Question for Muslim women

[inJESUS]

So you are left with these:

which does lower women a bit. but it doesnt mean they are a bad creature.

it does not even lower women because Paul was adressing a specific church with its specific problems, not a general teaching, otherwise he wouldn’t praise the women preachers. After all, women cannot preach by being silent

 

[Booklover]

it does not even lower women because Paul was adressing a specific church with its specific problems, not a general teaching, otherwise he wouldn’t praise the women preachers. After all, women cannot preach by being silent

Thanks, InJesus, for posting this!

Vickie

 

[AgnosTheist]

^ I stand corrected.

 

[deb1]

it does not even lower women because Paul was adressing a specific church with its specific problems, not a general teaching, otherwise he wouldn’t praise the women preachers. After all, women cannot preach by being silent

Paul praised the women who were prophesying, but your point remains. If Paul was going to praise women obviously being vocal in one letter, why would he tell them to basically shut up in another letter.

Well, when you consider the culture that the particular letter was sent to, it makes sense. The Greeks were very controlling of their women. Many married women were not used to meeting in large groups. Most married women were supposed to send their slaves out to do chores for them. It makes sense that these particular women would have to be told that one must be silent during a meeting.

After all, we remain silent now during Church. None of us jumps up and shouts out questions at the priest.

 

[inJESUS]

Yes Deb1, Paul’s letters were dealing with specific incidences/teachings/events in different churches and different audiences.He did not write the same to all of them.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

it does not even lower women because Paul was adressing a specific church with its specific problems, not a general teaching, otherwise he wouldn’t praise the women preachers. After all, women cannot preach by being silent

Funny that he Church didn’t interpret it that way for over a thousand years.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

You know, you should read what you copy & paste. Most them covers an isolated case. One case, both the man & everything he had were sold. In another case an army would be like women, which obviously mean they would lose their will to fight (nothing to do with actually lowering a woman’s natural ability, or human rights). And one case merely advices modesty.

So you are left with these:

which does lower women a bit. but it doesnt mean they are a bad creature.

So God punishing women for expressing some minute aspect of their sexuality is teaching modesty?

 

[inJESUS]

Funny that he Church didn’t interpret it that way for over a thousand years.

why did the church teach that the women Paul was talking about were mute?
or aren’t you differentiating between preacher and priest?

 

[IvanKaramozov]

why did the church teach that the women Paul was talking about were mute?
or aren’t you differentiating between preacher and priest?

Im refering more to the Church and Christendom’s general attitude towards women.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Why did Muhammad prohibit his wives from marrying after him?

So they would keep the status of “Mothers of the Believers” after him. Many of them were married before him, and knew that if they wanted to marry someone else they could, but they decided to be part of his household, earning that title, and are among the most respected women in Islam.

Why did Muhammad prohibit Ali from marrying a second woman beside his daughter?

Actually he didn’t. The prohibition was about the particular woman because she was the daughter of an enemy of Muhammad. It was the shameful history of the bride which was in question, not polygyny.

Why did Muhammad have the right to marry more than what he allowed his followers to?

Each woman for a specific reason, so the limit of 4 did not apply. But eventually he was told not to take anymore.

Was Muhammad fair with all his wives? if not, didn’t he break his own rule?

They found him fair, yes. He was not equal, and loved some more than others, but they all found him fair. And a man is not in control of his heart. One woman he was going to divorce and actually she asked him to maintain her anyway, and she would give up her rights (that is, the night he would spend with her in intimacy) to another wife who he would have rather spent time with, 'Aisha. So instead of divorcing her, he kept her as a wife so he could maintain her and provide for her, so she was taken care of. She would rather do that than be in another relationship with another man. I think that is very telling.

 

[inJESUS]

So they would keep the status of “Mothers of the Believers” after him.

“Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the Messenger of Allah”.

Why not call his wives sisters in faith or simply fellow believers? Didn’t Muhammad tell Abu Bakr that even though they were brothers in religion this didn’t prevent him from marrying the his daughter Aisha?

Narrated Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, “You are my brother** in Allah’s religion **and His Book, but she ('Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18)

and doesn’t this mean that Muslims would be forbidden from marrying Muhammad’s children since they would be considered their siblings? why did he then permit Ali and Uthman to marry his daughters?

Many of them were married before him, and knew that if they wanted to marry someone else they could,

 

[Dameedna]

Okay got to page 7, and will read the rest but felt compelled to respond.

So far the muslim women, who have been answer the original OP, have impressed me greatly. You are being hideously attacked, and yet you are remaining calm, confident…and most importantly kind.

I am not religious(agnostic) and therefore cannot support the rules held by many religions.

But I’m still very impressed by your patience, and want to give you a big {{hug}} since I think you probably need it!! lol!!

 

[Dameedna]

And before, I continue, I just have to comment on this whole concept that a man has the right to rape his wife within Islam.

Australia, introduced a law approximately 18 years ago, that disallowed a man to rape his wife.

Before that law, a man had rights to his wifes body. A woman, raped inside marriage had no legal recourse whatsoever. And Australia, although secular, taught religion in school and is a christian country.

We all learnt “God save the Queen” as children.

It astounds me, how so many people see what is wrong with certain islamic countries, or tenants of the faith as they understand it, but refuse to see the horror of how women for SO LONG lived in the west.

And yes, the abuse of women in the west was justified using Christianity, just like Islam can be used in the ME.

It has very little to do with the religion, but more to do with the people that chose to “interpret” it.

Christianity is maturing as will Islam. There is a lot that is wonderful about Islam. Maybe try and understand what is good about it, than just focus on the areas you think are bad.

 

[Sister_Amy]

“Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the Messenger of Allah”.

 

[inJESUS]

It is a special title for them

. It’s not literal, **but the respect **for the mother is very very high in Islam, so it’s a term of respect.

My fiance often refers to me as his sister in Islam, but that doesn’t prevent him from marrying me. It’s a term of respect. But part of the respect given to the Mothers of the Believers is that they never married anyone else after Muhammad. Never had any children after him, but never had to answer to another man (husband) after him.

I think you’ve missed the point a little bit. It is a term of respect, ‘Mothers of the Believers.’ It’s not a literal relationship–if these affectionate terms were to be taken literally no Muslims could marry each other. It is because of the high status of Muhammad’s wives in Islam that they did not marry after him. of course i know it is not literal but why would a title of respect allow marriage in some instances and the same title of respect prohibits it?

You’re forgetting about the passage directed to them in 33:28-34 which offers them freedom from that responsibility and the chance to enjoy the world. And it then says that they (his wives) are not like other women.

when it says “they are like not other women”, it’s a psychological game Amy. In other words, it says indirectly " don’t do it if you want to have favour with Allah" …so it’s no longer a free choice, but a choice that results in Allah’s anger.

That’s not really related to the argument. The reason he objected to the marriage was the bride herself. Would he have allowed the marriage if 'Ali divorced Fatima? That’s not the point. The point was that he didn’t want Fatima to have to deal with her husband being married to someone so objectionable.

Muhammad talked about hurting his daughter’s feeling if Ali married someone else. Where did you read about the woman’s character? there is no mention of what you are talking about,unless there is another hadith that explains it.

If you’ve not yourself considered being in a polygynous marriage, perhaps you wouldn’t understand the relationship between cowives.

which speaks a lot of such a divine plan, don’t you think?

I have no idea what you’re talking about here, sorry.

i will read the reason about his marriages…but tell me, why would Allah prohibit Muhammad from marrying just 3 years before his death? which means Muhammad had the right to marry whoever he wants and any number he wants for practically all his life as a prophet. What does the prohibition prove just before dying?

 

[inJESUS]

Thank you for the link Amy.

1- but among the ones who were polygamous we can count Prophets Ibrahim (Abraham), Ya`qub (Jacob), Dawud (David), and Sulayman (Solomon).

Sulayman and Dawud were no prophets but kings.David repented being polygamous Abraham while Sarah, his wife, lived, he never married any other woman. Hagar was Sarah’s mistake, not God’s “revelation”.

Following his conversion, Jacob had but his one original wife. Jacob had repented. He lived no more in polygamy after his conversion.

and when Jesus came He said:

Have ye not read, that He which made them **at the beginning **made them male and female?And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"

So the first reason given by your link holds no water.

Islam Didn’t Invent Polygamy but Only Regulated It—in Favor of Women.

Islam regulates what is not God’s plan to begin with. When Jesus mentions clearly God’s plan, who is Muhammad to make it a divine decree when it never was?

The Qur’an Is the Only Holy Book That Actually Says “Marry Only One”

true if Jesus did not exist.

“Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women”

what about Muhammad and all his polygamous followers?

Therefore polygamy is not a rule but an exception

so Muhammad and all his polygamous folowers are an exception as well?

The exception is made for many reasons, but let’s note only one here, addressing your concern that **Muhammad **(peace and blessings be upon him) “had intercourse outside of wedlock.”

what did she answer? she twisted the answer by attacking the West. The answer is clear : yes Muhammad had intercourse outside wedlock but gave his sex slaves a better position than Westerners…mashallah.

Muhammad the man who needed a loving wife, children, and a stable home, so he married Khadijah and remained with only her for 20 years until she died.

thats because he was married by Waraqa who was not muslim. So his first marriage did not allow polygamy.

1. To pass on Islam to the next generations as a practical legacy

others before him did without a single wife. Men can do it very well.

To teach Muslims compassion with women

did he need to marry all these women in order to teach?

If you can swallow what the link says, remember that others reached more than what Muhammad did, without marrying and taking sexual slaves, like Jesus, and His disciples.

 

[planten]

inJesus, you are wrong (or misinformed) on many counts. The reason why the prophet prohibited Hazrat Ali from marrying the Daughter of AbuJehl was given in that Hadith. He said that The daughter of a prophet and the daughter of a devil (Kafir) cannot be combined in one house.

Next you are attacking the polygamy without any good reason. Jesus did not give any guidance or law about anything, specially about marriage or divorce. If jesus made a passing remark about such things, that was good and wise but the followers (Christians) did not understand it properly.

They mistranslated those advisory words of Jesus like all the other good things about man and God and son and father and sin and salvation. They discarded the law which was for Jesus and his followers, calling the law “A Curse”. So where is any law for the churchmen. We see many unmarried fathers in the church. What is all that?. Is that literal?? Then you come to question the status of the wives of the prophet being the mothers of the believers.

What about your unmarried fathers, so many of them. And the sense of a son for God. What is that son/father relation and how come? Is that real, Is that literal?

You inJesus are questioning polygamy without knowledge of your own book OT (Not really your own, but you are attaching yourself to that book for some dubious reason). I am seeing the prophesy about the prophet Muhammad in bible OT. Please see Isaiah ch.4.

Isaiah 4
1 In that day seven women
will take hold of one man
and say, “We will eat our own food
and provide our own clothes;
only let us be called by your name.
Take away our disgrace!”

2 In that day the Branch of the LORD will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the pride and glory of the survivors in Israel. 3 Those who are left in Zion, who remain in Jerusalem, will be called holy, all who are recorded among the living in Jerusalem.

Please understand that words zion and Jerusalem are metaphrical/ symbolic here. The verses above are telling about the great glory of the promised one (Muhammad). He will get the spoils of the lands. And the people of his nation will be called “holy” or muqaddas.
The verses above are telling that during the time of the promised prophet (That Prophet of deut 18:18), there will be wars and many of his men will be killed in battles. There will be many widows (young ladies) and not enough men to marry them. So there will be need for polygamy…

So the prophet Muhammad ordered his men to marry more than one lady to meet the difficult situation and to avoid any illegal relations in the Ummah. The verse 4:1 above is telling all about seven women catching one man and asking him to marry them… Jesus never married even one lady and did not approve of polygamy. So this verse is all about the prophet Muhammad.

It should tell all about polygamy. That it is not such a bad thing after all. It is predicted in the bible OT. Isaiah 4:1-3.

 

[Sister_Amy]

of course i know it is not literal but why would a title of respect allow marriage in some instances and the same title of respect prohibits it?

Then why waste my time with your other post?

when it says “they are like not other women”, it’s a psychological game Amy. In other words, it says indirectly " don’t do it if you want to have favour with Allah" …so it’s no longer a free choice, but a choice that results in Allah’s anger.

Well you could lie and commit adultery but it would result in Allah’s anger.

Muhammad talked about hurting his daughter’s feeling if Ali married someone else. Where did you read about the woman’s character? there is no mention of what you are talking about,unless there is another hadith that explains it.

The woman was the daughter of Abu Sufyan.

i will read the reason about his marriages…but tell me, why would Allah prohibit Muhammad from marrying just 3 years before his death? which means Muhammad had the right to marry whoever he wants and any number he wants for practically all his life as a prophet. What does the prohibition prove just before dying?

are you suggesting that he knew he was going to die only three years later?

 

[Namesake]

I am quite impressed with the calm scholarly replies by the Muslim women here. Their approach, in this sometimes nasty attack on them, has given me a new view of Islam. If some of the militant Catholics could be as kind and patient as these Muslim women have been there could be a lot of understanding. Sadly, some of the replies to these gracious women have been less than charitable regardless of the sincerity of the posters.

You Muslim women ROCK!!!

 

[Sister_Amy]

Thank you for the link Amy.

1- but among the ones who were polygamous we can count Prophets Ibrahim (Abraham), Ya`qub (Jacob), Dawud (David), and Sulayman (Solomon).

Are you sure there weren’t anymore? I personally don’t know the marital history of many other prophets mentioned in the Qur’an.

Sulayman and Dawud were no prophets but kings.

According to Islam, BOTH were prophets.

Following his conversion, Jacob had but his one original wife. Jacob had repented. He lived no more in polygamy after his conversion.

You must not know the story of Jacob. He had two wives. Dunno what “conversion” you think you’re talking about. Jacob went to see Laban, and he worked for Laban 7 years so he could marry Rachel, but after all that time, Laban gave him Leah instead, and he had to work 7 more years for Rachel. Jacob also slept with the servant girls of both of them, and he had a total of 12 sons from all four of those women. All 12 are considered his sons, the 12 Tribes of Israel. None were expelled, like people say of Ishmael.

Islam regulates what is not God’s plan to begin with. When Jesus mentions clearly God’s plan, who is Muhammad to make it a divine decree when it never was?

You and I can clearly disagree about the words of Jesus. It’s not for you to say what is God’s plan, really. Both teachings are perfectly compatible.

“Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women”

This is because a man is not in control of his heart. So he should be careful if he takes more than one wife.

what about Muhammad and all his polygamous followers?

Obligated to treat their wives the same in all othe regards.

thats because he was married by Waraqa who was not muslim. So his first marriage did not allow polygamy.

Huh? This is kind of off-the-wall. There’s no proof that Waraqa did the marriage, and polygamy was common among the Arabs. Khadeejah wasn’t Christian and neither was Muhammad.

did he need to marry all these women in order to teach?

There was a reason for each one. Actions speak louder than words, right?