Well you're a female so she could take it off for you. But let's say you were male, I understand your preference to see someone when you're speaking to them, but by the same token it is even more critical for her due to her religious beliefs that you do not. So when all is said, you will still be able to communicate with her - I'm sure blind people don't have any problem whatsoever in being understood or understanding others. But your desire to her face is based on preference, whereas her desire is based on religious conviction. Can you really argue against that?
I can assure you that blind people are not content with their blindness and it will limit communication in certain ways. I do know my view point is designed on personal preference (as I stated in my post), and I'm fully aware you cannot argue against religious beliefs. But I still think that facial expression is a very important feature in communication.
Well I disagree with you, I think your issues are entirely based on the cultural norms and preferences you've grown up in. You're talking about the Niqaab or Jilbaab, seen your edit yeah. Well, like Muslim women, Muslim men also have a dress code similar in principle - loose clothing, no shortening of sleeves or showing of anything below the knee etc. The requirement to dress modestly doesn't specify exactly what to cover, only to cover your attractiveness or aspects of your body that would draw attention in general. The critical 'component' to a woman's attraction (and I dare someone disagree with me on this ) is her hair. I cannot believe how long you women spend doing your hair. But back to the point, women cover it with a Hijaab and then wear loose clothing that isn't form fitting. However, some interpret that requirement to the most strictest form and choose to cover their face and hands, and everything. Nothing wrong with that, these women are doing so to reach a higher level of piety. In some cultures, they are forced to wear only this and nothing less - I don't agree with such a law personally, she should be able to choose if she will cover her face or not, but I do know that most do choose to cover themselves to that degree. If they found it oppressive, they would not.
Do you not ever get the feeling that the reason they don't view it as oppressive is because either they are willing to believe everything in their religion as they hold it to the word of God, or as you have said due to cultural norms? That is the way I have always seen it, if for example their religion did not mention covering their self and they came across a culture that is used to this, would they not see it as oppressive.
I have nothing against voluntary wearing of it, I guess I'm just seeing this from an atheist perspective.
Men also have to live by the same dress code of modesty. The issue of covering of the face is subjective to those who think it is a requirement. You could also argue he should cover his hair, and himself wear a Niqaab then but to the vast majority of people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, the beauty in men is not in their hair. In their face? Both women and men are commanded to not take lustful second looks. This is why some Muslim women only wear a Hijab, because they expect men to look down like they will in return to attractive men, look elsewhere and avoid that type of 'spark'.
I disagree, I find hair on men quite attractive, it is a very important part of the face. Many women would agree with me on this too.
Well, the Niqaab isn't designed in regards to skin Angel, otherwise you might aswell paint yourself. It's designed against body shape. Muslims, men or women, are not allowed to wear form fitting clothing that will gain attention from the opposite gender. You can wear loose clothing, or wear the Niqaab itself. It's similar to what Christian Nuns wear.
When I said skin I didn't mean that literally. I was just talking about normal parts of the body such as the arms.
You make it sound like women are born in them and die in them. They only have to wear them in public places, I don't see how covering yourself up completely makes you any less human. If a woman has the desire to become more pious, and decides to cover herself completely, then I for one have as much respect for her as I have for any pious man who invests his life reciting and reading the Quran. Ironically, Muslim women will see Western women being encouraged in a society full of sex, to dress up so revealing as degrading and inhumane. Arguably, they have a better case than the ones being launched at them. We have one group of women who want to cover up completely, to avoid attention, and another who want to dress as little as possibly to get attenion. Which is more interpretable to be degrading? I'd fancy the Muslim women's chances in an argument in that one.
I am talking about social situations here where women wear the veil. The face is a big part of your identity which is why I will never agree with the veil.
I agree with your views on the Western culture, I think some women degrade themselves quite a lot. I think the media is partially responsible for this, it is unfortunate really. But there are still some sensible ones. I prefer the Western culture though, I don't think women (or men) should be pressured into covering themselves up or that religion should have any place in politics. I haven't come across any decent Islamic cities as of yet so cant comment there.
The Quran makes it clear the value of a woman and how to respect her in general, sadly to some they have more pressing priorities in their life than their religion but are hypocrites in using facets of their religion as a tool of abuse to their women. I agree with you that far too many people, in general, are oppressed in large parts of the world lets not forget that, it's not just a woman's rights.
Hey, you know the history behind the wedding veil? You know when brides walk along the aisle and raise their veil for their husbands to see? Same reasoning behind it as to the Niqaab. You see, there are many things that Christianity for example shares with Islam. They are after all cousin faiths. It's just unfair that now we have a hypocritical stance towards Islam, when in fact people are blind to see that they themselves used to do it.
Look at Mary mother of Jesus Christ, in every visual depiction you'll find of her - what is she wearing on her head?
The difference being those women do not wear the veil after the wedding. It's not a fair comparison. Also these days I'm quite sure the meaning has changed, it's turned into more of a fashion thing has it not?
I know Islam isn't the only religion concerned with the use of veils, but in this day and age it is the most prominent so you should understand why Islam is always brought into question with this. But while we're discussing this, I don't agree with the way nun's live their lives (from an atheist perspective it is illogical).
You have some very good points Meus, I guess everything just comes down to perspectives and cultural norms in the end. A debate you can never get anywhere in.
... God did was to re-adapt them so the system could still be in place but the treatment and rights of those under your servitude was, in those times, unheard of. In fact, a servant or 'slave' as they were called back then, of a devout Muslim would have been treated like royalty in comparison to how we know slaves to have been treated just a few centuries ago by the West. That was due to the word of God himself, so if you want to judge the divine aspects of this then it's important to make those distinctions.
I'm afraid the treatment of slaves in the Islamic world was to a large extent appalling.So on this point,I don't think you are on entirely solid ground.
And although Muhammad (saw) was the authority of the Muslim armies, you can't honestly define him as a 'warlord'.
Yes,in addition to being a prophet,he was that as well.I'm being honest here.
[font=Arial]Actually, no you've entirely missed the spot. There is a difference between a female POW and a concubine, to term someone the later, you have to put word out of her captivity and demand ransom or an exchange of your own captives (this is how things were done in general for POW's until recently by some cultures). When I answer that claim, I pay that ransom and you are entitled to release her back.
Surely you mean obliged-NOTentitled.
If however, I do not answer that claim or cannot pay the ransom, you could approach her but if she rejected your advances on your intentions, then case closed, send her back to her camp. She cannot be your concubine. A concubine in Islamic terms shouldn't be confused with a sex slave as I detailed in one of my earlier posts. This is the Islamic stance on it, I don't know how you came to your conclusion in the quote above.
Your hypothetical scenario is based on your misunderstanding of what concubines were so I can see what you're trying to say but as you're reading this sentence by now you will have by now understood what concubines were.
I'm really confused here.So what are concubines then? I just checked the Encyclopaedia Britannica.It just seemed to refer to the a long term relationship with an unmarried woman.Here a concubine would be equivalent in Modern day to a common law wife.That's not the specific definition of concubine in Islam.Anyway...your arguments sound very dubious to me.You're switching between modern realities and the word of the Quran.
Supposing, I was go to Iraq or Afghanistan,in the military campaign there,if I wished to have no-consequences,permissible fornication with the native Muslims how would I go about it?
Do you have any suggestions Meus?
One more thing we know certain religious doctrine may or may not misinterpreted in the modern age.I'm sorry if I misunderstood it.It,however, reminded me of this....
I can assure you that blind people are not content with their blindness and it will limit communication in certain ways. I do know my view point is designed on personal preference (as I stated in my post), and I'm fully aware you cannot argue against religious beliefs. But I still think that facial expression is a very important feature in communication.
I agree that it you lose something in terms of interaction if you cannot see the face of a person but with all due respect, you cannot argue that communicating with a woman who covers her face is an issue. It's not. I've seen few Niqaabi's face to face (pardon the pun), and I've never struggled or felt uncomfortable. Maybe you if you talked to one, and had a conversation about something, her appearance would seem secondary.
Do you not ever get the feeling that the reason they don't view it as oppressive is because either they are willing to believe everything in their religion as they hold it to the word of God, or as you have said due to cultural norms? That is the way I have always seen it, if for example their religion did not mention covering their self and they came across a culture that is used to this, would they not see it as oppressive.
God himself doesn't specifically state cover your faces, he says cover your awrah - be modest in your appearance as to not get the attention of others. My daughter would be wearing Hijaab and loose clothing as that is in the most basic terms following that commandment. However, if she decides to wear a Niqaab in order to be more pious that is her prerogative. She would not wear it if she found it oppressive, whereas those who do wear it do not see it as oppressive. You won't find anyone, finding it oppressive, yet feeling obligated to wear it; why wear it if you feel its oppressive? That type of hypothetical scenario is self-contradicting.
Before Islam, even before Christianity, women covered up wearing loose clothing. Frankly, showing anything above your close to your knee during the 1950's was considered provocative so you can appreciate the social norms and how dramatically they have changed over the past few decades. Islam however states that women, and men, must cover up. Naturally, this would tend more to appeal to women in the eyes of people as beauty is more associated with a woman more so than a man. That doesn't mean however a Muslim man is scot free to wear anything he wants. In some cultures, such as in Afghanistan, the covering of the face probably existed before Islam or was atleast influenced by social norms there, and so it would make sense for them to adopt it as a standard for their women. The problem here is that a woman wearing anything less than a Niqaab is considered sinful, which shouldn't be the case. Sadly we can understand this is probably due to social customs so if criticism is warranted, it cant be for the concept of wearing the Niqaab, but the lack of choice in that regard.
I have nothing against voluntary wearing of it, I guess I'm just seeing this from an atheist perspective.
I can see that.Atheists may disagree with the practice of somethings but they are able to understand them.
I disagree, I find hair on men quite attractive, it is a very important part of the face. Many women would agree with me on this too.
I didn't mean if hair is attractive on men or not, I meant when it comes to the beauty of a man, we don't think of hair, we think of his face which is the focal point of his attractiveness. I can ask you whats your favourite hairstyle for a guy, and get it done myself - take a picture, would that then make your pupils dialate? No it would not. You could find man attractive regardless of his hair, or lack of hair even, whereas when it comes to hair on women, regardless of how pretty her face is, if she is bald, she will struggle to attract people. I'm sure being a girl yourself you can see where I'm going with this point.
When I said skin I didn't mean that literally. I was just talking about normal parts of the body such as the arms.
Ah right, well that's more to do with principle on modesty. At one point in our own history, a man touching a woman's arm would be interpreted as sexual contact, obviously that's not the same anymore - but when it comes to physical modesty, Islam is very prudent about it. But I understand what you mean though.
I am talking about social situations here where women wear the veil. The face is a big part of your identity which is why I will never agree with the veil.
Well, interesting you say that. Muslim women/men aren't meant to 'socialise' together if they are not related to one another or married to each other. There is an element of segregation, which wouldn't lead to a situation where in a Muslim country - a guy and a girl standing in a corner chatting away.
I agree with your views on the Western culture, I think some women degrade themselves quite a lot. I think the media is partially responsible for this, it is unfortunate really. But there are still some sensible ones. I prefer the Western culture though, I don't think women (or men) should be pressured into covering themselves up or that religion should have any place in politics. I haven't come across any decent Islamic cities as of yet so cant comment there.
Well exactly, that's why its unfair for people in the West to be criticisng Muslim women for what they wear. It's hypocritical. How many articles or people have you seen criticisng Muslim attire? Plenty. How many criticise the little clothing we see on the streets, encouraged by our own media? Not many I bet.
The difference being those women do not wear the veil after the wedding. It's not a fair comparison. Also these days I'm quite sure the meaning has changed, it's turned into more of a fashion thing has it not?
Yeah today it's lost it's meaning, alot of things have lost their meaning sadly. But the concept behind the veil, at a time where male-female segreation was still present to some degree, was to symbolise that the woman is chaste and that her husband will be the first man to ever see her in her natural state of beauty. It's sort of like "Here I am, you can see me how I look like, I'm your wife, I'm yours" - it's that giving or showing of something where no man would normally be able to fully appreciate. Your right they didn't wear it before the wedding or after, but the actual ceremony is more of symbolism than practicality. Those women would wear loose and bagging clothing, and come home and wear whatever little they like in their husbands presence, as that ceremony - that bit when she raised her veil, was to signify that she no longer has to hide anything from him. Am I making sense? Lol I don't know.
Muslim women, in regards to their clothing, are similar. They wear what you see in public, at home with their husbands or relatives, they're just like you in terms of their clothing and fashion tastes. That's important to note.
I know Islam isn't the only religion concerned with the use of veils, but in this day and age it is the most prominent so you should understand why Islam is always brought into question with this. But while we're discussing this, I don't agree with the way nun's live their lives (from an atheist perspective it is illogical).
I understand why Islam is being questioned, it's a clash of civilsations and principles. The questions are fine, however the criticism is mostly unfounded and rather ignorant. Most people cared not for Muslims or Islam before 9/11, but since then an entire can of worms has been opened with every slur and derogative mark you could imagine, about the faith, it's women, it's origins and it's Prophet. I don't expect a Christian to criticise Islam based on its verses on slavery, or concubines, or the Niqaab or Hijab oppressive when they're own Nuns wear the same thing etc, and I don't expect a Jew to criticise it based on its age of consent etc. Why? Because they're own religious scriptures have almost exactly the same content. But there is this agenda by some to sanitize Muslims and Islam, to justify their racism and hatred towards them - caused by the terroris attacks. It's a load of BS.
You have some very good points Meus, I guess everything just comes down to perspectives and cultural norms in the end. A debate you can never get anywhere in.
I don't think a debate between an Atheist and a person who believes in God has often led to much agreement between the two to be fair But it's all about discussion and understanding the other's views. I understand yours, and I'd like to think you underestand with most of what I have said, the difference is, we both disagree with each other.
Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married.
A slave woman with whom a man has intercourse is known as a sariyyah (concubine) from the word sirr, which means marriage.
This is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and this was done by the Prophets. Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) took Haajar as a concubine and she bore him Ismaa’eel (may peace be upon them all).
Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also did that, as did the Sahaabah, the righteous and the scholars. The scholars are unanimously agreed on that and it is not permissible for anyone to regard it as haraam or to forbid it. Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.
Ibn Qudaamah said:
There is no dispute (among the scholars) that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one's slave woman, because 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 (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.”
Al-Umm, 5/43.
The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them.
I know you're not making it up, I'm aware about this, hence why I made the point early on that slavery back then was not the slavery we know from what we've been taught in regards to e.g. the Slave Trade. The reason why the term 'slave' is used in regards to descriptions of concubines is because that's the closest terminology to describe them with. Although they had rights similar to what a wife would have, you couldn't call them a servant because in the manner in which they came into your 'possession' e.g. POW. And unlike a servant, you are obligated to a system that you have no control over - a slave would be someone you can control, does whatever you like regardless if its consensual, and you having no obligation to treat them right let alone give them back to their loved ones. So there's an issue with the terminology, I absolutely agree. When someone hears "woman slaves" and concubines, they immediately assume sex slaves or who are raped or something. As you know, this wasn't the case at all.
But even Islamic sites used the term 'slave', I sympathise with the editors because there is no better word in the English language to call them. However, there is a specific term for them in Arabic which is different to both servant and slave.
I'm really confused here.So what are concubines then? I just checked the Encyclopaedia Britannica.It just seemed to refer to the a long term relationship with an unmarried woman.Here a concubine would be equivalent in Modern day to a common law wife.That's not the specific definition of concubine in Islam.Anyway...your arguments sound very dubious to me.You're switching between modern realities and the word of the Quran.
Modern day definition of Concubine: A woman who lives with a man, but who is not a wife; A slave-girl for sexual service prominent in all ancient cultures; Signifies a relationship where the male is the dominant partner, socially and economically; A woman attached to a man solely for reproduction...etc
Islamic definition of Concubine: A female POW who has not been claimed back for one reason or another, who is in a marriage-like relationship with the man. If she got pregnant, he would be have to marry her out right and she becomes a free woman in every sense therefore.
Supposing, I was go to Iraq or Afghanistan,in the military campaign there,if I wished to have no-consequences,permissible fornication with the native Muslims how would I go about it? Do you have any suggestions Meus?
Your patronising tone is not appreciated Arka, I'm spending my time here talking to you so I'd prefer some sort of acknowledgement to that. To answer your question, there is no non-consequential method to what you want. The concept of concubines by Muslims anymore isn't done for a few reasons, so if you were a Muslim soldier in a foreign military expedition, and had sex with a willing woman who wasn't your wife, it would be classed as fornication; a sin.
One more thing we know certain religious doctrine may or may not misinterpreted in the modern age.I'm sorry if I misunderstood it.It,however, reminded me of this....Is that possibly a modern concubine?
No such thing as a "modern concubine" in Islam, if you're talking about modern day. So, anymore questions?
That is essentially correct, but I don't really use IslamQa for discussions because its more of a Q & A website rather than one that explains Islamic doctrine. So if someone read that page on it's own, they would have the wrong idea of things. But I've gone through it and covered alot of points to it so people can understand the reasoning behind it all
I didn't mean if hair is attractive on men or not, I meant when it comes to the beauty of a man, we don't think of hair, we think of his face which is the focal point of his attractiveness. I can ask you whats your favourite hairstyle for a guy, and get it done myself - take a picture, would that then make your pupils dialate? No it would not. You could find man attractive regardless of his hair, or lack of hair even, whereas when it comes to hair on women, regardless of how pretty her face is, if she is bald, she will struggle to attract people. I'm sure being a girl yourself you can see where I'm going with this point.
Personally I don't see bald men as very attractive at all, I'm inclined towards men with longish hair. If you looked good with a certain hairstyle then yes, my pupils probably would dilate Women are just as vain as men in this area, although I personally wouldn't call it vanity. Every one has their own preference, you cant help who you're attracted to.
I know more importance is placed on a woman's hair but it is unfair to ignore the man's hair because of this. Just remember, there are quite a few men who spend just as long as women doing their hair.
Well, interesting you say that. Muslim women/men aren't meant to 'socialise' together if they are not related to one another or married to each other. There is an element of segregation, which wouldn't lead to a situation where in a Muslim country - a guy and a girl standing in a corner chatting away.
That's something I could never understand. I become quite depressed if I cant socialise. Also I can be quite tomboyish and I find I get on better with men, I always have done since childhood. I've been told off by my parents quite a lot for this as they're are quite traditional but there isn't anything I can do about it, I just don't get along with a vast majority of women, especially my cousins, they annoy me so much!
I don't know any good examples of gender segregation so my overall views on this are slightly biased atm.
I also don't like the fact that it promotes arranged marriages in a way (how else can you meat an elligible spouse, especially one not related to you), but again my views on this are biased. There have been many accounts within my relations where two people have had to get married to someone unknown with no choice to back out. I know this is not always the case but arranged marriages are open to abuse. It really does scare me.
Well exactly, that's why its unfair for people in the West to be criticisng Muslim women for what they wear. It's hypocritical. How many articles or people have you seen criticisng Muslim attire? Plenty. How many criticise the little clothing we see on the streets, encouraged by our own media? Not many I bet.
That is down to culture. It does make a lot of sense.
Muslim women, in regards to their clothing, are similar. They wear what you see in public, at home with their husbands or relatives, they're just like you in terms of their clothing and fashion tastes. That's important to note.
Yeah I know, I did say it was a personal opinion. I do understand why they do it, but I will always disagree with the veil.
I understand why Islam is being questioned, it's a clash of civilsations and principles. The questions are fine, however the criticism is mostly unfounded and rather ignorant. Most people cared not for Muslims or Islam before 9/11, but since then an entire can of worms has been opened with every slur and derogative mark you could imagine, about the faith, it's women, it's origins and it's Prophet. I don't expect a Christian to criticise Islam based on its verses on slavery, or concubines, or the Niqaab or Hijab oppressive when they're own Nuns wear the same thing etc, and I don't expect a Jew to criticise it based on its age of consent etc. Why? Because they're own religious scriptures have almost exactly the same content. But there is this agenda by some to sanitize Muslims and Islam, to justify their racism and hatred towards them - caused by the terroris attacks. It's a load of BS.
I have noticed the increased attacks on Islam too, it was bound to happen though given the media's emphasis on 'Muslim's did it!!!' It really does annoy me.
I don't think a debate between an Atheist and a person who believes in God has often led to much agreement between the two to be fair But it's all about discussion and understanding the other's views. I understand yours, and I'd like to think you underestand with most of what I have said, the difference is, we both disagree with each other.
Yeah I understand your views, it's understandable why atheists will never agree with theists though and vice versa.
Arka, I just watched the video (I didn't notice when I was quoting you on your last sentence and assumed it was related to you hypothetical stance). That girl was raped. Nothing about that is Islamic. I hope to god that man was killed for that, the way Islam specifies it to be.
Yes she does, as far as I know a female captive has the same rights as a wife. The real wife has a right to say no to polygamy within her marriage and I am sure that this would count. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Originally Posted by Arka
Surely you mean obliged-NOT entitled.
Originally Posted by Meus
Yup.
If you make typos like that,Meus, which give a totally different meaning as to actual Islamic practices,I honestly believe you are causing more harm than benefit to Islam.Maybe, you should let someone more qualified and intellectually equipped to put the case for yor religion.
But even Islamic sites used the term 'slave', I sympathise with the editors because there is no better word in the English language to call them. However, there is a specific term for them in Arabic which is different to both servant and slave.
You didn't mention this before.You only mentioned it,when I pointed it out to you .In fact from a cursory search it seems to mean both:
The term itself is normally considered to refer to prisoners of war, or more broadly to slaves in general, according to the classic tafsirs (e.g., Ibn Kathir); however, some (e.g., Muhammad Asad) have proposed alternative explanations, whereby it would mean "one's rightful spouse" [1] Bernard Lewis proposes the translation "those whom you own."[2]
Not even Muslims scholars can really agree what it means.I'm assuming there was an overlap between the concept of POW and slave,here.I believe you're typing crap,when you're settling on the definition that puts your religion in the best light.
No such thing as a "modern concubine" in Islam, if you're talking about modern day. So, anymore questions?
Concubine then-not "modern concubine".In my limited understanding,however, the laws as laid out in the Quran and always eternal and unchanging.It is the world,which moved on from Bronze age moral values,that are "presumably" mistaken
Your patronising tone is not appreciated Arka, I'm spending my time here talking to you so I'd prefer some sort of acknowledgement to that. To answer your question, there is no non-consequential method to what you want. The concept of concubines by Muslims anymore isn't done for a few reasons, so if you were a Muslim soldier in a foreign military expedition, and had sex with a willing woman who wasn't your wife, it would be classed as fornication; a sin.
I'm not patronising you,Meus.I'm taking the time to learn about your interesting customs and beliefs.Take it from me,most people in the UK could not give a toss about Islam.So ,in fact,you should be grateful ,for my interest,here.OK? I think,though, you're disingenuously trying to present Islam in the best light as possible,switching from Ancient practices to the values of modern Western societies,to give them a sort of pseudo-legitimacy. It could be,simply,that you've never been properly taught how to present a argument. Sadly,an all too common problem among Muslims today.
Personally I don't see bald men as very attractive at all, I'm inclined towards men with longish hair. If you looked good with a certain hairstyle then yes, my pupils probably would dilate Women are just as vain as men in this area, although I personally wouldn't call it vanity. Every one has their own preference, you cant help who you're attracted to.
I know more importance is placed on a woman's hair but it is unfair to ignore the man's hair because of this. Just remember, there are quite a few men who spend just as long as women doing their hair.
I know and I don't disagree, hair for both is a focal point of attraction. But, we judge beauty for men and women differently. Hair, for example, is more important to what we find as beauty on a woman more so than on a man. You could pick out the most stunning looking girl, and shave her hair off completely, and you'll struggle to get many guys to notice her in the same way. Whereas, get the most gorgeous looking man, shave his hair and although you wont get as many women to notice as if he had hair, you would still get a higher ratio of interested women if he is 'cute'. In many ways, hair defines beauty for women whereas the face does for the male. That's just my outlook on it though..
That's something I could never understand. I become quite depressed if I cant socialise. Also I can be quite tomboyish and I find I get on better with men, I always have done since childhood. I've been told off by my parents quite a lot for this as they're are quite traditional but there isn't anything I can do about it, I just don't get along with a vast majority of women, especially my cousins, they annoy me so much!
I know what you mean, how sometimes we become tired of our own gender that we can't really interact with them. But the basis of segregation is to avoid pre-marital relations which usually lead to sexual experiences, sin. Basically to avoid potential sin. However, that's not to say you can't have a man and woman not interact - you can, but those two need to do with the right intentions and respect their responsibilities to not let that conversation go somewhere it's not allowed to. It's segregation, but not absolute segregation.
I also don't like the fact that it promotes arranged marriages in a way (how else can you meat an eligible spouse, especially one not related to you), but again my views on this are biased. There have been many accounts within my relations where two people have had to get married to someone unknown with no choice to back out. I know this is not always the case but arranged marriages are open to abuse. It really does scare me.
It does promote arranged marriages but not intentionally, it's just a result from it. However you still can meet potentials. For example, the Prophet Muhammad's (saw) wife Khadija (ra) proposed to him after after she employed him to work for her. This is an example where - although the two are in contact face to face - it is not for the intent of socialising or flirting or really getting personal, but through their working relationship she began to fall in love with him. I've known many Muslims who have married after meeting in school. But let's say you aren't in a situation where you haven't met a potential spouse through your contacts, you could find him in a manner of ways. One way you could find him, is lets say you find one guy across the street or room attractive, you would ask any relatives or any of your friends if they know him or his relatives. Then you could direct your interest, for the purpose of potential marriage, to him, in which if he agreed and wanted to get to you know better, you and him can meet up with your guardian present, and just chat or whatever. If your interest grows, then propose. Vice versa for a boy, except he would need to approach your guardian. It's sort of like how in Victorian times a gentlemen would need to go to your father to ask for permission to court you.
That is down to culture. It does make a lot of sense.
Yeah I know, I did say it was a personal opinion. I do understand why they do it, but I will always disagree with the veil.
I have noticed the increased attacks on Islam too, it was bound to happen though given the media's emphasis on 'Muslim's did it!!!' It really does annoy me.
Yeah I understand your views, it's understandable why atheists will never agree with theists though and vice versa.
Yes she does, as far as I know a female captive has the same rights as a wife. The real wife has a right to say no to polygamy within her marriage and I am sure that this would count. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Question: Does a wife have any say on whether or not her husband marries another?
Answer: She can stipulate in her marriage contract that this never happen and her husband will not therefore be allowed to.
Question: What if she doesn't write in her contract?
Answer: Then he doesn't need her permission. But the wife is under no obligation to remain in an unhappy marriage and can initiate divorce proceedings. This is why in some cultures the men hide it from their first wives.
Question: Does a wife have any say on whether or not her husband marries another?
Answer: She can stipulate in her marriage contract that this never happen and her husband will not therefore be allowed to.
Question: What if she doesn't write in her contract?
Answer: Then he doesn't need her permission. But the wife is under no obligation to remain in an unhappy marriage and can initiate divorce proceedings. This is why in some cultures the men hide it from their first wives.
You have to write a contract to stop your husband? But does this not show a lack of trust towards your husband? Would it not be fairer if it was the other way around?
According to the Quran, the wife has a right to say no and I haven't read anything about a contract in there (though I may have missed it.)
Divorce is not always an option though, some families look down on divorce. I don't think this puts women in a very fair position at all.
You have to write a contract to stop your husband? But does this not show a lack of trust towards your husband? Would it not be fairer if it was the other way around?
According to the Quran, the wife has a right to say no and I haven't read anything about a contract in there (though I may have missed it.)
Divorce is not always an option though, some families look down on divorce. I don't think this puts women in a very fair position at all.
It doesn't.
The contract thing is based on the principle that you can put anything that isn't haraam in the contract and anything that breaks the 'deal' can render the marriage void.
If you make typos like that,Meus, which give a totally different meaning as to actual Islamic practices,I honestly believe you are causing more harm than benefit to Islam.Maybe, you should let someone more qualified and intellectually equipped to put the case for yor religion.
I make alot of typo's, sometimes forgetting the "not" in mid sentence. For example, "She can marry an animal", was in fact meant to come out "She can not marry an animal". It's not down to my intelligence or my intellect, but when I'm in a rush typing fast and not paying attention. Apologies. But if you feel that you cannot take my words as credible then I can sure use the break and we can end the conversation here if you like.
You didn't mention this before.You only mentioned it,when I pointed it out to you .In fact from a cursory search it seems to mean both:
I actually did, on my first post on the subject. "The term 'slave' when used, for example in Islam, is not the same as we have come to known it as". Although granted I didn't expand on it, but then again it was a paragraph and I didn't expand on much at that point. I believe I've emphasised a similar point in relation to the differences of slaves back then and in regards to our interpretation of it, a few times during our discussion aswell.
Not even Muslims scholars can really agree what it means.I'm assuming there was an overlap between the concept of POW and slave,here.I believe you're typing crap,when you're settling on the definition that puts your religion in the best light.
Firstly, never accuse me of anything or the conversation dies right there and then. Your source is translating a sentence "what your right hand possesses", this isn't the Arabic term for concubines - it literally means "whats in your possession". If you even bothered to read down that page, you would see that it can only be judged in context. It used several times in the Quran to refer to what men, and women, possess. "Right hand" is a metaphor for "rightly own".
Here's a challenge for you. You now know what the Islamic definition of concubine is. You now know the rights they had and how they were regarded. You know the modern definition of concubine (which I proveded before), and you knwo the definition of slave. Could you then, for me, state that there is no difference between the three definitions, and if so, why you believe there is no difference. I don't believe you could honestly argue that. The English terminology is too limited to come up with a term that best describes what they were; but directly translated from arabic in that context of "rightly possess", the best term you could derive from that is 'slave'. This is why even Islamic websites will you use that term, but then be quick to define the differences between Islamic concubines and general sex slaves people are used to.
So don't accuse me of lying, or spinning something for you mate, I don't appreciate writing thousands of words for you then to use a few typos as some sort of justification to dismiss me because what I say to you doesn't fit into your negative perception about Islam. Try a little harder to come with a better excuse to dismiss than this. It's pathetic.
Concubine then-not "modern concubine".In my limited understanding,however, the laws as laid out in the Quran and always eternal and unchanging.It is the world,which moved on from Bronze age moral values,that are "presumably" mistaken
My point is there is something lost in translation in this regard of 'concubine' and 'slave'. I remember a conversation I once had for someone cussing out Islam because he found that it condoned slavery. Except he completely mistook it for the wrong thing, when instead he went to an Imam and explained it to them, he asked me "then why does it say slavery when they are not treated as such?". I said the same thing to him, that I am to you, there are some words that when directly translated from a religious text (and this happens with the Bible too), that it comes out meaning something entirely different to us to what it actually does mean.
Anyone who wants to make against Islam because of such terminology would get alot of attention, but what they will refuse to do is actually go into context because when they do - it contradicts the actual term and hence its perception. I went into context and content for you, and I have said outwardly that its a problem when you look at it at face value.
When the Quran was written, such descriptions of concubines to the Muslims, were not the same as non-Muslims back then had. In fact, if you got lets say one random Arab 1400 years ago and he read the Quran - he'd be confused as to why it speaks of concubines yet speaks of them in such a nature where it could be argued they are in fact almost wives, and not sex slaves. But now, people such as yourself will look at the Quran, also confused at the apparent contradiction between the English term and the actual content that follows this term. So you cannot justify it as saying they are sex slaves, or slaves at all, but that is the closest term you can find in English. Which, like I said, is why those Islamic sites make a point to explain to the reader the context and to dismiss our own preconceived notions of slavery.
I'm not patronising you,Meus.I'm taking the time to learn about your interesting customs and beliefs.Take it from me,most people in the UK could not give a toss about Islam.So ,in fact,you should be grateful ,for my interest,here.OK? I think,though, you're disingenuously trying to present Islam in the best light as possible,switching from Ancient practices to the values of modern Western societies,to give them a sort of pseudo-legitimacy. It could be,simply,that you've never been properly taught how to present a argument. Sadly,an all too common problem among Muslims today.
What evidence do you have to paint with me such a brush that I am spinning something? To me, it sounds like you are shruggling to swallow some things about Islam which may not be as bad as you half expected it. Logically therefore, it wouldn't be a surprise for someone like that to accuse me of pulling his leg with this.
When talking about Islam, there are somethings which applied to a period of time and somethings that did not based on those social-political dynamics. Also, there are some things in Islam where in past generations even in this society would not have had an issue against and which now do. My point is that, time is a crucial element of sometimes trying to paint a context. It's similar to why people have trouble in believing a Prophet can also fight against armies - because other Prophets like Jesus only preached, so they question the prophethood.
And I'm sorry, but if you are interested in Islam, then shouldn't you be the one grateful to the person who is telling you about what you yourself are personally interested in? I am under no obligation to spend my afternoon conversing with you, but I do it because I want to. To suggest that I should be grateful to you, for writing so much, and evidently achieving so little, and defending Islam against naive rhetorics is insulting to me. You could out right say anything you want about Islam, but I will correct you.
So far you've had good questions and perceptions, I can see your curiosity but I feel that I have answered them well enough. If I have not, or you misunderstood, then why not ask me to explain further - and explain what other sources you find, as opposed to outright dismissing me and accusing me of spinning it, suggesting there is something to hide? That's another insult yet again. You may not be patronising me Arka, but you sure lack any respect I tell you that. If you don't want to appear like an idiot when commenting about Islam, I suggest you show some respect to those who you are asking questions to otherwise your feed of information gets cut and you go back to the herd not knowing what is right from what is wrong in terms of the subject.
You have to write a contract to stop your husband? But does this not show a lack of trust towards your husband? Would it not be fairer if it was the other way around?
What do you mean by other way round? They both create and agree to the contract and sign it. Ofcourse she can just out right ask him not to, and he may very well adhere to that but no every man you marry is going to be the right one sadly. Some men will cheat, even though you ask them to be the only one for them. Stating it on a contract, however odd it may look, means you have a direct source to get a divorce; breach of the marital agreement.
According to the Quran, the wife has a right to say no and I haven't read anything about a contract in there (though I may have missed it.)
The wife has the right to say no to alot of things, but to Polygamy? Not to my knowledge and I've researched this subject quite alot. The only note that the Quran makes, worth noting in this conversation, is that it cautions men about taking up further wives
Divorce is not always an option though, some families look down on divorce. I don't think this puts women in a very fair position at all.
And some families look down marrying a person of a different ethnic colour or a different tribe, what relevance does that make to the actual faith? The families, Islamically, cannot look down on their daughter for getting a divorce if she is unhappy - if they do, that is a family/cultural issue which they need to resolve. The girl would therefore be best advised in taking precautions in adding this to her marriage contract.
Unfortunately, some Muslims don't follow their own rules and it always effects others. However people in the situation above have some form of protection.
[quote=Meus]What do you mean by other way round? They both create and agree to the contract and sign it. Ofcourse she can just out right ask him not to, and he may very well adhere to that but no every man you marry is going to be the right one sadly. Some men will cheat, even though you ask them to be the only one for them. Stating it on a contract, however odd it may look, means you have a direct source to get a divorce; breach of the marital agreement.
By the other way around I mean they should have a contract that says the man can marry others if he wishes. That way the wife will know if he is intending to marry someone else.
The wife has the right to say no to alot of things, but to Polygamy? Not to my knowledge and I've researched this subject quite alot. The only note that the Quran makes, worth noting in this conversation, is that it cautions men about taking up further wives
Oh, but that is ridiculous! It's the woman's marriage too, she should be allowed to have a say.
And some families look down marrying a person of a different ethnic colour or a different tribe, what relevance does that make to the actual faith? The families, Islamically, cannot look down on their daughter for getting a divorce if she is unhappy - if they do, that is a family/cultural issue which they need to resolve. The girl would therefore be best advised in taking precautions in adding this to her marriage contract.
Unfortunately, some Muslims don't follow their own rules and it always effects others. However people in the situation above have some form of protection.
When I say families look down on it, I mean the woman who decide to divorce will have no where to go. This was a bad example though I think, just ignore it.
Discuss religious, spiritual, and theological issues concerning Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other religion.
Re: Masturbation and Islam
) is her hair. I cannot believe how long you women spend doing your hair. But back to the point, women cover it with a Hijaab and then wear loose clothing that isn't form fitting. However, some interpret that requirement to the most strictest form and choose to cover their face and hands, and everything. Nothing wrong with that, these women are doing so to reach a higher level of piety. In some cultures, they are forced to wear only this and nothing less - I don't agree with such a law personally, she should be able to choose if she will cover her face or not, but I do know that most do choose to cover themselves to that degree. If they found it oppressive, they would not.
It really does annoy me.
