Messages

1) for Khula or ransoming out of the marriage does wife need the husbands agreement? If she does then what happens when the husband forces her to stay when she doesn't want to?

Using what I wrote above what is your response to this? i.e. what do you think the answer(s) could be.


Thanks.

What a refusal to answer the question.

She was clearly asking if she would have to return the mahr if she wanted to divorce from an abusive husband. Your answer is yes, so why not just say that? In your interpretation, she has to return her marriage gift to an abusive husband so she is able to get out of her marriage. This is a trap.

And I agree with her. It is very unfair. It is unfair anyway but especially in countries where women don't even basic rights. This would be another way to trap them. They are often already financially dependent. Now they have to suffer financially, birth babies, take care of said babies (including the manchild husband), her in-laws, etc, and STILL return the mahr? Imagine doing all that and you still have to give more.
Yet there is no such stipulation on the husband to give anything to his ex-wife who is far more likely to suffer as a result and is far more likely to be stuck with children, and far more likely to suffer societal wrath, whether she initiates the divorce or not.

The real question in the context of this discussion should be: if one wants to follow the more Western model of divorce with both being able to initiate divorce, is that fine in Islam or not?

[many]

Salaam,

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!
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-man-who-sex-corpse-13932352
https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/03/man-raped-corpses-women-killed-reveals-details-attacks-9106081/

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:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3125219/Sex-attacker-targeted-Muslim-women-fetish-women-wearing-hijabs.html
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/pakistan/pakistani-doctor-and-medical-staff-accused-of-raping-and-killing-a-woman-1.1556022738765
https://www.thejournal.ie/nurse-charged-with-rape-of-woman-in-coma-4455974-Jan2019/
https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2018/11/thousand-girls-afghan-woman-fight-rape-181121194856288.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47738365
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/man-who-killed-nabra-hassanen-set-to-appear-in-court-thursday-for-sentencing/2019/03/27/29575ff4-4fd7-11e9-8d28-f5149e5a2fda_story.html?utm_term=.b4198dd04363

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:
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2019/07/15/10-year-old-boy-allegedly-raped-murdered-in-lahore/

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.

Salaam,

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.

Peace,
niaz

Salaam,

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)?

Pakistan has a long way to go but this is great progress:

https://dunyanews.tv/en/Crime/50051z8-Man-jailed-over-second-marriage-without-consent-of--first-wife

Thanks for your thoughtful work, brother Wakas.

Pakistan has a long way to go but this is great progress:

https://dunyanews.tv/en/Crime/500518-Man-jailed-over-second-marriage-without-consent-of--first-wife

Here is another article about women being sexually harassed despite wearing headscarves:

https://www.likely.com.my/hijabi-girls-speak-out-about-sexual-harassment/

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?

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 Quran434.com:

4:34
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

4:128
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

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:

Example:

"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.

Example:

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

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

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.

Peace.

There is a documentary called "Pakistan's hidden shame" which highlights the issue of sexual abuse of young boys in Pakistan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niN5g8ZxFQg&t=912s

There is also something called "bacha bazi" in Afghanistan which is also sexual abuse and exploitation of boys.
https://humanrights.brightblue.org.uk/blog-1/2017/8/18/bacha-bazi-afghanistans-darkest-secret

Here is a link just for info:
"Myths vs realities"
https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexual-violence/myths-vs-realities/

[same verse]

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.

"Mistress"?
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:

"...am 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.

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.

Sigh.

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.