May It Not Happen Again!

[redcake]

We are talking about beating and you're saying that children being executed proves that clerics sanction wife beating? Is your vertical hold working?

I'm discussing Sharia, and the various abuses towards women...the child in question was of the female gender. It's all the same topic.



Still, I'm glad I don't live in a refugee camp behind a twenty foot high concrete wall with tanks and bulldozers rolling through my neighborhood.

Nice non-sequitor swipe at Israel. What does that have to do with the modernized Jewish orthodoxy again? Oh right, not much, you just took a pot shot.




I've taken the strictest possible view, the one the most conservative Sheikhs take.

No. There are Sheikhs that believe a man should use his fist. I think the Sheikh in the film alluded to that.

So let's clear this up.
You went from saying there were a group of Muslim clerics who were like a cult, that were misinterprating the hadiths, then you challenge us to find any cleric anywhere who sanctions beatings, to saying thay you're on the same page as the strictest of them, and now in the same breath you admit there are clerics who do sanction beatings. That's comedy.



You've substituted your misogynist view of who you think I must be for who I really am.

Maybe that's the problem? Maybe if you understood what the term misogyny meant we wouldn't have to go round and round with this conversation. Unless you just changed genders or you're tag teaming these posts with more then one person using your screen name. THAT would explain some contradictory replies.




Illuminatus is acting against your case. He's posted at least three separate Sheikhs saying that Islam doesn't support violence against women.

Oh noes. Can I borrow your Toothstick and take care of him?
What is clearly lost on you, Andak, is that any vague mention about scolding a woman, be it verbal, or physical, or even symbolic, as a religious right of the male, enforced by national laws and courts ....leads to oinkoinkoink misogyny. Rules for disciplining your adult spouse aren't going to win points.



No, I'm being honest. You just haven't established a rapport with your inner hate. Once the denial goes away, you can get on with the project.

I haven't said anything more then what Ghada Jamsheer and many other heros who are speaking out against the problematic side of Islam, have said.

Your perception of hate must be warped if you think that by unapolegetically voicing dissaproval of the likes of Sheikh Muhhamed kamel Mustaffa's and his book "Women in Islam", I must be a hate monger in denial. Yeah. Act like a moderator, and delete your own posts.

[Illuminatus]

quote:

Al-'Odeh: The Prophet turned to [his wife] 'Aisha and thought, "Is she sleeping?" No, but she pretended to be asleep. She closed her eyes and pretended to be asleep. But her chest movements and her rapid breathing showed that the woman was not asleep. The teacher and husband, the Prophet Muhammad, turned to her and said: "'Aisha what's going on?" She opened her eyes as though she was awakening and said to him: "Nothing, oh Messenger of Allah."

The Prophet said to her: "Either you tell me or Allah will." She said: "Messenger of Allah, I saw you leave and I left after you, because I was afraid you would sleep with one of your other wives."

The Prophet said to her: "Were you afraid that Allah and His messenger would be unfair to you?" 'Aisha answered: "Whatever people conceal – Allah knows, this is why I was afraid and why I followed you." The Prophet said to her: "Were you the figure I saw in front of me?" He noticed a figure but he didn't understand what it was.

She said: "Yes, Messenger of Allah." He patted her lightly on the chest, meaning, he beat her but not out of violence, as some men do out of cruelty, but for the sake of discipline, as if to tell her:

"What you did was wrong. You shouldn't have thought or acted in this manner." This was only a movement of his fingertip to discipline her. ..]

watch --> http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=443#

Naturally, the above sermon needs to seen in context. The following is Mohammed's Final Addreess before he died.

quote

"O people, listen to my words. I do not know whether I shall ever meet you again in this place after this year. O people, your blood and your property are sacrosanct until you meet your Lord, just as this day and this month of yours are sacred. Surely you will meet your Lord and He will question you about your deeds. I have [already] made this known. Let he who has a pledge return it to the one who entrusted him with it; all usury is abolished, but your capital belongs to you. Wrong not and you shall not be wronged. Allah has decreed that there will be no usury, and the usury of Abbas b. Abd al-Muttalib is abolished, all of it. All blood shed in the pre-Islamic days is to be left unavenged. The first such claim I revoke is that of Ibn Rabiah b. al-Harith b. Abd al-Muttalib, who was nursed among the Banu Layth and was slain by the Banu Hudhayl. His is the first blood shed in the pre-Islamic days with which I shall set an example.

O people, indeed Satan despairs of ever being worshipped in this land of yours. He will be pleased, however, if he is obeyed in a thing other than that, in matters you minimize. So beware of him in your religion, O people, intercalculating a month is an increase in unbelief whereby the unbelievers go astray; one year they make it profane, and hallow it another [in order] to agree with the number that Allah has hallowed, and so profane what Allah has hallowed, and hallow what Allah has made profane. Time has completed its cycle [and is] as it was on the day that Allah created the heavens and the earth. The number of the months with Allah is twelve; [they were] in the Book of Allah on the day He created the heavens and the earth. Four of them are sacred, the three consecutive [months] and the Rajab [which is the month of] Mudar, which is between Jumada and Sha’ban.


Now then, O people, you have a right over your wives and they have a right over you. You have [the right] that they should not cause anyone of whom you dislike to tread on your beds; and that they should not commit any open indecency. If they do, then Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain from [evil], they have the right to their food and clothing in accordance with the custom.

Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves. You have taken them only as a trust from Allah, and you have made the enjoyment of their persons lawful by the word of Allah, so understand and listen to my words, O people. I have conveyed the Message, and have left you with something which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray; that is, the Book of Allah and the sunnah of his Prophet. Listen to my words, O people, for I have conveyed the Message and understand [it]. Know for certain that every Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, and that all Muslims are brethren. It is not lawful for a person [to take] from his brother except that which he has given him willingly, so do not wrong yourselves. O Allah, have I not conveyed the message?"

--> http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/The_Farewell_Sermon

^_^

[Maimonides]

Yeah me too. Still, I'm glad I don't live in a refugee camp behind a twenty foot high concrete wall with tanks and bulldozers rolling through my neighborhood.

Since you brought it up, I feel something must be said in response.

When Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, what was the Palestinian response? Was it "Thank you, this is a step in the right direction"?

No, it was to immediately begin firing rockets from Gaza at Israeli towns with the goal of killing Jewish inhabitants. I take it you believe Islam does not permit this, correct?

Though I'm sure many Palestinians are decent people, the Palestinians elected a terrorist group committed to Israel's destruction as their leaders. It's now clear that "a state of their own" is not what the Palestinians are after.

If the Palestinians were not so in love with terrorism, and so full of racist hatred of Jews, there would be no tanks and bulldozers rolling through their neighborhoods.

[andak01]

Since you brought it up, I feel something must be said in response.

When Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, what was the Palestinian response? Was it "Thank you, this is a step in the right direction"?

No I don't. I think it was embarassing and terrible.


No, it was to immediately begin firing rockets from Gaza at Israeli towns with the goal of killing Jewish inhabitants. I take it you believe Islam does not permit this, correct?

You are correct. Killing women and children is forbidden. Killing the innocent is forbidden.

[Agnosthiest]

Good Lord! I'm glad I didn't say that! Not that I could have.

You missed the point. "At some point in life" is extremely broad. That means being slapped once in your life by a lover gets you into the stats. Thats a far cry from the islamic world's honor killings and religion inspired system of beatings.


The failure to protect Indigenous women from sexual violence in the USA
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engAMR510352007?open&of=eng-USA

Thats just the indigenous women, a tiny culture within the american nation.




Islam doesn't permit anything that would be illegal in the West.

on the top of my head....polygamy, cutting off of hands, half-inheritance, half-testimony,. wife-beating.



Let me make this clear. If a woman feels the need to complain to authorities, then those authorities should protect her. There is a wide range of stances on this issue, but no woman should be without recourse for abuse. There should be women's shelters in every Muslim community just as there are here. Women are being treated unfairly in ways that are contrary to Sharia in these so-called Sharia states. What's more, men are not being punished in many cases where they would be if Sharia was enforced.


Should. Its amazing that muslims had to see from a western point of view in order to realize that sharia states are doing things contrary to sharia. :D

[andak01]

on the top of my head....polygamy, cutting off of hands, half-inheritance, half-testimony,. wife-beating.

Yes, a Sharia state does establish laws different from what we have here. That have a different form of capital punishment, etc. But regarding the subject of this thread, Islam does not allow a man to abuse his wife. Now, as to the other things you mentioned.

Polygamy is not a requirement, but a permission. Many believe it is based on an impossibility anyway. If a Western Muslim wishes to marry again, he should move to a nation where it is permitted or face the same penalty that a Mormon or other polygamist faces.

Cutting off hands is a punishment of a Sharia state, not a requirement of family law or daily living. Half-inheritance can be supplimented by disgressionary inheritance. The Western law allows for NO inheritance. Half inheritance is a minimum requirement. Half testimony doesn't apply in rape cases, where a woman's testimony is all that is required. Wife beating is forbidden by the hadith that I've already presented.

[Agnosthiest]

Polygamy is not a requirement, but a permission.

Exactly. And Islamic permit that is illegal in the West.




The Western law allows for NO inheritance.

what are you talking about?



Half testimony doesn't apply in rape cases, where a woman's testimony is all that is required.

Half testimony was for something else.



Islam does not allow a man to abuse his wife.

Wife beating is forbidden by the hadith that I've already presented.

Thats were you muslims disagree among yourselves. But hitting your wife for whatever reason & by whatever means (yes even by a toothbrush) is a form of abuse.

[andak01]

Andak: Western law allows for NO inheritance.

what are you talking about?


In Islam, half inheritance of a daughter is a minimum that can be supplimented. In the West, any daughter can be completely cut out of a will. There is no minimum.



Half testimony was for something else.

Half testimony doesn't apply in all cases. I suppose you know that.



Thats were you muslims disagree among yourselves. But hitting your wife for whatever reason & by whatever means (yes even by a toothbrush) is a form of abuse.

But I'm permitted to live with her in the West outside of marriage and then leave her financially destitute. There is no requirement for me to pay anything up front to prevent even the possibility of running away and leaving her with nothing.

[Agnosthiest]

In Islam, half inheritance of a daughter is a minimum that can be supplimented.

Your 'minimum' is misleading. The only way a daughter can get more than a half is if she has no brother.




Half testimony doesn't apply in all cases. I suppose you know that.


What I know is that in terms of financial documents two women stands for one man....

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=681

A shame that a non-muslim like me had to inform you about this. :(




But I'm permitted to live with her in the West outside of marriage and then leave her financially destitute. There is no requirement for me to pay anything up front to prevent even the possibility of running away and leaving her with nothing.

Not unless you father a child through her. In that case you would be required to pay for a long time. And in some cases your cohabition becomes recognized as common-law, in which case you both become legally binded on each other.

Shame on you Andak, that a filipino like me had to remind you of your own american law. :(

[redcake]

In the West, any daughter can be completely cut out of a will. There is no minimum.

So now you're rewarding Islam for making a woman's inheritance only half the mans take, because hey, at least it's a mandatory half? What a backhanded attempt at spinning women''s rights.

Anyway, why shouldn't Islam afford one the personal right to cut someone out of their will cutting someone out of a will, or do whatever they want with their asset planning, without the mosque getting involved?

[andak01]

So now you're rewarding Islam for making a woman's inheritance only half the mans take, because hey, at least it's a mandatory half? What a backhanded attempt at spinning women''s rights.

And you ignore that any child in this culture can receive nothing, and, that there is a disgressionary amount allowed, AND most important, that men do not receive a dowery. Whereas the estate is one of the only means of income besides a job for the man, the woman receives a dowery of her choice and must be supported.


Anyway, why shouldn't Islam afford one the personal right to cut someone out of their will cutting someone out of a will, or do whatever they want with their asset planning, without the mosque getting involved?

How does that work in Halachic law? And why don't we have the right to do what we want without YOU getting involved?

[andak01]

Shame on you Andak, that a filipino like me had to remind you of your own american law. :(

I'm aware of the law. Tell me, can a woman who is already made secure at the time of her marriage fear a dead-beat dad?

[redcake]

Whereas the estate is one of the only means of income besides a job for the man, the woman receives a dowery of her choice and must be supported.

How lost on you is the concept of equality anyway?

The dowery IS offensive in and of itself, Andak. Stop referencing it as a positive thing.

"must be supported" <---- ?

You just undermined yourself.

[andak01]

How lost on you is the concept of equality anyway?

The dowery IS offensive in and of itself, Andak. Stop referencing it as a positive thing.

"must be supported" <---- ?

You just undermined yourself.

And how lost on you is the concept of tolerance and freedom of religion. You know, many Muslims disagree with the intolerant policies of the so-called Sharia states. I've said it and it has been echoed by others that non-Muslims should be allowed in Mecca as they were up until the death of the Prophet. Jews have been invited to resettle in several Jewish nations.

But you want not only that Sharia states be destroyed but also that beliefs which you disagree with be suppressed even in the West. These beliefs are found in Hinduism, Mormonism and Orthodox Judaism. Let me add that, although I am against much of what is being done with regards to women in the so-called Sharia states, I haven't seen evidence that fomenting civil wars and military coups and even backing invasions of those countries is improving the lives of Muslims. If it were and if it ever becomes so, I'd be for it.

The dowry for a woman was a reversal of the Hindu practice of a dowery paid to the man by the woman's family. This practice is crushing fanancially and turns women into hated entities. That accounts for the millions of female abortions in India.

Muhammad (SAW) insured that the birth of a female was seen as a blessed event rather than a liability to the family.

According to a recent report by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) up to 50 million girls and women are missing from India' s population as a result of systematic gender discrimination in India. In most countries in the world, there are approximately 105 female births for every 100 males.

In India, there are less than 93 women for every 100 men in the population. The accepted reason for such a disparity is the practice of female infanticide in India, prompted by the existence of a dowry system which requires the family to pay out a great deal of money when a female child is married. For a poor family, the birth of a girl child can signal the beginning of financial ruin and extreme hardship.

However this anti-female bias is by no means limited to poor families. Much of the discrimination is to do with cultural beliefs and social norms. These norms themselves must be challenged if this practice is to stop.

http://www.indianchild.com/abortion_infanticide_foeticide_india.htm

[Agnosthiest]

can a woman who is already made secure at the time of her marriage fear a dead-beat dad?
dead-beat as in broke? does the 'dad' here refer to her father or her husband?

[andak01]

dead-beat as in broke? does the 'dad' here refer to her father or her husband?

Sorry if these terms don't translate to Canada (je le souviens toujours). The dead-beat dad is a man who leaves his family and skips out without paying support. It is illegal, but at the same time, the law if extremely hard to enforce and many women end up on welfare because of dead-beat dads.

Proper application of the Quran and Sunna makes that crime impossible. When a women goes to get married, she is required to have a Wali or advisor. She determines what dowry she is to receive and then states it to the Wali and a contract is drawn up for the payment of it. It is the Wali's job to protect the interests of the woman. The payment of the dowry is stipulated in the wedding contract and failure to pay it can be used as a cause for divorce. At that time, the wife can also stipulate other causes for divorce as well. She can also stipulate a sum to be paid to her in the event of a divorce.

[Agnosthiest]

The dead-beat dad is a man who leaves his family and skips out without paying support. It is illegal, but at the same time, the law if extremely hard to enforce and many women end up on welfare because of dead-beat dads.

Proper application of the Quran and Sunna makes that crime impossible. When a women goes to get married, she is required to have a Wali or advisor. She determines what dowry she is to receive and then states it to the Wali and a contract is drawn up for the payment of it. It is the Wali's job to protect the interests of the woman. The payment of the dowry is stipulated in the wedding contract and failure to pay it can be used as a cause for divorce. At that time, the wife can also stipulate other causes for divorce as well. She can also stipulate a sum to be paid to her in the event of a divorce.

My friend, a man like that will beat any system. Even yours.

First of all from what you described a dowry can be paid after marriage. After marriage a woman can be impregnated and so what happens if the man fails to pay dowry and wanted divorce? Wouldnt that be the same as a dead-beat dad?

Second, I see a hole. If Islam had its way the wife would be completely dependent on the husband. As such she would have had little or no work skill experience. In the event of a divorce or if the man left her, her dowry money wont last long and she would be left equally destitute, barely able to find a good job that can support her & her children.

No, the non-muslim way of non-dowry and equal opportunity is still superior to Islam. The women here are still better off even with the many cases of divorce & separations. That is the reality of things.

[andak01]

My friend, a man like that will beat any system. Even yours.

First of all from what you described a dowry can be paid after marriage. After marriage a woman can be impregnated and so what happens if the man fails to pay dowry and wanted divorce? Wouldnt that be the same as a dead-beat dad?

You're right, which brings up one of the failings of our society. The community does not participate in enforcing the law. I'm not talking about vigilanteism, but rather actively identifying and reporting problems. When someone moves into your neighborhood, do you welcome that person, establish a rapport, share your background and find out about theirs? I know where I live it's difficult. There never seems to be enough time. But it is an Islamic duty to know our neighbors seven houses in each direction.

Dutys like that, if we take them to heart and don't stay to ourselves can assist Muslims to integrate into society. One thing I do forbid my wife to do is to turn down invitations from our Christian or non-Muslim neighbors. We do not want to give them an opportunity to say that we are anti-social.

We do have a very rich social life with our Muslim friends, but Muslims in the West have a special duty to act as ambassadors.


Second, I see a hole. If Islam had its way the wife would be completely dependent on the husband. As such she would have had little or no work skill experience.

There is no prohibition on a woman working except when she has very young children. She can bring in a larger salary than her husband and some women do. However, unless it is her own wish, she doesn't have to share a penny of her earnings. Her husband cannot force her to. My wife plans to work, and I hope that she continues her education. Several Muslimas we know have PHDs. One has a PHD in linguistics and has published a book of translated ahadith. Her husband is Pakistani and as strict a Muslim as I know of.


In the event of a divorce or if the man left her, her dowry money wont last long and she would be left equally destitute, barely able to find a good job that can support her & her children.

At that point, she would be as bad off as a woman living by Western norms. Of course she could have worked and saved her money as a contingiency. A western mom would be expected to work and pay into family support.


No, the non-muslim way of non-dowry and equal opportunity is still superior to Islam. The women here are still better off even with the many cases of divorce & separations. That is the reality of things.

The reality is that Muslims often don't act like Muslims. We don't educate ourselves to those things we should do and we don't act upon that. If Muslims were acting as Muslims, you wouldn't have the objections you have.

[redcake]

And how lost on you is the concept of tolerance and freedom of religion.

I suppose you want the religious freedom to be a misogynist. Is that what you're saying? Practice your religion, don't infringe on the rights of others. The freedom to do one of those things doesn't cancel out the other...try and wrap your head around that.


But you want not only that Sharia states be destroyed but also that beliefs which you disagree with be suppressed even in the West.

I never said anything that hardline. Enough psycho babble.

[andak01]

I suppose you want the religious freedom to be a misogynist. Is that what you're saying? Practice your religion, don't infringe on the rights of others. The freedom to do one of those things doesn't cancel out the other...try and wrap your head around that.

I'm not a misogynist. But it seems to me that you want the right to tell me how to write my will, how I must interact and think about women and a host of other things. On the other hand, I don't have any desire to do the same to you.

I can understand your issues with human rights in Arab countries. I share them. In addition, women's issues in India and throughout the 3rd world concern me, and I am concerned within my own community.


I never said anything that hardline. Enough psycho babble.

No. You haven't ever specified what is to be done with people who are in your words morally reprehensible, irrational, etc. We are all aware by now that you are distrurbed by these issues. I've heard you applaud a woman that grandstands by speaking against the Quran and the Sunna. I take it you'd like to see more of that. And of course you'd like me better if I did some of that too. In fact, if I don't I'm irrational. I got that.

But I'd hate to equate slamming the Quran and Sunna with being against Islam. Did I tell you about my favorite Jewish friends over at Neutri Karta? Can't you listen to yourself?

[redcake]

Andak:

If YOU equate Jamsheer's honesty with "slamming" the Koran. That's your problem...not to mention it's detrimental to her cause. It also cheapens your claim of supporting the women's rights movement in Arab countries. See, since you can't imagine Islam accomodating women any more then it already does without apostating, then you presume this movement is attacking the religion rather then revising it.

What exactly do Neutri Karta have to do with this? Criticism of them is political, not religious. It's what they do with their beliefs that we have a problem with. In fact, many Jews agree with them on a religious level, and see their point that modern Israel doesn't fullfill gods promise of an Israel all while still opposing their lunacy calling for destruction of Israel, and denying the Holocaust, amongst other fun. Furthermore, the number of Neutri Karta are a slight fraction of the number of Muslims under Sharia rules....and you seem to struggle with arguing that these laws are gret for women, or don't even exist. Yet AGAIN, another bankrupt comparison from Andak.

Oh and p.s. since you're not a misogynist, I'll ask that you please stop making chuavinistic arguments.

[andak01]

First off, Redcake, here's a sincere apology. I mistook your second expert for the first one you posted some days back.

We have now established that Ghada Jamsheer is not Parvin Darabi.

On the subject of mut'ah marriage, it is forbidden in Sunni Islam. The fact that Osama Bin Laden allowed his men to practice it is scandalous. There was a very short period when it was permitted, but there are Sahiih ahadith where that permission is abrogated. In plain English, "henceforth this is forbidden" from the mouth of the Prophet.

From reading Ghada Jamsheer, I'd have to agree with her. BUT, I can't speak about what is actually permissible according to Shiite Sharia versus what appears in their own version of the Sunna. I can say that their ayatollahs have a power over deciding Sharia that is not found in Sunni Islam.

Parvin Darabi was, in my opinion, attacking the Quran and the Sunna. And at that point, I got very upset with you using her as an example of reform. At that point, I think the Jews for Jesus example is the only way I can describe how I felt.

You have every right to be upset with me for my sloppy reading of Ghada Jamsheer. Again, I apologize. As far as I can see, I agree completely with what she says. And like yourself, I do respect her for being brave. Mut'ah marriage is forbidden in Islam as is abuse of children. She is a woman of faith and a brave woman for standing up for what is right.

http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352779&TOCID=2083225414

[redcake]

Mut'ah marriage is forbidden in Islam as is abuse of children.

I'm not sure how you can say you agree with what Jamsheer says.
She has explicitly said the opposite.
I provided you with the Sunni and Shia text in Arabic that shows evidence she is correct.

[andak01]

Mut’ah or temporary marriage refers to when a man marries a woman for a specific length of time in return for a particular amount of money.

The basic principle concerning marriage is that it should be ongoing and permanent. Temporary marriage – i.e., mut’ah marriage – was permitted at the beginning of Islam, then it was abrogated and became haraam until the Day of Judgement.


Which is precisely what I said. Has the Day of Judgement arrived? Then temporary marriage is forbidden and Jamsheer is correct and I would stand behind her on this point. Again, I cannot speak about the Shiite Sunna. Among Sunnis the practice is forbidden.

It was narrated from ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade mut’ah marriage and the meat of domestic donkeys at the time of Khaybar. According to another report, he forbade mut’ah marriage at the time of Khaybar and he forbade the meat of tame donkeys.

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3979; Muslim, 1407.

It was narrated from al-Rabee’ ibn Sabrah al-Juhani that his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said, “O people, I used to allow you to engage in mut’ah marriages, but now Allaah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection, so whoever has any wives in a mut’ah marriage, he should let her go and do not take anything of the (money) you have given them.”

Narrated by Muslim, 1406.

Allaah has made marriage one of His signs which calls us to think and ponder. He has created love and compassion between the spouses, and has made the wife a source of tranquility for the husband. He encouraged us to have children and decreed that a woman should wait out the ‘iddah period and may inherit. None of that exists in this haraam form of marriage.

A woman who is married in a mut’ah marriage, according to the Raafidis – i.e. the Shi’ah, who are the ones who say that this is permissible – is neither a wife nor a concubine. But Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts)
Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame;
But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors”
[al-Mu’minoon 23:5-7]

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=20738&ln=eng

[redcake]

So all you got from her was that Mutah marriages are bad?

How telling.

[andak01]

So all you got from her was that Mutah marriages are bad?

How telling.

It is what I have authority to speak knowledgeably about. I'm Sunni and she's referring to Shiite Sharia. I've got no more authority to speak on that subject than about Catholic Canonical law.

As I understand, the Ayatollah Khomeini had the power to rewrite Shiite sharia and did. As you know, I consider him one of the most evil people that ever lived.

I reread the article for the third time and still agree with every word she says. Every practice she condemns, I condemn.

[redcake]

Jamsheer explcitely states this is ISLAMIC SHARI'A. It's the interviewer who qualifies it as a Shiite practice.



Ghada Jamshir: Authorized by religious law?!

Interviewer: Among the Shiites, yes.

Ghada Jamshir: Does the Islamic Shari'a authorize mut'ah marriages? Does the Islamic Shari'a authorize mut'ah according to the following classification: "Pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs." They have: "Pleasure from sexual touching." "pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts." "Pleasure from a little girl." Do you know what "pleasure from a little girl" means? It means that they derive sexual pleasure from a girl aged two, three, or four.


You started out saying these were not Muslim laws.
Jamsheer is saying these are ISLAMIC laws.
You started out saying at best these were cult beliefs.
Now you are admitting these are Islamic laws, and minimizing it by saying this is a Shia vs. Sunni difference?
Don't Sunni's practice misyar marriages?

[andak01]

Shiite Sharia is one of two Islamic Sharias. As I said, I do not know either the details of how Shiite Sharia is formed or what set of Sunnah it is based on. I do know that they do not accept the ahadith of Aisha (RA) and Abu Huraira (RA). As I understand, Mullahs like the Ayatollah Khomeini have papal like powers to absolutely control the law.


Ghada Jamshir: Does the Islamic Shari'a authorize mut'ah marriages? Does the Islamic Shari'a authorize mut'ah according to the following classification:

Don't you know a rhetorical question?? I showed you the Sunna. Mut'ah marriages are harraam! You're really beneath contempt.

Do you really think she's asking a question? She knows that it is not permitted according to the Sunnah.



Ghada Jamshir: No. Allah will decide whether I go to paradise or to hell, not them.

Are those the words of a woman who has apostated? No. She is a brave and honest Muslim woman upholding the true meaning of the Sunnah against a bunch of bullys. You demean what she is doing by implying what she says an attack on Islam.

[redcake]

Perhaps I demean what she's doing infront of your twisted eyes, but for the rest of the world, I'm just calling it as it is.

Yes, her questions are rhetorical, but apparently her larger point about the abuse of women and pedophilia as sanctioned and practiced within ISLAM was totally lost on you as a result.

If you believe Jamsheer's cause is to call for a stricter interpretation of Shari'a then you're fooling yourself. She's clearly demanding an end to injustices against women, and demonstrating how Islam itself furthers the problem. Including Sunnis. She doesn't use the same apologetic song and dance you have, not has she ever made grandiose statements exhonorating Islamic verses that you have. If you can find anything she's said to the contrary, then source it. Otherwise we have one television interview to go by and her cause is very up front: women and childrens rights. NOT Islamic purity, and NOT the Shia interpretation. As she stated, it exists in Islamic Shari'a. You've dozens of pages arguing the opposite... and you hold me "beneath contempt" ??? Step off.

[andak01]

I don't go to MEMRI and Youtube for all my sources on Islam. You are the result of someone who does.

Once again, it wouldn't be enough for you if she says: "Allah will decide whether I go to paradise or to hell, not them." She MUST be against what it says in the Quran and Sunnah. If a Muslim, myself for example or the link I put says that Mut'ah marriages are forbidden ACCORDING to the Sunna, that isn't enough. If I admit the possibility that a Mullah like Ayatollah Khomeini could have contradicted the Sunna, it isn't enough. That just isn't enough for you that we are against those practices. It has to be because we find fault in the Sunna and with the message of Allah. Again, I beg you to come to grips with what you are.

[redcake]

Excuse me? What am I, Andak?

Since you post suggests you have some deeper insight into Jamsheers beliefs, then why not source it? Clearly she is a religious Muslim, and clearly that doesn't prohibit her for placing blame on the Islamic laws. That's because she's proud and strong, and so confident in her beliefs that her priority isn't whether she may be perceived as apostating. See, that's your issue.

Here are sources I've already posted which did not come from Memri or Youtube.
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=A&Id=56312&Option=FatwaId
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=A&Id=23672&Option=FatwaId
http://saaid.net/Doat/Najeeb/f122.htm
http://hadith.al-islam.com/display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=7644

They are Sunni, so clearly this isn't a Shia/Khomeni issue alone. Now it's lovely that you oppose Mutah marriage, so now let's address Misyar marriage.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544160

Misyar marriage is legal according to Al-Qaradawwi. It's the main tool for authorizing prostitution, and rampant polygamy under a different name. ISLAM promotes this.

[andak01]

Misyar marriage is legal according to Al-Qaradawwi. It's the main tool for authorizing prostitution, and rampant polygamy under a different name. ISLAM promotes this.

Qaradawi, as I showed was up for leadership in the Muslim Brotherhood. He hardly qualifies as a moderate. As for authorizing prostitution, what about LEGALIZING it as is done in the Netherlands and other countries in the West. You don't have a problem with that. Are you somehow under the impression that prostitution would be de facto worse because it occurs in Muslim countries?


Now it's lovely that you oppose Mutah marriage

As I showed, the Sunnah opposes it. IT IS FORBIDDEN. It doesn't get any clearer.

It was narrated from al-Rabee’ ibn Sabrah al-Juhani that his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said, “O people, I used to allow you to engage in mut’ah marriages, but now Allaah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection, so whoever has any wives in a mut’ah marriage, he should let her go and do not take anything of the (money) you have given them.”

Narrated by Muslim, 1406.

Thanks for ignoring that.

And of course, Qaradawwi is not the final word on the subject.

Islamic scholars like Ibn Uthaimeen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Uthaimeen) or Al-Albani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Albani) claim that misyar marriage may be legal, but not moral, or agreeable. They argue that the wife can at any time, reclaim the rights which she gave up at the time of contract.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Misyar#_note-9) They are opposed to this type of marriage because it contradicts the spirit of the Islamic law of marriage and argue it has perverse effects on the woman, the family and the community in general.
Critics argue that many men would not marry a second wife within the regime of normal Islamic polygamy, because of the heavy financial burdens, moral obligations & responsibilities it places on the husband, so opt for the easy option of misyar marriage.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Misyar#_note-10)
Critics also argue that this type of marriage usually ends up in divorce eventually. As a result the wife finds herself abandoned, to lead a solitary life as before the marriage, but traumatized by the experience, while her social status and reputation degraded.
For these reasons, Al-Albani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Albani) considers that the misyar marriage is not licit, because it runs counter to the objectives and the spirit of marriage in Islam, as described in this verse from the Quran :
“And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts)…”[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Misyar#_note-11)
Al-Albani also underlined the social problems which could result from the “misyar” marriage, particularly in the event that children are born from this union. The children raised by their mother in a home from which the father is always absent, without reason, may suffer difficulties.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Misyar#_note-BinMenie)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Misyar#_note-12) The situation becomes even worse if the wife is abandoned or repudiated by her husband "misyar", with no means of subsistence, as usually happens.
As for Ibn Uthaymeen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthaymeen), he recognizes the legality of “misyar” marriage from the Shariah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah) standpoint, but considers that it should be opposed because it has been turned into a real merchandise that is being marketed on a large scale by “marriage agencies”, with no relation to the nature of Islamic marriage.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Misyar#_note-BinMenie)
The proponents of the misyar marriage, though they recognize that it can result in problems, observe that it doesn’t have a monopoly on them. They result, more generally, from the way in which people apply the rules of the Shariah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah).
Today, there are many official family and marriage law codes in Muslim countries, but misyar marriage is usually arranged privately, through a notary and with no publicity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Misyar


Muhammad ibn Saalih al-Uthaymeen (1925-2001 CE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era)) was one of the most prominent Islamic scholars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scholar) of the latter half of the twentieth century. Born in Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia), the Sheikh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh) memorised the Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) at an early age and studied under some of the most knowledgable scholars of the time including: Shaykh Abd ar-Rahman as-Saa'di (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_ar-Rahman_as-Saa%27di), Shaykh Muhammad Ash-Shanqeeti (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaykh_Muhammad_Ash-Shanqeeti&action=edit), and Sheikh 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Baaz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_%27Azeez_ibn_Abdullaah_ibn_Baaz). During his many years of study, he became world renowned for his superior knowledge in fiqh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh), eventually compiling over fifty books on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Uthaimeen

Muhammad Nasiruddeen al-Albaanee (also al-Albani, Albani and other variants) (1914 - 1999 CE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era)) was an important and influential Islamic scholar of the 20th Century; he specialised in the fields of hadith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith) and fiqh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh) (jurisprudence) and was a prodigious writer and speaker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Albani

[redcake]

So Misyar marriage is legal. Your last post confirms it.
Glad Wikipedia could convince you!

Do we have to debate how Misyar marriages are used to infringe on the rights of women and treat them as lesser class? Didn't think so. We have no confirmed that Islamic law contributes to the abuse of women.

Also - You have to be a real snake to argue how women are responsible for their abuse on the Western world by dressing provocatively, defending Shair'a law through the rape statistics in the Western World, and then the next day, using prostitution in the Netherlands to your defense. Well actually Andak, the Netherlands has a low prosectuion rate for sex crimes, and happens to be a hotbed of pedophilia... so not only do I have a problem with it, but you better believe that if their liberal take on prostitution was ruled by religious scriptures then yes it would still be a problem. What a lame attempt to accuse me of a double standard. What is lost on you once again, is the difference between allowing a freedom, or taking it away. The Netherland allows for freedoms, while pleasure marriages in Saudia Arabia take priviledges away.

[andak01]

So Misyar marriage is legal. Your last post confirms it.
Glad Wikipedia could convince you!

I never even heard of it before. Do you have a single statistic on how common it is?


Do we have to debate how Misyar marriages are used to infringe on the rights of women and treat them as lesser class? Didn't think so. We have no confirmed that Islamic law contributes to the abuse of women.

It seems that the two scholars I listed were way ahead of you. They both condemn it as a questionable practice on the grounds that it contradicts the spirit of the Quran. And I agree with them.


Also - You have to be a real snake to argue how women are responsible for their abuse on the Western world by dressing provocatively, defending Shair'a law through the rape statistics in the Western World, and then the next day, using prostitution in the Netherlands to your defense.

Your contention is that misyar marriages in your words:


It's the main tool for authorizing prostitution

I'm asking you now directly. If it were the main tool for authorizing prostitution, would authorized prostitution in Arab countries be worse than legalized prostitution in the Netherlands and in other places where it is legal (Reno for example)? Is rampant polygamy under a different name worse than say, wife swapping, adultry, or actual polygamy as practiced openly by the Mormans in parts of Utah?

Is slave trading in Mauritania worse than sex slavery in Eastern Europe or Thailand? Is government corruption in Nigeria worse when it takes place in Southern Nigeria than when it takes place in the Sharia states to the North?

It seems to me, in every one of these cases, you would say yes. And in the final analysis, you won't be able to say why for any reason other than that its Muslims doing it.


What is lost on you once again, is the difference between allowing a freedom, or taking it away. The Netherland allows for freedoms, while pleasure marriages in Saudia Arabia take priviledges away.

What about the freedom of people that don't want to see prostitutes sitting in windows on public streets? What about the freedom of the Eastern European girl who ends up without a passport, sitting in one of those windows?

[redcake]

I never even heard of it before. Do you have a single statistic on how common it is?


7 out of 10 marriages in one Saudi Arabian city. There you have a single statistic from your favorite source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Misyar


It seems that the two scholars I listed were way ahead of you. They both condemn it as a questionable practice on the grounds that it contradicts the spirit of the Quran. And I agree with them.

Opiniosn aside, they all come to the conclusion that it is ultimately LEGAL WITHIN ISLAMIC LAW, and sanction it as permissable.




I'm asking you now directly. If it were the main tool for authorizing prostitution, would authorized prostitution in Arab countries be worse than legalized prostitution in the Netherlands and in other places where it is legal (Reno for example)? Is rampant polygamy under a different name worse than say, wife swapping, adultry, or actual polygamy as practiced openly by the Mormans in parts of Utah?
[...]
It seems to me, in every one of these cases, you would say yes. And in the final analysis, you won't be able to say why for any reason other than that its Muslims doing it.


Look, feel free to talk about abused Brazilian women in short skirts, working in a European red light district all you want. I'm sure it makes your grip your "toothstick" like a madman... but we're debating the existance of something very specific right now, and none of the above moral arguments are examples which disprove my claims.

Furthermore, you're an absolute fool if you think my problem with these marriages is simply prostitution (just as you're a fool for missing Jamsheers greater point about Mustah marriages).... the issue isn't with Muslims engaging in polygamy, or prostitution so much as the methodology they use to authorize it, as a tool to violate the rights of women and childrenunder a system with very restrictive laws. My opinions of the sex industry, and free love have no bearing.

Perhaps you should educate yourselff what Nikkah Misyar entails before defending it. Just as you oppose the same marriage in Shia culture, it could be possible you oppose it in your own. The only main difference between the two is an expiration date. As of now you admit you've never even heard of a Misyar marriage, and you're relying on Wikipedia for information. Andak, you're a fraud. You were a fruad when you claimed Muslims never use daily prayer books, and you're a fraud now. Your only excuse if to try and poke holes in my motivation for being critical in Islam...but I have clearly proven that Islam is responsible for the oppression of women in the Arab world. We're done here.

[Illuminatus]

I think that this 'misyar' is a barbaric, male dominated, disrespectful act & totally unfair to women.

It's sort of a 'marriage of convenience' and just like legalizing prostitution.

Even prostitutes get a better deal as they get paid for their service but those guys in guise of helping to provide sexual satisfaction for the female with no monetary or others commitment ... it's totally a brainless Islamic doctrine and teaching.

What if a female choose to have not 1 but many part-time "husbands"? They'll hang her 3 seconds flat.

Is it some sort of sex industry that Muslims wants to create?

^_^

[andak01]

Perhaps you should educate yourselff what Nikkah Misyar entails before defending it.

I haven't defended it a single time with a single word. Stop lying.


Just as you oppose the same marriage in Shia culture, it could be possible you oppose it in your own. The only main difference between the two is an expiration date.

As I understand it, there is no expiration date with a Misyar marriage. It's permanent, like a marriage and it may end in a divorce, like a marriage.


As of now you admit you've never even heard of a Misyar marriage, and you're relying on Wikipedia for information. Andak, you're a fraud.

That's right Sheikh Illuminatus. You are the expert and I'm not. Now if only you used your powers for good.

"The mesyar and other unofficial types of marriage don't fulfill Islam's aims of marriage, which are forming a settled family surrounded by care and love," professor of jurisprudence at Al Azhar University, Soad Ibrahim, says.

Even if a few sheikhs accept it, Ibrahim thinks the mesyar marriage is still disapproved of by the majority of scholars. In creates many social problems, especially for children who are not financially and emotionally supported by their mesyar father.

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20000407-042210-7478r

I don't live in Saudi Arabia. The people in my circle are not from Saudi Arabia. I realize these points are central to you, but they aren't to me. There are more important issues closer to home than the ammount of visitation someone receives in a marriage. I've got plenty of rich people in my town that put up mistresses in appartments or pay lap dancers or God knows what.


You were a fruad when you claimed Muslims never use daily prayer books, and you're a fraud now.

What the hell are you even talking about?


Your only excuse if to try and poke holes in my motivation for being critical in Islam...but I have clearly proven that Islam is responsible for the oppression of women in the Arab world. We're done here.

Good. Get done quickly. You're really doing your part for humanity.

[andak01]

The fatwa Committee of Al Azhar, however, does not recognize the mesyar marriage, but neither is it explicitly forbidden. Sheikh Ibrahim Muhammad, a member in the committee says it is an illegal marriage because women are not given any of the rights Islam demands from men.

"We do not approve of this marriage, and we don't recognize the marriage contract, if it exists. Also, we don't recognize the divorce," Sheikh Muhammad said.


I think that this 'misyar' is a barbaric, male dominated, disrespectful act & totally unfair to women.

Of course it is. Everything Muslims do is worse than what is done in the West. The strip clubs that line the streets of our cities, filled with illegal sex slaves are not barbaric or male dominated, but what goes on in Saudi Arabia is totally unfair to women. Men who string women along for adulterous affairs and play sugar daddy are not barbaric but Arabic men are.


It's sort of a 'marriage of convenience' and just like legalizing prostitution.

And what is a massage parlor, an escort service?


Even prostitutes get a better deal as they get paid for their service but those guys in guise of helping to provide sexual satisfaction for the female with no monetary or others commitment ... it's totally a brainless Islamic doctrine and teaching.

Really? You think Arabs don't have money to make a girl happy?


What if a female choose to have not 1 but many part-time "husbands"? They'll hang her 3 seconds flat.

Of course they do. So you don't have to worry about this practice continuing long, they are hanging millions of women a year, and with the female abortion rate in India, they aren't even going to be able to import anymore.


Is it some sort of sex industry that Muslims wants to create?


They can go to Dubai for that.

[redcake]

Sorry creepcakes, you forgot to include the incriminating sentences before and after the paragraph you clipped that confirm that it's legal in Islam:
http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20000407-042210-7478r

So....
A) It's sanctioned by Islamic law
B) It furthers the mistreatment of women.

I'm pointing at these laws as an example of problematic Islam in practice. If you're not defending these laws, then why do you keep trying to prove we're merely being hypocritical and hate filled, by tossing out irrational examples of how Islam is being scapegoated??

[andak01]

The fatwa Committee of Al Azhar, however, does not recognize the mesyar marriage, but neither is it explicitly forbidden. Sheikh Ibrahim Muhammad, a member in the committee says it is an illegal marriage because women are not given any of the rights Islam demands from men.

"We do not approve of this marriage, and we don't recognize the marriage contract, if it exists. Also, we don't recognize the divorce," Sheikh Muhammad said.
...
For these reasons, Al-Albani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Albani) considers that the misyar marriage is not licit, because it runs counter to the objectives and the spirit of marriage in Islam, as described in this verse from the Quran :
“And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts)…”[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Misyar#_note-11)

So why is not enough that activists like Jamsheer and at least three major Sheikhs and myself publicly condemn the practice and don't recognize it. Why is that not enough? What should the world community do to Saudi Arabia for having a law on its books that we don't like??? Why would not education be enough to eradicate it?

And again, why are the practices allowed in our own society so much superior??? Why is an escort service, or a massage parlor or a strip club where public sex takes place with immigrants of questionable status a tolerable practice and having an out of town wife, intolerable? Why is an Arabic practice of having an out of town wife barbaric and the Japanese geisha system (also wrapped in religious tradition) tolerable? Why are caste marriages, which could be the subject of a thread, ignored, while the obscure practice of misyar merits 30 or 40 posts? Hmmm.

[redcake]

Forget about the world community, I'm just trying to get you to admit these are Islamic laws. This is sanctioned by the Islamic Jurisprudence Assembly.

There aren't merely Saudia Arabian laws.
These aren't Shia practices.
These aren't obscure practices.

At the very least, admit there is an Islamic gender bias.

[andak01]

Forget about the world community, I'm just trying to get you to admit these are Islamic laws. This is sanctioned by the Islamic Jurisprudence Assembly.

There aren't merely Saudia Arabian laws.

If the Sheikhs I mentioned, from Al Azhar do not accept them, then they are considered invalid marriages. Jamsheer is within her rights to protest the practice. The Sheikhs I mentioned would back her. Just as obvious from the wiki article, there are Sheikhs who back the practice and would censure her. It is a disputed practice.


These aren't Shia practices.

Mut'ah is a Shiite practice that is forbidden by the Hadith I presented. So if you are referring to both Mut'ah and Misyar, you are wrong.


These aren't obscure practices.

Mut'ah, I'd heard of, but not Misyar. So I asked my wife, a native born Moroccan who was raised by an Imam and who is fluent in Arabic. She had heard of Mut'ah but not Misyar. My Pakistani friend who returned from Hadj last year, who also is fluent in Arabic and lived in Jordan and Abu Dhabi has heard of Mut'ah but not Misyar. I'll keep asking until I find someone who has and then I'll tell you whether it's obscure or not. Incidently, though he can trace his lineage back to Prophet Muhammad (SAW), he never heard of Qarradawwi either.

Obviously there is a set of information about Islam that is central to MEMRI and another set that is of interest to Muslims. It would seem that generally, those two sets have very little intersection.


At the very least, admit there is an Islamic gender bias.

There are inequalities between how the genders are treated in specific situations. The issue isn't the inequality, but that women are getting a raw deal in too many cases. In Western society, I earn exactly what a woman of my talents makes...er, not really. With some Frankenstein science, I could probably make a baby. Finally, it isn't inequality that is the problem, it is injustice and oppression. Women aren't just pieces of meat, they have minds and spirits. Any healthy society will allow them to express those minds and spirits. Islamic society has been on a downhill slide since the days when female scholars lectured to the great Sheikhs. Cross-pollination of ideas is a wonderful thing.

I would be delighted for the debate on Misyar marriage to spread. But it is an Islamic debate. You shouldn't expect Muslims to be more receptive to you telling them how to run things than you are to having Muslims tell you how to run your life.

[Illuminatus]

IHT: Algeria's quiet revolution: Gains by women (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/26/africa/algeria.1-62108.php)

[.. a quiet revolution is under way: women are emerging as an economic and political force unheard of in the rest of the Arab world.

Women make up 70 percent of Algeria’s lawyers and 60 percent of its judges. Women dominate medicine. Increasingly, women contribute more to household income than men. Sixty percent of university students are women, university researchers say. ..]

same article - more photos from the NY Times (registration is free) (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/world/africa/26algeria.html)

^_^

[andak01]

Illuminatus, I wish you had more to say like that. It's really positive, good news. My own sister-in-law is studying to be a lawyer in Morocco.

[redcake]

If the Sheikhs I mentioned, from Al Azhar do not accept them, then they are considered invalid marriages.

False. From the article that you quoted:

"Although it is not haram (against Islam), Muslim scholars do not advise people to be engaged in such a kind of marriage."
http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20000407-042210-7478r

It's legal within Islam. Some Sheiks in Egypt don't condone it, but they don't rule it haram either.

Also, enough anecdotal rebutals.
"My mom's second cousin never heard of it so that means Misyar options on Islamic dating sites like http://www.zojah.com/, and http://www.alzawaj.com don't exist! Nobody does it! http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/05/05/21/165873.html"

[andak01]

False. From the article that you quoted:

"Although it is not haram (against Islam), Muslim scholars do not advise people to be engaged in such a kind of marriage."

The fatwa Committee of Al Azhar, however, does not recognize the mesyar marriage, but neither is it explicitly forbidden. Sheikh Ibrahim Muhammad, a member in the committee says it is an illegal marriage because women are not given any of the rights Islam demands from men.

"We do not approve of this marriage, and we don't recognize the marriage contract, if it exists. Also, we don't recognize the divorce," Sheikh Muhammad said.

That pretty much covers it. If you want the law changed, there is always the option of getting a recognized degree in Sharia and working with the ullemah in making a fatwa.


It's legal within Islam. Some Sheiks in Egypt don't condone it, but they don't rule it haram either.

There is nothing illegal about marrying with the intention of divorce in our society either. An illegal can marry a citizen and then divorce her after a time.


Also, enough anecdotal rebutals.

Mine's as good as yours.

A reporter in Jeddah reported that some marriage officials say seven of 10 marriage contracts they conduct are misyar, and in some cases are asked to recommend prospective misyar partners.

This from the Wiki. The reporter isn't named. The source isn't mentioned and how the reporter arrived at that estimate is unknown.

[redcake]

A Sheihk talking out of both sides of his mouth..absolutely shocking.
Al Ahzar's head Imam, Sheihk Tawtany legalized Misyar in 1999 when he was head Mufti. http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=42349

So let's be clear: a condemnation while nice doesn't mean much unless you declare it illegal. YOUR article confirms it's not ruled haram. The rest is lip service. It's NOT HARAM. They all admit it can be legal. Cut and paste all you want, their reluctancy towards it is not a comfort. So a cleric is speaking out of both sides of their mouth, what else is new? Action speak louder then words. Not to mention the appaling statistics of female genital mutilation in Egypt will belittle any argument representing Al Ahzar scholars as working towards the betterment of women.

Remember this:
Circumcision is a Sunnah for men, and an honour for women," - Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Da'ifa by Al-Albani, no. 1936

Yeah, that Al-Albani that you used in your argument a few posts back...a real champion of equality.

...but believe whatever helps you sleep at night.

On more thing - You need to get a dictionary and find out what "anecdotal" means. Here's a source. http://www.arabnews.com/?page=9&section=0&article=64891

Al Hurra reported the figure at 20% during an interview with Jamsheer, which you can read translated in full on a Bahrain Forum (scroll to the almost very bottom).


Reportage: A large number of Gulf women and men adopt “Muta’a” marriage or “temporary marriage” and “Misyar” marriage or “passer-by marriage”. The latest social studies showed that 70% of marriage applications which exist nowadays in the Gulf are “Misyar” marriage or “Passer-by marriage” and “Muta’a” marriage or “temporary marriage” applications.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ar&u=http://bahrainforums.comshowthread.php%3Ft%3D132826&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=9&ct=result&prev=search%3Fq%3Dmisyar%2Bjeddah%2B7%2Bout%2Bof%2 B10%26start%3D30%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3 Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN

Jamsheer contradicts your stance in that interview, arguing decisively that misyar marriage is legal, and sanctioned...and of course, often to the detriment of women.

[andak01]

So let's be clear: a condemnation while nice doesn't mean much unless you declare it illegal.

So, it MUST be declared haram. Makroo (not recommended isn't enough? You're clear on this. What MUST happen if they refuse to change their laws?


Not to mention the appaling statistics of female genital mutilation in Egypt will belittle any argument representing Al Ahzar scholars as working towards the betterment of women.

That's bait and switch. Genital mutilation is in no way related to misyar marriages.


Yeah, that Al-Albani that you used in your argument a few posts back...a real champion of equality.

What do you have against a sanitary, non-destructive circumcision performed by a qualified person? I assume you have the same issue against male circumcisions performed on Jews and Muslims?

The same cautions apply to girls that apply to boys. Only a very small piece of flesh should be removed for sanitary purposes. Most Jews and Muslims would agree that circumcision is a sanitary practice when applied to boys. I was circumcised as a Christian baby.

Genital mutilation and irresponsible application of beliefs by the uneducated is another matter altogether. It is in the same league as any other unsanitary, back-ally practice.

Let me add that circumcision is not an obligation for girls. Therefore a law forbidding it, anywhere in the world should not be a cause of great concern.


Jamsheer contradicts your stance in that interview, arguing decisively that misyar marriage is legal, and sanctioned...and of course, often to the detriment of women.

My stance was and is that Jamsheer isn't an apostate, but a concerned, believing woman. She wants Muslims to behave in a way that is correct, not rewrite the Quran and Sunna.

[redcake]

That's right, and yet Jamsheer is unapolgetic for what Islam says and makes no bones saying Misyar is legal because it can meet all the requirements. She is also capable of saying Misyar is bad because of this reason and that reason. She doesn't belittle the practice, call it obscure, or try to argue in a defensive manner. She is capable of condeming what is clearly a religious practice, without apostating, and without demanding a word of the Koran and Sunni to be changed. Do you see the difference? She's speaking her mind and she's not worried about being an apostate.

I have no idea what your response about female genital munipulation was meant to express.

[andak01]

She is capable of condeming what is clearly a religious practice, without apostating, and without demanding a word of the Koran and Sunni to be changed. Do you see the difference?

Let me make something clear. Any Muslim is free to condemn that which is not fard (obligatory). That's open season. Only the fard is what makes up the religious practice. Misyar is only one step away from being haraam. Female circumcision is, likewise; not an obligation. So for those things that are not obligatory, we don't miss them, we don't need them. Take the crecent moon off the mosques, forbid female circumcision, forbid misyar marriage. These things are not obligations. They do not make up the core beliefs of Islam.

[Agnosthiest]

Female circumcision is, likewise; not an obligation.

Female circumcision however follows the muslim method of rationalization...

* what is worst disloyalty or light beating?

* what is worst a high crime rate or amputation?

.
.
.

* what is worst female circumcision or adultery?

:D

[andak01]

Female circumcision however follows the muslim method of rationalization...

There is very little rationalization at all. The vast majority of Muslims don't practice it and none of us are obligated to.

There is however a common rationalization among Islamophobes. Keep the Muslims from talking about any positive aspects of our religion and confine them into a box. Viz.

Reporter: Father tell us about Catholicism.

Priest: Well, we worship the Trinity.

Reporter: What about child molestation?

Priest: Some of our priests practiced that, but...

Reporter: Isn't that what Catholicism really is, a bunch of men going after little boys?

Priest: Well, no...

Reporter: Stop avoiding my questions! You pervert. Admit what it's all about!

Priest: We create orphanages, hospitals, give to charity...

Reporter: Why are you trying to change the subject? That's what all you Catholic perverts do!

[redcake]

These things are not obligations. They do not make up the core beliefs of Islam.

Do you they have to be core beliefs to exist? Do they have to be obligations before you ascribe these as Islamic traditions, or beliefs?

[Agnosthiest]

There is very little rationalization at all. The vast majority of Muslims don't practice it and none of us are obligated to.

but it seems the vast majority of practioners are muslims.

as for the rationale:



"it is narrated that he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) advised a woman who did circumcision in Madeenah as to the proper way of circumcision"

"The Sunnah is not to cut all of it, but rather a part of it."

"The Shaafa’is, the Hanbalis according to the well-known view of their madhhab, and others are of the view that circumcising women is obligatory. Many scholars are of the view that it is not obligatory in the case of women; rather it is Sunnah and is an honour for them."

http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=82859&ln=eng&txt=female%20circumcision

SUNNAH = Non obligatory but advisable


"Men typically prefer a circumcised wife because they are considered more likely to be faithful."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm1.htm

What is worst, female circumcision or adulter. :p





Keep the Muslims from talking about any positive aspects of our religion and confine them into a box. Viz.


talk about them here:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=12585

Im still waiting there. :)

[andak01]

Do you they have to be core beliefs to exist? Do they have to be obligations before you ascribe these as Islamic traditions, or beliefs?

I don't think anyone's not being candid about what exists and what doesn't. There are practices that are fard (obligatory), practices that are sunna (recommended), practices that are makroo (not recommended) and practices that are haraam. In addition, there is the differentiation between Sharia as a legal system and fiqh as a recommended set of behaviors.

Mut'ah marriage is haraam among Sunnis. It may be permitted among Shiites, but I shouldn't and won't comment about them.

Misyar marriage is makroo. If it is being used to allow widows and older women to get married, that directly contradicts the Prophet's (SAW) example. If it is being used in lieu of adultry, that's equally as bad and as unIslamic. If the woman involved is marrying against her will, that I know runs counter to the Sunna.

Female circumcision is permitted. Female mutalation, or any mutilation of the body such as tatoos or piercing (including the Western fad of piercing the genitals) is haram. That said, in certain cultures, it is common.


One of the world's most prestigious health journals has lashed a fast-growing trend in the United States and Britain (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=britain&sid=breitbart.com) for "designer vaginas," the tabloid term for cosmetic surgery to the female genitalia (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22female+genitalia%22&sid=breitbart.com).

The fashion is being driven by commercial and media pressures that exploit women's insecurities and is fraught with unknowns, including a risk to sexual arousal (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22sexual+arousal%22&sid=breitbart.com), the British Medical Journal (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22British+Medical+Journal%22&sid=breitbart.com) (BMJ) says.

Known as elective genitoplasty, the surgery usually entails shortening or changing the shape of the outer lips, or labia, but may also include reduction in the hood of skin covering the clitoris [which amounts to female circumcision] or shortening the vagina itself.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070524230339.aha5xr5x&show_article=1

[redcake]

Here's the thing, Andak... isn't it enough for you to conceed that female circumcision is permitted? ..... it's your choice to go on the defensive and respond to this discussion as if it stems from biased hatred rather then...oh I don't know...reality.

Again...why muddy the conversation by introducing the fringe topic of vaginal augmentation plastic surgery fads? Both involve a knife, and a woman's privates...and that's where the comparison stops. That adds absolutely nothing to the conversation, accept to divert from the topic in place of a rebutal. Female genital mutilation doesn't include tattoos or piercings.

See andak...


Ilham said her sisters were being subjected to infibulation, which is known as Pharaonic circumcision - the severest of three types of FGM, It involves the removal of genitalia and closure of the vaginal opening by stitching.

Around 82 percent of women in Sudan whose population is estimated at 40 million have undergone infibulation, while the total percentage of women who have undergone any form of FGM is over 90, said a 2004 study by the UN children's fund UNICEF.

The two other forms include the clitoridectomy, which involves full or partial amputation of the clitoris, and the "intermediate", which takes away the clitoris and a portion or all of the inner vaginal lips.

Under an Islamic guise, clitoridectomy is referred to also as Sunnah (tradition of the Prophet Mohammed) circumcision. However, more Christians in Sudan practise the Sunnah method than Muslims.

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20060404-054551-3992r

The BEST part is you don't have to worry about it! It's worse in Christian societies! Islam is off the hook then I guess huh? We can't use it as evidence of a gender bias in the Arab/Islamic world, and thank goodness it's not based on Muslim verses... or um....argh, oh drats....


Dr. Muhammad Wahdan: Ibn Al-Qayyem recounts that when Hagar married Abraham and got pregnant, Sara was very jealous of her. Because of her jealousy, she swore by Allah that she would cut off three of Hagar's body parts. Abraham was afraid that she would cut off Hagar's nose or ears, so he instructed her to pierce Hagar's ears and to circumcise her. This was the beginning of female circumcision in history.

[...]

In Egypt we have four and a half million spinsters. The definition of a spinster is a woman who has reached 30, without ever receiving a marriage proposal. We have a spinster problem in the Arab world, and the last thing we want is for them to be sexually aroused. Circumcision of the girls who need it makes them chaste, dignified, and pure

Read the whole debate.
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1090

[andak01]

Here's the thing, Andak... isn't it enough for you to conceed that female circumcision is permitted? ..... it's your choice to go on the defensive and respond to this discussion as if it stems from biased hatred rather then...oh I don't know...reality.

If it isn't an obligation, then the fact that it's permitted isn't of great importance. Forbidding it shouldn't cause any great scuffle. Forcing us to admit that Islam is barbaric because it's permitted would.


Again...why muddy the conversation by introducing the fringe topic of vaginal augmentation plastic surgery fads? Both involve a knife, and a woman's privates...and that's where the comparison stops.

The comparison stops with the fact that one is popular and western and sexy and the other is perceived to be anti-sex and anti-western. Nobody is holding up the example of a female with an infection from getting pierced genitals as barbaric. But the paintbrush is going over myself and my family over genital mutilation, even that we've never met anyone that practices it.

Nobody is calling strip clubs or escort services or kept women barbaric. But we are the barbarians, whether or not we practice or support Misyar marriages or even if we've heard of it or not.


That adds absolutely nothing to the conversation, accept to divert from the topic in place of a rebutal. Female genital mutilation doesn't include tattoos or piercings.



The BEST part is you don't have to worry about it! It's worse in Christian societies! Islam is off the hook then I guess huh? We can't use it as evidence of a gender bias in the Arab/Islamic world, and thank goodness it's not based on Muslim verses... or um....argh, oh drats...

Far from it. It's important that we all find the worst possible interpretation of a verse or two and refuse to take any other interpretation. It's important that we devote thread after thread to only those subjects and refuse to admit any other evidence. It's important that we characterize all Muslims by the actions of the most criminal. It is important to take worst obscure practices in their worst light and characterize them as the core elements of religion.

Can you imagine 300 posts on the subject The Debate over Why Jews Killed Jesus? 300 posts on the subject of IDF War Crimes? Such things exist, but it is neither constructive, nor instructive to dwell on those invectives. In fact, it would be rather dehumanizing for someone to show enthusiastic interest in that or refuse to allow a Jew to talk about anything else.


Read the whole debate.

The whole debate is summed up for you on MEMRI. And when you admit what you are, you'll be a lot happier.