Women- a right to say no?

Jannah

I'm sure most people have heard about the Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan who are protesting against the new family laws being brought in. One of these laws forbids them from refusing sex to their husband unless they're sick. When Shiite Muslim women protested against the law, they were pelted by men with rocks and told they're 'slaves to Christianity' and whatnot

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=7339871

Obviously, these men are completely wrong in attacking these women, but it got me thinking- what are the boundaries of the verse:
“When the man (i.e. the husband) calls his wife for a need of his, then she should go, even if she is at the stove.”

Are Muslim women being bought into so-called 'freedoms' of the west which actually end up being detrimental to them? When a person chooses to get married, are they the at their partner's disposal, or is it simply a case of being sensitive to the needs and feelings of one's spouse? Is this simply another situation where two different ways of thinking clash because the 'western philosophy' offers women things that may seem attractive but simply don't work out well in practice? Like the expectation that all women want to work outside the home which is all part of being the 'modern' woman and having it all- "Yes you can work... but we will promote men over you... and we'll expect you to juggle family life too... but you are a strong, independent woman, by the way!"

Non-muslims talk of equality, but Muslims speak of justice- which works better in the long run?

Hobbes

Afganistan Taliban folllow a very strict word for word interpretation of the Quaran if I recall correctly. (love to know where they got we can starve you from).

Not sure about your points though. For most people I know it would of made sense back in the 70-80's but certainly not now.

wes

Of course she should have the right to say "No". If the Husband doesn't like it, he should end the marriage if he is that desperate.

Anyway, I think they are changing the law after the protests.

Schuhart

Jannah wrote: »

Like the expectation that all women want to work outside the home which is all part of being the 'modern' woman and having it all- "Yes you can work... but we will promote men over you... and we'll expect you to juggle family life too... but you are a strong, independent woman, by the way!"

Its strikes me that implicit in your statement is a sense of women as victims. Equality changes in Western society were brought about at the insistence of women. Maybe some or even most women find those changes don't work out how they wanted. But I don't think the situation is encapsulated in a statement like "we will promote men over you", in a context where a male version of the same grievance might be "she expects to be paid the same as me and shag off early every day to pick up her kids".

Now, you might still find you come up with a similar question. I just think you need to stretch a bit more to get there.

So, reactivating Freud's old question, what does a woman want? Was all that Western feminism just a call for attention? Would it have been quietened by a few boxes of Milk Tray at the right moment? I don't claim to know, but I expect not.

There are realities in Western society. It just isn't built yet. But, for me, I'd prefer a society where realities can be articulated, rather than one that seeks to close enquiry. Yes, the reality of equality is quite distant from the idea. Should the response be to give up? Maybe. But then you need to consider what "justice" might mean.

Hobbes wrote: »

Afganistan Taliban folllow a very strict word for word interpretation of the Quaran if I recall correctly. (love to know where they got we can starve you from).

Looking at news coverage, the cleric who draft the law seems to state it as 'refuse to feed' rather than 'starve'. I'd guess what he means is he feels the obligation of a husband to provide financially for his wife does not apply where the wife denies him reasonable conjugal rights. I know it can be argued that, in a society where wives might be utterly dependent on husbands for material needs, this is an enormous hardship.

I'm certainly not defending the law. I'm just trying to see the thing as it is rather that as it can be spun. I'd guess what it is saying is not that a husband can lock his wife up and starve her. But that if a wife isn't fulfilling her obligations to the marriage contract, the husband can neglect his obligations.

Jannah

Hobbes wrote: »

Afganistan Taliban folllow a very strict word for word interpretation of the Quaran if I recall correctly. (love to know where they got we can starve you from).

Not sure about your points though. For most people I know it would of made sense back in the 70-80's but certainly not now.

But what big difference has occured in Islam that makes it suddenly 'not make sense'? Especially since it's not just something they've picked out of nowhere but something that is specifically said in a hadith? And it seems pretty clear what the meaning is behind it the way it is stated. Do people pick and choose what they believe just to make it suit them? Are we trying to disfigure something to try and fit the mould of modern times?

wes wrote: »

Of course she should have the right to say "No". If the Husband doesn't like it, he should end the marriage if he is that desperate.

But in fairness, the grounds they are basing the law on in Islam seem pretty solid

Schuhart wrote: »

But I don't think the situation is encapsulated in a statement like "we will promote men over you", in a context where a male version of the same grievance might be "she expects to be paid the same as me and shag off early every day to pick up her kids".

The message isn't that men don't have issues too, it's that perhaps women are being told what they should want by the new feminist ideals when in fact their religion provides an answer which is better for them in the long run. If a man is complaining about a woman having to go home early to collect their kids, maybe they should try asking why exactly she is expected to compete two full time jobs at the same time at the exact same proficiency as a male who has one. The fact is that this ideology that 'west is best' in all respects just doesn't work all over the world

Schuhart wrote: »

I'd guess what he means is he feels the obligation of a husband to provide financially for his wife does not apply where the wife denies him reasonable conjugal rights. I know it can be argued that, in a society where wives might be utterly dependent on husbands for material needs, this is an enormous hardship.

True, and I wouldn't promote this kind of bribery, but it must be said that there's a deal made on either side and four days of holding out without any actual reason is pretty cruel for the husband, really

Schuhart wrote: »

But that if a wife isn't fulfilling her obligations to the marriage contract, the husband can neglect his obligations.

Yeah, that's pretty much it

Jannah

Jannah wrote: »

True, and I wouldn't promote this kind of bribery, but it must be said that there's a deal made on either side and four days of holding out without any actual reason is pretty cruel for the husband, really

Eh? and here we have an assumption the only desire is one-sided and if the husband wants to go without the wife would be more than happy to be left alone?
Anyway I see nothing "cruel" about it for the husband tbh

Schuhart

Jannah wrote: »

The message isn't that men don't have issues too, it's that perhaps women are being told what they should want by the new feminist ideals when in fact their religion provides an answer which is better for them in the long run.

Perhaps, so long as we’re clear that this social reality is created by both men and women. I think this is an important point. The source of those feminist ideals is women. Equally, when a group of women go out to protest again this new Sharia-inspired law, they seem to be met by another group of women just a vehemently in favour of it.

I’m not suggesting you are trying to refute this, they’re just points that I think are valuable to have in the back of the mind when this kind of issue is discussed. In Irish terms, we might recall Alice Glenn’s comment that a woman voting for divorce would be like a turkey voting for Christmas, or surveys that suggest more men than women voted against the so-called pro-life amendment.

Women are partners in the creation of whatever rules they face – which I think is what Margaret Atwood was trying to get at in The Handmaid's Tale.

Jannah wrote: »

If a man is complaining about a woman having to go home early to collect their kids, maybe they should try asking why exactly she is expected to compete two full time jobs at the same time at the exact same proficiency as a male who has one. The fact is that this ideology that 'west is best' in all respects just doesn't work all over the world

Indeed, and I think the issue at stake is where private space ends and public space begins. For us, family is private space so its really not incumbent on someone to worry about how a work colleague looks after her children.

(That said, we might also note how the balance of myths works in favour of women here. The image of the harassed mother juggling career and family is so frequently presented that we can easily relate to the issue. Do we relate as easily to the image of the work left behind to be done by people who can’t claim family as a reason to bunk off?)

Jannah wrote: »

True, and I wouldn't promote this kind of bribery, but it must be said that there's a deal made on either side and four days of holding out without any actual reason is pretty cruel for the husband, really

What it boils down to, IMHO, is how much people want their lives to be regulated. If someone wants a set of rules covering every waking moment, fine. But, just from the perspective of a married person, the idea of boiling it down to an individual transaction like that seems meaningless.

I mean, I know we can have illusions about what's real in our lives and what isn't. But surely a contract to exchange sex and babies for food is concubinage rather than marriage. Which isn’t to knock concubines. I mean, a fair proportion of the world’s population must be descended from concubines.

bluewolf wrote: »

Eh? and here we have an assumption the only desire is one-sided and if the husband wants to go without the wife would be more than happy to be left alone?

I’ve no idea what availability of contraception is like in Afghanistan, but I’d suspect that assumption probably has more relevance in a context where sex is inextricably linked with pregnancy. There are other Hadiths, IIRC, where women are instructed not to deliberately avoid sex when fertile, and there’s an issue over anal sex as well as a method of avoiding conception.

That said, I’m really just imagining this to be the case. I honestly haven’t a clue what the real position is.

Schuhart

Schuhart wrote: »

I’ve no idea what availability of contraception is like in Afghanistan, but I’d suspect that assumption probably has more relevance in a context where sex is inextricably linked with pregnancy. There are other Hadiths, IIRC, where women are instructed not to deliberately avoid sex when fertile, and there’s an issue over anal sex as well as a method of avoiding conception.

That said, I’m really just imagining this to be the case. I honestly haven’t a clue what the real position is.

Goodness imagine if that were true - the implication would be they're signing into law that all married women without any problems conceiving would have to stay permanently pregnant :eek:

Schuhart

bluewolf wrote: »

Goodness imagine if that were true - the implication would be they're signing into law that all married women without any problems conceiving would have to stay permanently pregnant :eek:

At the risk of getting far to deeply into something that I know little about, I thought that in many societies breast feeding was used as a method of spacing births. I can recall reading in some African societies a wife has to ask her husband's permission to stop breastfeeding - the significance being that she's effectively asking when he wants her to have another child.

I know it all sounds a bit brutal, but tbh this is probably just part of our common human ancestry. I suppose what I'm saying is that married women probably did and do spend a lot (but not necessarily all) of the time pregnant in traditional societies. Maybe, in that environment, it would make sense to support a law that copperfastens your husband's obligation to support you if you keep churning out the babies (assuming that the law also has that effect).

Yogabba

At the risk of getting far to deeply into something that I know little about, I thought that in many societies breast feeding was used as a method of spacing births. I can recall reading in some African societies a wife has to ask her husband's permission to stop breastfeeding - the significance being that she's effectively asking when he wants her to have another child.

Breastfeeding is only effective to delay fertility if it's done exclusively and very regularly. As soon as the baby starts sleeping through the night or solids are introduced, fertility returns. This means that breastfeeding is only 100% (if even) reliable up until the baby is around six months of age, at least in our society. Not sure at what age they introduce solids in other parts of the world though, could be sooner, could be later.

Jannah

bluewolf wrote: »

Eh? and here we have an assumption the only desire is one-sided and if the husband wants to go without the wife would be more than happy to be left alone?
Anyway I see nothing "cruel" about it for the husband tbh

I'm in no way implying that the woman usually wants to have sex any more often than the man- the fact is that if a man doesn't want to have sex, there's no way around it, whereas if a woman doesn't- well, there's technically room for persuasion. I do feel that it is cruel to withhold sex from one's spouse for prolonged periods of time- in fact, it's the first stage of punishing them for disobedience in Islam

Schuhart wrote: »

I think the issue at stake is where private space ends and public space begins.

But it's a different way of thinking- for us, if someone's having an affair or whatever, that's their problem, but in Islam there's a lot more of a pro-active response (whether or not people agree with that) but in fairness, I think that there should be some kind of law structure to SOME extent for personal issues because these are the problems which do have an after effect on society as a whole

Schuhart wrote: »

I’ve no idea what availability of contraception is like in Afghanistan, but I’d suspect that assumption probably has more relevance in a context where sex is inextricably linked with pregnancy.

The weird thing is that even though certain types of contraception is allowed in Islam (http://www.islamawareness.net/FamilyPlanning/contraception.html) many Muslim countries seem to have banned it. Seems a little selective in what they want to 'believe'/enforce to me.

Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an “...Kill not your children on a plea of want; We provide sustenance for you and for them;” (Al-Qur’an 6:151)

Allah (swt) also mentions in the Qur’an “Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you: verily the killing of them is a great sin.” (Al-Qur’an 17:31)

Both these verses seems to convey the same message but on scrutiny we realize that the first verse is meant for poor parents, who fear that if one more child is born in the family neither they will be able to survive nor the child, thus Allah (swt) says we provide sustenance for you and for them. In the other verse Allah (swt) says We shall provide sustenance for them and as well as for you, referring to rich parents who feel that if they have less children they can concentrate on them better and give them better education and quality life. Here Allah (swt) reverses the order and mentions first the children and then the parents.

ChocolateSauce

Jannah wrote: »

Non-muslims talk of equality, but Muslims speak of justice- which works better in the long run?

Equality is justice, anything less is unjust.

Yogabba

I do feel that it is cruel to withhold sex from one's spouse for prolonged periods of time- in fact, it's the first stage of punishing them for disobedience in Islam

What about the women who have been forced into arranged marriages? They might not be attracted to their spouses in the slightest. Is it not cruel to expect sex from them on a regular basis?
I don't think is so much of 'west knows best', but more to do with basic human rights. If a woman agrees with the sentiment being discussed, well then that's fine. If she doesn't though, where does that leave her?

Jannah

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Equality is justice, anything less is unjust.

I completely disagree.
There are two children- one is disabled, the other is able bodied- should they still be treated the same, even if one of them has special needs which must be fulfilled? How about if I feed my dog with fish food because I want to have equality among my pets?
Men and women have different needs and roles in life and for them to get justice, they must be given special and specific treatment to fulfil that.

Yogabba wrote: »

What about the women who have been forced into arranged marriages? They might not be attracted to their spouses in the slightest. Is it not cruel to expect sex from them on a regular basis?
I don't think is so much of 'west knows best', but more to do with basic human rights. If a woman agrees with the sentiment being discussed, well then that's fine. If she doesn't though, where does that leave her?

Forced marriages are completely forbidden in Islam-
http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/Family/Marriage/article01.shtml
"Marriage in Islam is a social contract that requires the consent of both parties. Neither the bride nor groom can be forced into a marriage."

http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=1788
`Â'ishah narrates that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "A virgin's consent must be sought for marriage."

To this `Â'ishah commented: "But a virgin is too bashful."

The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: "Her silence is her consent." I]Sahîh al-Bukhârî[/I

Buraydah narrates that once, a woman came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: “O Messenger of Allah, my father married me to my cousin in order to raise his social standing, but I do not want to be married to him.”

The Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave her the option of annulment. At this point, she said: “I have already reconciled myself to my father’s decision, but I wanted it to be known that women have a say in the matter.”

[Sunan al-Nasâ’î (3269), Sunan Ibn Mâjah (1874), and </EM>Musnad Ahmad (25043) and authenticated by Shu`ayb al-Arna`ût et al in Tahqîq Musnad Ahmad (41/493)]

At the end of the day, if a woman has married the man of her own free will (inkeeping with Islamic rules) and does not have any reason not to want to have sex with her husband, she is literally in the first stage of punishing him for something he didn't do.

DinoBot

Jannah wrote: »

To this `Â'ishah commented: "But a virgin is too bashful."

The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: "Her silence is her consent." I]Sah&#238;h al-Bukh&#226;r&#238;[/I

Silence is her consent, does that really stand up in today's society ?

I like the fact that in Islam girls are better being "bashful" but then its expected that they will go against their fathers wishes on something as important as marrage.

Jannah wrote: »

At the end of the day, if a woman has married the man of her own free will (inkeeping with Islamic rules) and does not have any reason not to want to have sex with her husband, she is literally in the first stage of punishing him for something he didn't do.

I dont see your logic ? Does the women not have a right to just say no, even if she is getting back at her husband for something small he may have done ?

Yogabba

At the end of the day, if a woman has married the man of her own free will (inkeeping with Islamic rules) and does not have any reason not to want to have sex with her husband, she is literally in the first stage of punishing him for something he didn't do.

I don't understand this comment Jannah. 'Not any reason not to want sex with her husband' -- what does that mean? Who determines whether a reason is good or not? I mean, if you don't want to, you just don't want to. Why would that be seen as a punishment? Since when did men become sex-crazed troglodytes that need a 'valid' reason for their lady to decline?
I thought sex was an intimate exchange, based on mutual lust and want, not a marital duty for the woman?

`Â'ishah narrates that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "A virgin's consent must be sought for marriage."

To this `Â'ishah commented: "But a virgin is too bashful."

The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: "Her silence is her consent." I]Sah&#238;h al-Bukh&#226;r&#238;[/I

Well, in societies where women are second class citizens, what do you realistically think the odds are that she'll decline? What are the repercussions for her and her family?
And even if it is un-islamic (personally I interpret that passage differently) you can hardly deny that it happens all the time in Islamic societies?

Jannah

Yogabba wrote: »

I don't understand this comment Jannah. 'Not any reason not to want sex with her husband' -- what does that mean? Who determines whether a reason is good or not? I mean, if you don't want to, you just don't want to. Why would that be seen as a punishment? Since when did men become sex-crazed troglodytes that need a 'valid' reason for their lady to decline?
I thought sex was an intimate exchange, based on mutual lust and want, not a marital duty for the woman?

So you wouldn't mind if your wife just decided not to have sex with you for a prolonged period of time, no? One would think that if it was a good marriage, this wouldn't be an issue to begin with. By withholding sex from one's spouse (and by not having any reason, I mean not having sex for the sake of not having sex- no particular point not to, but doing so because they are either cruel or inconsiderate of their partner's feelings). It is seen as punishment because it is the first stage of the islamically perscribed method of punishing one's spouse for disobedience and runs the risk of one's partner committing zinah by having an affair.
Sex is highly regarded in Islam- a woman should not feel it is a chore and if she is so disgusted by having regular sex with the man she married, she might want to get a divorce or suggest he gets another wife to relieve her of this 'burden'. However, the vast majority of women view marital sex for what is is- sadaqah or loving charity towards one another. A really great writer who explain this well is Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood:
"Sexual intimacy become sadaqah is performed for the happiness and satisfaction of the spouse before one's own satisfaction. It is encouraged and blessed between loving spouses so long as what is done does not hurt, abuse, exploit or denigrate one's partner. In an Islamic marriage, neither partner should ever try to force the other one to do anything which is distasteful or unpleasant or painful to them. Marital rape should never take place, or abuse of the wife."
"Since Muslims should only have sex with their marriage partner, both partners not only have a duty to be faithful, but to honour and satisfy the needs of their spouses. If either side neglects this duty for no good reason, it is bound to cause suffering, depresion or lead to the breakdown of the relationship, and is considered grounds for a divorce. Obviously, there come times when there are good reasons for refraining from sexual intimacy, such causes as illness, menstruation, exhaustion, grief, and so on. Only an extremely selfish person should try to insist at these times. Pleasant wooing is a different matter of course."
"The Prophet was very concerned about male sexual selfishness, which was commonplace in his society as it frequently is in many others. He urged his male followers to respect their wives and cherish them, They were not to fling themselves upon their women as if they were no more than animals, or just satisfying their own irges and then leave their women disappointed and frustrated, while they dropped off to sleep."
"A Muslim man should not satisfy his need of her until he has satisfied her need of him" - al-Ghazzali

Yogabba wrote: »

Well, in societies where women are second class citizens, what do you realistically think the odds are that she'll decline? What are the repercussions for her and her family?

I would by no means call them 'second class citizens', owing to the vast amount of verses which tell people to respect their mothers OVER their fathers and the general appreciation for the dignity and rights of women. Women decline suitors for many reasons- and they DO decline them- most Muslim women get more than one offer of marriage- there is no rule that says they have to say 'yes' at the first person that approaches them. Her family can only guide her- if they insist she says yes, it's completely unislamic

Yogabba wrote: »

And even if it is un-islamic (personally I interpret that passage differently) you can hardly deny that it happens all the time in Islamic societies?

Correction- forced marriages occur frequently in asian societies in general- look at India- yet people like to pin these problems to a religion rather than what it is- a backwards state of mind. It is denounced by Islam, yet people still incredibly are unable to remove the blame from Islam itself. I've yet to read anything from a scholar which goes against women having a right to say no to a marriage, so in fairness, however you interpreted the passage, it doesn't seem to be the general opinion

DinoBot wrote: »

Silence is her consent, does that really stand up in today's society ?

You can't take these passages so literally and nit pick at them- the general message is that if a woman is too embarrassed to say no to a suitor outright (as is the situation here- and it can be an issue if both families know eachother well which happens often in these cases) then her not giving permission is enough to stop the marriage from occuring. If anything, this is better than insisting the woman needs to say 'no' outright as it is easier for the woman to simply not consent.

DinoBot wrote: »

I like the fact that in Islam girls are better being "bashful" but then its expected that they will go against their fathers wishes on something as important as marrage.

Nobody is 'expected' to be bashful- it was (and sometimes is) the situation that a woman who has had no prior experience of marriage and men would be shy when proposed with suitors and the like. We only need to look to the Prophet's wives who regularly debated with him and Khadijah, who, despite being a much older woman, decided to propose to the Prophet herself, to see that Muslim women can be daring in their actions and are not subservient wallflowers.

DinoBot wrote: »

I dont see your logic ? Does the women not have a right to just say no, even if she is getting back at her husband for something small he may have done ?

If she is punishing her husband- by all means, it is valid to withhold sex from him. My point is that, since it is considered a punishment towards one's spouse to do so, it should not be taken lightly and just thought of as "meh, not now, go away"

Yogabba

I would by no means call them 'second class citizens', owing to the vast amount of verses which tell people to respect their mothers OVER their fathers and the general appreciation for the dignity and rights of women. Women decline suitors for many reasons- and they DO decline them- most Muslim women get more than one offer of marriage- there is no rule that says they have to say 'yes' at the first person that approaches them. Her family can only guide her- if they insist she says yes, it's completely unislamic

So why are there so many countries that don't honour these verses? Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran, Somalia etc -- do you really think that women are being treated with equal respect and dignity?
And are you also saying that women in Islamic societies don't face any pressure from their parents to accept a proposal?

Correction- forced marriages occur frequently in asian societies in general- look at India- yet people like to pin these problems to a religion rather than what it is- a backwards state of mind. It is denounced by Islam, yet people still incredibly are unable to remove the blame from Islam itself. I've yet to read anything from a scholar which goes against women having a right to say no to a marriage, so in fairness, however you interpreted the passage, it doesn't seem to be the general opinion

No, I didn't pin it to a certain religion -- I was merely asking if you deny that forced marriages take place in Islamic societies?

Sex is highly regarded in Islam- a woman should not feel it is a chore and if she is so disgusted by having regular sex with the man she married, she might want to get a divorce or suggest he gets another wife to relieve her of this 'burden'

Let's do a bit of role reversal. Say it's the husband who has a really low sex-drive. Is his wife allowed to take another husband to relieve him from his 'burden'?

Jannah

Yogabba wrote: »

So why are there so many countries that don't honour these verses?

For the exact same reasons that people sin anywhere else! People lie, cheat, steal and abuse women regardless of the country they live in- it doesn't mean that their religion is forcing them to do so

Yogabba wrote: »

Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran, Somalia etc -- do you really think that women are being treated with equal respect and dignity?

The problem in these countries is not Islam, but a refusal to modernise. There is an allowance to re-interpret Islamic passages to make them relevant to modern day circumstances (called 'ijtihad'), yet some rulers have decided themselves to close the doors to any re-interpretation for the simple fact that innovation makes people want better and may endanger their power. Islam is a religion built on the democratic principals of consultation (shura), building consensus (ijma), finally leading to independent judgement (ijtihad). In every age, reason should be applied to its constant principles to arrive at a consensus which is suitable for that age.
How could Islam condone the maltreatment of women when its first revert was a woman (Khadijah)? Practices such as wearing the burqa, isolation of women in their homes, female circumcision, and the banning of girls' education all come from various tribal traditions and have no basis in Islam. We are told that men and women were created from a single soul, which explicitly shows to us that there is no dominance on either side. However, Islam does believe in justice for either side, and because men and women are not the same and have different roles to fulful in life, this justice does not necessarily mean 'equality' which would assume that men and women are exactly the same, which they are not. Therefore, Islam treats women like women and not merely like 'weak' men.

Yogabba wrote: »

And are you also saying that women in Islamic societies don't face any pressure from their parents to accept a proposal??

In a perfect Islamic society- no, they wouldn't. Yet this world is far from perfect and people do things that are against their religion because they are poorly educated on the matter or else know what they are doing is wrong and don't care. Your problem isn't with Islam, it is with culture and I think you should distinguish the two

Yogabba wrote: »

No, I didn't pin it to a certain religion -- I was merely asking if you deny that forced marriages take place in Islamic societies??

If we're no longer talking about religion, then this isn't the board for you. As I have already explained, you have already said it isn't a 'certain' religion's issue- therefore it is cultural, and all people can do is try to practice Islam in its purest form and try not to allow cultural practices that conflict with these beliefs to sway them in the wrong way.

Yogabba wrote: »

Let's do a bit of role reversal. Say it's the husband who has a really low sex-drive. Is his wife allowed to take another husband to relieve him from his 'burden'?

It makes absolutely no sense for a woman to marry mutiple men, as the reason for polygamy being allowed to men in the first place is because there is naturally a higher amount of females in respect to males in the world and, to avoid women being used by men for sex who won't marry or support and to avoid zinah by men having mistresses and also to avoid female infanticide (which is strictly forbidden in Islam), it was decided that the man should be able to marry up to 4 women, provided he treated them all completely equally and could afford to give them a good standard of living.
However, if a woman is not being satisfied by her husband, it is grounds for divorce, particularly if her husband is impotent. In Iran a woman can divorce their husband if he is unable to satisfy her- and that's not simply impotence, but satisfaction in general

DinoBot

Jannah wrote: »

If she is punishing her husband- by all means, it is valid to withhold sex from him. My point is that, since it is considered a punishment towards one's spouse to do so, it should not be taken lightly and just thought of as "meh, not now, go away"

Does the law prohibit both Wife AND Husband from withholding sex ?

My understanding was its only the wife. I have yet to read a ruling that prohibits a man to withhold sex.

Yogabba

Islam is a religion built on the democratic principals of consultation (shura), building consensus (ijma), finally leading to independent judgement (ijtihad).

And in your opinion, which current Islamic societies does the above apply to?

And, which current Islamic societies do not practice any of the things that
you describe un-Islamic?
I am genuinely curious!

Jannah

DinoBot wrote: »

Does the law prohibit both Wife AND Husband from withholding sex ?

My understanding was its only the wife. I have yet to read a ruling that prohibits a man to withhold sex.

Lol, well you probably never came across it because it's not exactly the most common of circumstances!! But, it does happen and women have rights if their husband withholds sex too.
Islamic Law urged the husband to have good marital relationship with his wife; Allaah Says (what means): {And live with them in kindness.} [Quran 4:19] Among the most confirmed rights on him, is that he should have sexual intercourse with his wife according to her will and according to his ability. </SPAN></B>
http://islamweb.org/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=119794&Option=FatwaId

Yogabba wrote: »

And in your opinion, which current Islamic societies does the above apply to?

And, which current Islamic societies do not practice any of the things that
you describe un-Islamic?
I am genuinely curious!

A society can't truly describe itself as an 'Islamic Society' until it fully completes all necessary parts of Islam- and that includes the democratic set up I described. To be honest, I think very few societies pull it off successfully, although I must say Morocco and a few other northern African countries, as well as Turkey come the closest I've seen to the ideal. The most important fact is that since the bad in some alleged 'Islamic' societies is not Islamic at all (and there is proof of this) then there is no reason to blame Islam for their problems

prinz

Jannah wrote: »

I'm in no way implying that the woman usually wants to have sex any more often than the man- the fact is that if a man doesn't want to have sex, there's no way around it, whereas if a woman doesn't- well, there's technically room for persuasion.

You mean like rape? Sexual abuse? Why is the husband allowed to deny sex on a prolonged basis but the wife is not? - Apologies did not see your reply to this in earlier post.

Jannah wrote: »

I do feel that it is cruel to withhold sex from one's spouse for prolonged periods of time- in fact, it's the first stage of punishing them for disobedience in Islam

I believe the law stands at four days? That is hardly a prolonged period of time.

Jannah wrote: »

But it's a different way of thinking- for us, if someone's having an affair or whatever, that's their problem, but in Islam there's a lot more of a pro-active response (whether or not people agree with that)

Like public floggings? Prison? Stonings? Beheadings? Gangrapes - I particularly note that one. That's not pro-activism.

On the other hand Afghanistan is emerging from a dark and troubled past. People, and Irish people in particular should remember that marital rape was perfectly legal in this country until not all that long ago.

AFAIK not many other Islamic countries have the same law giving the wife a fixed length of time she can withhold sexual relations.

Jannah

prinz wrote: »

You mean like rape? Sexual abuse? Why is the husband allowed to deny sex on a prolonged basis but the wife is not? - Apologies did not see your reply to this in earlier post.

I believe the law stands at four days? That is hardly a prolonged period of time.

Like public floggings? Prison? Stonings? Beheadings? Gangrapes - I particularly note that one. That's not pro-activism.

On the other hand Afghanistan is emerging from a dark and troubled past. People, and Irish people in particular should remember that marital rape was perfectly legal in this country until not all that long ago.

AFAIK not many other Islamic countries have the same law giving the wife a fixed length of time she can withhold sexual relations.

I think you should read the other posts I have mad before making such harsh and infounded statements. Islam most definitely DOES NOT allow martial rape, or gang rape for that matter. Neither would they inflict anyone with such severe punishments for refusing sex.

"It is a vice in a man to assault his unprepared wife, seeking to satisfy his own lust and leaving her before she could achieve her own fulfillment…" Imam al-Ghazali in his Ihya' (vol. 2: 49-50)

Anas ibn Malik that the Messenger of Allah [ peace and blessings be upon him ] is reported to have said:
One of you should not fulfil one's [ sexual ] need from one's wife like an animal, rather there should be between them foreplay of kissing and words.

Sûrah al An'am 6.120
”Abandon all harm (ithm), whether committed openly or in secret.”

Sûrah an Nâs 4.119
'O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will...'

Shayk Ibn Taymiyya said:
It is obligitory for the husband to have intercourse with his wife as much as is needed to satisfy her, so long as this does not exhaust him physically or keep him away from earning a living

Ibn Qudaamah al-Hanbali said:
Intercourse is a duty on the man - ie the husband should have intercourse with his wife- so long as he has no excuse. this is also the opinion of Maalik

prinz

Jannah wrote: »

I think you should read the other posts I have mad before making such harsh and infounded statements. Islam most definitely DOES NOT allow martial rape, or gang rape for that matter. Neither would they inflict anyone with such severe punishments for refusing sex.

What what did you mean by there's "technically room for persuasion"...

Apologies, honestly my comments weren't aimed it Islam or Muslims, moreso at the cultural, judicial, political etc., set up of some countries, which also happen to be predominantly Muslim. I know a few Muslims (of Algerian and European origin) who get as angry as I do about these things.

The new law in Afghanistan I thought decreed that a man did not have to go without sex for more than four days if his wife didn't have a reason to withhold it... surely under this law you could foresee a man on the fifth day enforcing his right?

And you cannot deny the horrible crimes that have been committed, on people, for the heinous crimes of listening to music, dancing etc. I read last weekend about a young woman who was beaten to death by her husband for writing poetry in Kabul. Guess what, he was not punished and is free to go about his business, I don't care hat rationale is used to justify this - law,religion,culture......... it doesn't matter. It's still wrong.

Sharia law is responsible for human rights abuses. Or do you deny that a woman who is raped, is treated as an adultress and punished accordingly? Because that has been documented. Even up to the death penalty. If you cannot admit that there are serious problems with the interpretation and implementation with these things in certain countries then something is wrong.

What usually happens with Muslims, is even if they do not agree with something, will not condemn outright but actually try to excuse it.

prinz

Jannah wrote: »

I think you should read the other posts I have mad before making such harsh and infounded statements. Islam most definitely DOES NOT allow martial rape, or gang rape for that matter. Neither would they inflict anyone with such severe punishments for refusing sex.

Sorry, those punishments I mentioned have been meted out for the crime of adultery, whether that 'adultery' was consensual or not.

Lu Tze

Jannah wrote: »

You can't take these passages so literally and nit pick at them- the general message is that if a woman is too embarrassed to say no to a suitor outright (as is the situation here- and it can be an issue if both families know eachother well which happens often in these cases) then her not giving permission is enough to stop the marriage from occuring. If anything, this is better than insisting the woman needs to say 'no' outright as it is easier for the woman to simply not consent.

Your explaination for "Her silence is her consent" is completely the opposite, it seems to be an explaination for "Her silence is her refusal"

Unless i am missing something in the explaination? Even if not taking the passage literally, you have changed it around to mean to complete opposite somehow

Yogabba

Jannah, how can Turkey be a secular and an Islamic society at the same time?
Is an Islamic society also separated from religion?
And, which laws should be followed in an Islamic society -- man made or those given by god?

Furthermore I find it really interesting that you are so adamant that Islam in itself is not a common denominator for the problems that seem to be quite prevalent in many countries where Islam is the main religion. And, out of 55 countries where the main population is muslim you can only find two that 'kind of work'?
Why, in your opinion, does it not work in the other 53?

Jannah

prinz wrote: »

What what did you mean by there's "technically room for persuasion"....

Biologically, it's easier for a woman to get in the mood, without getting into the gory details of it all

prinz wrote: »

Apologies, honestly my comments weren't aimed it Islam or Muslims, moreso at the cultural, judicial, political etc., set up of some countries, which also happen to be predominantly Muslim. I know a few Muslims (of Algerian and European origin) who get as angry as I do about these things.

But this is an Islamic thread and you directly pinned these issues on Islam, so you can see how people may get angry. Predominantly Muslim countries are open to corruption, as are predominantly Christian countries and predominantly Hindu countries

prinz wrote: »

surely under this law you could foresee a man on the fifth day enforcing his right?

Which would constitute as rape and I've explained the ins and outs of rape in Islam in my previous post and how it is 100% forbidden- regardless whether they are married or anyone is holding out

prinz wrote: »

And you cannot deny the horrible crimes that have been committed, on people, for the heinous crimes of listening to music, dancing etc. I read last weekend about a young woman who was beaten to death by her husband for writing poetry in Kabul. Guess what, he was not punished and is free to go about his business, I don't care hat rationale is used to justify this - law,religion,culture......... it doesn't matter. It's still wrong.

Do you think I'm going to disagree with you? Do you think anybody who is sane would disagree with you? Poetry is most definitely not forbidden in Islam- the qur'an itself is written in poetic verse. The only reason there was anything negative said about poetry is because there were a few poets who used to hang their poetry about idolatry and the worshipping of pagan gods on the Kabah and made a mockery of Islam in general and there were also poets paid to ridicule Muhammad- so really, it was these particular poets rather than poetry in general which annoyed him. He showed a great liking to other poets such as is narrated in Sahih Muslim Book 028, Number 5602
One day when I rode behind Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), he said (to me): Do you remember any Poetry of Umayya b. Abu Salt. I said: Yes. He said: Then go on. I recited a couplet, and he said: Go on. Then I again recited a couplet and he said: Go on. I recited one hundred couplets (of his poetry).
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 166:
Narrated Ubai bin Ka'b:
Allah's Apostle said, "In eloquence there is magic and in poetry there is wisdom"
If complete lunatics want a ridiculous reason to beat their wives to death, they'll take it. But that doesn't mean that it is the fault of the religion. It is obviously against Islam to take justice into one's own hands and he, as a murderer, should have been punished accordingly. Just because he was not charged justly doesn't mean this is the right judgement islamically. If I was to take such a simplistic view of it, I could say "Hey, look at what happened with OJ Simpson- he murdered two people and got away with it even though he was obviously guilty- therefore secular legal systems don't work". It just isn't accurate.

prinz wrote: »

Sharia law is responsible for human rights abuses. Or do you deny that a woman who is raped, is treated as an adultress and punished accordingly? Because that has been documented. Even up to the death penalty. If you cannot admit that there are serious problems with the interpretation and implementation with these things in certain countries then something is wrong.

Obviously there is- and I never denied that there are serious problems with how people are interpreting and implementing Islamic law. I even went on to talk about how the doors to ijithad (interpretation to suit the era) have been closed and corrupt leaders are exploiting religion by taking narrow interpretations and twisting them. The victim should never be punished for being raped. "If one is forced, without wilful disobedience nor transgressing due limits, then he is guiltless, For God is Oft-Forgiving Most-Merciful." (2:173)

prinz wrote: »

What usually happens with Muslims, is even if they do not agree with something, will not condemn outright but actually try to excuse it.

I think a lot of that comes from the fact that a person who claims to be 'just asking a question' or 'just making a point' takes on a very aggressive and accusatory stance and in response it is only natural that a person who truly believes in their religion would become defensive.

Yogabba wrote: »

Jannah, how can Turkey be a secular and an Islamic society at the same time?

Turkey has a secular constitution and whatnot, but it is a predominantly Muslim country. I believe that a truly Islamic society accomodates for all religions and points of view and allows people not only to practice Islam, but to do their own thing, if we are to remember that "There is no compulsion in religion."

Yogabba wrote: »

And, which laws should be followed in an Islamic society -- man made or those given by god?

I believe that Muslims in an Islamic society should follow Sharia law, but only after it has been interpreted to suit the modern era and is decided on in a democratic way- as it should, as I have already said in my previous post, through means of shura and ijithad. However, there are provisions made for non-Muslims living in a country with a predominantly Muslim population, which would be appropriate.

Yogabba wrote: »

Furthermore I find it really interesting that you are so adamant that Islam in itself is not a common denominator for the problems that seem to be quite prevalent in many countries where Islam is the main religion. And, out of 55 countries where the main population is muslim you can only find two that 'kind of work'?

I was simply giving examples- I couldn't name over 10 Muslim countries, not to mind rate the competence of their legal systems, just like in the same way you don't seem to be able to tell me how each of the 55 Muslim countries' legal systems don't work.
At the end of the day, Islam is a belief which has laid out its principles very clearly- if rulers think they can pick and choose to suit their own needs, they can do so, but ultimately that injustice is their own doing and will not lead to happiness. However, it would be extremely wrong to think that ALL Muslim societies are failures- just like it would be wrong to say all secular societies are successes (Hitler was voted democratically in a secular society only to begin a huge bloody war and committed mass genocide of Jews- go figure).
An example of how much good it does to have a ruler who implements Islamic policies properly can be seen in Saudi Arabia's King Faisal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_of_Saudi_Arabia) who introduced many highly successful and revolutionary reforms. There are also the two Moroccan Kings Mohammed VI and Muhammad III who both sought to build a modern democracy and use tolerant interpretations of the Quran (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,394869,00.html) They were still working from the same book as the extremists and the fanatics, but it's their insights and ability to see the bigger picture which allowed them to be successful and fair in ruling their countries

Yogabba

Biologically, it's easier for a woman to get in the mood, without getting into the gory details of it all

Please, link with scientific evidence for this claim??

I believe that a truly Islamic society accomodates for all religions and points of view and allows people not only to practice Islam, but to do their own thing, if we are to remember that "There is no compulsion in religion."

I see. Pretty much like any current European society then? I hope the irony isn't lost on you.

just like in the same way you don't seem to be able to tell me how each of the 55 Muslim countries' legal systems don't work.

What we were discussing Jannah was practices that you claim are completely un-Islamic but that still are prevalent in muslim societies such as isolating women, not allowing women to get education, driving cars, forcing women to wear the veil, honour killings, forced marriages, FMG etc. But hey, since you also bring up freedom of religion I'll just (off the top of my head) throw in a few countries where some (or all) of the above take place: Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudia Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Jordan, Yemen, Turkey, Indonesia, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, UAE, Kuwait, Algeria, Qatar, Oman, Baharain, Morocco. Just to name a few.

(Hitler was voted democratically in a secular society only to begin a huge bloody war and committed mass genocide of Jews- go figure).

Ah, good ole Goodwin's law!! Does that justify anything? Such a pointless and irrelevant thing thing to throw into an argument.

At the end of the day, Islam is a belief which has laid out its principles very clearly- if rulers think they can pick and choose to suit their own needs, they can do so, but ultimately that injustice is their own doing and will not lead to happiness. However, it would be extremely wrong to think that ALL Muslim societies are failures

So what you are saying is that no Islamic society has managed to interpret Islam correctly? And does that mean that the muslim population in those countries (and in Europe too where plenty of 'un-Islamic' practices take place within the muslim communities) have also got it wrong?
And if it is wrong to think that all muslim societies are failures, which in your opinion, are not? And please don't say Turkey again -- give me an example of a society that actually consider itself Islamic.

Do you consider Saudi Arabia a democracy by the way?
If so, please define your interpretation of democracy.

Jannah

Yogabba wrote: »

Please, link with scientific evidence for this claim??

Gee whiz, would you like to have a look at a biology book some time, yes? You see, Yogabba, when a man loves a woman verrrrry much .... :rolleyes: You know the story- now unless that woman intends on propping said man up with some kind of device, it's pretty hard (excuse the pun) to get around the problem. Women, thankfully, don't have the same issue of needing to perform. Now, since you want a link, I shall do that for you:
http://www.parenting.com/article/Child/Parenting-Guides/Talking-to-Kids-About-Sex-21335549

Yogabba wrote: »

I see. Pretty much like any current European society then? I hope the irony isn't lost on you.

Just like the rights we have today- in 7th century Arabia. Before Christians began the crusades to force people to be their religion, Islam told people 'Let you have your religion and I will have mine' and 'there is no compulsion in religion'. I hope the knowledge isn't lost on you.

Yogabba wrote: »

What we were discussing Jannah was practices that you claim are completely un-Islamic but that still are prevalent in muslim societies such as isolating women, not allowing women to get education, driving cars, forcing women to wear the veil, honour killings, forced marriages, FMG etc.

And as I have already told you, Yogabba, is that these are unislamic. I even backed it up with qur'an passages and hadiths. Would you like me to get Muslims to hold banners around you chanting that fact, or will you finally accept it. I'm not 'claiming' they're un-islamic- they blatantly ARE un-Islamic.

Yogabba wrote: »

But hey, since you also bring up freedom of religion I'll just (off the top of my head) throw in a few countries where some (or all) of the above take place: Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudia Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Jordan, Yemen, Turkey, Indonesia, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, UAE, Kuwait, Algeria, Qatar, Oman, Baharain, Morocco. Just to name a few.

Firstly, I'll deal with freedom of religion and the coutries you have mentioned.

How does the Lebanon belong in there?! Lebanon is a secular country and only 60% of the population is Muslim.
Palestine actually are a lot more tolerant than one would think, since they are living in an area where their people are under attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_Palestinian_territories
The PA does not have a constitution; however, the Basic Law provides for religious freedom, and the PA generally respects this right in practice.[1] The Basic Law was approved in 2002 by the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) and signed by then-President Yasir Arafat. The Basic Law states that Islam is the official religion but also calls for respect and sanctity for other "heavenly" religions (such as Judaism and Christianity) and that the principles of Shari'a (Islamic law) shall be the main source of legislation.
... In general all matters related to personal status (i.e., inheritance, marriage, and divorce) are handled by such courts, which exist for Muslim and Christians.
I don't know where you got the idea that Turkey has no freedom of religion- it's very much take it or leave it when it comes to religion. Alcohol is freely available and the hijab is not compulsory- in fact, it's banned in most government buildings- nobody is 'forced' to be a Muslim, although 99.8% CHOOSE to be. This is obvious because Turkey is a secular state and doesn't even have any 'official' religion, despite the huge majority of Muslims. There are also many churches and synagogues throughout the country.
Indonesia, one again, is an extremely tolerant country:
The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respected this right in practice. There was no change in the status of respect for religious freedom by the Government during the reporting period, and government policy continued to contribute to the generally free practice of religion.
The Algerian Constitution states that "freedom of creed and opinion is inviolable" (Article 36); it prohibits any discrimination based on "opinion or any other personal or social condition or circumstance" (Article 29) and Morocco is much the same.

So why do they do things that are wrong if they ARE un-Islamic? Well seeing as how many of the worst offenders of human rights you have listed are the poorest and contain badly educated people, then misinterpretation is the main cause. If the wrong things people are doing have Islamic roots, then why are all Muslims not doing the same? And why are they getting slated by their fellow Muslims? I could give countless examples of this and anyone is able to find articles of true Muslims fighting out at these un-Islamic actions, but one example is http://www.twocircles.net/2009apr04/indias_muslims_denounce_taliban_whipping_girl_un_islamic.html

Yogabba wrote: »

Ah, good ole Goodwin's law!! Does that justify anything? Such a pointless and irrelevant thing thing to throw into an argument.

Well is justifies a lot, actually. It proves that secular governments and the west are not immune to terrible injustice- something you might want to remember the next time you slate a country and blame it on religion when in fact the violation of human rights is a worldwide issue.

Yogabba wrote: »

So what you are saying is that no Islamic society has managed to interpret Islam correctly?

No, actually there was a time when the ideal Islamic society was created in Al-Andalus before Ferdinand and Isabella got their hands on it. Muslims and Jews co-existed peacefully, women were given their rights and they flourished as a community under Islamic principals. POETRY also flourished in Al-Andalus and it became a hive of learning. Libraries, hospitals and research institutes were built by Muslim leader Abd Al Rahman II who was "passionately interested in both religious and secular sciences." People travelling from all over to be able to study in this area which contained many highly prominant professors. Astronomy, science, mathematics- you name it, they studied it to the highest degree. Their medical services were second to none and Muslims organised themselves to give free medical attention to the poor. They also studied Greek philosophy, reconciling it with their Islamic faith.

Ibn Hazm ... wrote a large and detailed commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analects, that abstruse work on logic. Interestingly, Ibn Hazm appears to have had no trouble relating logic to Islam - in fact, he gives illustrative examples of how it can be used in solving legal problems drawn from the Shari'ah. Nothing illustrates the ability of Islam to assimilate foreign ideas and acclimatize them better than Ibn Hazm's words in the introduction to his work: "Let it be known that he who reads this book of ours will find that the usefulness of this kind of work is not limited to one single discipline but includes the Koran, hadith, and legal decisions concerning what is permissible and what is not, and what is obligatory and what is lawful."
And all of this while the rest of Europe was wallowing in the dark ages of the Medieval period.

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198203/science.the.islamic.legacy-science.in.al-andalus.htm
"Islam, with its tolerance and encouragement of both secular and religious learning, created the necessary climate for the exchange of ideas. The court of Cordoba, like that of Baghdad, was open to Muslims, Jews and Christians alike, and one prominent bishop complained that young Christian men were devoting themselves to the study of Arabic, rather than to Latin - a reflection of the fact that Arabic, in a surprisingly short time, had become the international language of science, as English has today."

Yogabba wrote: »

And does that mean that the muslim population in those countries (and in Europe too where plenty of 'un-Islamic' practices take place within the muslim communities) have also got it wrong?

Yes

Yogabba wrote: »

And if it is wrong to think that all muslim societies are failures, which in your opinion, are not? And please don't say Turkey again -- give me an example of a society that actually consider itself Islamic.

Indonesia is an extremely progressive Islamic country. And yes, feel free to google as much dirt on it as you please.

Yogabba wrote: »

Do you consider Saudi Arabia a democracy by the way? If so, please define your interpretation of democracy.

Obviously it is not, but the democracy I have explained (and I'm not going to explain AGAIN) is the ISLAMICALLY PRESCRIBED system of government.

Yogabba

Sigh. You claimed that biologically, it is easier for the woman to get in the mood. And you still haven't provided any scientific evidence. Backing up your statements with a link to a parenting site doesn't really hold up.

We're not talking about the 7th century Arabia. We are talking about today, you know -- 2009.

Before Christians began the crusades to force people to be their religion, Islam told people 'Let you have your religion and I will have mine' and 'there is no compulsion in religion'. I hope the knowledge isn't lost on you.

Lol!! You hope the knowledge isn't lost on me?? Please do tell me Jannah, how did that region end up Islamic again? Oh yes, that's right -- they ALL converted out of their own free will right? No one was killed, they all just decided to become muslims?? ROFL, you gotta love the cherry picking!!!
And -- in 7th century Arabia, muslims were a minority. Is that relevant at all? How familiar are you with the history of that time?

I don't know if you choose to misinterpret my posts or if you really are unable to grasp the context. You have constantly insisted that certin practices are completely un-Islamic. Such as honour killings, isolation of women, forced marriages, complusion of veil, no education etc etc. The countries I mentioned are countries where some or all of the un-Islamic practices take place.
Indonesia -- FMG. Turkey -- honour killings. Lebanon -- check out women's rights please, and that goes for Palestine, Morocco and Algeria too.

So why do they do things that are wrong if they ARE un-Islamic? Well seeing as how many of the worst offenders of human rights you have listed are the poorest and contain badly educated people, then misinterpretation is the main cause. If the wrong things people are doing have Islamic roots, then why are all Muslims not doing the same? And why are they getting slated by their fellow Muslims? I could give countless examples of this and anyone is able to find articles of true Muslims fighting out at these un-Islamic actions, but one example is http://www.twocircles.net/2009apr04/...n_islamic.html

If it's poverty and lack of education, why do these practices take place within the muslim communities in Europe too? They estimate that there are at least one honour killing a month in Britain, in Denmark they've had to change the law in order to prevent arranged marriages, and in all of Scandinavia the've had to set up different organizations for muslim women who've had to go underground because the threat from their familes is so big. And are they really getting slate by their fellow muslims? Because I haven't seen any muslims take to the streets after terror attacks like Bali, 7/7, Madrid, Mumbai, etc. And there has been no outrage from the muslim communities in Scandinavia either, despite several horrendous honour killings.
Several mosques in Europe have been found preaching hatred and violence towards the west. Talk about biting the hand that is feeding you???
Saudi Arabia is not exactly a poor country and yet they have no freedom for either women or people belonging to other religions. How many churces, temples or synagouges would you find in SA?

But! It seems like all these people, according to you, have got it all so wrong so wrong. How can it be, that scholars and clerics, who have studied the Quran for all their lives STILL manage to get it so wrong???

Jannah

Yogabba wrote: »

You claimed that biologically, it is easier for the woman to get in the mood. And you still haven't provided any scientific evidence.

Well sadly people don't do all that many research projects on such topics- that said, nobody has evidence to disprove it either. However, it seems fairly obvious to me that if a man is not fully in the mood for sex, it is impossibly to actually perform the sexual act, whereas women do not need to perform in such a way. Both sexes get in the mood at the same rate, I don't dispute that, I'm saying that it simply is biologically impossible to have sex if the man is not in the mood, whereas this is not the case with women

Yogabba wrote: »

We're not talking about the 7th century Arabia. We are talking about today, you know -- 2009.

The point is that we have seen that Islamic societies CAN and HAVE worked in the past- therefore the problem is not with Islam, but with how it is currently being organised. After all, the belief itself hasn't changed since then, only the rulers.

Yogabba wrote: »

Please do tell me Jannah, how did that region end up Islamic again? Oh yes, that's right -- they ALL converted out of their own free will right? No one was killed, they all just decided to become muslims??

There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Tâghût and believes in Allâh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allâh is All-Hearer, All-Knower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam
The spread of Islam following Muhammad's death conincided with the rapid expansion of the arab empire. The objective of the conquests was more practical than religious, as fertile land and water were scarce in the Arabian peninsula. A real spread of Islam therefore only came about in the subsequent centuries. For societies which had Islam offered to them, conversion to Islam represented a stable state with a more moral framework to cure the problems of their regions. The period before Islam was introduced is called "jahiliyah" or "period of ignorance" (this wasn't ignorance of God per se, but rather being barbaric and savage. If you think Muslim women are treated badly now, they were treated like animals back then and had zero rights. To those people, Islam represented hope from the squalor of their lives where nobody had any sense of morality and there were constant battles among tribes.
Conversion initially was neither required nor necessarily wished for. In fact, Arab conquerors were at first hostile to conversions because new Muslims diluted the economic and status advantages of the Arabs. Muslim conquerors ordinarily wished to dominate rather than convert, and most conversions to Islam were voluntary.

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error" [Al-Qur'an 2:256]

Traditionally Muslims have treated other religions with respect, even when they were in a position to use force. Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. During these 800 years, until Muslims were finally forced out by the crusaders, non-Muslims flourished in Spain. Muslims have ruled Arabia for 1400 years, except for brief periods of British and French rule. Yet there are today 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians whose families have been Christians going back several generations.
The Muslim Moguls ruled India for about a thousand years. They had the power to forcibly convert each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India is non-Muslim. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness to the fact that Islam was not spread by the sword.

http://www.thewaytotruth.org/islam-humanity/rapidspreadofislam.html
The Muslims’ attitude toward the people they conquered is quite clear in the instructions given by the Rightly-Guided Caliphs:
[FONT=verdana,arial][SIZE=-1]

Always keep fear of God in your mind; remember that you cannot afford to do anything without His grace. Do not forget that Islam is a mission of peace and love. Keep the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) before you as a model of bravery and piety. Do not destroy fruit trees or fertile fields in your paths. Be just, and spare the feelings of the vanquished. Respect all religious persons who live in hermitages or convents and spare their edifices. Do not kill civilians. Do not outrage the chastity of women and the honor of the conquered. Do not harm old people and children. Do not accept any gifts from the civil population of any place. Do not billet your soldiers or officers in the houses of civilians. Do not forget to perform your daily prayers. Fear God. Remember that death will inevitably come to everyone of you at some time or other, even if you are thousands of miles away from a battlefield; therefore be always ready to face death[/SIZE][/FONT]

Today Islam is the fastest growing religion- who's holding a sword to their necks? Islam appeals to people for a variety of reasons- it is anti-racism, doesn't have any caste system of superior elite and provides women with a sense of respect and honour that the west has failed to give them.

Yogabba wrote: »

I don't know if you choose to misinterpret my posts or if you really are unable to grasp the context.

Look- I don't HAVE TO answer your post, okay? They take a long time to write, as you can imagine, and it's not like I have nothing better to be doing with my time. However, I do so out of what I feel is religious obligation and a wish to help fellow Muslims who you are slandering repeatedly with your ill-informed spouts of hatred against Muslims and Islam. For this reason, the least you can do is be somewhat respectful of me, if not simply as a person, and not treat me like I'm an complete idiot with these kinds of stupid jibes. If I see one more of these, I will simply not post again.

Yogabba wrote: »

You have constantly insisted that certin practices are completely un-Islamic. Such as honour killings, isolation of women, forced marriages, complusion of veil, no education etc etc. The countries I mentioned are countries where some or all of the un-Islamic practices take place. Indonesia -- FMG. Turkey -- honour killings. Lebanon -- check out women's rights please, and that goes for Palestine, Morocco and Algeria too.

I am not simply 'insisting' they are unislamic, I have proven they are unislamic. If you can find resources to prove that any of these practices are islamic, other than that they occur in some Muslim countries, I would gladly accept it. However, what you are saying is like me trying to tell people that molestation of children is a catholic tradition- it most definitely is not, and raping is renounced in the bible, yet it occured widely. You must return to the source to really discover what is Islamic and what simply is people doing wrong of their own accord.

Yogabba wrote: »

If it's poverty and lack of education, why do these practices take place within the muslim communities in Europe too? They estimate that there are at least one honour killing a month in Britain, in Denmark they've had to change the law in order to prevent arranged marriages, and in all of Scandinavia the've had to set up different organizations for muslim women who've had to go underground because the threat from their familes is so big. And are they really getting slate by their fellow muslims? Because I haven't seen any muslims take to the streets after terror attacks like Bali, 7/7, Madrid, Mumbai, etc. And there has been no outrage from the muslim communities in Scandinavia either, despite several horrendous honour killings.

Honour killings ARE NOT ISLAMIC. Those who kill people in the name of 'honour' are killing an innocent person, and according to Islam, it is as if they have killed all of mankind. Just because these people live in the west does not mean they understand islamic teachings or are educated and there are millions of other muslims living in the west peacefully and without any problems who are testament to this. Forced marriages occur in the Asian community in general in Britain- so if it is an Islamic problem, why are Hindus doing it too? It's cultural traditions and poor education.

What gives you the idea that innocent Muslims were any less outraged by the acts of terrorists in these instances? If anything they must have been even more upset because their religion was being completely ruined by a tiny minority of madmen doing un-islamic acts in the name of Islam- they hijacked the religion, so to speak. Yet Muslims have been very vocal in denouncing terrorism, I assure you.

San Francisco Bay Area Muslims Condemn Terrorism in the Name of Islam
http://himysyed.tyo.ca/2005/07/08/san-francisco-bay-area-muslims-condemn-terrorism-in-the-name-of-islam-press-conference-friday-july-8-2005/

Indian Muslims condemn terrorism
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7719059.stm

General condemnation
http://www.muslimscondemn.org/

I could go on, but you get the picture

Yogabba wrote: »

Several mosques in Europe have been found preaching hatred and violence towards the west. Talk about biting the hand that is feeding you???

And thousands others don't! Hatred and violence are not Islamic values- why would people who want to hate and be violent greet eacother with "peace"???

Yogabba wrote: »

Saudi Arabia is not exactly a poor country and yet they have no freedom for either women or people belonging to other religions. How many churces, temples or synagouges would you find in SA?

Saudi Arabia does a lot of weird crap that was never done in the Prophet's time- Muhammad (pbuh) even had a seperate system for accomodating other beliefs, something which isn't reflected in present day circumstances. Women are also not allowed drive in Saudi- proving they have strange rules that are more tribal than based on Islamic thinking.

Yogabba wrote: »

But! It seems like all these people, according to you, have got it all so wrong so wrong. How can it be, that scholars and clerics, who have studied the Quran for all their lives STILL manage to get it so wrong???

Because their interpretation is so narrow. In saudi they practice Wahabbism which is an extremely rigid and fundamentalist form of Islam and don't inkeep with what we are told when Muhammad (pbuh) told people to always follow the middle path and not be excessive in their religion. You must remember, not EVERYONE has got it wrong- in fact, many, many people have got it right and despise the current state of their countries. At the end of the day, these 'holy men' retain their power by keeping people down and imposing these restrictions on them and it is obvious that the more moderate a society is, the closer it is to Islamic ideals

The Mad Hatter

Jannah wrote: »

Well sadly people don't do all that many research projects on such topics- that said, nobody has evidence to disprove it either. However, it seems fairly obvious to me that if a man is not fully in the mood for sex, it is impossibly to actually perform the sexual act, whereas women do not need to perform in such a way. Both sexes get in the mood at the same rate, I don't dispute that, I'm saying that it simply is biologically impossible to have sex if the man is not in the mood, whereas this is not the case with women

You've gone from claiming that it's biologically easier for women to get in the mood for sex to stating that it's possible for women to have sex when they're not in the mood. I don't think anyone would dispute the latter, but having sex with a woman who doesn't want to is called rape.

Jannah

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You've gone from claiming that it's biologically easier for women to get in the mood for sex to stating that it's possible for women to have sex when they're not in the mood.

Well if it was unclear earlier, what I mean is that it is physically impossible for a man to have sex if he is not in the mood, but it is physically possible for a woman- not that either gender would get aroused at a different rate

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

having sex with a woman who doesn't want to is called rape.

Rape and the fact that it is completely forbidden in Islam is a topic which I have already explained completely in previous posts, and I'm not going into it again

Schuhart

Jannah wrote: »

Well if it was unclear earlier, what I mean is that it is physically impossible for a man to have sex if he is not in the mood, but it is physically possible for a woman- not that either gender would get aroused at a different rate

tbh, I think at this stage you know that you've dug yourself into a bit of a hole. I'd like to dig that hole a little deeper, just to suggest that maybe you need to step back from it all and reconceptualise your approach.

When you say it is physically impossible for a man to have sex if he is not in the mood, are you suggesting that its impossible for a woman to rape a man? I have this case in mind in particular, but I don't doubt there are others.

A 40-year-old woman who admitted that she had made her 14-year-old son have sex with her on four occasions told gardaí they were living in what was described as a house of horrors.

Jannah

Schuhart wrote: »

tbh, I think at this stage you know that you've dug yourself into a bit of a hole. I'd like to dig that hole a little deeper, just to suggest that maybe you need to step back from it all and reconceptualise your approach.

When you say it is physically impossible for a man to have sex if he is not in the mood, are you suggesting that its impossible for a woman to rape a man? I have this case in mind in particular, but I don't doubt there are others.

In fairness, if a guy is not physically excited about the prospect of sex, he biologically can't get an erection, therefore one would ask how exactly this woman managed to have sex with him if he didn't wish to have sex. It's not going against MY beliefs on the matter- it just seems pretty physically impossible. She could molest him, yes, but unless he wanted to have sex, it's peculiar that he would be able to perform

getz

Jannah wrote: »

So you wouldn't mind if your wife just decided not to have sex with you for a prolonged period of time, no? One would think that if it was a good marriage, this wouldn't be an issue to begin with. By withholding sex from one's spouse (and by not having any reason, I mean not having sex for the sake of not having sex- no particular point not to, but doing so because they are either cruel or inconsiderate of their partner's feelings). It is seen as punishment because it is the first stage of the islamically perscribed method of punishing one's spouse for disobedience and runs the risk of one's partner committing zinah by having an affair.
Sex is highly regarded in Islam- a woman should not feel it is a chore and if she is so disgusted by having regular sex with the man she married, she might want to get a divorce or suggest he gets another wife to relieve her of this 'burden'. However, the vast majority of women view marital sex for what is is- sadaqah or loving charity towards one another. A really great writer who explain this well is Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood:
"Sexual intimacy become sadaqah is performed for the happiness and satisfaction of the spouse before one's own satisfaction. It is encouraged and blessed between loving spouses so long as what is done does not hurt, abuse, exploit or denigrate one's partner. In an Islamic marriage, neither partner should ever try to force the other one to do anything which is distasteful or unpleasant or painful to them. Marital rape should never take place, or abuse of the wife."
"Since Muslims should only have sex with their marriage partner, both partners not only have a duty to be faithful, but to honour and satisfy the needs of their spouses. If either side neglects this duty for no good reason, it is bound to cause suffering, depresion or lead to the breakdown of the relationship, and is considered grounds for a divorce. Obviously, there come times when there are good reasons for refraining from sexual intimacy, such causes as illness, menstruation, exhaustion, grief, and so on. Only an extremely selfish person should try to insist at these times. Pleasant wooing is a different matter of course."
"The Prophet was very concerned about male sexual selfishness, which was commonplace in his society as it frequently is in many others. He urged his male followers to respect their wives and cherish them, They were not to fling themselves upon their women as if they were no more than animals, or just satisfying their own irges and then leave their women disappointed and frustrated, while they dropped off to sleep."
"A Muslim man should not satisfy his need of her until he has satisfied her need of him" - al-Ghazzali


I would by no means call them 'second class citizens', owing to the vast amount of verses which tell people to respect their mothers OVER their fathers and the general appreciation for the dignity and rights of women. Women decline suitors for many reasons- and they DO decline them- most Muslim women get more than one offer of marriage- there is no rule that says they have to say 'yes' at the first person that approaches them. Her family can only guide her- if they insist she says yes, it's completely unislamic


Correction- forced marriages occur frequently in asian societies in general- look at India- yet people like to pin these problems to a religion rather than what it is- a backwards state of mind. It is denounced by Islam, yet people still incredibly are unable to remove the blame from Islam itself. I've yet to read anything from a scholar which goes against women having a right to say no to a marriage, so in fairness, however you interpreted the passage, it doesn't seem to be the general opinion


You can't take these passages so literally and nit pick at them- the general message is that if a woman is too embarrassed to say no to a suitor outright (as is the situation here- and it can be an issue if both families know eachother well which happens often in these cases) then her not giving permission is enough to stop the marriage from occuring. If anything, this is better than insisting the woman needs to say 'no' outright as it is easier for the woman to simply not consent.


Nobody is 'expected' to be bashful- it was (and sometimes is) the situation that a woman who has had no prior experience of marriage and men would be shy when proposed with suitors and the like. We only need to look to the Prophet's wives who regularly debated with him and Khadijah, who, despite being a much older woman, decided to propose to the Prophet herself, to see that Muslim women can be daring in their actions and are not subservient wallflowers.


If she is punishing her husband- by all means, it is valid to withhold sex from him. My point is that, since it is considered a punishment towards one's spouse to do so, it should not be taken lightly and just thought of as "meh, not now, go away"

i would be interested in your interpretation of sura 4.34

Schuhart

Jannah wrote: »

In fairness, if a guy is not physically excited about the prospect of sex, he biologically can't get an erection, therefore one would ask how exactly this woman managed to have sex with him if he didn't wish to have sex. It's not going against MY beliefs on the matter- it just seems pretty physically impossible. She could molest him, yes, but unless he wanted to have sex, it's peculiar that he would be able to perform

The facts of the case have been reported quite a bit. I'd find it hard to boil the matter down to a clear 'wish' or 'want'.

In truth, I simply think these matters are not as clear-cut as you present.

The more I think about it, the more these rules describe a state of concubinage. Now, in one sense, there's no harm in that. I've no doubt that ultimately we're all descended from some coupling where the woman was exchanging sex for support. Who's to say if there's any point in aspiring to anything more?

Jannah

getz wrote: »

i would be interested in your interpretation of sura 4.34

Lol, I find it so funny when this happens. People run out of things to be pissed off about in the thread, so they throw in something really unrelated and random and are like "HA! Lets see how you deal with THAT!" :rolleyes:

I'm not going to say anything magical or special that hasn't been said before. The miswak is a toothbrush, no marks are mean to be left and it is not meant as a 'beating' but more as a sign that she was trespassing waaay beyond the bounds of what was acceptable not under the rules of her husband, but the rules of God. Domestic violence is NOT ALLOWED in Islam. I believe that this sura is included because men were so used to lashing out at their wives in the primitive society before Islam that Muhammad was like "look, try both of these things first and if she still is behaving awfully, then you may make this light tapping as a sign that she has gone too far". Yet I feel that he was so sure that the other two methods would be successful, this tapping with a toothbursh would be unnecessary.

Schuhart wrote: »

The facts of the case have been reported quite a bit. I'd find it hard to boil the matter down to a clear 'wish' or 'want'.

Actually, we don't get particularly detailed facts on the rape of the son at all. How did he perform if he didn't want to? Surely he would be so traumatised that it would have been impossible? I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just wondering how it is actually possible.

Schuhart wrote: »

The more I think about it, the more these rules describe a state of concubinage. Now, in one sense, there's no harm in that. I've no doubt that ultimately we're all descended from some coupling where the woman was exchanging sex for support. Who's to say if there's any point in aspiring to anything more?

Since a 'concubine' is either:
1. Law A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him.
2. In certain societies, such as imperial China, a woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status.
I would say that neither are acceptable in Islam. The first is obvious and the second- since when do the women not have rights? Islam has given women different yet just rights. I would think that there is a lot of harm in keeping a woman as a sex slave and that is definitely not what an Islamic marriage is about- it is about respecting the fact that you are married to a person who is monogamous and have rights which you, out of love, compassion and respect for them, should fulfil as gift in marriage. Women aren't 'exchanging sex for support'- it shouldn't be a trade off or a deal, it should be something that both partners enjoy. Islam is the only religion I know of that actually gives women the right to be as sexually satisfied as her husband. To say there's no point aspiring to any more is a tad cynical to say the least- earning your keep through sex isn't how it's meant to be and wasn't how any of the Prophet's wives were treated.

getz

Jannah wrote: »

Lol, I find it so funny when this happens. People run out of things to be pissed off about in the thread, so they throw in something really unrelated and random and are like "HA! Lets see how you deal with THAT!" :rolleyes:

I'm not going to say anything magical or special that hasn't been said before. The miswak is a toothbrush, no marks are mean to be left and it is not meant as a 'beating' but more as a sign that she was trespassing waaay beyond the bounds of what was acceptable not under the rules of her husband, but the rules of God. Domestic violence is NOT ALLOWED in Islam. I believe that this sura is included because men were so used to lashing out at their wives in the primitive society before Islam that Muhammad was like "look, try both of these things first and if she still is behaving awfully, then you may make this light tapping as a sign that she has gone too far". Yet I feel that he was so sure that the other two methods would be successful, this tapping with a toothbursh would be unnecessary.


Actually, we don't get particularly detailed facts on the rape of the son at all. How did he perform if he didn't want to? Surely he would be so traumatised that it would have been impossible? I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just wondering how it is actually possible.


Since a 'concubine' is either:
1. Law A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him.
2. In certain societies, such as imperial China, a woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status.
I would say that neither are acceptable in Islam. The first is obvious and the second- since when do the women not have rights? Islam has given women different yet just rights. I would think that there is a lot of harm in keeping a woman as a sex slave and that is definitely not what an Islamic marriage is about- it is about respecting the fact that you are married to a person who is monogamous and have rights which you, out of love, compassion and respect for them, should fulfil as gift in marriage. Women aren't 'exchanging sex for support'- it shouldn't be a trade off or a deal, it should be something that both partners enjoy. Islam is the only religion I know of that actually gives women the right to be as sexually satisfied as her husband. To say there's no point aspiring to any more is a tad cynical to say the least- earning your keep through sex isn't how it's meant to be and wasn't how any of the Prophet's wives were treated.

as usual you are trying to say[ because that sura is embarrassing}that it dose not mean what it says-so i take it sura2.223 -plow your woman like you plow your field is wrong ?

Jannah

Jannah wrote: »

In fairness, if a guy is not physically excited about the prospect of sex, he biologically can't get an erection

Er? Men get plenty of unwanted erections all the time. Starts at puberty amidst a lot of embarrassment, and keeps going up to morning wood. Maybe you should read up on the biology a bit more...?

Jannah

bluewolf wrote: »

Er? Men get plenty of unwanted erections all the time. Starts at puberty amidst a lot of embarrassment, and keeps going up to morning wood. Maybe you should read up on the biology a bit more...?

With their MOTHERS?

getz wrote: »

as usual you are trying to say[ because that sura is embarrassing}that it dose not mean what it says-so i take it sura2.223 -plow your woman like you plow your field is wrong ?

Dude, you asked what I thought and I told you- if you already have it in your head that you think it's something else, then don't bother ask me and waste my time in explaining it.

The Mad Hatter

Jannah wrote: »

Well if it was unclear earlier, what I mean is that it is physically impossible for a man to have sex if he is not in the mood, but it is physically possible for a woman- not that either gender would get aroused at a different rate

Fair enough. (Even if what you originally stated doesn't resemble that statement in the slightest.) That doesn't alter my point one iota, however - that having sex with a woman who doesn't want to is rape.

Or do you somehow assume that the act of sex will generate arousal in women?

Schuhart

Jannah wrote: »

I believe that this sura is included because men were so used to lashing out at their wives in the primitive society before Islam that Muhammad was like "look, try both of these things first and if she still is behaving awfully, then you may make this light tapping as a sign that she has gone too far". Yet I feel that he was so sure that the other two methods would be successful, this tapping with a toothbursh would be unnecessary.

I’d agree that the verse is best understood in the context of the time, and that the essence of Sura 4:34 is that a man should not gratuitously beat his wife. That said, I think some points do have to be made about your interpretation, as I’ve a feeling you are not fully acknowledging the implications of this for the power relationship envisaged in the Quran.

I’m not saying there’s anything particularly wrong with that power relationship. As I’ve said before on this forum, if we agree that people can pursue an interest in bondage, or take up boxing as a sport, there’s no particular reason why a woman shouldn’t give her husband the right to chastise her physically if that’s what she wants.

The reference to miswak is not in the Quran, and IIRC is a refinement added by later scholars. (The insertion of the word ‘lightly’ in the Yusuf Ali translation has been criticised as essentially political.)

As to whether the reference to miswak is as benign as it seems is clearly something that folk will judge for themselves. But if you wanted to give her a good digging, clearly you’d buy your miswak from this guy.

Jannah wrote: »

it is about respecting the fact that you are married to a person who is monogamous and have rights which you, out of love, compassion and respect for them, should fulfil as gift in marriage.

I’m not convinced this is actually what has been set out and, as we know, the monogamy is one-way. In fact, IIRC, Islam demands that a man should treat all his wives equally, effectively requiring that he’d have enough wealth to ensure his material support for one is undiminished when he acquires another.

So, indeed, it looks like a development of the concept of concubinage. It is very well regulated concubinage, with a reasonable degree of protection for the concubine. But what this amounts to is a clear statement that women are exchanging sex for support. Its just saying that, so long as they put out to a reasonable extent and don’t whinge at their husbands, they should expect material support.

Jannah wrote: »

Islam is the only religion I know of that actually gives women the right to be as sexually satisfied as her husband.

I can’t say I’ve made an exhaustive study of what different religions say about sex, but I wasn’t particularly aware of any of the rest of them saying anything on this point.

bluewolf wrote: »

Maybe you should read up on the biology a bit more...?

Or at least a book of ‘Wicked Willie’ cartoons.

Jannah wrote: »

With their MOTHERS?

Apparently.

Jannah

Jannah wrote: »

With their MOTHERS?

Eh, what?