[mariachi]

(Original post by CallumTM)
Shariah Law doesn't even belong on this planet, nevermind the UK.

I entirely agree

there is no room on Earth for stoning, amputations (whether of hands or of hands and feet, on the same side or on alternate sides)

there is no room for execution of apostates, for special fiscal regimes on the basis of religion, for having sex with 9-year olds or with slave-girls, for giving power to fractious, unelected "scholars" or Caliphs

there is no room for women having to be "obedient" if they don't want to get hit (or tapped ?), for sexual segregation imposed by the State, for discrimination of women in witnessing, inheritance, access to professions

in short, Shariah is medieval and barbaric and does, actually, belong to the dustbin of history

apart from that, it's not so bad

[mariachi]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
"In this will, the husband would assign what he wished of his private property to his wife."
Meaning that if he so wishes, he doesn't have to give anything to his wife.

again, and dishonestly, you are generalizing a specific Middle Kingdom practice to all of Egypt, and you don't even mention it

this is repeated, deep dishonesty

(Original post by Iqbal007)
" A woman had claims to up to one-third"
Another thing is the "claims" there is no fixed amount, only upto if there is no such will, plus no info on who decides how much she gets or anything at all to be honest.

"Right to inheritance" would imply every women had a legitimate right of some form, however as shown, its not completely true as it can circumvented by the husband and whoever judges the claim, so they could end in some cases with nothing.

a wife gets one-third, except if the husband arranges for her to have more

so, she has a right -a fixed right, which can be increased

furthermore, brothers and sisters are also legitimate heirs, on an equal basis

sisters are women, right ?

how on Earth can you still claim that women had no right to inheritance before Islam ?

why don't you simply admit that you repeated the usual mantra, without ever having studied the inheritance rules prevalent among the Greek, the Romans, Egyptians, the Maya, the Japanese, the Chinese, and thousands of other civilizations ?

and if you say you did, do you think we would be so idiotic as to believe you ?

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by blu tack)
Right to inheritance surely implies that the woman is able to claim any inheritance that is left to her, not that she is entitled to anything if that's not what the deceased wanted.

Right to inheritance, as in that she is entitled to something in terms of inheritance, whereas here it says "claims upto 1/3" and secondly it can be waived by a husband through a will.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Why should men have to give his earnings to his family? We want equality. YOU can't "pick and choose" the instances where people are equal or not. People are ALWAYS to be given equivalent treatment regardless of qualities they can't change.

Reason is that its impossible to given this type of "equality" as women and men are different, if a women were to give birth, that would mean a husband deserves equal amount of time off, but that times not equal in reality. In Islam its important to have kids, but we know that having kids will make women have to work less, so the husband is the one usually at work, its not to say that women has to keeper her earnings when she works, she can give it to her family if she wants, but doesn't have to.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by mariachi)
again, and dishonestly, you are generalizing a specific Middle Kingdom practice to all of Egypt, and you don't even mention it

this is repeated, deep dishonesty

But that's the thing that link your provided doesn't provide clear evidence at all, meaning the practice has many holes in it, just like that in the middle kingdom which is actually a time period by the way, so the whole of Egypt.

a wife gets one-third, except if the husband arranges for her to have more

so, she has a right -a fixed right, which can be increased

furthermore, brothers and sisters are also legitimate heirs, on an equal basis

sisters are women, right ?

how on Earth can you still claim that women had no right to inheritance before Islam ?

why don't you simply admit that you repeated the usual mantra, without ever having studied the inheritance rules prevalent among the Greek, the Romans, Egyptians, the Maya, the Japanese, the Chinese, and thousands of other civilizations ?

and if you say you did, do you think we would be so idiotic as to believe you ?

A woman doesn't get a 1/3, she has "claims" upto such an amount, this is where it is ambigious, doesn't start who decides nor does it suggest a fix amount.

A husband can arrange by adoption or will to give her more or through the will to give her less or nothing.
It's not a fixed right, when it has loopholes for husbands to not give her anything.

Neither have you studied either, you just did a quick google search, but if thats your opinion, its your opinion, I won't change it, but my opinion is my opinion and thats all fine for me

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
Reason is that its impossible to given this type of "equality" as women and men are different, if a women were to give birth, that would mean a husband deserves equal amount of time off, but that times not equal in reality. In Islam its important to have kids, but we know that having kids will make women have to work less, so the husband is the one usually at work, its not to say that women has to keeper her earnings when she works, she can give it to her family if she wants, but doesn't have to.

That's something that they can change if they want. A woman decides to have a baby, and intrinsic to that choice is the knowledge that you will have at least a few months out of your career. But a woman cannot choose to stop being a woman, and there is NO moral way to discriminate based purely on gender.

Making generalisations always leads to problems, and this is the problem with religion - there is no absolute morality because specific circumstances call for specific moral decisions even though another circumstance which is similar might call for a completely different moral decision.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
That's something that they can change if they want. A woman decides to have a baby, and intrinsic to that choice is the knowledge that you will have at least a few months out of your career. But a woman cannot choose to stop being a woman, and there is NO moral way to discriminate based purely on gender.

Making generalisations always leads to problems, and this is the problem with religion - there is no absolute morality because specific circumstances call for specific moral decisions even though another circumstance which is similar might call for a completely different moral decision.

In Islam, we are talking about Muslims here from that point of view, its a joint decision for a husband and wife to have a child or more. I'm just saying from Islams point view, their is a difference of treatment based on how each are different and tries to suit their needs... women can work if they so wish.

I'm not saying that Islamic point of views stand on non-Muslims, cos non-Muslims abide by their own ways, whereas Muslims do so under Sharia with theirs. The basic contract is that the man is the provider, but if the women wishes to provide as well, she can do as well nothing stopping a Muslim couple from doing that. This doesn't mean sharia has to happen in the UK, it's not a Muslim majority country or anything of the sort.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
In Islam, we are talking about Muslims here from that point of view, its a joint decision for a husband and wife to have a child or more. I'm just saying from Islams point view, their is a difference of treatment based on how each are different and tries to suit their needs... women can work if they so wish.

I'm not saying that Islamic point of views stand on non-Muslims, cos non-Muslims abide by their own ways, whereas Muslims do so under Sharia with theirs. The basic contract is that the man is the provider, but if the women wishes to provide as well, she can do as well nothing stopping a Muslim couple from doing that. This doesn't mean sharia has to happen in the UK, it's not a Muslim majority country or anything of the sort.

Exactly, a joint decision. So the man does not make the decision, the man and the woman both make the decision. Without the woman's consent, you can't have a baby. Without the man's consent, you can't have a baby.

Stop trying to wriggle out of it. You know that grouping people together based on their unchangeable qualities lead to slavery and genocide. You are attempting to do the same things to women.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Exactly, a joint decision. So the man does not make the decision, the man and the woman both make the decision. Without the woman's consent, you can't have a baby. Without the man's consent, you can't have a baby.

Stop trying to wriggle out of it. You know that grouping people together based on their unchangeable qualities lead to slavery and genocide. You are attempting to do the same things to women.

That's how its always been, but when your Muslim, you are encourage to have children, even using contraception in Islam requires both spouses consent. The point of marriage is more than just 2 people, its about 2 families, children, etc

"Slavery", women are allowed to work and the like in Islam, woman has her main duty as do men........... "genocide" i really don't know what your on about anymore.
What things?

[marcusfox]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
That's how its always been, but when your Muslim, you are encourage to have children, even using contraception in Islam requires both spouses consent. The point of marriage is more than just 2 people, its about 2 families, children, etc

"Slavery", women are allowed to work and the like in Islam, woman has her main duty as do men........... "genocide" i really don't know what your on about anymore.
What things?

As regards your contraception comment, the only reason for this is because
scholars have said that using the withdrawal method may deprive the woman of both sexual fulfilment and of having children, and so should not be used without the woman's agreement.

Contraception with the aim of having a permanently child-free marriage is not accepted.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by marcusfox)
As regards your contraception comment, the only reason for this is because
scholars have said that using the withdrawal method may deprive the woman of both sexual fulfilment and of having children, and so should not be used without the woman's agreement.

Contraception with the aim of having a permanently child-free marriage is not accepted.

I did state that "the point of marriage is more than just 2 people, its about 2 families, children, etc"
I just never went into detail about it, but does require both parties consent.

And yes it's not accepted to have a child free marriage when you are capable of having children, than your supposed to.
I also believe there are conditions to using contraception as well.

[mariachi]

OK, it is time to draw some conclusions.

This discussion is a good example of incompetence, superficiality and bad faith in debating.

Iqbal starts by making a superficial, blanket statement

(Original post by Iqbal007)
Islam was the first to introduce the right of women to inheritance, protection, etc

being able to make such a bold statement would mean having analyzed literally thousands of different societies with regard to their inheritance rules, and having compared them to Shariah.

Has Iqbal done this ? no, of course. He is simply repeating sheepishly what thousands of Muslims have read on their dawah websites and then copy paste all around the web.

And yet, a simple check shows that e.g. in ancient Egypt women had important inheritance rights, thousands of years already before Islam. Other societies may also have given them - who knows ? the only way to find out would be to study, instead of making bold gratuitous statements, as Iqbal does

The page I linked to gives an impressive image of women rights in ancient Egypt, and inheritance rights in particular. So, Iqbal has to clutch at straws. This is how he does it : the page I quoted (http://www.library.cornell.edu/colld...ast/womneg.htm) mentions a contract practiced in the Middle Kingdom (2055-1650 BC) which allowed the husband, during his lifetime, to make a donation of his goods, so that these goods would not be included in the final inheritance (which would follow the usual course). This is the quote

"In the middle Kingdom, he could draw up an imyt-pr, a "house document," which was a legal unilateral deed for donating property. As a living will, it was made and perhaps executed while the husband was still alive. In this will, the husband would assign what he wished of his private property to his wife."

and this is how Iqbal mentions and comments the quote

(Original post by Iqbal007)
"In this will, the husband would assign what he wished of his private property to his wife."
Meaning that if he so wishes, he doesn't have to give anything to his wife.

Iqbal is dishonest, because he drops the reference to the Middle Kingdom.

The Middle Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Kingdom_of_Egypt lasted from 2055 to 1650 BC. Whatever practices during the Middle Kingdom may have limited a woman's right to inheritance, matters very little, since the Middle Kingdom ended in any case about 2300 years before Islam. So, this "first straw" clutched by Iqbal is deeply flawed.

So, he clutches a second straw: since the article I quoted states that in Egypt

A woman had claims to up to one-third of all the community property in her marriage

Iqbal starts to quibble on the meaning of the word "claims"

(Original post by Iqbal007)
she has "claims" upto such an amount, this is where it is ambigious, doesn't start who decides nor does it suggest a fix amount.

Iqbal suggests that "a claim to that amount" doesn't mean she had a "right" to that amount. This is particularly disingenuous. If the wife had no "right" to that amount, why should she "claim" up to one third only ? for all it mattered, she could "claim" 75% of the inheritance, or even 100% ...

what is clear is that, in normal circumstances, the widow would inherit 1/3 of the husband's properties. More still, in special circumstances (adoption by her husband, no offspring or siblings etc) or perhaps less (during the Middle Kingdom, via donations made by the husband during the lifetime).

As can be seen, inheritance is no simple matter. It is not in ancient Egypt, nor is it in fact under Shariah. There may be conflicting "claims" and, in the end, the whole matter may end up before the judge, who will take a final decision.

But the whole discussion is next to useless, except that it shows one thing : that it is terminally stupid to make statements such as "Women had no inheritance rights before Islam" without having analyzed at the very least the main civilizations and the main legal systems.

The case of Egypt is just one case, and it clearly shows that women did have inheritance rights (beyond quibbles about the Middle Kingdom, conflicting "claims" etc)

So, why do some Muslims repeat day in, day out, that old chestnut about women's inheritance rights ? have they conducted the necessary studies ?

no, they have read it on their dawah sites, and they repeat it ad infinitum.

Sad, sad.

[mariachi]

and, lastly:


"Ancient Egyptians insisted that every child in the family should inherit the same amount of land or money when their parents died - both brothers and sisters. This was unusual in ancient times, when in most places only the boys could inherit land. It was a big help to the girls, who could support themselves without having to depend on men.

The Egyptians themselves had some problems with this rule. Some families didn't like the idea that girls would take their part of the family farm with them into another family when they got married. So sometimes in ancient Egypt girls married their brothers, to keep the land in the family.

We have the records of one lawsuit, where a married woman is suing her brother because he is refusing to give her her fair share of their fathers' property. (Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446, from the late Middle Kingdom, now in the Brooklyn Museum)."

from http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/...nheritance.htm

even kids know that women had inheritance rights in ancient Egypt

[Ganhad]

(Original post by mariachi)
OK, it is time to draw some conclusions.

This discussion is a good example of incompetence, superficiality and bad faith in debating.

Iqbal starts by making a superficial, blanket statement

being able to make such a bold statement would mean having analyzed literally thousands of different societies with regard to their inheritance rules, and having compared them to Shariah.

Has Iqbal done this ? no, of course. He is simply repeating sheepishly what thousands of Muslims have read on their dawah websites and then copy paste all around the web.

And yet, a simple check shows that e.g. in ancient Egypt women had important inheritance rights, thousands of years already before Islam. Other societies may also have given them - who knows ? the only way to find out would be to study, instead of making bold gratuitous statements, as Iqbal does

The page I linked to gives an impressive image of women rights in ancient Egypt, and inheritance rights in particular. So, Iqbal has to clutch at straws. This is how he does it : the page I quoted (http://www.library.cornell.edu/colld...ast/womneg.htm) mentions a contract practiced in the Middle Kingdom (2055-1650 BC) which allowed the husband, during his lifetime, to make a donation of his goods, so that these goods would not be included in the final inheritance (which would follow the usual course). This is the quote


and this is how Iqbal mentions and comments the quote
Iqbal is dishonest, because he drops the reference to the Middle Kingdom.

The Middle Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Kingdom_of_Egypt lasted from 2055 to 1650 BC. Whatever practices during the Middle Kingdom may have limited a woman's right to inheritance, matters very little, since the Middle Kingdom ended in any case about 2300 years before Islam. So, this "first straw" clutched by Iqbal is deeply flawed.

So, he clutches a second straw: since the article I quoted states that in Egypt

Iqbal starts to quibble on the meaning of the word "claims"

Iqbal suggests that "a claim to that amount" doesn't mean she had a "right" to that amount. This is particularly disingenuous. If the wife had no "right" to that amount, why should she "claim" up to one third only ? for all it mattered, she could "claim" 75% of the inheritance, or even 100% ...

what is clear is that, in normal circumstances, the widow would inherit 1/3 of the husband's properties. More still, in special circumstances (adoption by her husband, no offspring or siblings etc) or perhaps less (during the Middle Kingdom, via donations made by the husband during the lifetime).

As can be seen, inheritance is no simple matter. It is not in ancient Egypt, nor is it in fact under Shariah. There may be conflicting "claims" and, in the end, the whole matter may end up before the judge, who will take a final decision.

But the whole discussion is next to useless, except that it shows one thing : that it is terminally stupid to make statements such as "Women had no inheritance rights before Islam" without having analyzed at the very least the main civilizations and the main legal systems.

The case of Egypt is just one case, and it clearly shows that women did have inheritance rights (beyond quibbles about the Middle Kingdom, conflicting "claims" etc)

So, why do some Muslims repeat day in, day out, that old chestnut about women's inheritance rights ? have they conducted the necessary studies ?

no, they have read it on their dawah sites, and they repeat it ad infinitum.

Sad, sad.

I have to agree with you though sharia has no place in a christian country and people will vote for something they want as it would work in a caliphate ...
Have you actually done unbiased and objective research of the times of the prophet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmehfwvMCcI brother abudullah explains it well.

[Ganhad]

(Original post by mariachi)
I entirely agree

there is no room on Earth for stoning, amputations (whether of hands or of hands and feet, on the same side or on alternate sides)

there is no room for execution of apostates, for special fiscal regimes on the basis of religion, for having sex with 9-year olds or with slave-girls, for giving power to fractious, unelected "scholars" or Caliphs

there is no room for women having to be "obedient" if they don't want to get hit (or tapped ?), for sexual segregation imposed by the State, for discrimination of women in witnessing, inheritance, access to professions

in short, Shariah is medieval and barbaric and does, actually, belong to the dustbin of history

apart from that, it's not so bad

this isnt sharia law, if your going to give saudi arabia or the despot sunni dictatorships as an example the prophet said you have to vote for your leaders kings are allowed so they're very existence is hypocritical

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by mariachi)
OK, it is time to draw some conclusions.

This discussion is a good example of incompetence, superficiality and bad faith in debating.

Iqbal starts by making a superficial, blanket statement

being able to make such a bold statement would mean having analyzed literally thousands of different societies with regard to their inheritance rules, and having compared them to Shariah.

Has Iqbal done this ? no, of course. He is simply repeating sheepishly what thousands of Muslims have read on their dawah websites and then copy paste all around the web.

And yet, a simple check shows that e.g. in ancient Egypt women had important inheritance rights, thousands of years already before Islam. Other societies may also have given them - who knows ? the only way to find out would be to study, instead of making bold gratuitous statements, as Iqbal does

The page I linked to gives an impressive image of women rights in ancient Egypt, and inheritance rights in particular. So, Iqbal has to clutch at straws. This is how he does it : the page I quoted (http://www.library.cornell.edu/colld...ast/womneg.htm) mentions a contract practiced in the Middle Kingdom (2055-1650 BC) which allowed the husband, during his lifetime, to make a donation of his goods, so that these goods would not be included in the final inheritance (which would follow the usual course). This is the quote


and this is how Iqbal mentions and comments the quote
Iqbal is dishonest, because he drops the reference to the Middle Kingdom.

The Middle Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Kingdom_of_Egypt lasted from 2055 to 1650 BC. Whatever practices during the Middle Kingdom may have limited a woman's right to inheritance, matters very little, since the Middle Kingdom ended in any case about 2300 years before Islam. So, this "first straw" clutched by Iqbal is deeply flawed.

So, he clutches a second straw: since the article I quoted states that in Egypt

Iqbal starts to quibble on the meaning of the word "claims"

Iqbal suggests that "a claim to that amount" doesn't mean she had a "right" to that amount. This is particularly disingenuous. If the wife had no "right" to that amount, why should she "claim" up to one third only ? for all it mattered, she could "claim" 75% of the inheritance, or even 100% ...

what is clear is that, in normal circumstances, the widow would inherit 1/3 of the husband's properties. More still, in special circumstances (adoption by her husband, no offspring or siblings etc) or perhaps less (during the Middle Kingdom, via donations made by the husband during the lifetime).

As can be seen, inheritance is no simple matter. It is not in ancient Egypt, nor is it in fact under Shariah. There may be conflicting "claims" and, in the end, the whole matter may end up before the judge, who will take a final decision.

But the whole discussion is next to useless, except that it shows one thing : that it is terminally stupid to make statements such as "Women had no inheritance rights before Islam" without having analyzed at the very least the main civilizations and the main legal systems.

The case of Egypt is just one case, and it clearly shows that women did have inheritance rights (beyond quibbles about the Middle Kingdom, conflicting "claims" etc)

So, why do some Muslims repeat day in, day out, that old chestnut about women's inheritance rights ? have they conducted the necessary studies ?

no, they have read it on their dawah sites, and they repeat it ad infinitum.

Sad, sad.

woooow now your just picking at me, rather than the actual statement


Than why don't you anaylse every society than for me

Also I don't see any issues with the word "claims": "An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt" meaning that that amount is disputed, so in fact may not get that 1/3 at all, or a less than that meaning it's not a "right of inheritance", if it were they would all have gotten some inheritance without having to make a "claim" for it.

Middle Kingdom does matter, as proven through the claims, and the will which can leave out womens inheritance, meaning their is no right for women in inheritance, if women were to get that right, it would've been universal and a minimum amount which as shown isn't the case.

In normal circumstance women in Egypt had a "claim", so that means its in dispute so not all women got that 1/3 or less or even nothing.

I don't see how women had inheritance rights in Egypt when it wasn't universal nor was their a minimum amount, and is subject to loopholes and disputes for the inheritance and the amount. Meaning that some women didn't inherit anything at all, which therefore implies women didn't have a right to inheritance it was all dependent on individual cases if they were able to claim and how much they got.

(Original post by mariachi)
and, lastly:


"Ancient Egyptians insisted that every child in the family should inherit the same amount of land or money when their parents died - both brothers and sisters. This was unusual in ancient times, when in most places only the boys could inherit land. It was a big help to the girls, who could support themselves without having to depend on men.

The Egyptians themselves had some problems with this rule. Some families didn't like the idea that girls would take their part of the family farm with them into another family when they got married. So sometimes in ancient Egypt girls married their brothers, to keep the land in the family.

We have the records of one lawsuit, where a married woman is suing her brother because he is refusing to give her her fair share of their fathers' property. (Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446, from the late Middle Kingdom, now in the Brooklyn Museum)."

from http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/...nheritance.htm

even kids know that women had inheritance rights in ancient Egypt

Again that seems contradictory of the first link, where the husband can make a will in order to not give anything to his children, meaning it has a loophole again.

[mariachi]

(Original post by Iqbal007)

I don't see how women had inheritance rights in Egypt etc etc

With regard to the "claims":

someone owes you 100 quid. You have a "claim" to it.

If he doesn't give it to you, you go before a judge. The judge says he has to give it to you. He pays. End of it.

Disputes over inheritance are all over the world. Judges evaluate "claims" and adjudicate, on the basis of prevailing law. Does this mean that people don't have a right to their inheritance ? of course not.

you are just clutching at straws which get thinner and thinner.

In fact, as we have seen, wives inherited from their husband (usually, 1/3 of the property)

We have also seen that daughters inherited from their parents. They had equal rights, just like their male siblings. This was such a water-tight rule, that sometimes, in order to avoid fragmentation of family property, daughters would marry their brothers .

But, you are beyond repair. You are unable to simply recognize you were wrong.

Shame, shame.

And now, I am through with you. Believe what you want.

Bye

[mariachi]

(Original post by Ganhad)
I have to agree with you though sharia has no place in a christian country

most "Western" countries are not Christian anymore

however, yes, Shariah would fit in very badly, except for some marginal areas

(Original post by Ganhad)
Have you actually done unbiased and objective research of the times of the prophet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmehfwvMCcI brother abudullah explains it well.

I have read quite a lot about Islam and also, of course, the Quran and some Sirah

thanks for the link : I'll have a look

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by mariachi)
With regard to the "claims":

someone owes you 100 quid. You have a "claim" to it.

If he doesn't give it to you, you go before a judge. The judge says he has to give it to you. He pays. End of it.

Disputes over inheritance are all over the world. Judges evaluate "claims" and adjudicate, on the basis of prevailing law. Does this mean that people don't have a right to their inheritance ? of course not.

you are just clutching at straws which get thinner and thinner.

In fact, as we have seen, wives inherited from their husband (usually, 1/3 of the property)

We have also seen that daughters inherited from their parents. They had equal rights, just like their male siblings. This was such a water-tight rule, that sometimes, in order to avoid fragmentation of family property, daughters would marry their brothers .

But, you are beyond repair. You are unable to simply recognize you were wrong.

Shame, shame.

And now, I am through with you. Believe what you want.

Bye

That's completely different matter, as the person with the money is seen as a debitor and is a completely different situation.
Whereas this is more relatable to a compensation or insurance claim, where the amount isn't defined nor is for definite.

There is a difference, a right to inheritance means, that they have a right to get something, whereby in the Egyptian case they have a claim, thats not a right to inheritance but rather a right to claim for inheritance, so that means not every women gets a inheritance.

"Claims" of upto 1/3 which also can circumvented for a better or worse result.

Again your 2nd link contradicts your first link, with the concept of the will whereby the husband can give all elsehwere if he so wishes. It states quite equally if the children get an inheritance, meaning that if a son get its so does a daughter of equal, however its all possible that bother get nothing.