and HAVE worked in the past- therefore the problem is not with Islam, but with how it is currently being organised. After all, the belief itself hasn't changed since then, only the rulers.We're not talking about the 7th century Arabia. We are talking about today, you know -- 2009.
There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Tâghût and believes in Allâh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allâh is All-Hearer, All-Knower.Please do tell me Jannah, how did that region end up Islamic again? Oh yes, that's right -- they ALL converted out of their own free will right? No one was killed, they all just decided to become muslims??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam
The spread of Islam following Muhammad's death conincided with the rapid expansion of the arab empire. The objective of the conquests was more practical than religious, as fertile land and water were scarce in the Arabian peninsula. A real spread of Islam therefore only came about in the subsequent centuries. For societies which had Islam offered to them, conversion to Islam represented a stable state with a more moral framework to cure the problems of their regions. The period before Islam was introduced is called "jahiliyah" or "period of ignorance" (this wasn't ignorance of God per se, but rather being barbaric and savage. If you think Muslim women are treated badly now, they were treated like animals back then and had zero rights. To those people, Islam represented hope from the squalor of their lives where nobody had any sense of morality and there were constant battles among tribes.
Conversion initially was neither required nor necessarily wished for. In fact, Arab conquerors were at first hostile to conversions because new Muslims diluted the economic and status advantages of the Arabs. Muslim conquerors ordinarily wished to dominate rather than convert, and most conversions to Islam were voluntary.
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error" [Al-Qur'an 2:256]
Traditionally Muslims have treated other religions with respect, even when they were in a position to use force. Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. During these 800 years, until Muslims were finally forced out by the crusaders, non-Muslims flourished in Spain. Muslims have ruled Arabia for 1400 years, except for brief periods of British and French rule. Yet there are today 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians whose families have been Christians going back several generations.
The Muslim Moguls ruled India for about a thousand years. They had the power to forcibly convert each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India is non-Muslim. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness to the fact that Islam was not spread by the sword.
http://www.thewaytotruth.org/islam-humanity/rapidspreadofislam.html
The Muslims’ attitude toward the people they conquered is quite clear in the instructions given by the Rightly-Guided Caliphs:
[FONT=verdana,arial][SIZE=-1]Always keep fear of God in your mind; remember that you cannot afford to do anything without His grace. Do not forget that Islam is a mission of peace and love. Keep the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) before you as a model of bravery and piety. Do not destroy fruit trees or fertile fields in your paths. Be just, and spare the feelings of the vanquished. Respect all religious persons who live in hermitages or convents and spare their edifices. Do not kill civilians. Do not outrage the chastity of women and the honor of the conquered. Do not harm old people and children. Do not accept any gifts from the civil population of any place. Do not billet your soldiers or officers in the houses of civilians. Do not forget to perform your daily prayers. Fear God. Remember that death will inevitably come to everyone of you at some time or other, even if you are thousands of miles away from a battlefield; therefore be always ready to face death[/SIZE][/FONT]Today Islam is the fastest growing religion- who's holding a sword to their necks? Islam appeals to people for a variety of reasons- it is anti-racism, doesn't have any caste system of superior elite and provides women with a sense of respect and honour that the west has failed to give them.
Look- I don't HAVE TO answer your post, okay? They take a long time to write, as you can imagine, and it's not like I have nothing better to be doing with my time. However, I do so out of what I feel is religious obligation and a wish to help fellow Muslims who you are slandering repeatedly with your ill-informed spouts of hatred against Muslims and Islam. For this reason, the least you can do is be somewhat respectful of me, if not simply as a person, and not treat me like I'm an complete idiot with these kinds of stupid jibes. If I see one more of these, I will simply not post again.I don't know if you choose to misinterpret my posts or if you really are unable to grasp the context.
I am not simply 'insisting' they are unislamic, I have proven they are unislamic. If you can find resources to prove that any of these practices are islamic, other than that they occur in some Muslim countries, I would gladly accept it. However, what you are saying is like me trying to tell people that molestation of children is a catholic tradition- it most definitely is not, and raping is renounced in the bible, yet it occured widely. You must return to the source to really discover what is Islamic and what simply is people doing wrong of their own accord.You have constantly insisted that certin practices are completely un-Islamic. Such as honour killings, isolation of women, forced marriages, complusion of veil, no education etc etc. The countries I mentioned are countries where some or all of the un-Islamic practices take place. Indonesia -- FMG. Turkey -- honour killings. Lebanon -- check out women's rights please, and that goes for Palestine, Morocco and Algeria too.
Honour killings ARE NOT ISLAMIC. Those who kill people in the name of 'honour' are killing an innocent person, and according to Islam, it is as if they have killed all of mankind. Just because these people live in the west does not mean they understand islamic teachings or are educated and there are millions of other muslims living in the west peacefully and without any problems who are testament to this. Forced marriages occur in the Asian community in general in Britain- so if it is an Islamic problem, why are Hindus doing it too? It's cultural traditions and poor education.If it's poverty and lack of education, why do these practices take place within the muslim communities in Europe too? They estimate that there are at least one honour killing a month in Britain, in Denmark they've had to change the law in order to prevent arranged marriages, and in all of Scandinavia the've had to set up different organizations for muslim women who've had to go underground because the threat from their familes is so big. And are they really getting slate by their fellow muslims? Because I haven't seen any muslims take to the streets after terror attacks like Bali, 7/7, Madrid, Mumbai, etc. And there has been no outrage from the muslim communities in Scandinavia either, despite several horrendous honour killings.
What gives you the idea that innocent Muslims were any less outraged by the acts of terrorists in these instances? If anything they must have been even more upset because their religion was being completely ruined by a tiny minority of madmen doing un-islamic acts in the name of Islam- they hijacked the religion, so to speak. Yet Muslims have been very vocal in denouncing terrorism, I assure you.
San Francisco Bay Area Muslims Condemn Terrorism in the Name of Islam
http://himysyed.tyo.ca/2005/07/08/san-francisco-bay-area-muslims-condemn-terrorism-in-the-name-of-islam-press-conference-friday-july-8-2005/
Indian Muslims condemn terrorism
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7719059.stm
General condemnation
http://www.muslimscondemn.org/
I could go on, but you get the picture
And thousands others don't! Hatred and violence are not Islamic values- why would people who want to hate and be violent greet eacother with "peace"???Several mosques in Europe have been found preaching hatred and violence towards the west. Talk about biting the hand that is feeding you???
Saudi Arabia does a lot of weird crap that was never done in the Prophet's time- Muhammad (pbuh) even had a seperate system for accomodating other beliefs, something which isn't reflected in present day circumstances. Women are also not allowed drive in Saudi- proving they have strange rules that are more tribal than based on Islamic thinking.Saudi Arabia is not exactly a poor country and yet they have no freedom for either women or people belonging to other religions. How many churces, temples or synagouges would you find in SA?
Because their interpretation is so narrow. In saudi they practice Wahabbism which is an extremely rigid and fundamentalist form of Islam and don't inkeep with what we are told when Muhammad (pbuh) told people to always follow the middle path and not be excessive in their religion. You must remember, not EVERYONE has got it wrong- in fact, many, many people have got it right and despise the current state of their countries. At the end of the day, these 'holy men' retain their power by keeping people down and imposing these restrictions on them and it is obvious that the more moderate a society is, the closer it is to Islamic idealsBut! It seems like all these people, according to you, have got it all so wrong so wrong. How can it be, that scholars and clerics, who have studied the Quran for all their lives STILL manage to get it so wrong???0 -
Well sadly people don't do all that many research projects on such topics- that said, nobody has evidence to disprove it either. However, it seems fairly obvious to me that if a man is not fully in the mood for sex, it is impossibly to actually perform the sexual act, whereas women do not need to perform in such a way. Both sexes get in the mood at the same rate, I don't dispute that, I'm saying that it simply is biologically impossible to have sex if the man is not in the mood, whereas this is not the case with women
You've gone from claiming that it's biologically easier for women to get in the mood for sex to stating that it's possible for women to have sex when they're not in the mood. I don't think anyone would dispute the latter, but having sex with a woman who doesn't want to is called rape.0 -
Well if it was unclear earlier, what I mean is that it is physically impossible for a man to have sex if he is not in the mood, but it is physically possible for a woman- not that either gender would get aroused at a different rateThe Mad Hatter wrote: »You've gone from claiming that it's biologically easier for women to get in the mood for sex to stating that it's possible for women to have sex when they're not in the mood.
Rape and the fact that it is completely forbidden in Islam is a topic which I have already explained completely in previous posts, and I'm not going into it againThe Mad Hatter wrote: »having sex with a woman who doesn't want to is called rape.0 -
tbh, I think at this stage you know that you've dug yourself into a bit of a hole. I'd like to dig that hole a little deeper, just to suggest that maybe you need to step back from it all and reconceptualise your approach.Well if it was unclear earlier, what I mean is that it is physically impossible for a man to have sex if he is not in the mood, but it is physically possible for a woman- not that either gender would get aroused at a different rate
When you say it is physically impossible for a man to have sex if he is not in the mood, are you suggesting that its impossible for a woman to rape a man? I have this case in mind in particular, but I don't doubt there are others.A 40-year-old woman who admitted that she had made her 14-year-old son have sex with her on four occasions told gardaí they were living in what was described as a house of horrors.0 -
Advertisement
-
tbh, I think at this stage you know that you've dug yourself into a bit of a hole. I'd like to dig that hole a little deeper, just to suggest that maybe you need to step back from it all and reconceptualise your approach.
When you say it is physically impossible for a man to have sex if he is not in the mood, are you suggesting that its impossible for a woman to rape a man? I have this case in mind in particular, but I don't doubt there are others.
In fairness, if a guy is not physically excited about the prospect of sex, he biologically can't get an erection, therefore one would ask how exactly this woman managed to have sex with him if he didn't wish to have sex. It's not going against MY beliefs on the matter- it just seems pretty physically impossible. She could molest him, yes, but unless he wanted to have sex, it's peculiar that he would be able to perform0 -
i would be interested in your interpretation of sura 4.34So you wouldn't mind if your wife just decided not to have sex with you for a prolonged period of time, no? One would think that if it was a good marriage, this wouldn't be an issue to begin with. By withholding sex from one's spouse (and by not having any reason, I mean not having sex for the sake of not having sex- no particular point not to, but doing so because they are either cruel or inconsiderate of their partner's feelings). It is seen as punishment because it is the first stage of the islamically perscribed method of punishing one's spouse for disobedience and runs the risk of one's partner committing zinah by having an affair.
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-Ghazzali
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
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 opinion
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.
Nobody is 'expected' to be bashful- it was (and sometimes is) the situation that a woman who has had no prior experience of marriage and men would be shy when proposed with suitors and the like. We only need to look to the Prophet's wives who regularly debated with him and Khadijah, who, despite being a much older woman, decided to propose to the Prophet herself, to see that Muslim women can be daring in their actions and are not subservient wallflowers.
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"0 -
The facts of the case have been reported quite a bit. I'd find it hard to boil the matter down to a clear 'wish' or 'want'.In fairness, if a guy is not physically excited about the prospect of sex, he biologically can't get an erection, therefore one would ask how exactly this woman managed to have sex with him if he didn't wish to have sex. It's not going against MY beliefs on the matter- it just seems pretty physically impossible. She could molest him, yes, but unless he wanted to have sex, it's peculiar that he would be able to perform
In truth, I simply think these matters are not as clear-cut as you present.
The more I think about it, the more these rules describe a state of concubinage. Now, in one sense, there's no harm in that. I've no doubt that ultimately we're all descended from some coupling where the woman was exchanging sex for support. Who's to say if there's any point in aspiring to anything more?0 -
Lol, I find it so funny when this happens. People run out of things to be pissed off about in the thread, so they throw in something really unrelated and random and are like "HA! Lets see how you deal with THAT!" :rolleyes:i would be interested in your interpretation of sura 4.34
I'm not going to say anything magical or special that hasn't been said before. The miswak is a toothbrush, no marks are mean to be left and it is not meant as a 'beating' but more as a sign that she was trespassing waaay beyond the bounds of what was acceptable not under the rules of her husband, but the rules of God. Domestic violence is NOT ALLOWED in Islam. I believe that this sura is included because men were so used to lashing out at their wives in the primitive society before Islam that Muhammad was like "look, try both of these things first and if she still is behaving awfully, then you may make this light tapping as a sign that she has gone too far". Yet I feel that he was so sure that the other two methods would be successful, this tapping with a toothbursh would be unnecessary.
Actually, we don't get particularly detailed facts on the rape of the son at all. How did he perform if he didn't want to? Surely he would be so traumatised that it would have been impossible? I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just wondering how it is actually possible.The facts of the case have been reported quite a bit. I'd find it hard to boil the matter down to a clear 'wish' or 'want'.
Since a 'concubine' is either:The more I think about it, the more these rules describe a state of concubinage. Now, in one sense, there's no harm in that. I've no doubt that ultimately we're all descended from some coupling where the woman was exchanging sex for support. Who's to say if there's any point in aspiring to anything more?
1. Law A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him.
2. In certain societies, such as imperial China, a woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status.
I would say that neither are acceptable in Islam. The first is obvious and the second- since when do the women not have rights? Islam has given women different yet just rights. I would think that there is a lot of harm in keeping a woman as a sex slave and that is definitely not what an Islamic marriage is about- it is about respecting the fact that you are married to a person who is monogamous and have rights which you, out of love, compassion and respect for them, should fulfil as gift in marriage. Women aren't 'exchanging sex for support'- it shouldn't be a trade off or a deal, it should be something that both partners enjoy. Islam is the only religion I know of that actually gives women the right to be as sexually satisfied as her husband. To say there's no point aspiring to any more is a tad cynical to say the least- earning your keep through sex isn't how it's meant to be and wasn't how any of the Prophet's wives were treated.0 -
as usual you are trying to say[ because that sura is embarrassing}that it dose not mean what it says-so i take it sura2.223 -plow your woman like you plow your field is wrong ?Lol, I find it so funny when this happens. People run out of things to be pissed off about in the thread, so they throw in something really unrelated and random and are like "HA! Lets see how you deal with THAT!" :rolleyes:
I'm not going to say anything magical or special that hasn't been said before. The miswak is a toothbrush, no marks are mean to be left and it is not meant as a 'beating' but more as a sign that she was trespassing waaay beyond the bounds of what was acceptable not under the rules of her husband, but the rules of God. Domestic violence is NOT ALLOWED in Islam. I believe that this sura is included because men were so used to lashing out at their wives in the primitive society before Islam that Muhammad was like "look, try both of these things first and if she still is behaving awfully, then you may make this light tapping as a sign that she has gone too far". Yet I feel that he was so sure that the other two methods would be successful, this tapping with a toothbursh would be unnecessary.
Actually, we don't get particularly detailed facts on the rape of the son at all. How did he perform if he didn't want to? Surely he would be so traumatised that it would have been impossible? I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just wondering how it is actually possible.
Since a 'concubine' is either:
1. Law A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him.
2. In certain societies, such as imperial China, a woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status.
I would say that neither are acceptable in Islam. The first is obvious and the second- since when do the women not have rights? Islam has given women different yet just rights. I would think that there is a lot of harm in keeping a woman as a sex slave and that is definitely not what an Islamic marriage is about- it is about respecting the fact that you are married to a person who is monogamous and have rights which you, out of love, compassion and respect for them, should fulfil as gift in marriage. Women aren't 'exchanging sex for support'- it shouldn't be a trade off or a deal, it should be something that both partners enjoy. Islam is the only religion I know of that actually gives women the right to be as sexually satisfied as her husband. To say there's no point aspiring to any more is a tad cynical to say the least- earning your keep through sex isn't how it's meant to be and wasn't how any of the Prophet's wives were treated.0 -
Advertisement
-
In fairness, if a guy is not physically excited about the prospect of sex, he biologically can't get an erection
Er? Men get plenty of unwanted erections all the time. Starts at puberty amidst a lot of embarrassment, and keeps going up to morning wood. Maybe you should read up on the biology a bit more...?0 -
With their MOTHERS?Er? Men get plenty of unwanted erections all the time. Starts at puberty amidst a lot of embarrassment, and keeps going up to morning wood. Maybe you should read up on the biology a bit more...?
Dude, you asked what I thought and I told you- if you already have it in your head that you think it's something else, then don't bother ask me and waste my time in explaining it.as usual you are trying to say[ because that sura is embarrassing}that it dose not mean what it says-so i take it sura2.223 -plow your woman like you plow your field is wrong ?0 -
Well if it was unclear earlier, what I mean is that it is physically impossible for a man to have sex if he is not in the mood, but it is physically possible for a woman- not that either gender would get aroused at a different rate
Fair enough. (Even if what you originally stated doesn't resemble that statement in the slightest.) That doesn't alter my point one iota, however - that having sex with a woman who doesn't want to is rape.
Or do you somehow assume that the act of sex will generate arousal in women?0 -
I’d agree that the verse is best understood in the context of the time, and that the essence of Sura 4:34 is that a man should not gratuitously beat his wife. That said, I think some points do have to be made about your interpretation, as I’ve a feeling you are not fully acknowledging the implications of this for the power relationship envisaged in the Quran.I believe that this sura is included because men were so used to lashing out at their wives in the primitive society before Islam that Muhammad was like "look, try both of these things first and if she still is behaving awfully, then you may make this light tapping as a sign that she has gone too far". Yet I feel that he was so sure that the other two methods would be successful, this tapping with a toothbursh would be unnecessary.
I’m not saying there’s anything particularly wrong with that power relationship. As I’ve said before on this forum, if we agree that people can pursue an interest in bondage, or take up boxing as a sport, there’s no particular reason why a woman shouldn’t give her husband the right to chastise her physically if that’s what she wants.
The reference to miswak is not in the Quran, and IIRC is a refinement added by later scholars. (The insertion of the word ‘lightly’ in the Yusuf Ali translation has been criticised as essentially political.)
As to whether the reference to miswak is as benign as it seems is clearly something that folk will judge for themselves. But if you wanted to give her a good digging, clearly you’d buy your miswak from this guy.
I’m not convinced this is actually what has been set out and, as we know, the monogamy is one-way. In fact, IIRC, Islam demands that a man should treat all his wives equally, effectively requiring that he’d have enough wealth to ensure his material support for one is undiminished when he acquires another.it is about respecting the fact that you are married to a person who is monogamous and have rights which you, out of love, compassion and respect for them, should fulfil as gift in marriage.
So, indeed, it looks like a development of the concept of concubinage. It is very well regulated concubinage, with a reasonable degree of protection for the concubine. But what this amounts to is a clear statement that women are exchanging sex for support. Its just saying that, so long as they put out to a reasonable extent and don’t whinge at their husbands, they should expect material support.
I can’t say I’ve made an exhaustive study of what different religions say about sex, but I wasn’t particularly aware of any of the rest of them saying anything on this point.Islam is the only religion I know of that actually gives women the right to be as sexually satisfied as her husband.
Or at least a book of ‘Wicked Willie’ cartoons.Maybe you should read up on the biology a bit more...?
Apparently.With their MOTHERS?0 -
Advertisement