Messages

[What if he is?]

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.

Interestingly just saw this

https://www.instagram.com/p/BwRnFMxld34/

[why does that bother you]

Dear ShatteredEmblem,

I have noticed you make flippant comments on the forum and don't want anyone to pull you up on it. The statement you made to Athman "I really don't understand the sort of "Mr Joseph Islam is always right" type of mentality that some seem to have on this forum" seemed to me to be totally random and made out of frustration on your part. Let alone it not being linked to what he was trying to explain to you, which I actually felt was well balanced and thought out, with lots of references given.

Lets say that there are some people who agree with Joseph Islam on all his points, why does that bother you?  They have that right as you have the right not to agree. After I discuss topics with other members here and they have a different view from me,I don't get frustrated but rather think 'Each to their own'.


You said:"It seems this forum isn't so open after all". I actually feel it is very open but you have to be prepared to be challenged too. We have a code of conduct that is a remit for any discussions here. You have complained about forum members making personal attacks on you, yet you seem to be attacking others here willy-nilly.

He is pushing the same interpretation. You may "feel" it wasn't linked but that's your opinion. That part in blue is again your opinion and what you "felt".
Sure, you may "feel" the forum is open but when I say I "feel" something, apparently it's offensive.  Are you actually an admin?
"Challenged"? I've been responding to the people who are responding to me.
Where did I attack anyone? Go on. And I reported one person for personally attacking me BECAUSE THEY DID.
If you are offended over something like this, it's not really my problem.
The issue here seems to be that I do not agree with that interpretation of the "polygyny" verse. Kind of proves my point really.

[strongly feel that there was no need]

Dear ShatteredEmblem,

For now, I believe in the interpretation which takes orphans/proper benefits into account. I really don't understand the sort of "Mr Joseph Islam is always right" type of mentality that some seem to have on this forum. Please respect my understanding.

I strongly feel that there was no need to make the statement you just did regarding Joseph Islam. Our forum members are intelligent and rightly try to research and scrutinize the Quran to the best of their abilities.

If some forum members happen to agree with Joseph Islam's works, it is because his arguments and detailed analysis of the Quran seem convincing to them.

Of course there are a lot of people who respect his large body of work, both on this forum and outside (academics and non academics) but this is purely as a function of his arguments alone because he is completely anonymous.


In fact, there is a whole section on this forum dedicated for critiques and debates which can be found here:

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?board=23.0

I personally find a lot of his articles are reasonable  and make sense but of course I do not agree with all of them/everything he says. Some of his challengers definitely bring good points/arguments as well.
But what I said is how I feel so I said it. It's as simple as that.

It seems this forum isn't so open after all.

[recognizes]

Salam Athman,

Thanks for your response as well.

Somehow true. As mentioned earlier, in that case, the Qur'an recognizes such differences and provides for/ allows polygyny (not polygamy). It does not sanction it, order it nor discourage it but allows/ provides for it. I understand that we might not agree on this since you see such a provision as just made in the case of fear of unjustly treating orphans. However, if you do acknowledge that polygyny is specifically provided for in the case of unjustly treated orphans, would you then admit that Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) married more than one wife (33:28, 33:59) since he also feared not to or possibly used to unjustly treat the orphans? Will you also admit that the option of one wife is in the context of mistreated orphans (4:3) hence also only applies to orphan related situations? Will you then cite another Qur'anic verse which prescribes for the default one wife in generally other situations where orphans are not the main concern?

As a system, in Islam, marriage life is wholly networked such that one breach of a stipulated directive could lead to a disruption in at least one aspect down the chain of related issues. An attempt to insinuate 'seeming' other possibilities could result to a whole redefinition of the structure. You posit, "not all women are monogamous." For the case of the discussion, let's assume polyandry is provided for. Let's then theoretically assume a case of a deceased husband of a polyandrous wife. How would she cater for her other husbands' possible needed attention when on a 4 months 10 days waiting period, according to the Qur'an? How would she even emotionally heal if she is to attend to some other households who may possibly need her presence? Other issues to do with other social domains like inheritance may also come up. Kindly think about this.

I find that to be a stretch. That is not the only place in the Qur'an where God talks about marriage. But the verse where "polygyny" is mentioned, God talks about orphans.

I did not say poyandry is allowed or even should be. I said not all women are monogamous, meaning not all women want one man at a time or one man for the rest of their lives. Just how not all men are polygamous or want multiple women. Would you agree with that?

I do admit that laws could be different amongst nations sent prophets. However, for a particular field of interest, not necessarily that laws should be different. Some laws could still have thrived all along if not overlapping aspects. Otherwise, am yet to even hear from hearsay a case of God acknowledged polyandry case to have ever been there.


Perhaps "polygyny" was not allowed in some other time.

I concur, people are different. However, as regards certain matters, the Qur'an is specific with the general of a particular group e.g, gender, in this case that of men's 'al-shahawati' to women (3:14). This does not however mean that men have an excuse to entertain lust for women, it is simply an undeniable fact acknowledged by God. Whether one is to accept such a God acknowledged truth is a matter of their faith. After all, with respect to sexual urge, as noted previously, both sexes should exercise self-restraint (wa an taswbiru khairu lakum) - 4:25.


I hope that this is a general statement. Otherwise, as for my stance, I don't think I can put it more clearly than does the verse 14 of Suratul Imran (3). It appears from your approach that you are bent on justifying that anyone who appreciates the fact stated in 3:14 is influenced with certain societal sensibilities. You also misconstrue my position insinuating a masculine 'hypersexual' influence without warrant. Otherwise I do assume that this with the subsequent statement was meant to be general and not what I consider your interpolation of my humble position.

Of course it's a general statement.
Where did you pull that assumption out of? I also recommend that you keep this respectful. It seems that you are trying to imply that I am dimissing a Qur'ans verse?  Do you remember this verse 49:12?
If God mentions only men, does it mean God does not understand women's struggles and wants? Does it automatically mean women generally do not want wealth, children, gold and silver or men? Unfortunately, there are women who have also played a part in burying daughters and being in favour of sons. It's not a strictly male phenomenon.

I would recommend you also try to understand the wisdom behind the story of Prophet Yusuf pbuh and "Zulaykha".

Nor did I suggest in any way possible that it addresses an orphan oriented context. In as much as it can be disputed that the two verses are unrelated and do address specific subjects, you may want to appreciate why I presented those verses together. After all, respectfully, it was not my intention to expound the subject of polygyny from the Qur'an. Not that my understanding of polygyny as depicted in the Qur'an is wholly evidenced by verse 4:3. I simply thought that you are familiar with the subject and do recognize the verses where it is generally alluded to. You may want to refer to Br. Joseph's article [1] on this where he argues for a similar stance: an allowance, not a sanction. Furthermore, in light of 4:3, the provision/ allowance also comes with it a proviso: that of enabled justice (al-laa ta'dilu).

I am familiar with the verses.
For now, I believe in the interpretation which takes orphans/proper benefits into account. I really don't understand the sort of "Mr Joseph Islam is always right" type of mentality that some seem to have on this forum. Please respect my understanding. I do not find your argument convincing nor did I come here to debate that verse.
Let's agree to disagree.

I do concur. However, the context plays a key role in identifying the gender addressed in 3:14. They were possibly men being mobilized into battlefield. A reminder is made as to the temporary worldly treasures that shall come to waste (3:14) then an assurance to the eternal Bliss is guaranteed for sincere believers (3:15). Though this is again reminded of in 8:28 and reiterated in 8:67 as regards the general worldly pleasures (children and wealth) for people, 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).


"Possibly"?
Am I understanding this correctly, you think the "purified spouses" mentioned in that verse are only for men? Please clarify.
No, if we are going to restrict meanings based on the gender assigned, the subject and object then it would mean verses like 24:4 would also not apply to men who are being accused..

I do not fully agree. It is true that men could also cause unwarranted attraction where possible. Verses 24:30-31 as shared above address both genders as regards lowering ones gaze and guarding ones privates (wayahfadhu furujahum). However, I do not see the elucidatory remarks in 24:31 for the ladies to be an emphasis way far as compared to the directive in 24:30 for males. Rather, I find it elaborating on the extent of their decency/ modesty. As much as equality is cited as an aspect to be considered, I do humbly submit that the two sexes have differences in their body physique and 'attractive pockets' hence a difference to how one can be indecently exposed. Thus, a more natural tendency to cause unwarranted attraction for the females is posed if the prescriptions in 24:31 are not fully heeded. Again, this is in line with 33:59.

Dear sister, with the idea of equality, I am not convinced that this is the Qur'anic concept that establishes within familial or social matters. Rather, I find equity as the theme advanced. Furthermore, while I appreciate your honesty especially with respect to the undermined status of the woman in some Islamic societies, generally speaking, as regards God professed directives and provisions, I have to humbly remind one that there's sincerity and then there's humility. Kindly consider this. Islam is a complete system of life that has a balanced structure that should be understood, as extending to the basic rights, responsibilities and provisions in all possible areas of a believer's life. As noted in my previous response, this should be the basic premise.

Where did I mention equality? Please do not make assumptions about my position. I speak about women's rights, their situation, and the hypocrisy of society which is very much prevalent. Even if you believe in equity or equality, hopefully you agree that, in a general sense, neither of those are being enforced by men in this world.

Of course we will not agree about everything and that is fine. But I believe in what I said. I think decent/modest dressing applies to men as well. I don't believe in the "navel to the knees" mainstream belief.

My main points of discussion were women's sexuality and sexual abuse/rape and clothing being used as an excuse. Not about debating the "polygyny" verse. If you actually want to discuss the problem of sexual harassment in places like Egypt or outside the Kabah or even the west then let's do it.

Salaam.

That's good for you, Truth Seeker, if that has been your experience wherever you live. You are entitiled to your opinion and choices. I agree with taking certain types of precautions to a certain extent but as long as men like those exist, it's not going to change/help much. And if a woman, man or child did not take those precautions, it does not mean the rapist/harasser now has diminished responsibility for his actions or the victim has blame.
I've also read that a person is more likely to be raped by someone they know.

Unfortunately, not all women are as lucky and there are cases where they are even harassed in full covering. We should sympathize with them regardless of their clothing. Even prostitutes do not want to be raped. I think more men (and some women) should watch these videos, learn the facts and open their eyes to reality. What excuse do male harassers and rapists have when the victim is a child, an elderly woman or even another man? We need to put the blame where it belongs. On the perpetrator.

Even if men generally do have a bigger problem with their sexuality, it's not an excuse. It would mean men have an even bigger responsibility than women, which many of them are failing at, as we can see.
I agree that it needs to be addressed on a wider scale. Without focus on attire, victim blaming and excuses but real solutions and punishments.

Here are two videos about Egypt and sexual harassment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNQalkT3Uc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gja05symHkk&t=311s

There is still a culture of blaming the victim, especially when it's a woman. No wonder this problem is not improving because so many people find excuses for men.

Here are a few articles about harassment near the Kabah:

https://stepfeed.com/women-are-speaking-out-about-being-sexually-harassed-during-hajj-8156

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/08/middleeast/hajj-sexual-abuse-asequals-iwd-intl/index.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/02/26/588855132/-mosquemetoo-gives-muslim-women-a-voice-about-sexual-misconduct-at-mecca?t=1555011392335

I started it, so of course I will respond.  Even though the thread is being derailed.

Anyway, I got two responses on the 33:59 that the word does not actually mean protection from harm which was one of my questions at least. Clothing does not protect from abuse as has been proven in many cases.

Lock this thread if you want. Too much deflection going on.

[many thieves]

Dear ShatteredEmblem,

I agree when you mention that some people in the West are unaware of the extent of harassment that women can receive in certain majority Muslim countries.I must stress 'certain' as other places seem to be in balance so I am not sure what is behind the cultural mindset of those offending countries.

For things like this to happen in Makkah is truly outrageous but remember that it is frequented by so many different nationals who seem to bring their own cultural baggage with them. Being a Holy sanctuary doesn't seem to deter the many thieves that lurk about and steal whilst pilgrims are praying and worshipping!

So again it comes down to personal responsibility and really looking at what the faith commands of you as a servant of God. Sadly many people only focus on certain aspects of faith for example strictly consuming only halal meat, yet might think its okay to watch x rated movies.

Regarding men being more sexualised than women, I am not sure that society can be blamed for it as such because men do actually 'think' differently in this department and this is well know and documented.

I do cover my hair, with a headscarf or hats depending on where I am going as I like to be flexible but still cover

I do think that Muslims should start looking at their own countries and fixing their own problems instead of just blaming/focusing on the west..

Of course culture can play a part in it, but if some people hold the belief that only fully clothed women are worthy of respect because God commands women to cover, then their view of religion plays a part, imo.

I personally think society in general has definitely contributed to the hypersexual aspect of it. Men are usually not taught the same level of shame, modesty and decency as women. That the idea of being shameful/shy should also apply to them. Girls, especially in Muslim households, often have more restrictions put on them. Men are often able to express themselves more openly, not judged as much, more explicit content is geared towards men, not blamed for promoting indecency as much as women, there is more objectification of women's bodies..
In mainstream Islam, men are "enticed" with the idea of multiple wives, sex slaves, hoor al ayn.. if this isn't sexualizing their minds then what is?
The fact that men can get away with such nastiness even near the Kabah just shows the leniency (lack of a better word) of society towards men..

I have seen the double standards also on social media. For example, with Pakistani actresses. When an actress shows some skin, there will be so many awful and nasty comments about her but if a Pakistani actor poses shirtless or in a vest, showing off his toned body, it's mostly positive comments and even "MashaAllah"..

I actually think that society now (especially in the West) is pushing a movement where women under the guise of so called 'empowerment' are almost trying to compete with men in terms of their sexual conduct. In their quest for equality they stooping to  becoming debased and are in turn playing into men's fantasies!

Some, perhaps. I'm not talking about the "radicals" anyway. They are mostly a minority but seem to get a lot of attention. Kind of like Muslim radicals/terrorists. Nowadays, we even have weird things like MRA (men's rights activists) so.. lol.

Or perhaps now that there is somewhat less stigma associated with women showing their sexuality (in the west), they feel they are more free to do so.

But if we're talking about the west, I don't see why this would be surprising. They are generally much more open about sexuality. They accept homosexuality and also slowly trans people.. 
However, it's not like plenty of men and women don't get up to certain things in Muslim countries as well. It's just more hidden there.

[total lack of general respect towards women]

ShatteredEmblem mentioned Egypt for example, a place where there is a prevalence of highly inappropriate behaviour, even towards women who are almost covered from head to toe.

This does not mean that the directive for them to cover is not working, in my opinion, it is due to a total lack of general respect towards women that some men seem to have and is has become entrenched as 'the norm'. I think that the men here need to be taught how to conduct themselves in public and maybe a media campaign with input from clergy is a much needed step in the right direction.

Salaam,

Yes, I think it's a lack of respect towards women in general. If you only respect someone/their boundaries based on their clothes, then it's not really respect. If you watch the video, you'll see the mentality of the harassers and how clothing to them does not really matter.
I personally think it is not working, or at least not everywhere. I mean, even near God's house..
It may work in the west though (not against Islamophobia) because certain types of Muslim men seem to respect women in headscarves/abaya more than those without.

I think a lot of Muslims in the west are ignorant of or don't acknowledge what women in the east go through. Or even women in some Muslim households in the west.

In some aspects of our lives, inevitably there will be different tests because we are in fact different.

Yep.

I do feel that men in general are more 'sexualised' than women and I really feel that we ought to acknowledge this. Of course both genders have urges and desires but as far as I am concerned, men are tuned in to this much more.That is why I feel for myself , that I should dress modestly and cover up, because I feel more safe not to be glared at in certain places where men's eyes seem to wonder.

I feel that sociey has also shaped men in general into believing this is the case ..

Do you wear the headscarf?

Both men and women should guard their modestly and lower their gaze

Agreed.

Happy to oblige 

 

Salaam.

You were triggered from your very first response. And your arguments/points were useless and a deflection anyway. Stay away from the women's section if it triggers your fragile masculinity. It's as simple as that.