The Qur’an doesn’t say men can prevent their wives from working. So the man doesn’t have that right. So the woman can work if she chooses. Whether or not she is required to has no impact on the situation.
This won’t prove anything because the Koran does not say husbands are not allowed to prevent their wives from working either. The Koran only teaches that it is a Muslim man’s responsibility to provide for the wife. If the man works and provides for his wife, he can prevent his wife from working by simply telling her that she is not required to work.
The Qur’an doesn’t say to threaten, nor does it say to punish. Wives are not treated the way children are–you’ve simply misunderstood the ayah again. No big surprise.
Yes, you are the one getting the ayah correct: men rebuke, abandon, and beat women to express their great love for them and to impose on them Allah’s blessing.
The woman gets to set the amount. And it’s a gift. Doesn’t seem like domination to me, just the opposite.
What women get from their husbands cannot be considered a gift because a fermale child cannot get the same amount of inheritance from her father as her brother. This system of inheritance and man’s obligation to give money to the wife for marriage is not a PLUS for the woman, but the recovery of her forgone rights with regard to inheritance. The Law of inheritance in the Koran reminds me of a boss that decides to cut 100 pounds from the salary of his employee because he spends that amount when he buys the same employee a birthday present.
Of course women can make financial transactions–there is nothing preventing them. The purpose of a witness to a contract is so that one person doesn’t change the terms. For example, if I take a loan from you for $100, and later you said it was for $200. I say it was $100. Who is telling the truth? That’s what the witnesses are for. It doesn’t mean a woman can’t engage in transactions.
This contradicts your statements in your previous post. You had formerly claimed that the reason for Koran to summon two male witnesses for financial contracts was women’s being unfamiliar with that business.
I’ve given you the opinions of scholars of Islam, not making anything up. If one man and one woman only are available and both their testimony will be taken. And it should be the same, since they witnessed the same thing.
Nevertheless, the opinions of those Islamic scholars ignore the verse that equates TWO women with ONE man.
It wasn’t a false analogy at all.
So you believe that financial contracts are a man’s business in the same exact way as conception is a woman’s business?
'Aisha. She was considered more authoritative because she lived in the household of the Prophet. And no woman is accused of fabricating hadith–did I mention that yet? If a woman narrates hadith, it is the same as if a man narrates it.
Aisha’s unique position in Islamic history has nothing to do with our current debate because what made her the most authoritative narrator of Hadith was NOT her gender, but her intimacy with Mohammad! Naturally, no one could know Mohammad better and closer than his wives.
