Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AQL

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Women / Re: Women's clothes and rape?
« on: July 24, 2019, 07:11:59 PM »

Only the women who live in those "very few" many Muslim countries can speak about their personal experiences and how common it is. As well as women who live in villages and dress in village clothes, where they don't know much about their rights. It happens to women from all faiths, backgrounds and cultures, regardless of clothing. Like the case of domestic violence which is quite widespread (e.g. in Pakistan) but some people like to make it look like a trivial issue.
If already this amount of women have come forward, imagine the amount of unreported or unspoken cases.
Pakistani actress Armeena Khan also spoke about how she was groped when wearing burqa in market in Pakistan. It happens more than you think or want to believe. Also to women wearing shalwar kameez and I've personally known two girls who experienced similar in Pakistan. You can google what a shalwar kameez looks like.

I already posted a link (also UK although I don't live there) before which says how a person is more likely to be raped by someone they know, which makes the issue of clothing even more insignificant. There are even people who rape corpses, let's be real!

But catcalling and street assault is another thing.

Yep, there is a difference between taking precautions and victim-blaming, which shouldn't be so hard to understand.

If a man wants to rape, he will rape:

These poor women's cases are of just as much importance. And their rapists/attackers are not out of the ordinary rapists. They're just nasty rapists like the rest of them.

And some places are definitely safer than others. Women in the UK are arguably safer than women in Afghanistan (where women are covered head to toe) for example.

Muslim countries definitely need a stronger focus on keeping women (and children) safe and enforcing stricter punishments for rape, sexual assault etc. Instead of trying to push the blame on women. They have a long way to go.

Only recently, a 10 year old boy was raped and murdered in Pakistan:

Women / Re: Critique: Marrying 4 wives in Islam
« on: July 24, 2019, 06:27:30 PM »
However one may view it or blame the woman (as is common with some people), the law is a good one and I hope they keep it strict.

Islamic Duties / Re: Best explanation i saw about salaat, ever.
« on: July 16, 2019, 06:34:46 AM »

Obsession with intricacies of Arabic and its lexicon and grammar has become the new fad. This methodology of pretending not to know the meaning of Arabic words, creating a parallel language by claiming to be an "Arabic expert", ripping apart Quranic verses, phrases and words to shreds, and trying to reconstruct the meaning of words from this "jumbled mess" (thanks video!) is not very different from the methodologies of Qiyas, Ijthihad etc. that gave us Islamic Jurisprudence. The works of these new-age scholars are also secondary sources besides the Quran, and have be rejected according to 45:6.



So do you not agree with some articles on this website that go against the traditionalist meanings of certain words by using roots/lexicons (for example hoor, khimar etc)?

Women / Re: Critique: Marrying 4 wives in Islam
« on: July 16, 2019, 06:12:22 AM »

Women / Re: Husband can beat ( not severe ) his wife
« on: July 16, 2019, 06:03:23 AM »
Thanks for your thoughtful work, brother Wakas. :)

Women / Re: Women's issues.. Again
« on: July 16, 2019, 06:01:02 AM »

Women / Re: Women's clothes and rape?
« on: July 16, 2019, 05:58:20 AM »
Here is another article about women being sexually harassed despite wearing headscarves:

Victim blaming is often a tactic used by misogynists and women suffering from internalized misogyny. They will try to blame anything and anyone but the rapist himself.
The "locking door to protect from robbery" is an example often used by such men (or people) as well.
The only one to blame for rape is the rapist. There is a difference between advising someone to take precautions and victim-blaming. That's when the "Why were you there?" "Why were you wearing those clothes?" questions come up after the woman was raped. I wonder where these questions are when men, children or elderly ladies are raped?

Women / Re: Husband can beat ( not severe ) his wife
« on: April 17, 2019, 03:03:41 AM »

I'm not sure whom you are asking this question to but for my reply please see the link I referenced above. It specifically analyses and compares 4:34 and 4:128, and you may note something very interesting, briefly summarised below:

Quote from

husband fears uprising/disloyalty from wife
---> advise ---> abandon in bed
---> (if still no resolution) idriboo/cite them
---> authority feared breach/rift (i.e. no resolution) thus appoint arbiters

if a wife feared uprising/disloyalty from husband
---> then no blame upon them that they try to reconcile between themselves
---> but if situation continues as is, i.e. no resolution, authority/arbiters can get involved (THINK: what would come before this step)

Thanks! Interesting in-depth analysis in that link you posted :)

Women / Re: Critique: Marrying 4 wives in Islam
« on: April 16, 2019, 10:07:58 PM »
Oh now here are some older but reasonable responses from Deliverance and Optimist I find. Very well said.

All other forms are only allowed in emergencies and only allowed to man with capability to deal justly and it depends on the relation from Man to orphan not to the other women.

Trying to justify polygamy under cover of verse 4:3, in ordinary circumstances and without the condition mentioned, is nothing but the open flouting of the injunctions in the Quran. If you ask somebody, he would say, that as he was childless, he married again; as if God had enjoined upon him to increase the tribe of Adam and then come to Him, failing which he would be sent to hell. On the contrary, God Himself has said that children are born according to the law of nature. Some get boys and some girls; some have boys and girls both, and some remain childless (42:50).Some say that because their wives were perpetually ill, they married again. According to them companionship means: As long as your partner is healthy you keep her, and the minute she is sick you throw her into hell..!!!

The arguments put by Khalid Zia are interesting too.  Such as:


"Butterflies have wings in twos, threes or fours"

It is understood by the above phrase that the upper limit is 4. Here it would mean 2 on each side.


"John, line up these people in twos, threes or fours"

It is understood by the above phrase that the upper limit is 4.

Women / Re: Women's clothes and rape?
« on: April 16, 2019, 08:05:19 PM »
Sounds like flawed observation then because to me it seems you yourself have been the one responding to almost every sentence of my replies to you, whereas I actually deleted bits of your response that I felt did not need a response or just addressed a few points together.
You don't directly respond to the contentions Same for you? You did not answer a few either but that's alright. The topic has been dragged out too much anyway.
As for your "refutations" on this particular topic, I did not find them convincing as I already mentioned to you. I have found stronger arguments on this topic elsewhere.


Women / Re: Women's clothes and rape?
« on: April 16, 2019, 04:28:31 AM »
There is a documentary called "Pakistan's hidden shame" which highlights the issue of sexual abuse of young boys in Pakistan.

There is also something called "bacha bazi" in Afghanistan which is also sexual abuse and exploitation of boys.

Here is a link just for info:
"Myths vs realities"

Women / Re: Women's clothes and rape?
« on: April 16, 2019, 04:17:59 AM »
Salam Athman,

And it is in the same verse where God is talking from an orphan oriented context where the mention of ‘only one’ wife is also found for where justice is also feared to be uupheld.

That does not really change what I said.

What is the purpose of presenting such an argument dear sister if not insinuating a needed provision for polyandry to strike a gender balance in such matters for where polygyny is understood to be a general provision? Otherwise, would you kindly clarify please if this is not what you mean.

If you can "concur" with the statement that not all men are polygamous then you can easily do so here as well instead of making assumptions?
I have already responded to you about polyandry and I don't see the need to repeat myself.

Am I to understand this as a mere speculation dear sister?

I suppose if this is speculation too:  Some laws could still have thrived all along if not overlapping aspects.

Not really. Respectfully, as far as I am concerned, I find your interpretation of verse 3:14 to be made devoid of its context.

Dear sister, would you kindly take time to carefully look into the argument and verses cited. With all due respect, I did mention verses 8:28 and 8:67 as regards a warning against worldly pleasures that are normally sought after and an assurance of eternal Bliss of the Hereafter for all people (men and women). However, I posited that verse 3:14 was a specific address to men combatants hinted with the mention of such a worldly adornment of lust for women (an-Nisai). I hope you may now at least agree with me that 3:14 addresses men (given such mention of lust for women) even if you will not agree to what is argued for as a general intense lust adorned for man to a woman.

Even if this can be academically proven, it was not my point though. The point is: despite natural inclinations of a typical yearning towards opposite sex for both men and women, in 3:14, God acknowledges an intense lust for women adorned for men (3:14).

What interpretation?
My question to you is if you think verse 3:15 is talking about "purified spouses" for men only. Considering verse 3:16 and 3:17 as well.

I do know that much wisdom can be extracted from the Prophet Yusuf's story in this regard dear sister. By the way, it is a viable standard. It was actually a two-way struggle (walaqad hammat bihi wahamma biha) - 12:24. However, just because Prophet Yusuf (a.s) restrained his desires whereas his master’s wife yielded doesn’t preclude any possibility that Prophet Yusuf (a.s) could be naturally more or less intensely capacitated with lust for women. Same applies to the mistress. This doesn’t in any way prove that a male or a female is equally, less or more adorned to lust for the opposite sex. It was a case of exercised volition.

While it was the mistress who plotted a seduction (wara wadat-hu), Prophet Yusuf (a.s) remained self-restraint refraining from the same (ma’adha allahi) - 12:23 again strengthened with God’s intervention (ar-ra a burhana rabbihi) - 12:24. The mistress’ mischief can further be evidenced by what she falsely claims in 12:25. After all that what transpired, she still would not heed as can be evidenced in 12:32 (walain lam yaf’al maa aamuruhu).This is not proof in any way that she had a stronger yearning than did Prophet Yusuf (a.s). It only proves her freely spiritually unguided treacherous and evil character. The same would have been accounted if it would have been the other way round for the two characters.

Comparing both of their "yearnings" is not the point here.
It shows to me that women generally are also attracted to men's looks and even married women can fall for other men. It also shows that even a single man (let alone a married one) can show self-constraint and control. That's my take from it. There could be even more lessons there.

I don’t think it has ever been mentioned or insinuated in this forum that “Mr Joseph Islam is always right.” Unless you cite a possible insinuation to the same, I don’t think I can comment on that. As regards Br. Joseph’s article on polygyny as referenced above, I do agree with the exposition and thus simply referenced the article to acknowledge the position therein which, too, is my own. I don’t intend to rehash a treatise on that on this forum hence my humble reference. I am neither debating a particular verse dear sister. I just respond to your sentiments of contention. If warranted, we can as such yes possibly agree to disagree.

I also second Truthseeker's advice to you that there wasn't a need to even jot such a statement concerning Br. Joseph as regards what you feel is assumed of him. I, myself do ask for his opinion where I feel to [1], [2], [3], ask for clarification of his position where possible [4] and as well express my disagreement where necessary [5]. I also do reserve my opinions for where I may not fully agree with his where I feel to. Respectfully, this is different from the way you do, e.g, by jotting down such an unnecessary statement about him.

About him? :)
I apologize if I offended you there.
I already said let's agree to disagree on the interpretation.

Respectfully, I find this a digression. It is a different matter to garner general wisdom for both genders from a verse that addresses a particular victimised gender and another to claim that a verse addressed to a particular gender as regards their God ordained capacity should apply to both sexes at the expense of both theological and linguistic compromise to the verse. Would you kindly respond to my concern below re-cited:

“ yet to find out if you accept those people (an-nas) addressed in 3:14 do include 'women' who are also adorned for the lust of other 'women' (an-Nisai).

I already addressed that. But linguistically speaking, a verse that says males "accusing chaste women" could also not be converted to females "accusing chaste men", correct?
I accept the verse for what it is. I don't see its random link to the "polygyny" verse. I already knew of the verse.
I wanted to know if there are verses that also allude to women's desires.

Your responses in this regard appear to be riddled with rhetorical questions that seem to allude to equating men’s provisions with those for women. See for example the following:

If that's what you took from all this then what can I say?

Exacted comparisons are often akin to striking a balance or rather an equal footing (equality). Otherwise, I am sorry if this was not your stance.

As I already mentioned, I said it is about double standards and hypocrisy.

That is not my area of interest dear sister. I tend to incline myself into discussing matters that can be checked by the Qur’an (as a criterion) as to their level of truth, certainty or trustworthiness. As such, for now, I don’t find myself fit discussing such issues.

It is my area of interest.
I did not make this thread to discuss the "polygyny" verse. Hopefully, that's okay for you. :)

Women / Re: Women's clothes and rape?
« on: April 16, 2019, 03:18:34 AM »
Sigh. That wasn't what I asked. I asked your views in summary, bullet pointed. Your first post were questions. Never mind.

See my previous reply.

Women / Re: Women's clothes and rape?
« on: April 16, 2019, 02:47:18 AM »

My very first post was pretty clear and numbered. If someone still wants to respond to that, they can. And to the issue of rape/sexual assault in Muslim countries. Or to the topic of hypocrisy and double standards towards women and their sexuality.

Women / Re: Women's clothes and rape?
« on: April 16, 2019, 01:44:50 AM »

And? What if he is? Why is this such a problem that you made a personal attack at him IMO Unwarranted and ad hominem attack.

When you and others are pulled up on something it is done within the remit of the forum rules and etiquettes.

I gave you an example above regarding Athman. Yes you reported one person several times whilst still engaging with him telling him to leave the women's section which is not exclusively for women btw. You were both told not to communicate with each other and you both duly obliged. However after this you proceeded to request privately that we lock the forum which seemed strange and really geared towards you stifling the forum member with which you had an issue, from sharing comments with other members.

I can assure you that I am not offended by you, I am merely pointing out to you and to and have done to other members in the past, to remember to stay focused on the discussion at hand and not digress into pettiness.

  • I can also assure you that we have dealt with a lot more contentious issues here compared to your interpretation/view of polygyny so no that is not 'the issue here.'
  • Finally, yes I am actually an admin, who has been a member here since the forum's inception many years ago and am well known to the more seasoned members here.

I did not attack him personally. That is just unfortunately how you "feel". And it's kind of funny how you did not come up with all this when that other guy actually personally attacked me. You did not address him when he was resorting to his rude behavior but instead, you are purposefully bringing that up again even though it's finished.
You keep making assumptions and accusations. You said I have been attacking others "willy nilly". Give me examples, back it up.
You seem so offended that I made that comment. I will stand by it. Since you can say how you "feel" about me, I can also express how I "feel".
As for locking the THREAD, you can make assumptions all day long about why, where, what. I already responded to that guy anyway.
Interesting that you mention "stifling". I already mentioned how I "feel" this forum isn't so open. You can ban me since you don't seem to like my views. I expected that here anyway.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4