Just breaking this away from the other slagging match.
The title is something that anonymous1 said in her post. I want proof.
User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 634
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
If you are going to demand proof, go search for it yourself.
If you ask nicely, I might provide it for you.
It is shocking how freely you speak about complex topics in Islam as if you have authority and learning and you have no knowledge of this very well known point in Islamic jurisprudence that one learns in basic classes of Hanafi fiqh!
Also to address:
It is not "purchasing her divorce", but returning the mahr.
I have a question about courts though - were they originally legislated or did they come later due to need where the husband may not have accepted that he was divorced/refused it altogether?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
You can take it how you wish. there are other people on here too, who may not answer but they will at the same time not say "I am not saying that you're a hindu, but..."
I question your mindset and its validity in its entirety. the entire basis seems twisted to me, where you even question human fitrah as being pure.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
It is not taking it how I wish - it is taking what is written - a demand - I WANT PROOF! Your reluctance to ask civilly is indicative of the original intent.
Vitriolic hatred against other Muslims and groups is not the same as an analogy in a discussion.
You no doubt have googled and found Hanafis do believe the wife is being purchased - no wonder you don't need the answer now
And maybe you can provide a link or citation where I have said "where I even question human fitrah as being pure" ?
seriously? purchasing? thats like all the women rights gone down the drain. :S
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
actually, no I have not Googled it. If I had, i would not need to open this topic.
Besides, your allegations and insinuations have put me in a mood where I do not want to say please or thank you to you. The only words I do want to say are profanities.
Here you go:
and the whole following discussion.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
No Blue - it's different rights for men and different rights for women.
That's why we need to study and seriously consider the "women's rights" they talk about in the west as they are generally nonsense - women are regularly abused, beaten etc despite the rhetoric of equality!
Islam builds on reality and does not come out with cheap slogans that don't actually work for creation. Men are different to women so their duties/rights are different - men have more duties and correspondingly more rights - women have less duties and less rights.
To try equating women's rights in Islam with those in the west or even to give that impression is dangerous as a little investigation will soon show what the truth is! And expose those who pose such arguments about Islam as liars!
Modernists and secularists (like quilliam etc) try to get around this by changing Islam itself! Traditionalists and conservatives (like hamza yusuf, murad, HT, deobandis etc) oppose this!
Throwing acid in women's faces is not something that I am aware of happening in the west too often. It seems to be a scourge in parts of the Muslim world.
So, no its not as simple as your posts suggests either. I would suspect there is a lot of violence in the Muslim world that is simple not reported or tolerated.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
The discussion is not about what idiots do in the Muslim world where secular nationalist ideologies are applied and Islam has no place. Thus what jokers there do is irrelevant to the discussion.
Except that you were using the example of western jokers to make your point.
there is no law in the west that promotes abuse or domestic violence.
I was just invalidating your argument.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I understand the point you're making but I had cited the case of practice in the UK as it is legitimately driven by secularism too and the cases in the Muslim world are not driven by Islam.
The western jokers I cited actually follow secular philosophy when they beat their wives - given secularism's confusion of how to determine morality, it becomes a free for all, with everyone determining halal/haram themselves. Thus one finds massive contradictions with what rights/duties they legislate (and their incompatability the the nature of man/woman!) and what the broad masses do with the same philosophy (wife beating/abuse being a case in question done by a large number of people!)
Islam however provides a consistent creed, rights/duties - which when applied in society the masses follow it collectively and individually - just look at the history of the Caliphate. Given the system works and is compatible with human nature and is internally coherent and consistent, there are no mass discrepancies. Abuse in Islam is not justified or carried out by those who follow Islam - they have to step away from Islam to do it, using philosophies like secularism.
How is it driven by secularism?
As far as i know, domestic abuse is a crime in the secular west. Atleast I think it is here in the UK and would assume it is in many other countries too.
You're just making stuff up now!
(and that is apart from the argument that the qur'an according to many translations allows light chastisement.)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
anon1: can you provide evidence for your claim.
+1 and please
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
For which claim ? I make quite a few...
How does secularism determine right/wrong? If you can answer that you can answer your question.
Yes a husband can discipline a wife like he can discipline his children. And? Is that somehow connected to or justify domestic abuse/violence?
Maybe not secularism per se, but the UK has this thing called "the law" (criminal aspects of which are policed by "the police") and that bans domestic violence.
Yes a husband can discipline a wife like he can discipline his children. And? Is that somehow connected to or justify domestic abuse/violence? [/quote]
There are people who argue that this gives men the right to beat women.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
this one:
"the hanafis even believe the marriage contract with payment from him is purchasing her!"
I kept my "polemic" nice and simple - but your keen eye seems to have missed a critical question, which I will re-ask.
How does secularism determine right/wrong?
Secondly, people can try justifying anything from Quran and Sunnah - look at the absurd secularists and modernists who deny the Caliphate despite many texts on the topic, the practice of the Prophet(saw) and the Companions after him, and favour a foreign ideolgoy that was born in Europe, with a false creed, principles and premises along with a rubbish system. If people believe that, it doesn't surprise me people gain a corrupt view that one can beat wives from the same sources.
As I showed earlier, superficially one can even reconcile Hinduism into Islam! But only the gullable would buy the argument - and there's plenty of them about! Just look at those who love democracy
"They told me I was gullable and I believed them!"
Let's return to the real world shall we.
In The UK we have The Law which is enforced by The Police.
Which part of that structure promotes domestic violence?
your initial assertion was "women are regularly abused, beaten etc despite the rhetoric of equality!" followed by "but I had cited the case of practice in the UK as it is legitimately driven by secularism".
You have failed to prove that it is driven by the secularism or tolerated by the laws set in the secular west.
laws in the UK and laws relating to criminal activity atleast are enforced by the police. That is the real world.
Now show me where that promotes domestic abuse.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Except that you can't.
the fact that it was not rigorously challenged was not because of it having validity but due to the preposterous nature of the allegation.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Given you've asked so nicely, no problems - have a look at the following well known Hanafi text that summarises the dominant position - it's available in English from Amazon I think:
Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani, al-Hidayah fi sharh bidayat al-mubtadi, Ch. Nikah, pp. 475-6
The gist of their argument is that all agree the marriage is a contract comprising offer and acceptance, payment (from the husband) and conditions - however what is the substance of the contract as all contracts must have a substance over which matters are being contracted - for which payment is being made from one party to the other.
They argue that if one looks at the evidences, one notices that the wife comes under the total control of the husband, even required to provide him sex when he asks for it. They believe that from all of the rights confered by these texts one can only conclude that he acquires ownership over his wife (they are a little more explicit about the exact part of the wife but we don't need to go there!).
Firstly, I did not say the law encourages domestic abuse - I said secularism does - address the argument rather than straw men please.
So you do not know how right/wrong is determined by society in the country you live in - there's no shame in admitting it - maybe you can do a google, 50/50, ask the audience...
Using secular/modernist methodology and premises you can - and you cannot refute such a preposterous allegation despite your attempt to do so
As having to do it you will find your house of democractic cards collapses... but then preposterous allegations help separate false arguments/conclusions from the truth.
you must have heard the saying "don't argue with a fool because you will be brought down to the fools level and then the fool will beat you with experience."
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
thanks.
could you quote the exact text or scan in the page?
Trying to take the discussion into academia is just hiding from the issue that you cannot back up your assertions.
we were talking about the real world, one that started off by your assertion that women are being abused in the western world.
You are now trying to hide from the fact that you were caught out and tare too arrogant to admit the errors in your ways.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
(she can refuse sex - but it is just sinful and it works the other way too - unless there is a valid reason for withholding it..)
Now even that gist of the argument does not actually back up what you had said before.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
An error can be admitted if someone points it out - if they just make up and argument, refute it and ask one to admit an error, it's just laughable...
Maybe you can point out how secularists determine right or wrong? OR are you going to evade the question?
I will let you answer that.
In the uk secular democracy, the laws that people are held against are legislated through parliament or asked in a referendum.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Pages