| Author | Topic |
saadiamalik
PAKISTAN
|
 Posted - Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 9:42 AM 
| Where does the Qur'an positively say that men are not required to seek permission from their first wives? Hasn't the matter been left open? |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 10:06 AM
>>I'm sorry, but I can't see what the issue is.
The issue is about permission. My contention is if the Shariah is silent then we can, based on our reasoning, come up with a law that requires permission or something analogous. It is an issue of adminsitration as opposed to that of the Shariah. That is all.
Now what be your confusion?
>>Sometimes you seem to answer your own questions. You are so convinced that the issue of a second wife is a violation to the first you don't seem to want anyone else's opinion.
Please refrain from conjecture.
Edited by: junaidj on Thursday, January 06, 2005 10:07 AM |
|
yvette
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 12:51 PM
| I am sorry that you seem to think me confused, as that is not what I am. I do not feel that we need a law governing this subject. I have stated how I feel - it was not conjecture. When all is said and done I would do and accept whatever I thought was right, and my way of dealing with it would be the way I deal with all things I'm not sure of, I ask Allah for guidance. |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 6:57 PM
>> I do not feel that we need a law governing this subject. I have stated how I feel -
Fair enough! If this is what you are convinced of, then we respect your opinion as you are entitled to yours.
However, having said that I vehemently disgaree with you, simply because we are students of the Koran and as such try to the best of our abilities to get a proper understanding of the scriptures. I'll leave it at that.
Though, as opposed to feelings you might want to engage through reason on the question that Saadia Malik has raised in this thread.
>>Where does the Qur'an positively say that men are not required to seek permission from their first wives? Hasn't the matter been left open?
Edited by: junaidj on Thursday, January 06, 2005 8:16 PM |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 10:52 AM
Assalam alaikum,
First of all to say that the life of the prophet encourages monogamy is a big contradiction. This was certainly not his example. Good luck convincing non-Muslims with that. All though there is no denying that the Quran encourages monogamy, the Sunnah certainly does not give that example.
Secondly, to require man to get permission, that is violation of his right as granted silently by Shariah. Man is the head of the house, as Quran states the general observation that men have a degree over women (2.228). Man is advised not to let his women, if they are foolish, to spend away their money which is a means of sustenance for them (4.5). Generally one who earns money has more decision making power in the house, and generally that goes to the man of the house. My point is man has leverage over woman in certain matters (and vice versa), and it should stay that way.
I agree with you that this freedom from permission is easily exploited by man to satisfy his selfish needs and passions at the expense of the first wife. So perhaps instead of making a general rule requiring permission in all cases, I believe it would be better for a judge to decide at an individual level, and let the man prove to the judge that his intentions were noble. If the wife does not like what her husband has done, she should take him to a court or get divorced.
I really doubt that the rule you propose will benefit the woman in our societies. It will only encourage men to cheat on their wives. And adultery, my friend, is worse than polygny. |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 6:57 PM
>>First of all to say that the life of the prophet encourages monogamy is a big contradiction.
First He is a Rasul. And despite being a Rasul his marriages were for political reasons as under Divine mandate. So whatever we get from His life is through the underlying principles of his many marriages.
>>the Sunnah certainly does not give that example.
is multiple marriage a Sunnah?
>>Secondly, to require man to get permission, that is violation of his right as granted silently by Shariah.
Silence does not mean acquiesence. We know that, right?
>>Man is advised not to let his women, if they are foolish,
Does the Koran use the word foolish??
>>My point is man has leverage over woman in certain matters (and vice versa), and it should stay that way.
My point is decisions should be jointly taken and on an equal basis.
>>I believe it would be better for a judge to decide at an individual level, and let the man prove to the judge that his intentions were noble.
and if tehy were not noble, we can have him flogged for extra marital affairs.
>>It will only encourage men to cheat on their wives.
Do we know that?
Finally, in my opinion extra marital affairs must be severly condemned as opposed to get legalized.
Imagine a woman, who works in a bank. She falls for another man. What option does she have, get divorced and marry the new person. What is your opinion in this case? |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 4:00 PM
Now you are saying that a marriage conducted without the knowledge of first wife is adultery? Nikkah is a halal thing, adultery is not. Nikkah has only conditions that the persons getting in nikah consent to it and there be two witnesses. That is the bare minimum requirment. Are you making a halal thing (2nd nikkah) into haraam?
<< foolish >>
Read 4.5. Quran calls those women who waste their family wealth as foolish women. It is quite clear. The word used is 'sofaha' - fools.
<< My point is decisions should be jointly taken and on an equal basis. >>
Man has a degree over women, and he has the final say in decision making. You cannot have two heads of state, you cannot have two CEOs, you cannot have two heads of the family. That will cause chaos. One person, either man, or woman, has to be in charge. Islam has given that role to the man, it endorses patriarchy. He can consult his family members on an issue, but he has the final say.
<< It will only encourage men to cheat on their wives.
Do we know that? >>
We live in the West where this kind of thing is rampant. The system here is monogamous by law, but in reality it is not. Men and women are cheating their spouses. This is proof that the system you are proposing causes increase in adultery. Men will still do what they want to do. Islam puts conditions on it so the rights of the second woman are held and she becomes a wife. If you don't allow it, then she will become a mistress with no legal rights. Understand that you cannot stop men from having another woman. Which is worse, extra marital affair with a mistress who has no legal rights, or a secret second wife with legal rights and protection.
<< Finally, in my opinion extra marital affairs must be severly condemned as opposed to get legalized. >>
If a man marries a second woman, then he is not commiting an extra mariatal affair. He is supporting a woman and her children, providing food, shelter and clothing for them and taking care of their needs. He does not need anyone's permission to support another woman in this manner.
Question
Where is your proof that secret second wife = adultery ? |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 10:15 PM
>>Now you are saying that a marriage conducted without the knowledge of first wife is adultery?
I am saying that extra marital affairs cannot be allowed as second marriage.
Do you understand that this tantamounts to encouraging what the Shariah has so strongly forbidden. It is like a loophole in the law which men in their lusts try to exploit?
<< foolish >>
004.005
YUSUFALI: To those weak of understanding Make not over your property, which Allah hath made a means of support for you, but feed and clothe them therewith, and speak to them words of kindness and justice.
PICKTHAL: Give not unto the foolish (what is in) your (keeping of their) wealth, which Allah hath given you to maintain; but feed and clothe them from it, and speak kindly unto them.
SHAKIR: And do not give away your property which Allah has made for you a (means of) support to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of (the profits of) it, and clothe them and speak to them words of honest advice.
I dont think women are being referred to in this verse. It is used generally.
>>Man has a degree over women, and he has the final say in decision making.
What if he is foolish? After all we can fire an incompetent CEO?
The point is whether you like it or not, homes are either being run by the male or by the female, based on the dominant person. I personally know of many families where the woman leads that role.
What I am stating is that all decisions need to be jointly taken and in full agreement of both parties.
>>Men and women are cheating their spouses. This is proof that the system you are proposing causes increase in adultery.
That is not a consequence of the law. It has more to do with liberal moral upbringing.
>>Men will still do what they want to do.
So does this mean, we should legalize it?
>>Understand that you cannot stop men from having another woman.......or a secret second wife with legal rights and protection.
I will cease comments here. I'll allow Muslim women to comment here?
(Centuries of patriarchy refuses to die)
>>He does not need anyone's permission to support another woman in this manner.
Give me one verse where it states you need no permission?
>>Where is your proof that secret second wife = adultery ?
Second wife out of lust is legalized adultery. I think this is clear enough.
Edited by: junaidj on Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:15 PM |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Monday, January 17, 2005 - 7:36 PM
I think you do not understand what I am saying here.
Here are two issues.
First, marrying someone in secret without telling first wife.
Second, marrying someone without permission of first wife while letting her know what your are doing.
Now the spirit of the nikkah is that you should openly announce it. Correct? We know that from Sunnah. So if a man marries a seond woman and does not announce it to everyone including to the first wife, then that is against the spirit of the nikkah.
I am more focussed on the second point. The permission. You asked me to show you a verse where it says he needs no permission. I ask you to show me a verse where it says he needs it. We won't find any either way. However in the Quran, the conditions for nikkah are explicitly given. Asking any one's permission is not a requirement. What you are proposing might be a bidda, so we need to be careful and discuss the issue calmly.
Now your question of verse 4.5, where word foolish is used. Please read the verse before it. The section is about women, the word foolish is being used for some spend thrift wives, you can verify that from any tafseer. I guess you could apply it in general also.
>>> What I am stating is that all decisions need to be jointly taken and in full agreement of both parties.
How often do you have agreement of all parties on an issue. My wife and I can never agree on 90% of the things. What you are proposing is impractical.
And you cannot deny that Islam is a religion that encourages patriarchy. You might not like it, but ask anyone, thats the way it is. In matters of rewards and punishment, the man and woman are weighed in the same manner. In terms of inheritance, financial transactions, the woman is clearly not at the same level as man is. The woman is the one who is stuck for 9 months with a child in the womb and milking the baby for another year after birth. Man is not, he is free to move about, to work, to provide. Look up the definition of patriarchy, then compare that to Islam.
Now I ask you about this scenario. One is away from home in a different country and cannot communicate with wife or family. He might be doing jihad and fighting enemy. He meets orphans and widows and wishes to take care of them by providing them his shelter or home. So he decides to marry them. Would you make the 2nd nikkah invalid because he did not get permission from first wife? |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Monday, January 17, 2005 - 10:28 PM
>>What you are proposing might be a bidda, so we need to be careful and discuss the issue calmly.
I suppose that Umar introduced a Bidda when he ordered Tarwaih with congregation?
>>Please read the verse before it. The section is about women, the word foolish is being used for some spend thrift wives, you can verify that from any tafseer.
First, Tafseer is human interpretation and prone to error. Second, the verse that follows this one refers to orphans. My opinion is that the word is used in a general context.
>>How often do you have agreement of all parties on an issue. My wife and I can never agree on 90% of the things. What you are proposing is impractical.
The Grand Companions disagreed on issues, and despite those disagreement would come to a mutual decision. I am extending the same to the household.
>>And you cannot deny that Islam is a religion that encourages patriarchy. .....In terms of inheritance, financial transactions, the woman is clearly not at the same level as man is.
This has got to do with interpretation. I admit, I have severe issues in this area. If I am unable to find explanations that withstand the test of reason, I will never buy them.
>> He meets orphans and widows and wishes to take care of them by providing them his shelter or home. So he decides to marry them. Would you make the 2nd nikkah invalid because he did not get permission from first wife?
First, he would be reprimanded for allowing himself the audience of another woman. After all he will not marry any widow on the street? |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Monday, January 17, 2005 - 10:56 PM
>>> The Grand Companions disagreed on issues, and despite those disagreement would come to a mutual decision.
They had a leader (the prophet or khalifah) who had the final say. The two of us are in disagreement. Do you think there is any iota of possibility we could have consenus? Not likely unless one of us has the final say. You have to have a leader, other wise there is chaos or conflict.
What do you mean by "he would be reprimanded for allowing himself the audience of another woman". He is not sleeping with her, only proposing to her, why would a man be reprimanded for asking a woman this question?
Lets say in my scenario, the orphan's wali approaches the man and gives her hand in marriage to him. He has not even seen the girl or talked with her. Now please answer my question, do you think this nikkah is invalid because he did not get permission from first wife who is in a far away land? |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 4:43 AM
>>They had a leader (the prophet or khalifah) who had the final say.
Yes, but that Caliph was answerable to criticism by the Council. His decisions were based on the people's consensus.
>>The two of us are in disagreement. Do you think there is any iota of possibility we could have consenus?
Our disagreement has to do with our understanding of the Koran and its purport. We are not making decisions here that affect us both. There is a difference. If there were a decision to be made, I would deem a consensus to happen with both sides yielding a bit and adopting a middle ground. Makes sense?
>> He is not sleeping with her, only proposing to her, why would a man be reprimanded for asking a woman this question?
For the simple reason, that while fornication is forbidden, even approaching toward it is severly condemned. That is why relations with the opposite gender are discouraged.
A man who proposes, must have set his eyes upon a woman, when he was ordered to lower his gaze. He must have thought about her, let himself be raptured, and then making use of the loophole in the law, went ahead to justify and legalize his indiscretionary actions.
>>Lets say in my scenario, the orphan's wali approaches the man and gives her hand in marriage to him. He has not even seen the girl or talked with her.
Before I answer this, let me know which man in his right frame of mind will accept the hand of a woman he has not seen. For all I could say, no one is so naive?
Anyways, Oosman I will leave the discussion here. |
|
saadiamalik
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 6:57 AM
Regarding "legalized adultery", as coined by Junaidj, although the expression itself may not be appropriate, the sense does seem to be supported by the Qur'an, even in the case of the first nikaah, IF it is not carried out with the right intention. Pickthal's translation reads:
And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise. [Qur'an 4:24]
It seems, it is a pre-requisite for any nikaah to have valid bases. Debauchery and lust do not seem good enough bases. Otherwise, mut'ah would not have been so outrageous an idea.
Edited by: saadiamalik on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 6:58 AM |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 4:30 PM
Assalam alaikum,
Thank you saadiamalik. This settles the issue that nikkah should not be hidden from first wife or any one else, that might be construed as debauchery by the husband.
But does the husband need her permission? That is the question now.
As for Junaid, please read again what you said:
"A man who proposes, must have set his eyes upon a woman, when he was ordered to lower his gaze. He must have thought about her, let himself be raptured, and then making use of the loophole in the law, went ahead to justify and legalize his indiscretionary actions."
How on Earth is a man supposed to propose to a woman without setting his gaze on her? How would you do it? Besides, it is permissible to look at a woman for the purpose of seeking a wife. I can give you reference from Bukhari if you like.
You said >>> Before I answer this, let me know which man in his right frame of mind will accept the hand of a woman he has not seen.
Your contradictions are very amusing. If one looks at a woman, then he is guilty. If he does not look at her before proposing, then he is naive.
Now answer my question please. Assume that the man looks at the orphan for a second only, talks to her wali who being poor himself cannot afford to keep her. The man has no lust in his heart and feels pity for the way the girl is in, old and dirty clothes full of pathces, bare feet, dust all over, hungry and weak. He decides to marry her for the sake of Allah only.
Your proposition requires him to seek permission from first wife which might not be possible due to lack of communication. This prevents him from doing a noble deed and possibly saving another human being from a life of a destitute or possibly starvation and disease. She might end up living like a beggar or go into prostituition to support herself. This is true today for many Afghan war widows and orphans in Pakistan.
And if you think, this is a very unlikely event, then think again. Have you read about the men who left their homes for jihaad in Chechya and Afghanistan? I recommend you read about them, this is how they live in jihaad fee sabeel-lil-lah.
I would like to end by agreeing with you that the husband should not hide his other marriage from first wife. I would disagree with you by saying he does not need her permission to marry again. |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 5:13 PM
>>Your contradictions are very amusing. If one looks at a woman, then he is guilty. If he does not look at her before proposing, then he is naive.
One has to do with seeking a wife and it happens in an 'agreed upon setting', the other gazing has to do with satisfying his lust.
>>The man has no lust in his heart and feels pity for the way the girl is in, old and dirty clothes full of pathces, bare feet, dust all over, hungry and weak. He decides to marry her for the sake of Allah only.
>>Your proposition requires him to seek permission from first wife which might not be possible due to lack of communication. This prevents him from doing a noble deed and possibly saving another human being from a life of a destitute or possibly starvation and disease. She might end up living like a beggar or go into prostituition to support herself. This is true today for many Afghan war widows and orphans in Pakistan.
>>And if you think, this is a very unlikely event, then think again. Have you read about the men who left their homes for jihaad in Chechya and Afghanistan? I recommend you read about them, this is how they live in jihaad fee sabeel-lil-lah.
First, going to Chechnya, Afghanistan for Jihad is a bit iffy. But I won't get into that.
Second, no man has a right to make unilateral decisions as if he were above reproach. His primary responsibility lies with taking care of his family as opposed to creating a new home, at the expense of the first. Considering the anticipation that he might get killed. What madness?
And I will repeat, Shariah does not ask of permission, so we can introduce such laws.
Edited by: junaidj on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 6:31 PM |
|
saadiamalik
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 5:57 PM
quote:
Thank you saadiamalik. This settles the issue that nikkah should not be hidden from first wife or any one else, that might be construed as debauchery by the husband.
I don't think the verse says that if a nikaah is hidden, it'll be construed as debauchery. Rather, that debauchery should not be the bases for going into a nikaah.
Just thought I'd clarify. |
|
 Reply to Topic 
Printer Friendly |
| Jump To: |
|
|
|