The qur'an

[TJ73]

Because you don't understand Islam correctly. If you did, you wouldn't be Muslim.

The Muslims who live peacefully among their non-Muslim neighbors are actually "bad Muslims" (bad in the sense that they're not practicing their religion properly). Because the Quran says to kill "them" (meaning any non-Muslim) where you find them. Either that or they are lying about it taqiyya style.

There's a joke about Muslims among us who've left the faith: A Muslim is someone who practices Islam. An ex-Muslim is someone who understands Islam.

I was really scared when I was looking into Islam and heard about the Killem where ya find em thing... So I read and found it and it was as obvious to me as the permission for 4 wives and punishment for adultery. The qualifiers and strict and unambiguous. There is no request to kill innocent people for the "crime" of not being Muslim.

 

[croak]

By contrast there are 7 million Muslims, and a measly little 128 supposed hate attacks (which were probably mostly over-exaggerated). It doesn't even compare. Islamophobia is a myth. It's like saying that people have "murdero-phobia".

Because all Muslims are liars. Of course. How could I not see that?

 

[Sahar]

So all non-Muslims who don't agree with the Quran are trolls?

No, yet the OP and other consequent posts are trolling at its best. And I actually learn much from my fellow Muslims here because of their patient and eloquent posts although they are in response to the inflammatory and ignorant words.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

To leave inheritance wealth based on each one's financial responsibility, this is fairness itself. When a person must spend well on say four persons, is it like someone who has no obligation to spend on any other person?

I'm not sure I understand your question ... many parents around the world are not obliged to follow the Qur'anic instructions to leave twice as much to sons as to daughters. That doesn't mean they have no obligation.

Is the idea that the woman doesn't have a financial responsibility unfair? Unfair for whom? Her or him? Strange!! When the Qur'an want to comfort women, it's unfair for them? No, thanks.

No it's unfair to a man, and the rest of the family, to say he has to share money with a wife who doesn't need it; but a wife does not have to share with a husband who doesn't need it. Then it's unfair to women that they only get one-half of what their parents leave to their brothers. You may think that these unfair requirements on men and women "cancel each other out" and produce fairness in the end. I think it only produces confusion, and in many individual circumstances, these requirements will clearly be unfair and unreasonable.

Why not divide wealth based on need and fairness alone? If giving twice as much to sons as to daughters, in a specific case, is the fair thing to do, great. If in another case, yours sons have plenty of money and it is more fair to give the daughters more, then do that. The important principle which applies in all cases is fairness. Not gender. Right?

The Islamic system is the fair system that I have seen that takes into consideration the biological and psychological characteristics of each party.

But the verse I quoted about giving to sons and daughters does not consider the psychological characteristics of each party, or even the financial situation or need of each party; the only consideration was the gender of each party. In other words, it ignored everything relevant and considered only one thing, which was irrelevant.

 

[Sahar]

I'm not sure I understand your question ... many parents around the world are not obliged to follow the Qur'anic instructions to leave twice as much to sons as to daughters. That doesn't mean they have no obligation.

Neither am I following your comment.

No it's unfair to a man, and the rest of the family, to say he has to share money with a wife who doesn't need it; but a wife does not have to share with a husband who doesn't need it.

No, it's not about sharing. The husband is the supporter of his family; wife, kids, mother and sisters. The mother, sisters and wife should be treated like queens and princesses. I guess this is not a bad thing.

Then it's unfair to women that they only get one-half of what their parents leave to their brothers. You may think that these unfair requirements on men and women "cancel each other out" and produce fairness in the end. I think it only produces confusion, and in many individual circumstances, these requirements will clearly be unfair and unreasonable.

Confusion for who? What is the confusion about the fact that the man has to financially support his family and the woman doesn't have to? This is not confusion, it's called making the responsibilities, duties and rights clear to prevent any confusion.

Why not divide wealth based on need and fairness alone?

According to each one's financial responsibility seems like a fair divide to me.

If giving twice as much to sons as to daughters, in a specific case, is the fair thing to do, great. If in another case, yours sons have plenty of money and it is more fair to give the daughters more, then do that.

But in that case, the brother and the husband will spend on the daughter, so? After all, the brothers' and husband's money is not for them alone because they have a financial responsibility.

The important principle which applies in all cases is fairness.

Of course fairness. Fairness based on the financial responsibility and burden that differ according to the gender.

 

[Badran]

I might buy into this if it were not for the Muslim belief in predestination.

This part is really hard, but i'll try my best. To make it as simple as possible, in the end we will come down to one question which has to do with the point of all this, which we don't and can't know. For example Allah allows natural disaster to happen, or makes it happen, although it would best at least from our point of view if it doesn't happen. Yet that doesn't mean its a bad thing, when one considers the concept of the afterlife.

In other words, yes Allah already knows that for example not all Muslims will follow this certain rule or will not do as instructed in a certain case (which are many), yet he allows us. If you consider the attributes which we believe Allah has, you'd agree that of course it was easy for him to make us obedient in all cases, yet he hasn't, because thats not the point. He gave us and others before us the rules, and it was and is up to people whether or not to follow them.

I hope i didn't misunderstand your point, if i did please say so.

 

[Badran]

It sounds like there is room for some interpretation, to determine which parts of the Qur'an only apply to the status and conditions back then, as a route to something better, and which parts strictly apply for all time. I thought the Qur'an was supposed to be "the end of the story", a perfect and unchangeable guide to every aspect of life for all time, but your approach seems more reasonable to me.

It is indeed the end of story from our perspective, but not in that sense. For example there are problems that surfaced after the revelation of Islam, problems that neither the Quran nor the prophet (pbuh) through Hadiths has prescribed anything for it, yet we make decisions about them. Depending on those sources, and our knowledge at this point, we can make comparisons with similar concepts to conclude what to do with these new problems as best we can. We also put into consideration when the Quran was revealed, and every single circumstances surrounding it, in order to not follow it blindly with misunderstanding and ignorance of its message. It would be very stupid of us to act as if the fact that the Quran was revealed 1400 years ago doesn't mean anything, however at the same time we don't view it or the rules in it as old stuff that no longer applies. We follow it, learn from it, and deduce from it with considering every factor that might affect our decisions.

 

[Badran]

Because you don't understand Islam correctly. If you did, you wouldn't be Muslim.

The Muslims who live peacefully among their non-Muslim neighbors are actually "bad Muslims" (bad in the sense that they're not practicing their religion properly). Because the Quran says to kill "them" (meaning any non-Muslim) where you find them. Either that or they are lying about it taqiyya style.

You honestly can not be serious with this stuff. You actually say that more than 1 billion Muslims who practice Islam yet don't kill non-Muslims, misunderstand Islam, and you do?

Without even trying to prove your claim?

 

[TJ73]

But the verse I quoted about giving to sons and daughters does not consider the psychological characteristics of each party, or even the financial situation or need of each party; the only consideration was the gender of each party. In other words, it ignored everything relevant and considered only one thing, which was irrelevant.

But it is not irrelevant. It is of the greater relevance when all things are considered. In our modern society we have fought to secure what we thought was equality for women, the right to work and own property being at the forefront of this cause ( Islam already established this as the rule). But at the expense of our children and families. There are wonderful families that can make it work with non-traditional roles, like Dad at home or teenagers raising younger sibs while Mommy works. But now we (women) have been stripped of the right and option to raise our children. The average family can not afford to have a stay at home Mother. The majority of Fathers will still work or may be just leave. Moms in many homes have no choice BUT to work. By making it the standard that men must provide for the females in their lives, women retain the ability to raise their own children in the context of the full time job that it is.
This and riba(interest) are to me some of the beast examples of how Allah gave us reason and our ignoring it has come full circle. It is now obvious to me had we followed just these two basic principals our world would be far better than it is.

 

[Looncall]

But the verse I quoted about giving to sons and daughters does not consider the psychological characteristics of each party, or even the financial situation or need of each party; the only consideration was the gender of each party. In other words, it ignored everything relevant and considered only one thing, which was irrelevant.

But it is not irrelevant. It is of the greater relevance when all things are considered. In our modern society we have fought to secure what we thought was equality for women, the right to work and own property being at the forefront of this cause ( Islam already established this as the rule). But at the expense of our children and families. There are wonderful families that can make it work with non-traditional roles, like Dad at home or teenagers raising younger sibs while Mommy works. But now we (women) have been stripped of the right and option to raise our children. The average family can not afford to have a stay at home Mother. The majority of Fathers will still work or may be just leave. Moms in many homes have no choice BUT to work. By making it the standard that men must provide for the females in their lives, women retain the ability to raise their own children in the context of the full time job that it is.
This and riba(interest) are to me some of the beast examples of how Allah gave us reason and our ignoring it has come full circle. It is now obvious to me had we followed just these two basic principals our world would be far better than it is.

It sounds to me as if you still want women to live as mere breeding livestock. That is disgusting, no matter how much you pamper those livestock.

 

[Badran]

It sounds to me as if you still want women to live as mere breeding livestock. That is disgusting, no matter how much you pamper those livestock.

Why did you get that out of her post? Do you view a mother or a father who dedicate their lives for their children as live stock? Thats how you feel about any mother who when has children, and her husband's job is enough for them to live on, decides to stay home and dedicate herself to them at least until the grow past a certain age limit?

Its not even as if she was saying that women should stay at home, merely that Islam has secured her in the case she makes that choice when & if she and her husband have children. If between the woman and her husband they can provide sufficient care for their children while both working, then there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[Sahar]

It sounds to me as if you still want women to live as mere breeding livestock. That is disgusting, no matter how much you pamper those livestock.

Is this how you view motherhood? What a shame!!

 

[ppɐʇɹnɯ]

So wouldn't you blame Iran. Iran harms people. They may hold up a Quran and claim it makes it just but we both know that's not just. I am curious and respectfully ask are you from a Muslim country? Were you" born into" Islam?

My mom is from Lebanon and my dad is from Egypt. I was born in California. I was born into Islam and I went through a phaze when I was very religious myself. I was immature back then, and I tried to find acceptance in "God"/"Allah" whatever. Now I realize how desperate and childish I was.

 

[TJ73]

It sounds to me as if you still want women to live as mere breeding livestock. That is disgusting, no matter how much you pamper those livestock.

I want women to live however they see fit. I am not suggesting they SHOULD have children and stay home and raise them. I am telling you, (as Sung by Cinderella) Don't Know What Your Got Till It's Gah ew on...
We are humans and can chose to act outside of our nature and some of us even are the possers of minority nature( I am saying some people are naturally inclined to behave in a way inconsistant with the majority) So certainly there are some women that don't wish to marry, wish to marry but not have kids, wish to marry have kids but not raise them personally. The majority of women wish to marry, have kids and raise them. This is not an issue of being livestock. It is just prevailing human nature and without it our species could have hardly reached is current population.
I am a mother and wish I could have had the option to raise my children and so do my children. That is another part of human nature. The vast majority of children desire the presence of their mothers in their daily lives over anyone else. So does that reduce children as well to some sort of denigrated animal status?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

By contrast there are 7 million Muslims, and a measly little 128 supposed hate attacks (which were probably mostly over-exaggerated). It doesn't even compare. Islamophobia is a myth. It's like saying that people have "murdero-phobia".

Are you really saying that Muslims are murderers? :areyoucra

 

[ppɐʇɹnɯ]

Are you really saying that Muslims are murderers? :areyoucra

No. That was a bad analogy, I guess. Not all Muslims have killed someone.

I should have said it's akin to fascismophobia. I don't think it's right to label criticism of Islam as Islamophobic, likewise I don't think we should be labeling criticism of Fascism as Fascismophobic. Islam has never proven to be harmless, far from it. Islamophobia implies it has been. I don't see why someone couldn't have a rational fear of Islam.

 

[SLAMH]

Because you don't understand Islam correctly. If you did, you wouldn't be Muslim.

and why wouldn't be that because you didn't accept Islam, you didn't really understand it correctly ?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

But in that case, the brother and the husband will spend on the daughter, so? After all, the brothers' and husband's money is not for them alone because they have a financial responsibility.

So the brother gets a lot of money which actually belongs to his sister, and he is expected to spend the money on her. Why not eliminate the middle-man and give directly to the sister? This would make sense especially if she is married with her own family.

It sounds like you agree that an equal share of the family wealth rightfully belongs to women, but males have the terrible burden and responsibility of controlling the wealth and distributing it. This sounds like a great way to trick women into being subservient to men. It's like saying the King has a burden and responsibility for dividing the country's wealth equally, and the peasants are actually treated like Kings. If that actually works in practice, great, but it's too bad for the unlucky peasants who get stuck with a selfish or incompetent King. If a husband wants to control everything and a wife wants to be treated like a docile princess, great.

(By the way, ladies, if you are burdened with too much wealth I would be happy to control it for you and give you a fair monthly allowance. )

All I'm saying is, I am not convinced this 1400 year-old custom is the one, the only, the ideal way for every individual and every culture. What is wrong with fair and equitable alternatives in which all parties are happy? My wife and I make financial decisions together, as a team, and the money we bring home is not mine to share with her, it's ours to share with each other. This works great for us. It would be ludicrous to do otherwise -- she has a degree in economics and she works as a personal banker! This does not mean she never gets treated like a Queen, or that I never get treated like a King.

Of course fairness. Fairness based on the financial responsibility and burden that differ according to the gender.

Are you saying that it is always fair for parents to leave twice as much to male children? You cannot imagine a situation where this would be unfair?

 

[TJ73]

My mom is from Lebanon and my dad is from Egypt. I was born in California. I was born into Islam and I went through a phaze when I was very religious myself. I was immature back then, and I tried to find acceptance in "God"/"Allah" whatever. Now I realize how desperate and childish I was.

It was neither desperate nor childish. I am neither desperate nor childish. But I do have an understanding of someone in your postion. I am not saying your disbelief would not have come from your rationality had you a different upbringing, but I can imagine the Islamic perspective you have was influenced by your parents and their culture.
You said I couldn't know Islam and still want to be Muslim but i think your understanding could just be very different coming from your parental heritage. I also have perhaps a differnt understanding because I have never been one to accept what I am told without my own investigation, so I am not clouded by what this person and that person tells me Islam is. I dunno, I just wish you weren't so hostile toward it. And maybe some day you may come to a more neutral ground, seeing you were once very religious and now you are very critical.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Why did you get that out of her post? Do you view a mother or a father who dedicate their lives for their children as live stock? Thats how you feel about any mother who when has children, and her husband's job is enough for them to live on, decides to stay home and dedicate herself to them at least until the grow past a certain age limit?

Its not even as if she was saying that women should stay at home, merely that Islam has secured her in the case she makes that choice when & if she and her husband have children. If between the woman and her husband they can provide sufficient care for their children while both working, then there is nothing wrong with it.

Is this how you view motherhood? What a shame!!

I want women to live however they see fit. I am not suggesting they SHOULD have children and stay home and raise them. I am telling you, (as Sung by Cinderella) Don't Know What Your Got Till It's Gah ew on...
We are humans and can chose to act outside of our nature and some of us even are the possers of minority nature( I am saying some people are naturally inclined to behave in a way inconsistant with the majority) So certainly there are some women that don't wish to marry, wish to marry but not have kids, wish to marry have kids but not raise them personally. The majority of women wish to marry, have kids and raise them. This is not an issue of being livestock. It is just prevailing human nature and without it our species could have hardly reached is current population.
I am a mother and wish I could have had the option to raise my children and so do my children. That is another part of human nature. The vast majority of children desire the presence of their mothers in their daily lives over anyone else. So does that reduce children as well to some sort of denigrated animal status?

I completely agree with Badran, Sahar, and TJ73 here. If traditional gender roles work and make everyone happy, great, I have no problem with that.

But to leave twice as much wealth to female children as male children, and to marry one of those "whom your right hands possess" .... that is too "traditional" isn't it?