Women's clothes and rape?

[AQL]

Interestingly just saw this

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

[Truth Seeker]

You said:
"He is pushing the same interpretation"
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.

You said:
"Sure, you may "feel" the forum is open but when I say I "feel" something, apparently it's offensive."
When you and others are pulled up on something it is done within the remit of the forum rules and etiquettes.

You said:
"Where did I attack anyone? Go on. And I reported one person for personally attacking me BECAUSE THEY DID."
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.


You said:
"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."
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 (amongst others who I think do a great job), and I have been a member here since the forum's inception many years ago and am well known to the more seasoned members here.

[AQL]

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.

[Truth Seeker]

This matter has become unnecessarily protracted, and I have said what I needed to say.

If you want to participate on the forum, go ahead. if you feel that this forum does not allow you to express your opinions, you are free to go elsewhere.

[Truth Seeker]

ShatteredEmblem,

Moving on, please could you kindly summarise with bullet points what views of yours you feel the forum members should agree with. The topics on this thread seem to have become conflated and the discussion has branched out to polygyny.

[AQL]

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.

[Truth Seeker]

Sigh. That wasn't what I asked. I asked your views in summary, bullet pointed. Your first post were questions. Never mind.

[Athman]

Dear ShatteredEmblem,

See below my replies in blue to your contentions.

“I find that to be a stretch.”

Again, I am sorry if in any way I misrepresented your position. Otherwise, as far as your choice of words and assertive statements are concerned, I didn’t misconstrue what you presented. The standard used in the following statement of yours appears inclusive and suggests an exacted comparison.

“Not all men are polygamous and not all women are monogamous”

You argued:

“But the verse where "polygyny" is mentioned, God talks about orphans.”

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.

“...meaning not all women want one man at a time or one man for the rest of their lives.”

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.

“Just how not all men are polygamous or want multiple women. Would you agree with that?”

Sure, I do concur.

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

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

“Where did you pull that assumption out of? I also recommend that you keep this respectful.”

I do understand and expect that when you are responding to my comments, you assume a position where you are dealing with my contentions and not others.’ Otherwise, it is important to note if it’s a general statement you are making. This is because, in your response, you collectively took my presentation of verses 4:3 and 3:14 for the contention made 'coupling' it with other people’s views to make your contention. See the following citation:

"I don't feel it's fair to just look at the verse about polygamy or even verse 3:14 (isn't the word used there humans/people/mankind?) coupled with society's hypersexual view of men to justify their behaviour, generalize men and women, and victim blame women."

You asked:

“It seems that you are trying to imply that I am dimissing a Qur'ans verse?”

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

“Do you remember this verse 49:12?”

I do know the verse dear sister. However, as far as I am concerned, sincerely speaking, I am not indulged into any kind of suspicion (ad-dhwanna) whatsoever. Rather, once again I do mention that your choice of words and interpolation of my position coupling it with those of others appear to be unnecessarily contentious.

“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?”

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.

“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.”

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).

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

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.

“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 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.

"Possibly"?

Once again I do reiterate, the context in this case is key to identify the addressees. I also provided verses 8:28 and 8:67 to acknowledge God’s recognition of all people’s desires in general for worldly treasures.

“Am I understanding this correctly, you think the "purified spouses" mentioned in that verse are only for men? Please clarify.”

See my replies above please.

“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 notapply to men who are being accused..”

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).”

“Where did I mention equality? Please do not make assumptions about my position.”

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:

“And.. what about women? We also have to control ourselves, we also have a test. What would be our "solution" to stay away from adultery?
No, not all men are polygamous and not all women want monogamy.”

You also stated to Br. Duster:

“This is about the double standards and hypocrisy, so comparisions will be made.”

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.

“My main points of discussion were women's sexuality and sexual abuse/rape and clothing being used as an excuse.”

I think I did respond to that and we seem to partly agree on this in our views as you may confirm above.

“Not about debating the "polygyny" verse.”

Nor do I dear sister. I simply respond to contentions put across where I feel it warrants.

“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.”

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.

Regards,
Athman.

REFERENCES:
[1]. Cleansing Power Of The Rain, in Qur'an 8:11? http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=cb9jrjin7u63oblt4soapoglj5&topic=2464.0

[2]. An Inquiry on People of the Book and their 'Book'
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2498.msg13009#msg13009

[3]. Consultation For A Proper Understanding
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2450.msg12791#msg12791

[4]. Interconnection between Makkah, Bacca, Qaabah, and Masjidul Haraam
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2452.msg12801#msg12801

[5].The Place of Summon for Prophet Musa (pbuh)
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2572.msg13341#msg13341

[AQL]

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.

[AQL]

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.

[AQL]

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/

[Athman]

Dear sister ShatteredEmblem,

Peace be upon you,

It is an observation of mine that you have a potential to tend to contentiously respond to every response made to you regardless of whether you have a refuting, a sound rebuttal or whether there is even a need to contend. To this extent, I don't think there's any argument that can be made against yours on this topic that you may consider accepting even if it may refute yours. This is because you don't directly respond to the contentions made nor make clear your areas of agreement from which one may be at a better position to know where specifically to clarify. You also tend to collate different people's stances and 'put them in one basket' without making a distinction for where there is.

Respectfully, I think I already made clear my perspectives on your original queries where we somehow do agree and thus as you said previously, we may just agree to disagree at some point of disparity. It is not my intention to be unnecessarily contentious nor set into an endless one on one contentious discussion on a topic for which our perspectives have literally been made clear and that we may possibly not agree any further.

For the reasons stated above, may I kindly please end my discussion with you here. Other members may find it fit discussing the other areas you do wish to insha Allah. It was a pleasure discussing such a topic with you.

With all due respect, kindly consider this as my last response to you on this matter in this thread. Thanks.

Regards,
Athman.

[AQL]

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.

[Duster]

Dear ShatteredEmblem,

See below my replies in blue to your contentions.

“I find that to be a stretch.”

Again, I am sorry if in any way I misrepresented your position. Otherwise, as far as your choice of words and assertive statements are concerned, I didn’t misconstrue what you presented. The standard used in the following statement of yours appears inclusive and suggests an exacted comparison.

“Not all men are polygamous and not all women are monogamous”

You argued:

“But the verse where "polygyny" is mentioned, God talks about orphans.”

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.

“...meaning not all women want one man at a time or one man for the rest of their lives.”

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.

“Just how not all men are polygamous or want multiple women. Would you agree with that?”

Sure, I do concur.

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

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

“Where did you pull that assumption out of? I also recommend that you keep this respectful.”

I do understand and expect that when you are responding to my comments, you assume a position where you are dealing with my contentions and not others.’ Otherwise, it is important to note if it’s a general statement you are making. This is because, in your response, you collectively took my presentation of verses 4:3 and 3:14 for the contention made 'coupling' it with other people’s views to make your contention. See the following citation:

"I don't feel it's fair to just look at the verse about polygamy or even verse 3:14 (isn't the word used there humans/people/mankind?) coupled with society's hypersexual view of men to justify their behaviour, generalize men and women, and victim blame women."

You asked:

“It seems that you are trying to imply that I am dimissing a Qur'ans verse?”

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

“Do you remember this verse 49:12?”

I do know the verse dear sister. However, as far as I am concerned, sincerely speaking, I am not indulged into any kind of suspicion (ad-dhwanna) whatsoever. Rather, once again I do mention that your choice of words and interpolation of my position coupling it with those of others appear to be unnecessarily contentious.

“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?”

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.

“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.”

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).

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

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.

“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 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.

"Possibly"?

Once again I do reiterate, the context in this case is key to identify the addressees. I also provided verses 8:28 and 8:67 to acknowledge God’s recognition of all people’s desires in general for worldly treasures.

“Am I understanding this correctly, you think the "purified spouses" mentioned in that verse are only for men? Please clarify.”

See my replies above please.

“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 notapply to men who are being accused..”

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).”

“Where did I mention equality? Please do not make assumptions about my position.”

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:

“And.. what about women? We also have to control ourselves, we also have a test. What would be our "solution" to stay away from adultery?
No, not all men are polygamous and not all women want monogamy.”

You also stated to Br. Duster:

“This is about the double standards and hypocrisy, so comparisions will be made.”

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.

“My main points of discussion were women's sexuality and sexual abuse/rape and clothing being used as an excuse.”

I think I did respond to that and we seem to partly agree on this in our views as you may confirm above.

“Not about debating the "polygyny" verse.”

Nor do I dear sister. I simply respond to contentions put across where I feel it warrants.

“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.”

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.

Regards,
Athman.

REFERENCES:
[1]. Cleansing Power Of The Rain, in Qur'an 8:11? http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=cb9jrjin7u63oblt4soapoglj5&topic=2464.0

[2]. An Inquiry on People of the Book and their 'Book'
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2498.msg13009#msg13009

[3]. Consultation For A Proper Understanding
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2450.msg12791#msg12791

[4]. Interconnection between Makkah, Bacca, Qaabah, and Masjidul Haraam
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2452.msg12801#msg12801

[5].The Place of Summon for Prophet Musa (pbuh)
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2572.msg13341#msg13341

Shalom / peace br. Athman.... Thanks for sharing your views in the way you have..... found them quite convincing and detailed.....》》

[Truth Seeker]

Salaam Athman,

I think that you have tried your best to explain your points in a lot of detail with references given and also have been measured and unemotional in your delivery.