Islamic Countries Marching Backwards

[abu afak]

Islamic Countries Marching Backwards.


By Ali Sina

While the world is striving for and attaining gender equality, Islamic countries are marching backwards.

Recently the Malaysian’s religious leader has passed laws that make it easier for men to practice polygamy.

A women's group, Sister in Islam, argued that Muslims had the right to an opinion and to be engaged in Islamic discourse. And Women's Affairs Minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, described the move as an insult to women.

However, the Mufti of Perlis, Datuk Mat Jahaya Husin, warned that groups, which were critical of the move on polygamy, would be in danger of committing a 'wrong' by denying its legality under Islamic law. 'Hence it is best to hold your tongue lest you deny the right to polygamy in Islam,' he was quoted as saying.

This is how Islam operates and how Islamists win every time. Many westerners question why the moderate Muslims are silent and why they allow the fundamentalists win. The answer is that the fundamentalists have the Shaira on their side.

In a futile attempt to stop the regression to Stone Age Malaysia’s women’s group program coordinator Ruzana Udin said that "Freedom of expression is enshrined in Islam." But that is of course not true. Muslims are allowed the freedom of expression only in matters not specified by the Sharia. The polygamy is sanctioned in the Quran and questioning it is tantamount to denying the authority of the Quran; a crime that should not be forgiven and the offender must die.

Ruzana Udin argued that "this did not mean changing the teachings of Islam but, rather, examining progressive applications of the teachings in current situations". But the truth is that opposing polygamy means opposing the Quran. What does “Examining progressive applications of the teachings in current situations” mean? Is she saying that those teachings are no more applicable because they are not progressive? Is she implying that the mandates of the Quran that are believed to be eternal teachings of God for mankind are outdated?

She said "it was when Islamic discourse was monopolized by just a few that the religion would become backward". But the fact is that those who monopolize the Islamic discourse have the Quran on their side. The law is very clear. There are no ifs or buts. You either accept the Quran or reject it. If you dare to reject the Quran, of course you are an apostate and death is your penalty. That leaves very little room for freedom of expression.

Another group, Women's Candidacy Initiative, said the cause of the present controversy was the fact that people were not involved in the debate on polygamy. But how they could be? Can people forbid what God has permitted? What is the purpose of such debate?

Zaitun Kasim, a spokesman of the group said, "Many Islamic scholars have refuted the right of men to practice polygamy, and yet for some reason most Malaysians don't know this."

Islamic scholars can say whatever they want, but no one can change the laws of the Quran. Polygamy, like wife beating, chopping the hands of the petty thief, flogging, stoning and denying the Human Rights of religious minorities are part of the Sharia. No matter how progressive Muslims want to be, they cannot change these laws. The moment the number of the Muslims in a country tilts towards majority, the process of Islamization and hence backwardness is set in motion. It really does not matter whether the majority of Muslims agree with the laws of Sharia or not. No one can openly oppose those laws. Islam does not allow compromises. You either agree with it or you are an enemy. The opponents of Islamic laws have little chance to counter the explicit mandates of the Quran.

The big challenge facing the Muslims is to realize that as long as they call themselves by this name and as long as they hold the Quran to be a book of revelations, the backward march of Islamic countries towards incivility will continue.


http://main.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina30108.htm

[andak01]

Once again, you have proven you can cut and paste faster than I can think. Bravo!

[andak01]

I am aware of the group Sister In Islam. They were featured on a recent PBS special called 'Muslims'. Their views would seem to agree with my own statement that Sharia is not really being practiced anywhere in the world. Its interesting how the voices of these groups, like Muslims Against Terrorism and others are viewed as anti-Islamic groups. They do form a threat to the abusive system that has been set up in the name of Islam. But if they truly believed themselves against Islam, they would presumably drop the words from their names.

Zaitun Kasim, a spokesman of the group said, "Many Islamic scholars have refuted the right of men to practice polygamy, and yet for some reason most Malaysians don't know this."

The Qur'an itself puts forth a stipulation for polygamy that is humanly almost impossible. That is, a husband must treat all of his spouses equally.

Considering that we here about the Islamic death penalty for apostacy constantly, there are many, many apostates walking around very vocally speaking out against Islam. I don't know of anyone who has laid a hand on them. Ali Sina himself (his real name?) and Ibn Waraqa (not his real name) are proof of that. The one's that have gotten more that death threats (ala Salman Rushdie) are generally those that have spoken ill of the Shiite Mullahs of Iran. As we see from the present death sentence laid down against the professor in Iran and from the fact that Salman Rushdie's death decree came from the Ayatollah Komeini himself.

I would like to see this thread turn into a discussion of polygamy instead of the usual Islam bashing. Appearently, people feel that polygamy, although practiced in many societies, is so obviously wrong that it doesn't merit any discussion.

[ayesha]

Originally posted by andak01
I would like to see this thread turn into a discussion of polygamy instead of the usual Islam bashing. Appearently, people feel that polygamy, although practiced in many societies, is so obviously wrong that it doesn't merit any discussion.

If I may, I would love to comment and make polygamy in Islam easier to understand -minus the BS and misconceptions- at my first possible moment.

[reason]

Originally posted by andak01
I am aware of the group Sister In Islam. They were featured on a recent PBS special called 'Muslims'. Their views would seem to agree with my own statement that Sharia is not really being practiced anywhere in the world. Its interesting how the voices of these groups, like Muslims Against Terrorism and others are viewed as anti-Islamic groups. They do form a threat to the abusive system that has been set up in the name of Islam. But if they truly believed themselves against Islam, they would presumably drop the words from their names.



The Qur'an itself puts forth a stipulation for polygamy that is humanly almost impossible. That is, a husband must treat all of his spouses equally.

Considering that we here about the Islamic death penalty for apostacy constantly, there are many, many apostates walking around very vocally speaking out against Islam. I don't know of anyone who has laid a hand on them. Ali Sina himself (his real name?) and Ibn Waraqa (not his real name) are proof of that. The one's that have gotten more that death threats (ala Salman Rushdie) are generally those that have spoken ill of the Shiite Mullahs of Iran. As we see from the present death sentence laid down against the professor in Iran and from the fact that Salman Rushdie's death decree came from the Ayatollah Komeini himself.

I would like to see this thread turn into a discussion of polygamy instead of the usual Islam bashing. Appearently, people feel that polygamy, although practiced in many societies, is so obviously wrong that it doesn't merit any discussion.

Polygamy, I was reading a book by Muhammed shahrur who says that we have been misinterpreting that verse for the longest time. If you read the verse carefully it has a condition that there are orphans involved.

The verse (4:3)
Wa in kheftom ala taksetoo fil yatama fankiho ma taba lakoom mena elnisaai masna wa tholath wa roba....

Translated it says:
If you are worried that you wont be able to do orphans justice , then marry from THE WOMEN what you will, two three and four.

You see there is a condition IF and THEN , and the condition is the well being of the orphan.There has also been a debate who THE WOMEN here are, is it any woman or are they the mothers of the orphans.Mohammed shahrur makes a very good point, that im seriously taking into consideration.I havent made up my mind yet, I need to do more research.

Im tilting towards what Mohamed shahrur says because it makes sense that because the polygamy verse came with the condition of the well being of an orphan that THE WOMEN here means their mothers.The old interpretation was, If a man fears that he wont be just in providing for an orphan he wants in marriage, then better for him to marry any other woman.

[reason]

http://www.isim.nl/isim/publications/other/shahrur.html

Here is some of his ideas. which I agree with completely

http://www.isim.nl/newsletter/7/features/2.html

A little bit about the man.

I dont agree with every thing he says but this quote is what I agree with completely.

"remove the holiness from all that is old" in that quote he was talking about old fiqh books and translations.

[andak01]

Originally posted by reason
http://www.isim.nl/isim/publications/other/shahrur.html

Here is some of his ideas. which I agree with completely

http://www.isim.nl/newsletter/7/features/2.html

A little bit about the man.

I dont agree with every thing he says but this quote is what I agree with completely.

"remove the holiness from all that is old" in that quote he was talking about old fiqh books and translations.

Well the point, whether you are for it or agin it is to provide justice for women. Marrying widows in times of war is better than leaving them to prostitution or destitution.

What I think people neglect to consider when talking about Muslim women's conditions is that conditions for women in the third world are almost uniformly bad. Secondly, all women the world over have human rights issues. That's why there are women's shelters in largely Christian America. It's not just Muslims that beat their wives. And this practice is wrong and NOT justifyed by the Qur'an or Sharia. Yes. I am familiar with the verse in the Qur'an that uses the word 'daraba'. But I once provided no fewer than twenty Hadith talking about kindness to women. Striking a woman so as to cause injury can in no way be interpreted as kindness. Instead of being so smug and pointing fingers, we should try to create interfaith methods of counciling and prevention. You would be surprised at how many Muslims would respond well to such an action. Because it accords so well with what we are taught.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by andak01
Once again, you have proven you can cut and paste faster than I can think. Bravo!

Well then Please don't reply until you have something to say!

Putting up an interim response with nothing in it just to see your name in print is ridiculous.

Lose Compulsion, Attain Reason.

[andak01]

Originally posted by abu afak
Well then Please don't reply until you have something to say!

Putting up an interim response with nothing in it just to see your name in print is ridiculous.

Lose Compulsion, Attain Reason.

Why, that would be almost like pasting article after article with none of your own remarks or comments. Intellectually lazy I'd say. I'll try not to let it happen again.

[ayesha]

am i right in thinking polygamy is not the issue anymore? otherwise im not prepared to go into explaining it if that's the case. if it's still of interest to some & you wish it to be discussed please say.

[Mediocrates]

I'm intrigued. Seriously if some of you can listen without jumping up and shouting. Thanks.

[andak01]

Aisha,

It would be a pleasure to hear your points. Unfortunately, being a Muslim and a man puts me at a great disadvantage when discussing women's issues. It is assumed a priori that I am a misogynist and that nothing I have to say is worth listening to. I was actually told on one forum that all Muslim women were brainwashed, and therefore, they don't even have anything valuable to say for themselves.

[ayesha]

First and foremost, I must emphasise that plurality of husbands (polyandry) and griup marriages are absolutely forbidden in Islam. I admire any woman who permits her husband to remarry (I have also seen women actually looking for a new wife for their husbands), as I know that my moderately jealous human nature would not allow me to be with a man who had multiple wives. Nonetheless, I shall attempt to discuss this issue, not from a female perspective, not a male perspective but from the Muslim perspective, after which anybody is free to draw his/her conclusions.

It is not correct that Judaism and Christianity have always been monogamous or categorically opposed to polygyny, not even today. I have read from some prominent Jewish scholars (Goitein - "Jews and Arabs : Their Contacts Through The Ages" that polygynous Jewish immigrants cause Israeli housing authorities a great deal of difficulty and embarrassment. The position of Christian Mormons is well known, so is the view of Afro-Asian bishops who prefer polygyny to infidelity, fornication and mate swapping. However, polygyny was officially discontinued by Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah after issuing it as outlawed. Some Jews in Muslim countries continued to practice regardless - until the Act of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel extended the ban in 1950 from marrying more than one wife.

Polygamy as such, has been practised throughout human history. It was practised by the prophets such as Ibrahim (Abraham), Ya'qoub (Jacob), Dawud (David), Suleiman (Soloman) etc. (pbut). During the time of Biblical revelations, polygamy was commonly accepted religiously, socially and morally - and there was no objection to it.

When Islam was represented by Muhammed (pbuh), the practice of polygamy was common and deep rooted in the social life of the time. The Qur'an did not ignore the practice or discontinued it, nor did it let it continue unchecked or unrestricted - ie Laws were laid as guidelines to be enforced.

Quranic revelation intervened because it had to be realistic and could not possibly condone any chaos in the family structure which is the very foundation of society. The benevolent intervention of Qur'an introduced those regulations (which I have condensed for easy consumption here):

* This permission is valid for a maximum of four wives, who incidentally cannot at any one time include another woman who is the first or second degree in blood relation such as sister, maternal or paternal aunt or niece.

* The second or third wife, if taken, enjoy the same rights and privileges as the first. She is fully entitled to whatever is due to the first one. Equality between them in treatment, provisions and kindness is a prerequisite of polygamy and a condition that MUST be fulfilled by anyone who maintains more than one wife. Although, I must stress that equality involed depends largely on the inner conscience of the individual involved.

* Generally speaking, in the Muslim society, this practice is an exception to the ordinary course. It is resorted to in a kinda final attempt to solve some social and moral problems, and to deal with unavoidable difficulties. In short, it is confined to that sense.

Surah Al-Nisa (The Women) 4:3

Arabic
"Wa in khiftum alla tuqusitu fil yatama fankihou ma taaba lakum min ann-nisa mathna wa thulatha wa ruba' fa in khiftum all ta'dilou fa wahidatan ow ma malakat aymanukum thaalika adna alla ta'oulou."

English
"If you fear that ou shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans (whom yuou intnd to marry), marry women of your choice, two or three or four but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one. That will be more suitable to prevent you from doing injustice."

Here, "aymanukum" in Arabic has meanings which is only fully understood by one who understands Qur'anic Arabic. The linguistic meaning is "if your conscience/desires do not allow it". However, the technical meaning is much more interesting and more of a stern warning..
"Aymanukum" is taken from the Arabic root word "Iman" which means "Faith". Lack of faith in God os one of the major sins in Islam, hence this is why committing suicide equates eternity in Hell as you have demonstrated your lack or faith in God -if any-. Therefore, the above word in the verse is a warning saying that if you marry out of mere desire AND knowing you are not able to be just to all your wives, then the sin you will be committing is as bad a having no faith in God. Which takes a person out of the fold of Islam.

This passage was revealed after the Battle of Uhud (The Trenches) in which many Muslims lost their lives - leaving widows and orphan for whom due care was incumbent upon the Muslim survivors - as stressed by the Islamic law enforced. Marriage was one way of protecting them.

The Qur'an made this injunction clear and gave that choice to protect the rights of the orphans, and prevent the guardians from doing injustice to their dependents.

As a footnote, it is apparent that Islam did not invent polygamy. Nonetheless, Islam permits it for a varoety of reason, the hypotheses of which I will attempt to examine with you as long as there are no major questions/queries before I move on.

[ayesha]

Originally posted by andak01
I was actually told on one forum that all Muslim women were brainwashed, and therefore, they don't even have anything valuable to say for themselves.

why yes of course we are... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[reason]

Here, "aymanukum" in Arabic has meanings which is only fully understood by one who understands Qur'anic Arabic. The linguistic meaning is "if your conscience/desires do not allow it". However, the technical meaning is much more interesting and more of a stern warning..
"Aymanukum" is taken from the Arabic root word "Iman" which means "Faith". Lack of faith in God os one of the major sins in Islam, hence this is why committing suicide equates eternity in Hell as you have demonstrated your lack or faith in God -if any-. Therefore, the above word in the verse is a warning saying that if you marry out of mere desire AND knowing you are not able to be just to all your wives, then the sin you will be committing is as bad a having no faith in God. Which takes a person out of the fold of Islam.

Your post was very informative and interesting. But, I dont see how that is a stern warning ayesha, aymanukum comes in the context of wama malakt aymanukum , which could mean what your right hand owns.I may be wrong but I think aymanukum comes from yameen not Iman.

[ayesha]

Originally posted by reason
Your post was very informative and interesting. But, I dont see how that is a stern warning ayesha, aymanukum comes in the context of wama malakt aymanukum , which could mean what your right hand owns.I may be wrong but I think aymanukum comes from yameen not Iman.

hi.
no, im am more than positive reason, it comes from Iman.

[Frans_1]

I don't agree the Bible provides for polygamy. This is unlike marriage or kingship or priesthood which were institutions laid down by the Bible. In the days of David and Moses, the Bible simply recognised the social situation rather than endorsing or commanding it. Where as by the times of the New Testament, Paul was pretty specific about his position on monogamous marriage, divorce and marriage between divorced persons.

[ayesha]

The theory of monogamy with complete prevention of polygyny, generally leads to many social illnesses - especially prostitution, spinsterhood and illegitimate children. This leads to the dissolution of the family institution, which is sacred in Islam - as I mentioned earlier "family structure is the very foundation of society." This ultimately, but also not to mention the plagues of veneral diseases such as herpes, siphilis and AIDS.

Islam protects women in particular, and the society from degeneration. If we on this forum, are fair enough to meditate reasonably and logically on Islamic polygyny, we will realise that such a divine system that preserves, protects, feeds and clothes women is surely better and more honourable to them than being degraded into prostitution etc.

In some societies, the number of women is far superior to that of men. This is especially true of industrial and commercial regions, and of course countries who engage in wars and homosexuality. I understand that in the US, women outnumber men by 7.8 million, with approximately 25 million gays. The UK has 4 million more females than males.

Now, if an Islamic society is in this category, and if Islam were to forbid polygamy and restrict legal marriage to one wife only, what would the unmarried women do? Where and how would they find the companionship their natures desire? Where and how would they find sympathy, understanding, support and protection? The implications of the problem are not simply physical - they are moral, sentimental, social, emotional and natural. Every normal woman - whether she is in business or in foreign service or in the intelligence department - longs for a home, a family of her own. She needs someone to care for, and someone to care for her. She desires to belong socially and familially. Even if we look at it from a strictly physical perspective, the implications are still very serious, and we cannot just ignore them. Otherwise, psychological complexes, nervous breakdowns, social disorder and mental instability would develop as natural consequences of leaving the problem unsolved.

If some people think it religiously unacceptable, they have to resort to the other alternatives which Islam does not accept or particularly favour. If people can control themselves and exercise self-discipline in every aspect, they do not need polygamy! The main concern of Islam, is to maintain the dignity and security of the individual, and to PROTECT the integrity and moral fabric of society.

Even if we look at this issue from a feminine perspective, it will be clear that by this resolution, Islam assures the woman due respect, secures her rights and integrity, recognises her legitimate desire for decent companionship, gives her room in society where she can belong and provides her with opportunities to care for someone dear and to be cared for.

In this case, Islam benevolently intervenes and allows the married man to remarry if there is good reason, justification and of course permission from his present wife/wives.

If there are no further comments, I'll proceed to the next hypothesis.

[ayesha]

Originally posted by Frans_1
I don't agree the Bible provides for polygamy. This is unlike marriage or kingship or priesthood which were institutions laid down by the Bible. In the days of David and Moses, the Bible simply recognised the social situation rather than endorsing or commanding it. Where as by the times of the New Testament, Paul was pretty specific about his position on monogamous marriage, divorce and marriage between divorced persons.

are you saying that christianity NEVER tolerated polygamy? as u are christian, could you tell me what the stance on polygamy is - its history and present day form?

[ayesha]

In some instances of marriage, the wife may not be capable of having children for one reason or other. To have family life in the full sense of the word, and contribute to the preservation of the human kind, the presence of children is fundamental. Besides, it is one of the major purposes of marriage, and man desires by nature to have children to preserve his name and strengthen family bonds. In a situation like this, a man has one of three ordinary alternatives:

* To forget it and suppress his natural desires for children.

* To divorce his childless wife through the course of separation, adultery or otherwise.

* To adopt children and give them his name.

None of these alternatives fits the general outlook of Islam on life and nature. Islam does not encourage or approve suppression of anyone’s legitimate desires and natural aspirations. It helps to realise those aspirations and desires in a decent and legal way because suppression in such a case is not part of its system. Divorce under these circumstances is cruel and unjustifiable, because it is not the fault of the woman that she cannot bear children. Besides, divorce is the most detestable thing in the sight of God, and is permissible only when there is no other alternative.

Adoption in this way is also out of the question because Islam ordains that every child must be called by his real father’s name, and if the name is unknown, he must be called a brother in faith:

Surah Al-Ahzab (The Confederates) 33:4/5

Arabic

"....wama ja'ala ade'ya-akum abna-akum thaalikum qowlukum bi afwahikum wa Allahu yaquloul-haqq wa huwa yahd(i-s)abeel. Udu'hum li abaa-eehim huwa aqsatu i'nd Allah fa i(n-l)am ta'lamou aabaa-ahum fa ikhwanukum fi Deeni wa Mawalikum wa laysa a'laikum jounahun fima akhta-tum bihi wa laka(n-m)a ta'amadat quloubukum wa kan Allahu Ghafour(a-R)aheema"

English
"....nor has He made your adopted sons your real sons. That is but your daying with your mouths. But Allah say the Truth, and he guides to the Right Way.
Call them by the names of their fathers, that is more just in the Sight of Allah. But if you know not their fathers' (names, call them) your brothers in faith and (Mawalikum). And there is no sin on you if you make a mistake therein, except in regard to what your hearts deliberately intend. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful."

This alternative is not justifiable because it is wrong, and it is wrong because if a man called another son ‘his son’, it is likely to create complications with natural and normal relationships if taken literally. It is pointed out that it is only a facon de parler in one’s mouth, and should not be taken literally.

What Islam aims to do here is to eradicate the superstition of erecting false relationships to the detriment or loss of true blood relations. How will the grown child react when they discover that their real parents are unknown? With these three alternatives discarded, Islam offers the solution of remarriage to satisfy natural needs, and maintaining his childless wife without having to leave her or have an affair. Even so, the wife has the right to reject the husband’s request for remarriage and/or petition for a valid divorce plea if she is not happy.

There is just a couple more things to say and then I'll be done.

[Mediocrates]

Why is divorce detestable. Why such a focus on the children in marriage - that is - why all this "stay together for the children's benefit"? Why not allow the man and the woman to break this relationship in order to perhaps permit stronger deeper ones with other people who may be better spouses & parents.


What is the status, theoretical and in practice of step children?


The sociological realities of establishing documented fatherhood are obvious. Why though here in this context?


Do children of a prior marriage have to be adopted?

Can blood sisters be sister wives as well?

Can women of the same family different generations be sister wives?

Can women who are step sisters be sister wives?

Can a woman with or without children render herself unfit or unable to re/marry while remaining muslim?

[ayesha]

Why is divorce detestable?

Marriage is supposed to be a continuous harmony not only between man and woman but also between them and God. It can be seen that Islam has given all possible assurances to make marriage a happy companionship, and a solid foundation for continuous harmony and permanent peace. However, in view of that fact that human behaviour is changeable and sometimes unpredictable, Islam acknowledges the realistic outlook on life and makes allowances for the unexpected. Therefore, if the marriage, which is based on the religious/lawful regulations and governed by the religious/lawful precautions, does not function properly then there must be some serious obstacles in the way - something that cannot be overcome by reconciliation. Divorce is then applicable ((and in some Shari’ah rulings it is fardh (obligatory for the sake of the children if the environment is that bad. However, this depends on individual cases)). In a nutshell, divorce is detestable because marriage is sacred, but Islam obviously accommodates for changes

Why such a focus on the children in marriage

Yes, there is an emphasis to “stay together for the children’s benefit” because family structure needs to stay strong and complete for the sake of society. However, it is not compulsory, if things are bad for both/either man/woman/children then it is best to part and commit to stronger, deeper relationships with other people as you say.

What is the status of step children?

Status in what sense? If the child is no longer a child and has reached adolescence then they are to be treated by the step mother in the same way as she would treat/interact with any “strange” man because technically she could marry him if she was not married to his father - (covers in front of him etc). It is recommended that the older son finds somewhere else to live, the same applies to if the woman he married already has a mature daughter whom he could technically marry if he was not married to her mother so she is also recommended to find somewhere else to live.

The sociological realities of establishing documented fatherhood are obvious. Why though here in this context?

To emphasise that the son is not really his son, so natural relationships are not disturbed and allowed to take course. The adopted child have all the rights the biological child does but it is to stress what their position in society is ie who they can/can’t marry etc.

Do children of a prior marriage have to be adopted?

Not formally no.

Can blood sisters be sister wives as well?

No

Can a woman with or without children render herself unfit or unable to re/marry while remaining muslim?

She doesn’t have to marry if she doesn’t want to. Marriage is not compulsory on anyone, if she wishes to go it alone with or without children then that is her prerogative. She need not “render herself” anything she does not have to explain that to anyone.

Have I answered your questions?

[ayesha]

- Just to touch a little on the Sira ((Life of the Prophet (pbuh)) –

The Prophet (pbuh) came to establish morality and assure everyone security, protection, moral integrity and a decent life. His mission was put to the test in his own life, and so did not stay in the static form of theory. Wars and persecutions burdened the Muslims with many widows, orphans and divorcees. They had to be protected and maintained by surviving Muslim men. It was his (pbuh) practice to help these women get resettled by marriage to his companions. Some women were rejected by the companions and some sought the Prophet's perosnal patronage and protection. Realising fully their conditions and sacrifices for the cause of Islam, he had to do something to relieve them. One course of relief was to take them as his wives, and accept the challenge of heavy liabilities. So he did, and maintained more than one wife at a time which was no light or easy course. He had to take part in the rehabilitation of those widows, orphans and divorcees because he could not ask other companions to do things which he himself was not prepared to engage in. These women were trusts of the Muslims so the Prophet had to do his share of responsibility.

The Prophet (pbuh) contracted some of his marriages for socio-political reasons. His principle concern was the future of Islam. He was most interested in strengthening the society by all bonds. That is why he married Ayesha (ra), the daughter of Abu Bakr (ra) (who was his first successor), and the daughter of Omar (ra) (who was his second successor). It was by his marriage to Juwaira (ra) that he gained the support for Islam for the whole clan of Bani Al-Mustaliq and their allied tribes. It was through the marriage to Sophia (ra) that he neutralised a great section of the hostile Jews of Arabia. It was also a gesture of friendship eg King Negus of Abyssinia presented a wedding gift to Zeinab (ra) (Muhammed’s wife) when she was taking refuge in Abyssinia. On another level, the Prophet (pbuh) established a good relationship with another neighbouring King when he a c c e p t e d Maria the Copt (ra) from the King of Egypt.

By contracting most of these marriages, the Prophet (pbuh) meant to eliminate social, tribal and racial discrimination. He was not satisfied with merely preaching brotherhood and equality, he meant what he taught and put it into practice.

Some of the Prophet’s marriages were for legislative reasons and to abolish certain corrupt traditions. Such was his marriage to Zeinab (ra), divorcee of the freed slave Zayd (ra) who was adopted by Muhammed (pbuh) and called his son, as was the custom among the Arabs in Jahiliya (before Islam). However, Islam abrogated this custom and disapproved this practice (as I stated previously). Muhammed (pbuh) was the first man to express his disapproval by marrying the divorcee of his ‘adopted son’, to show that adoption does not really make the adopted child a real son of the adopting father/mother – although I must stress that they are treated with the same love, care and affection as biological children of course.

One of the most distorted concepts of Islam is the Prophet (pbuh) and his life - one aspect being that of marriage. Previously on this forum, I have ignored disgusting and hurtful lies about this. For learned people on this - Muslims and non-Muslims alike - there is no doubt that Muhammed (pbuh) had the highest standards of morality and is the perfect model under all circumstances. To non-Muslims, I appeal for serious discussion of the matter, if a discussion is wanted, otherwise sound conclusions will be impossible to reach.

By marrying more than once, not only are all the women and children involved legitimate, but the man also has an obligation to face up to full responsibility for all relationships into which he enters.

I vaguely know of other hypotheses which cover women who are physically unable/ill who request their husbands to remarry. This, in addition to perfectly able-bodied women who are happy being married to a man with multiple wives, and thus actually look for a new spouse for him. However, I do not know enough to be able to comment much.

To conclude, I must stress two final points for you to take away with you, and add the general Shari’ah ruling:
If there is any fear of injustice and harm to any party, then monogamy is the rule.
The Muslims maintain that legal and conditional polygamy is preferable to the other courses of action that many people adopt nowadays, people who pride themselves on nominal marriages and outward monogamy. The Muslim stand is this:polygamy is permitted, yet there are circumstances that can render it mandoub (permissible/preferable), makruh (disliked) or haram (forbidden/prohibited) depending on individual cases.
If you’ll permit me, I would rather not enter this aspect of Shari’ah - if I did, I’d end up writing a book. Though, I believe I have covered everything I am able to, and clarified why polygamy is a virtuous and not negative thing (I’m not asking you to agree with me, just to open your hearts and understand why Muslims practice it) as is portrayed by ignorants such as Ali Sina and co. If I had the time I swear I would reply to his entire website of porous material. In future, I advise Abu Afak to read from more than one source – what if I was to read and believe all the things on anti-Jewish sites about Israel/Jewish beliefs without going to find a pious and reliable Rabbi/Jew to point me to the correct way? I assure you, to the eyes of a Muslim that knows their Deen that website is so full of obvious and easily refuted lies it’s not funny. As I say, it is just unfortunate that I and others don’t bother trying to shut it down with lashes of truth..well not for now anyway.

I also wish to comment on a couple of comments made earlier on. I am aware of so-called ‘Muslims’ who have made halal (lawful) haram (unlawful) and haram halal by outlawing polygamy (Tunisia is one of the countries guilty of this), but this is to testify what I have claimed over and over – that no Muslim/Arab country in this world today implements Shari’ah law. Those who are guilty of such are not Muslims. Tunisian women are the most oppressed of the Arab world because it is against the law to wear a headscarf, if you do you can neither study nor work nor marry. I doubt you have seen the sadness in the eyes of Tunisian women who yearn for it. I have. THAT is oppression. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to put it on myself yet. Nonetheless, when I was in Tunisia last Summer and I heard about this law I put on a poor excuse for a headscarf in hopes of pissing someone off. I was repeatedly approached by officers asking for my ID and whether or not I was Tunisian. When they saw my British passport their stern attitude changed completely to a smiling “After you Madame” after which they ran a mile. But the most emotional part was walking into shops and having female shop assistants asking if they can touch the hijab, and crying asking me if I thought God would be angry at them for not being able to wear it. Oppression and injustice around the Arab world is nothing to do with Shari’ah, the problem is the lack of it. The Taliban were just on the opposite end of the spectrum – Islam has nothing to do with such barbaric, cruel and irresponsible rulings.
"There is no compulsion in religion" but I digress..

[ayesha]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Can blood sisters be sister wives as well?

Can women of the same family different generations be sister wives?

Can women who are step sisters be sister wives?

All the answers to these are no.

[Mediocrates]

Thank you, is the Fez also outlawed in Tunisia?

[ayesha]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Thank you, is the Fez also outlawed in Tunisia?

pleasure.

a fez is..?

[Mediocrates]

The round brimless hat, sometimes with a tassel, usually scarlet, has a flat top.

http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/fez_2/


Outlawed in Turkey under Attaturk specificallly for antireligious reasons.

[ayesha]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
The round brimless hat, sometimes with a tassel, usually scarlet, has a flat top.

http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/fez_2/


Outlawed in Turkey under Attaturk specificallly for antireligious reasons.

you mean a tarboush? i dont understand why it's outlawed. although the hat in the picture on the site is not a tarboush. if it's the tarboush you mean (the one you described) then no i know of no arab country who have outlawed wearing a tarboush. how a tarboush is 'religious' is beyond me.

it has been described as 'the forbidden hat' in some countries but i honestly have no idea as to why.

[Mediocrates]

Here is my understanding. It was outlawed by Attaturk because the "Fez" or tarboush allows a man to pray and touch his head to ground w/o removing the hat first. So it was the hat of choice among Turks particularly religious Turks. In their movement to eradicate religion from their society the Turks wanted to eliminate all of the accountrements and phylacteries as well.

Anyway that's my read on it.

[ayesha]

Originally posted by ayesha
you mean a tarboush? i dont understand why it's outlawed. although the hat in the picture on the site is not a tarboush. if it's the tarboush you mean (the one you described) then no i know of no arab country who have outlawed wearing a tarboush. how a tarboush is 'religious' is beyond me.

it has been described as 'the forbidden hat' in some countries but i honestly have no idea as to why.

i know some sheikhs like to wear a tarboush with a white turban wrappen round it but it doesnt have any religious significance. only cultural, maybe it is outlawed because of its religious connotation. dont really know for sure.

[Moskal']

Your posts are very interesting and informative, ayesha. Thank you very much.

I do not think that anybody but uninformed people would say Islam is a barbarious religion. But still, it is fact that islamic society, not the religion, is very far from being modern. I've talked to turkish feminists in Germany, who say that even in Istanbul , one of the most "western" cities in world of islam, it is customary that women are getting married by order of their parents, and are beaten at home. In my view of this world, wich is not perfect by any way, I see that in most, if not all muslim countries, women can not even think of things in the west sufragettes did in the beginning of 20th century. Women are cleaning and cooking, while men are earning money - this is indisputable there, or is it? Women which give birth to bastards have a bad image in the society, while unmarried daughters are abuse for their parents. All this was well-known in the west, all this is history there...Muslim culture was almost the highest in 6-8 century, uncomparable to the barbarity of Europe of the same time. Though under turk-mongol influences and lack of wealth Europe gained from the new world since 1492 the cultural advance went slow or even stopped. Moreover, formerly relatively liberal countries like Persia fell back in cultural developement, putting human rights far behind religious or custom norms.

I know that I know nothing of the world of Islam, except the few what I see from outside. So I kindly ask you to correct my knowlege.

[ayesha]

But still, it is fact that islamic society, not the religion, is very far from being modern.

This is relatively true of a lot of so-called Islamic countries. Not all.

Women are cleaning and cooking, while men are earning money - this is indisputable there, or is it?

Indeed there are more men employed than women. However, there is still a large number of women working - it's hardly abnormal or looked down upon culturally (providing it's a decent living). It is seen as more desirable for a woman to be a housewife. Nonetheless, if she is able to juggle work and home with her partner without compromising or neglecting the home to the detriment of family life, then there is nothing wrong with working.

All men are expected to work and earn a living to provide for the family because it is an Islamic obligation. On the other hand, it is not an obligation on the women, permissible by all means but not a religious obligation. In some cases such as teaching, it is stressed as Islamically preferable that women worked if at all possible.

Women which give birth to bastards have a bad image in the society,

True that.

while unmarried daughters are abuse for their parents.

? Explain.

[andak01]

Though under turk-mongol influences and lack of wealth Europe gained from the new world since 1492 the cultural advance went slow or even stopped. Moreover, formerly relatively liberal countries like Persia fell back in cultural developement, putting human rights far behind religious or custom norms.

I know that I know nothing of the world of Islam, except the few what I see from outside. So I kindly ask you to correct my knowlege.

What a lot of people neglect to take into account are two factors. The Mongol invasion made the WTC attack look like a bump in the road by comparison. Hundreds of thousands of people (and think what that means in proportion to the populations of the time) were massacred from Persia through Russia and as far west as Egypt. In addition, libraries were burnt to the ground, books were destroyed and scholars were killed. While it is true that the Mughals (successors to the Khanate Dynasty) were Muslims, they were never the same as the Muslims that came before them. As if that wasn't enough, Akhbar created his own version of Islam that blended Hindi caste concepts and various other Hindi customs into Islam. Many of the Pakistanis and Indians are still influenced by this. For example, a friend of mine reports that his sister was forced to pay dowery. Further, I hear reports of killings based on intercaste breeches amongst Muslims?!

So the Islamic world that the Ottoman's inherited was already quite a bit changed. In fact, it was the Mongol invasion that created the hole in the power structure that allowed them in in the first place.

Second, and now we are talking about several centuries later, the British influence cannot be underplayed. The nations most screwed up today are the ones that were the most heavily under the control of colonial powers in the past. Look at the British history in The Sudan for example.

Taking these two huge influences into account and THEN factoring in the decline of the Ottomans gives us a much clearer vision of what actually went on. To place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Ottomans is like saying that the American Indians moved west because they liked buffalo. They did like buffalo, but the cavalry to their east might have figured in as well.

[Mediocrates]

Indonesia, China (not a political colony but an economic one), India seem to be doing allright. I don't think it's colonialism, after all at the end of 1945 - more than 750 million people lived under the Union Jack. They're not all in the crapper now. No it goes back to what I've been saying. Commodity natural resource based economies are dead ends. They install greed, waste, stupidity, tyranny and violence.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
They install greed, waste, stupidity, tyranny and violence.

Sounds like Enron! Seriously, economic factors are certainly worth considering. The Afghans didn't always live in caves. Tashkent and Samarkand were notoriously wealthy trade centers at one time.

You do make a point that the places that the Ottoman's touched have a different feel than the rest of the Islamic world (Indonesia, China et al). Morocco, for example, was never part of the Ottoman Empire and they are quite independent of what is going on today.

[Mediocrates]

It's not just Arab countries or former Brit colonies either. Congo, Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, Sierre Leone, Namibia, Myanmar (or whatever Burma calls itself..), and to some extent the Caribbean, Brazil, Venezuela, Peru and Columbia. And Russia, big time.


As long as all they have to do is pull money out of the ground, that is all they will do.

[Moskal']

ayesha: What I meant was that in muslim countries male children are financially rather a bonus for the families, as they can work and become heirs, while female ones rather are a malus, and if never married, even a desaster for a family's finances. That is what I thought.


andak: British colonization could occur only because of the decline of the Islamic nations 1600-1900. In Iran and Afghanistan, the society marched into straightly into stone age in 20th century while the countries never were colonized. Other countries wich always have been colonies, (non-muslim states like India, states like Azerbaican or Lebanon) on contrary, live in a more or less civilized society. The explaination for states like Sudan or central asian countries being in the situation they are in, is perhaps that they were very poor on natural resources and very desolate, and thus their society did not get under strong western Influence.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Moskal'
ayesha: What I meant was that in muslim countries male children are financially rather a bonus for the families, as they can work and become heirs, while female ones rather are a malus, and if never married, even a desaster for a family's finances. That is what I thought.

If I may comment on this one. Throughout Islam you will find active detterents towards undervaluing female children. One of these is the fact that in Sunni Islam, the man must pay a dowery to his wife, and he is never allowed to take any portion of it back. If the woman is forced to pay a dowery, such as is done in Pakistan and parts of India, the burden falls back on the family to provide it. The marriage is arranged to a man who is capable of providing and the married woman is guaranteed financial security, whereas a male child may or may not become a burden to his family. A single woman, or a woman who has raised her children to an age of self sufficiency can work in pretty much the same capacity as a man. My own wife worked until she became pregnant, and if her health had permitted, she could have continued to do so until the birth of the baby. But don't be mistaken, although I have a very strict and definite duty to provide for my wife and child, there is nothing in Islam to prevent me from helping with household tasks or with the baby. In fact we know that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) did these things. So it is a blessing if we men follow in his example.


andak: British colonization could occur only because of the decline of the Islamic nations 1600-1900.

I don't say that isn't so. Therefore, it is not fair to cite colonisation as a sole reason for decline in these places. However, the colonisation did have its negative effects as well, and we need to acknowledge that.

In Iran and Afghanistan, the society marched into straightly into stone age in 20th century while the countries never were colonized.

I don't know so much about Afghanistan, but in the case of Iran, the US installed a puppet dictator (the Shah). So, Iran was effectively in the hands of the US even if it wasn't de facto colonized.

Other countries wich always have been colonies, (non-muslim states like India, states like Azerbaijan or Lebanon) on contrary, live in a more or less civilized society.

This deserves some further looking into. I have been hearing from the Islamophobes that without exception, every Muslim country is backward. I have usually used Morocco and Turkey as examples of relatively progressive states, but perhaps there are more.

The explanation for states like Sudan or central asian countries being in the situation they are in, is perhaps that they were very poor on natural resources and very desolate, and thus their society did not get under strong western Influence.

Well, it is largely economic in any case.

[Moskal']

However, the colonisation did have its negative effects as well, and we need to acknowledge that.
Positive effects it also had. I think it was a blessing for India to become a colony, otherwise it probabably still would be a collection of isolated medieval principates. Or look at Japan, wich lived in isolation till middle of 19th century. It managed to use the relative violent contact with the west to catch it up in mere 40 years, turning from a feudal samurai state in 1850 to a great power beating Russian Empire in the war of 1905.
Well, it is largely economic in any case.
Economic prosperity opens minds and creates cultural advance. When muslim states were rich, some of the greatest artists of the humanity could work there. Now, with economic poverty a cultural one came

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Moskal'
Positive effects it also had. I think it was a blessing for India to become a colony, otherwise it probabably still would be a collection of isolated medieval principates. Or look at Japan, wich lived in isolation till middle of 19th century. It managed to use the relative violent contact with the west to catch it up in mere 40 years, turning from a feudal samurai state in 1850 to a great power beating Russian Empire in the war of 1905.


And Japan again in 1945.

Hopefully our Iraq Action to change regimes will have the same affect on that country, and then trigger change in the rest of the Area. Too many people don't see the tremendous upside for the Arab world, in not just getting rid of Saddam, but in seeding democracy.