Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
lfatima

Is A Woman Man's 'property'?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

As far as the ahadith regarding "possession/jealousy", would you - or alimohamad40 or anyone else here - happen to have the references to these ahadith; and be able to post them here (both the arabic and actual translation into english, as well as the link to the source)?

Is there any particular hadith that you are looking for here, or just general ahadith about jealousy? Sorry, I haven't read through all the posts on this thread, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.

(salam)

Thanks for standing by your sisters.

You're welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any particular hadith that you are looking for here, or just general ahadith about jealousy? Sorry, I haven't read through all the posts on this thread, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.

(salam)

I was referring to the ahadith mentioned in Post #36 (on the second page). However, upon review, I think it is evident from the translations that they refer to the concept of jealousy, and not necessarily the concept of ownership/property. This is my understanding; and I hope that's pretty accurate. Allahu alim.

Thank you, though, Bro. Fyst for your willingness to help others (including me) progress in attempting to understand references that have been cited in this thread - jazaaka Allah khairan.

Jazaakum Allah khairan for everyone's help;

wasalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Note from Moderator: I am going to remove personal attacks, off topic posts and the discussion of marital rape. If you wish to discuss that topic, please start a separate thread elsewhere and remember to discuss it in a way that is appropriate for all age levels

Sorry if I missed any posts... it wasn't intentional

]

Edited by BintAlHoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Ifatima:

I dont mean to insult you or call you names but I mean to condemn anti islamic comments and culture,,,, you seem to misunderstand me and think that i support forced mariage and support indian culture and women giving dowery and all these things ,,,,

I never said any of this, And i never said your a lesbian Astaghfirullah , if i say some thing like this without having 4 witnesses i must be lashed For Qathf.....

You need to read what i say and i agree with many of the topics that you brought up about many of the subcontinant cultures being anti islamic

And so is the rest of the world

And i dont say the wife has to cook for the man or breastfeed his child without a reward ,

I dont belive she has to clean the house for no reward either ,

or that the wife is not entitled to her own money and doesnt deserve nafaqah if she was rich.

Or that she Has to blindly obay her husband even if his order was causing her to sin and harming her.

And i clearly said that the basic law is: "No obedionce for creation in disobaying the creator"

I didnt say The mother in laws owning the wife is a good thing as with the case of the subcontinant..

I didnt say any of these things so please dont assume all these things about me

I didnt say female infentocide is good or the anti female child policy fo china is good

I didnt say sexism and gender worship is good and allways belived that its a form of selfishness

the only thing i said was " The nature of the relationship between a husband and his permenant wife is a form of posession in the sense that he has the right to physical intimacy at any time and she can not leave or do anything that would interfere with his right and therefore is in a great commitment "

[Edited - topic has been removed from thread]

When we folow a religion we can not only take the things which are in our advantage and ignore the things which are in teh advantage of the other people because that would be self centrism and selfishness and hypocricy.

Fyst and the others:

Me and Fyst both pasted the same chapter from Rislat alhoqooq for imam Zaynol Abedeen however There are two differences between my version and his version.

The first difference is that in my version the chapter is Titled:

Haq Al Mamlooka = The Right of the Possessed Female

And in the version that Fyst has pasted it is Titled:

Haq Alzawjah = The right of the wife

The content of the chapter is the same word for words which prooves we are both talking about the same chapter.

The difference in the chapter title shoudlnt matter because my conclusion is from The content of the chapter not from the Title,

Even if you we take Fyst's Version

I AM STILL RIGHT

Because the version that Fyst pasted is Translated Wrongly , the word ãáß ÇáäßÇÍ Mulk Alnikaah is translated to "your subject through matrimonial contract "

A smell of appology on the translator's behalf. I woudlnt be surprised if the chapter Title was also changed for that same reason

(I bolded that word which is translated wrongly in the arabic text in both Fyst and My versions and as you see they are identical words)

The word is:

Mulk Alnikah means = The possession through marriage

go and ask any arab what " Mulk " means and what "nikah" means

Why do they call the king Malik ??? because of the word Mulk which means he posesses and owns the town

I will paste both Fyst and my version and you could see and compare for yourselves:

This is the Fyst version:

ÍÞ ÇáÒæÌÉ

æóÃãøóÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÇ ÍóÞøõ ÑóÚöíøóÊößó Èãöáúßö ÇáäøßóÇÍö ÝóÃóäú ÊóÚúáóãó Ãóäøó Çááøóåó ÌóÜÚóÜáóÜåóÜÇ ÓóßóäðÇ æóãõÓúÊóÑóÇÍðÇ æóÃõäúÓðÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÇ æóæóÇÞöíÉð¡ æóßóÐóáößó ßõáøõ æóÇÍöÏò ãöäúßõãóÇ íóÌöÈõ Ãóäú íóÍúãóÏó Çááøóåó Úóáóì ÕóÇÍöÈåö¡ æíóÚúáóÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜãó Ãóäøó Ðóáößó äöÚúãóÉñ ãöäúåõ Úóáóíúåö. æóæóÌóÈó Ãóäú íõÍúÓöÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜäó ÕõÍúÈóÉó äöÚúãóÉö Çááøóåö æóíõßúÑöãóåóÇ æíóÑúÝóÞó ÈåóÇ æóÅäú ßóÇäó ÍóÞøõßó ÚóáóíúåóÇ ÃóÛúáóÙó(18) æóØóÇÚóÊößó ÈåóÇ ÃóáúÒóãó ÝöíãóÇ ÃóÍúÈÈúÊó æóßóÑöåúÊó ãóÇ áóãú Êóßäú ãóÚúÕöíÉð¡ ÝÅäøó áóåóÇ ÍóÞøõ ÇáÑøóÍÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜúãóÉõ æóÇáúãõÄóÇäóÓóÉö¡ æóãóæúÖöÚõ ÇáÓøõßõæäö ÅáóíåóÇ ÞóÖóÇÁó ÇááøóÐøóÉö ÇáøóÊöí áÇ ÈõÏøó ãöäú ÞóÖóÇÆöåóÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÇ æóÐóáößó ÚóÙöíÜÜÜÜÜãñ. æóáÇ ÞõæøóÉó ÅáÇ ÈÇááåö.

20- THE RIGHT OF THE WIFE:

And the right of your subject through matrimonial contract is that you should know that God has made her repose, a comfort and a companion, and a maintainer for you. It is incumbent upon each of you to thank God for the other and realize that the other one is God's blessing for you. It is obligatory to be a good companion for God's Blessing, and to honor her and treat her gently. Yet, your right over her is more incumbent and she must obey you in every matter that you like or detest- except in acts of disobedience to God. She should enjoy the rights of mercy and intimacy, as she is an object of tranquility. You should care for her through consummation of the lust that must be consummated. And that is surely great. And there is no power but in God.

And This is my Version:

ÍÞ ÇáããáæßÉ:

(æÃãÇ ÍÞ ÑÚíÊß Èãáß ÇáäßÇÍ ÝÅä ÊÚáã Ãä Çááå ÌÚáåÇ ÓßäÇð æãÓÊÑÇÍÇð¡ æÃäÓÇð ææÇÞíÉ¡ æßÐáß ßá æÇÍÏ ãäßãÇ íÌÈ Ãä íÍãÏ Çááå Úáì ÕÇÍÈå¡ æíÚáã Ãä Ðáß äÚãÉ ãäå Úáíå¡ ææÌÈ Ãä íÍÓä ÕÍÈÉ äÚãÉ Çááå¡ æíßÑãåÇ æíÑÝÞ ÈåÇ¡ æÅä ßÇä ÍÞß ÚáíåÇ ÃÛáÙ¡ æØÇÚÊß ÈåÇ ÇáÒã Ýí ãÇ ÃÍÈÈÊ æßÑåÊ¡ ãÇ áã Êßä ãÚÕíÉ¡ ÝÅä áåÇ ÍÞ ÇáÑÍãÉ¡ æÇáãÄÇäÓÉ¡ æãæÖÚ ÇáÓßæä ÅáíåÇ ÞÖÇÁ ÇááÐÉ ÇáÊí áÇÈÏ ãä ÞÖÇÆåÇ¡ æÐáß ÚÙíã¡ æáÇ ÞæÉ ÅáÇ ÈÇááå...).

æÃæÕì ÇáÅãÇã (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) ãä íãáß æØÁ ÇãÑÃÉ Èãáß Çáíãíä Ãä íÞÇÈáåÇ ÈÇáÑÃÝÉ æÇáÅÍÓÇä¡ æíÞæã ÈÑÚÇíÊåÇ¡ æáíÚáã Ãä ãÇ ÇÓÊÍáå ãäåÇ ÅäãÇ åæ äÚãÉ ãä Çááå Úáíå¡ ÝÇááÇÒã Úáíå ÑÚÇíÉ Êáß ÇáäÚãÉ¡ æÑÚÇíÊåÇ ÑÚÇíÉ ßÇãáÉ.

20- THE RIGHT OF THE POSSESSED WOMAN:

the right of the female by the posession of marriage is to know that god made her a tranquility and comfort for you , and happiness and protection. likewise each of you has to thank god for his companion. and to know that its a favour from god to them. and its obligatory to have good companionship with the favour of god. ....

I dont belive Fyst intentionally changed the words but i belive Fyst falsely accused me of misqouting the imam and i hope he wil retract cause its very clear from the content of the chapter if he looks hard , I dont know if Fyst speaks arabic or no but i belive he can ask anyone what Mulk Alnikaah means, its simple only two words, does it mean "possession through marriage" or "subject through matrimonial contract"

or as Fyst translates

"by authority via/through Nikah"

It All comes down to the menaing of the word "MULK" , Does MULK mean:

1) authority

or

2) subject

or

3) posession

?

To help you out i wil qoute the vesre whre a derivative of the work MULK has been used:

Wa ma malakat Aymanukum

What your right hand posessed

So is it posession or authority or subject ????

So, show me where our Imam said that "women are properties of the men", as you have repeatedly claimed on this thread. The Arabic phrase used is "be mulkin nikaah", which means "by authority via/through Nikah", not "mulkuhu bi nikaah", which would mean "whom you own through Nikah".

I dont think you know Arabic so its hard for me to explain the grammer

I will correct for you:

Bi Mulk Alnikah = By the Possession of Marriage

Mulk Bi AlNikah = Posession By Marriage

both agree with my contention

H

ere the slave is explicitly described as being "owned", while the wife is not described as being a possession. Just because the husband's right on his wife is greater than the wife's right on his husband does not make the wife's position akin to a slave. Even parents have a much greater right on their children than the children have on their parents, but the children cannot be considered as "slaves" of their parents.

well the version i read Also describes the wife as the " owned Woman " in the title

let alone when the imam says " those whom you owned through marriage"

I Will put a vocie recording of some one readin the same chapter and you will see that the title for the chapter of the wife is called

" Haq Almamlooka"

" the right of the owned woman "

listen to the voice atatchement below

Edited by BintAlHoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^

sorry the Voice doesnt say the chapters titles he just reads the contents

but the whole section in this book is called

"Haqq AlRa3yah"

"The rights of the Folowers"

and it includes the slave , the wife , the strudent who you teach

here is the link for my version of the Book:

http://www.14masom.com/14masom/06/mktba6/book01/9.htm

The chapter of the wife is Titled:

The right of the Owned Woman

Then in the chapter he refers to the permenant wife as:

The woman owned through marriage

I am afraid it will Disappoint all the appologetics because it leaves no room for appology,,, appologize to god not to the west [Edited - please be polite]

Edited by BintAlHoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam allaikum,

Once you guys get married, Men and and women...all these "problems" will go away.

:)

Every creation of Allah has a nature and if they follow that nature then that is where happiness comes. If you go against your nature then always unhappiness will follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My friends brother had a baby girl just before Muharram, he felt disappointed when he had a girl. I was like, BRO, WHATS WRONG WITH YOU! i would love it if my first child was a daughter. I dnt get why some people dnt like daughters!

Mashallah... a daughter is Bibi Fatemeh Zehra's (s.a) gift, Not that I say just to say, I say this through my experience. Before I gave birth to child, I & my husband wished for a boy, not that we dint want a girl, I love girls but out of our love for Imam Asr(atf). As a boy could be of help (not that Imam needs any help) as a Ghulam(Servant), but I delivered, Mashallah a cute baby girl :unsure: , the moment I came to know its girl I told my husband "I'm sorry I couldnt give a soldier". I shiver as I mention it to you, As soon my husband heard me apologise, he said, don't be and when I inquired to my shock, he said he knew it was going to be a girl. When asked how, he said he dreamt one night before the birth, when he slept after his prayer's wishing a boy, Bibi Fatemeh Zehra's(s.a) feeling came in his dream telling I gift you a girl. So you see why do we think that only a boy can be of help to Imam Asr(atf), even girls would play a big role, both would have there own respective missions, its all how you bring up your child. So I say all the daughter's are Bibi Fatemeh Zehra's(sa) gift to us :!!!: , its just we need to understand.

And for those who think boys take forward there clan, why do you forget after all even Our great Rasool's(s.a.w) clan is taken forward by his very daughter Bibi Fatemeh Zehra(sa).

And So I thank Allah(s.w.t) for giving me a daughter and as she is a Syed I just pray Allah(s.w.t) to help me bring her up in a good manner, Inshallah. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It All comes down to the menaing of the word "MULK" , Does MULK mean:

1) authority

or

2) subject

or

3) posession

?

Yes, it all comes down to what mulk means. You are translating it solely as "possession". While it is true that this term is usually translated as such, it is also translated as "authority". For example, we read in the Qur'an:

[2:247]

æóÞóÇáó áóåõãú äóÈöíøõåõãú Åöäøó Çááøåó ÞóÏú ÈóÚóËó áóßõãú ØóÇáõæÊó ãóáößðÇ ÞóÇáõæóÇú Ãóäøóì íóßõæäõ áóåõ Çáúãõáúßõ ÚóáóíúäóÇ æóäóÍúäõ ÃóÍóÞøõ ÈöÇáúãõáúßö ãöäúåõ æóáóãú íõÄúÊó ÓóÚóÉð ãøöäó ÇáúãóÇáö ÞóÇáó Åöäøó Çááøåó ÇÕúØóÝóÇåõ Úóáóíúßõãú æóÒóÇÏóåõ ÈóÓúØóÉð Ýöí ÇáúÚöáúãö æóÇáúÌöÓúãö æóÇááøåõ íõÄúÊöí ãõáúßóåõ ãóä íóÔóÇÁ æóÇááøåõ æóÇÓöÚñ Úóáöíãñ

[2:247] Their Prophet said to them: "Allah hath appointed Talut as king over you." They said: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?" He said: "Allah hath Chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: Allah Granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth. Allah careth for all, and He knoweth all things."

---------

The Bani Isra'eel are questioning how Ta'lut can hold authority over them, not how he can be their owner. It doesn't even make sense to assume that they are objecting to Ta'lut becoming their "owner", while they are claiming to be more deserving of being "owners" instead of him. It is clear from that verse that mulk is also used as holding authority in classical Arabic, depending on the context of its usage, so your claim that "bi mulkin nikaah" can only mean "possession of marriage" is invalid.

In fact, translating it as "possession of nikah" doesn't even make sense, since it implies that the "nikah" is being possessed, not the wife. If the phrase was "mulkuhu bin nikaah", then it would clearly mean "whom you own through marriage". In the case of the slave, the word "mulkuhu" is explicitly used, which leaves no doubt about the slave being the property of the owner. But for the wife, the phrase "bi mulkin nikaah" would make more sense if translated as "by authority of marriage", rather than "by possession of marriage", since marriage is a contract, and contracts provide authority, not ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well the version i read Also describes the wife as the " owned Woman " in the title
The chapter of the wife is Titled:

The right of the Owned Woman

The title of the chapter is not part of the Imam's words. You think Imam Sajjad [a] stopped in the middle of his speech to point out that the next part of his speech has such and such a title? The titles are added by the compilers of the ahadith in order to organize the book. Read the original form of the hadith and you will come across no titles at all:

http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/lib-...f_oqul/a60.html

Your insistence in referring to the title of the chapter for evidence of your claim just shows how little substance you have to back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some very masogynistic comments, but some really wise ones too.

If anyone enters a marriage with the intention of ownership, you have my best wishes because you're going to need it. Although, I suspect these people are either single or in an unhealthy relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam alaikum

source: IJMA3IYAAT FIQH ALSHIA

AYOTALLAHALSAYED ISMAEL AL-HUSSAINI MAR'ASHI

He is the son of the esteemed Leader of the Samarra Hawza. He studied in both the Najaf and Samarra Hawzas and reached level of ijtihaad. His established his seminary in Ahwaz but during the Iran/iraq war it was destroyed and many of students killed. He then moved to Tehran. He died at the age of 85, 3 years ago.

Some of his renowned teachers were:

Sayed Mohamad Redha Altustari

Sheikh Mohamad Hussein Kashif Al-Ghataa

Sayed Mohsin Al-Hakeem

Sayed Al-Khoei

æáÇ ÊãäÚ ÇáÒæÌíøÉ ãä ÇáÔÑÇÁ æÃäæÇÚ ÇáãÚÇãáÇÊ ßÇáåÈÉ æäÍæåÇ ¡ ÝÅäø ÇÓÊÞÑÇÑ ãáßíøÉ ÃÍÏ ÇáÒæÌíä ááÂÎÑ íÈØá ÇáÒæÌíøÉ ¡ ÝÅÐÇ Êãáøß ÇáÒæÌ ÒæÌÊå íÈØá ÇáäßÇÍ æÊÍáø áå Èãáß Çáíãíä ¡ áÃäø ÇáÈÖÚ áÇ íÊÈÚøÖ ÝáÇ íÌÊãÚ Çáãáß æÇáÒæÌíøÉ ¡ æßÐáß ÅÐÇ ÊãáøßÊ ÇáãÑÃÉ (ÇáÒæÌÉ) ÒæÌåÇ ÊÈØá ÇáÒæÌíøÉ ; áÃäø ÇáãáßíÉ ãÇäÚÉ ááÒæÇÌ ÝáÇ íÌæÒ ááãÑÃÉ Ãä ÊäßÍ ÚÈÏåÇ æããáæßåÇ ¡ æáÇ ááÚÈÏ Ãä íäßÍ ãæáÇÊå ¡ Ýáæ ÇÔÊÑÊ ÇáãÑÃÉ ÒæÌåÇ æÞÕÏÊ Êãáøßå Ãæ æõåöÈó áåÇ ÇáÚÈÏ æÞÈáÊ ÇäÝÓÎÊ ÇáÒæÌíÉ æÇÓÊÞÑø Çáãáß ¡ æãáß ÇáÈÚÖ ßÇáßáø

What he is basically saying is that if one spouse possesses the other then 'marriage' is invalidated. If the man claims as possession his wife, the marriage is invalidated and she becomes halal only by means of 'mulk yameen' ……………………………

In the prominent hadeeth books you will find a comprehensive section on (abeed and amaas- females and males that are owned by masters - aka slaves) and yes they allow for a man to marry - in the sense that most are referring to in this thread - his slave girl, who is technically categorized as his possession, BUT the condition is that he has to set her free. He is also allowed to declare her freedom as mahr.

Lets not forget that laws relating to the 'free woman wife' and the 'slave girl, mulk yameen wife' differ dramatically, eg the nafaqa (maintenance, inheritance, rights ….etc etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some very masogynistic comments, but some really wise ones too.

If anyone enters a marriage with the intention of ownership, you have my best wishes because you're going to need it. Although, I suspect these people are either single or in an unhealthy relationship.

lol. good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am afraid it will Disappoint all the appologetics because it leaves no room for appology

(salam)

i don't know whether the chapter titles were transmitted with the text or not (as fyst mentioned), but i do know that just because it is translated that way does not mean it is "apologetic". the job of a translator is to make the material as easy to understand as possible, and "wife" is a much easier phrase to understand than the literal translation you wrote above.

additionally, that section of the risalat al huquq is about people who are under authority (hence the term "mulk") and not necessarily property. such as subjects under a government's rule - but i am sure no one would call them "property". because that would make u the property of the gov't in ur country...

additionally... what does it mean to you to say that a wife is "property"? that is more important than what the literal translation of some words.

Edited by BintAlHoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anyone enters a marriage with the intention of ownership, you have my best wishes because you're going to need it. Although, I suspect these people are either single or in an unhealthy relationship.

i find most couples really do follow one of two models - the "ownership" model where the husband controls the wife like a child, or else the "partnership" model where they work together to build a family. (and then there are the families where the woman is in charge too of course, but it is still a different dynamic)

to each their own i suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

ISLAM isn't about culture. 1400 yrs have gone and we still havent got it?????????

Peace!

i have to say a BIG THANK YOU to you dear ,,, really. this is our prblm..... all i've learned and still learning from my perfect and beautiful religion ISLAM that my religion is about love, respect, cooperating, and many many more good things between all human beings esp wife n husband.

but some of us unfortunatly ...... !!!!

Fari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'

lol. good one.

(salam)

regrdless ofwhat ppl may say, if you read the Kalima, the whole notion of human beings "owning each other is null and void. Thats the whole point of : La Ilaha Il Allah.

Its another thing to be somone's cartaker/ trustee etc. like for a child or an old parent or a wife etc.

-Dislike of the female child is a Jahilliyah phenomenon, epitomised by the pagan Arabs and the nasibis. One of the purposes of the Risalat and His message was to remove it. If we still even have notion like that, then we are 1400 yrs behind.

- Syeds are in no way something to be proud of. I mean its great and all, but its a very desi phenomenon remning me of caste/tribal arrogance. The only place trhe Sadaat factor comes in is in the dispnesation of Zakat, and this was not in their favour.. coz Allah SWT wanted to remove clan based priveleges, even for the Prophet's clan.

It really gets me when I hear Syeds talking about this,.. I have seen women die in my family circle coz of the mental torutre "Syed" families put them thru for not being Syed but Pathan// Mirza etc. I still bring it up with my own relatives. some of who are soo hung up on it.

Peace!

i have to say a BIG THANK YOU to you dear ,,, really. this is our prblm..... all i've learned and still learning from my perfect and beautiful religion ISLAM that my religion is about love, respect, cooperating, and many many more good things between all human beings esp wife n husband.

but some of us unfortunatly ...... !!!!

Fari

(salam)

Thanks dear! Yes, it frustrates me to no end..:) I love watching so many Muslim couples.. there is something sooo special about 'em MashaAllah.. most of the " nice" marriages I mean..

I know sooooo many non Muslim friends who want to marry Muslims for this reason.. even if their society doesnt approve..:)

Peace n Duas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Note from Moderator: Inappropriate comments, personal attacks and/or responses have been deleted. Please see above note.]

Edited by BintAlHoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam) ,

I just don't understand why man are so eager to get woman under their oppresion....? I think love and care are the best weapon to win any one's heart and if a husband takes good care of his, I don't see any reason why wife would not love him to death which translates into what all man want an obedient and caring wife! Don't' ya think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem here is we have allot of people improvising answers, the same people who thought women could be leaders are now in this thread making a new campaign after being told that it is preferred that women not even leave the house and that it is better for a man to keep her in the house..so now these people are coming here with the answer theyre given in the other threads and making some improvised religious doctrine

my concern is not about words like "authority or posession" it is about women coming here saying it is permissible to disobey your husband

It's not oppression for a wife to obey her husband, it is honorable for her to do that ..if a wife disobeys her husband he angers him and if a husband is angered the angels will curse her. theres nothing wrong with a woman listening to her husband, whether you want to call the woman property or a man having authority over her is not my concern in this topic...for many western and non islamic believers ...if a wife wants to travel anywhere she must have permission (written permission) from the husband for them this is barbaric and we are oppressing our women, but yet this is our law not culture and they have a duty to us like we to them ..some people seem to like degrading most muslim women (who are obedient and care for their husband) as slaves and servants, well sorry but they are 10X better than anyone calling them that

it is that some women here actually believe that they will not be confronted one day about disobeying their husbands

according to some scholars if a woman disobeys her husband and he takes the necessary steps (such as admonishing her) ..and she keeps disobeying him over and over (out of control wife) it is permissable for him to beat her -- شيخ عبد الحميد المهاجر but ofcourse these are not women that refuse to cook but refuse to listen to her husband in numerous cases..

a woman has the right to disobey her husband if he tells her to do something unislamic..but ofcourse a muslim believing husband wont do such a thing nor will he tell her to do something degrading so why should a muslim woman not listen to her husband? if she loves him she will do everything for him and Allah.

my personal opinion of women is that they arent possessions but that they have a great..great duty towards the husband like the husband has the duty of caring and protecting her..and unfortunately some sisters here refuse to accept that

Edited by Rubaiyat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if a wife wants to travel anywhere she must have permission (written permission) from the husband for them this is barbaric and we are oppressing our women, but yet this is our law not culture and they have a duty to us like we to them ..

are you referring to the law in iran, or islamic law in general?

i don't want to be picky, or to "not see the forest for the trees"... but just regarding that point, how could islamic law require women to take written permission from their husbands for travel while the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE BEEN ILLITERATE? it would have been absolutley impossible for most men to write that permission throughout most ages.

especially in light of the fact that, although the holy qur'an advises that contracts be written, most serious contracts (such as marriage) are verbal, not written. so documentation is not an essential part of our religion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are you referring to the law in iran, or islamic law in general?

i don't want to be picky, or to "not see the forest for the trees"... but just regarding that point, how could islamic law require women to take written permission from their husbands for travel while the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE BEEN ILLITERATE? it would have been absolutley impossible for most men to write that permission throughout most ages.

especially in light of the fact that, although the holy qur'an advises that contracts be written, most serious contracts (such as marriage) are verbal, not written. so documentation is not an essential part of our religion

(salam)

Seriously.. you guys make me laugh.

IMagine BIbi Zainab (sa) running to her husband to get written permission to go to Karbala..nauzobillah

What planet are you guys living on??

By your logic Bibi Khadijatul Kubra SA couldnt have sent a marriage proposal to the Prophet.. after all she was a woman!

NOBODY and I sww NOBODY has a word to say when we talk about the Wife, daughter and grandughter of the Holy Prophet SAW.

The lesson for all women and the Quran itself.

Then u bring random fabricated hadiths.. and go on and on like the Sunnis about how women are this n that.

Im sorry but this is exaclty where the misogyny comes from. The Shia tradition belong to the women.. as much as the men. Its a tradition whose Saddat are MATRILINEAL. The Imam AS and the women and children went to Karbala! The only battle of its kind.. he didnt leave to women behind to sit at home and cook nihari!!

Ok PPL- SADAAT ARE DESCENDED FROM A DAUGHTER.

1400 YRS HAVE PASSED AND U GUYS STIL HAVENT GOT IT! IF A WOMAN IS INHERITABLE PROPERTY THEN HER DESCENDANTs DONT COUNT!!!! ( NAUZUBILLAH) EVERYTHING IS PROPERTY OF HER HUSBAND. IF A MAN HAS NO SONS, HE IS abTAR!!

Why dont you guys go and fight with Allah SWt about Surah al Kausar?? ( nauzubillah)

Hadd ho gayi.

Isnt that one the reasons they disliked BIbi Zehra SA?

HOw could a WOMAN get such a makaam and husband and FAdak on top if it??

These are tribal people, who inherit women like property and sexually abuse them and bury their baby daughters. We all know these cases. I always hear thwe Wahabis lash out at the Sadaat for THIS very reason. The poor fellows.

And then the Prophet SAw comes along with his Divine lil girl.. the Umme Abiha SA.. the wife of Ali (as).

Subhan Allah!

Guys, please wake up! :)

BTW, here is wot Imam Ali AS said about ppl who lock up their women at home, HIjaab is meant to be done OUTSIDE. If women were meant to live and die within their homes, there would be no need for hijaab. Gosh, its basic logic.

Qoute: Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 27

O’ you semblance of men, not men, your intelligence is that of children and your wit is that of the occupants of the curtained canopies (women kept in seclusion from the outside world).

http://www.al-huda.com/NB%20SM27.htm

Edited by lfatima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam) brothers and sisters

Please read this enlightening article on Bibi KHadija SA for what Islam LIVES for women's rights, and capitalism/socialism/ economics.

If each Muslim man was to give this book to his wife as mahr and his daugher as her first gift, the WHOLE UMMAH would change!!

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...p;#entry1579398

Peace!

Qoute: From Khadijatul Kubra, by Syed A. A Razwy

One of the most hideous customs of the Arabs of the times was that they buried their female infants alive. Whenever Waraqa heard that someone intended to bury his daughter alive, he went to see him, dissuaded him from killing his daughter, and if the reason for the contemplated murder was poverty, he ransomed her, and brought her up as his own child. In most cases, the father later regretted his error, and came to claim his daughter. Waraqa exacted from him a pledge to love his daughter, and to treat her well, and only then let him take her back.

(NB** They showed this in the HIndi Movie Tammanah, where the good hearted Muslim eunuch brings up the lil Hindu girl left to die in a trashcan by her male worshipping parents)

Sounds familiar??: Read on

The pre-Islamic Arabs were semi-savages. An Arab spent his life in lawless warfare. Killing and plundering were his favorite professions. He tortured his prisoners of war to death, and torturing animals was one of his favorite pastimes. He had a perverse sense of honor which led him to kill his own infant daughters. If his wife gave birth to a daughter, he was unable to conceal his anguish and displeasure.

WHEN NEWS IS BROUGHT TO ONE OF THEM, OF (THE BIRTH OF) A FEMALE (CHILD), HIS FACE DARKENS, AND HE IS FILLED WITH INWARD GRIEF!

WITH SHAME DOES HE HIDE HIMSELF FROM HIS PEOPLE, BECAUSE OF THE BAD NEWS HE HAS HAD! SHALL HE RETAIN IT ON (SUFFERANCE AND) CONTEMPT, OR BURY IT IN THE DUST?

AH! WHAT AN EVIL (CHOICE) THEY DECIDE ON.

(Quran Majid. Chapter 16; verses 58, 59)

In most cases an Arab killed his daughter out of his fear that she would be made a prisoner in the inter-tribal wars, and therefore, a slave of the enemy, and her status as a slave would bring disgrace to his family and tribe. He could also kill her out of his fear of poverty. He believed that his daughter would become an economic liability to him. Islam made the killing of children a capital offence.

There were also those Arabs who did not kill their daughters but they deprived them of all their rights. They figured that since their daughters, when married, would go to other men's homes, they ought not to spend anything on them.

It was such an environment in which Khadija was born, grew up and lived - an "anti-woman" environment.

From her home in Makka, Khadija controlled an ever-growing business which spread into the neighboring countries. What she had succeeded in achieving, would be remarkable in any country, in any age, and for anyone - man or woman. But her achievement becomes doubly remarkable when one takes into account the "anti-woman" orientation of the Arab society. This is proof of her ability to master her destiny by her intelligence, strength of will and force of character. Her compatriots acknowledged her achievements when they called her the princess of the Quraysh and the princess of Makka, as noted before.But even more remarkably, Khadija also earned a third title. She was called "Tahira" which means "the pure one." Who bestowed the title of Tahira upon her? Incredibly, it was bestowed upon her by the same Arabs who were notorious for their arrogance, conceit, vanity and male chauvinism. But Khadija's conduct was so consistently exemplary that it won recognition even from them, and they called her "the pure one."

It was the first time in the history of Arabia that a woman was called the Princess of Makka and was also called Tahira. The Arabs called Khadija the princess of Makka because of her affluence, and they called her Tahira because of the immaculacy of her reputation.

Edited by lfatima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do we get to keep our last names???

(salam)

Course.

Its unislamic to force a women to change her 'kunya".

Last names changing is a Christian/ HIndu practise which has no validity in Islam.

:)

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

Course.

Its unislamic to force a women to change her 'kunya".

Last names changing is a Christian/ HIndu practise which has no validity in Islam.

:)

Peace!

Lol if thats your only argument as to why women are not property of men then somethings wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are you referring to the law in iran, or islamic law in general?

i don't want to be picky, or to "not see the forest for the trees"... but just regarding that point, how could islamic law require women to take written permission from their husbands for travel while the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE BEEN ILLITERATE? it would have been absolutley impossible for most men to write that permission throughout most ages.

especially in light of the fact that, although the holy qur'an advises that contracts be written, most serious contracts (such as marriage) are verbal, not written. so documentation is not an essential part of our religion

Beloved Bint Hoda

I am refering to the general islamic law which is applied in KSA as well as Iran..now and a thousand years ago

It is necessary that the woman gets written permission from her guardian or husband if she wishes to travel

Miss Fatema when you say why did Zainab (a) go with Hussein (a) it is because Ali (a) permitted her to go with beloved Hussein (a) and told her husband he should not stop her

Also Bint Hoda, many things were not documented in those days, sobhanallah like you said..not even our Holy Goran which today we find in bookform, the reason is that society changes but islam does not

and with the high rise of for instance women trafficking (perhaps you have seen my youtube video) kidnappings, etc. in islamic lands and outside it is necessary to get the proper permission from husband or father

"Written permission" is not a new concept but even during the prophet (s) when he made peace with Ahloul Ketab, he let his soldiers write his wishes and put a seal (stamp) below (similar to when u read a fatva from a scholar below he always has a seal authenticating it is him who permitted such and such)

Edited by Rubaiyat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Edited]

salaams,

[Edited]

Well, I am no expert, but I do know that I have never once read in the quran that women are considered property of men. In fact, Allah specifically differentiates between wives and "what the right hand possesses", which should be enough to show any logical person that women are not property of men.

[Note: As stated in the above note, all personal comments towards or about other members are being removed from this thread. Please let us know if we miss any]

Edited by BintAlHoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol if thats your only argument as to why women are not property of men then somethings wrong

(salam)

WOt r u tallking about. I am replying to the sisters question about last names.

Please read the question before jumping to random conclusions.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...