Am I missing something: Why are Somali men mad at this woman?

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

I had the impression you were arguing that if a man has good akhlaaq his inability to be a provider should be overlooked. And that being hung up on the provider aspect was materialism. It was a strange argument tbh and seems like we were misunderstanding each other's points. It seems that by "poor" you meant a man of limited means but still able to provide the basics, and @Angelina and I meant a man who isn't even able cover the basics.

It does, and in principle, we agree, but divergence on a critical tangent arises, where I am an ardent apostle of the Divine providence (al qadr) with at its heart a) freewill, and b) free of pseudo elite dictum, and interference. Let me explain, and to do so, let me introduce a new, if relevant strand to the discussion; to float a requisite seeking to require poor people to neither marry nor to reproduce, just 'cos they are poor in a nation, where its population is dearth poor, is a rather myopic, if Machiavellian, check the origins of India's male preference indoctrination, or China's one child policy, or dare I suggest, Nazi's eugenics programme in seeking to outbreed the poor, sickly, and unsightly souls. Pushing it to the extreme boundary, I know, but you get the gist of it. In nature, such desires take in a benign shape only to grow malignant in no time.

As a libertarian, who embraces freewill to the core, as bestowed by the Almighty, I do not wish flawed elites or willy agents to dictate citizens' desires, and instead I am a fervent believer of letting adults choose as they wish departing from the principle of: within means of al qadr, and with Rizq from the Almighty. Does that clarify the divergence?

As examples, I generally out the likes of Dongbi, Spinoza, Abdul kalam, Ms Devi etc., all of whom are of impoverished upbringings, yet contributed a great deal to human advancement more than children of well-off families. Imagine had we applied out lofty, if draconian ideals of requiring only well-off families to breed, procreate, and honour us with their progeny whilst neutering parents of the said giants.

 

[Angelina]

It does, and in principle, we agree, but divergence on a critical tangent arises, where I am an ardent apostle of the Divine providence (al qadr) with at its heart a) freewill, and b) free of pseudo elite dictum, and interference. Let me explain, and to do so, let me introduce a new, if relevant strand to the discussion; to float a requisite seeking to require poor people to neither marry nor to reproduce, just 'cos they are poor in a nation, where its population is dearth poor, is a rather myopic, if Machiavellian, check the origins of India's male preference indoctrination, or China's one child policy, or dare I suggest, Nazi's eugenics programme in seeking to outbreed the poor, sickly, and unsightly souls. Pushing it to the extreme boundary, I know, but you get the gist of it. In nature, such desires take in a benign shape only to grow malignant in no time.

As a libertarian, who embraces freewill to the core, as bestowed by the Almighty, I do not wish flawed elites or willy agents to dictate citizens' desires, and instead I am a fervent believer of letting adults choose as they wish departing from the principle of: within means of al qadr, and with Rizq from the Almighty. Does that clarify the divergence?

As examples, I generally out the likes of Dongbi, Spinoza, Abdul kalam, Ms Devi etc., all of whom are of impoverished upbringings, yet contributed a great deal to human advancement more than children of well-off families. Imagine had we applied out lofty, if draconian ideals of requiring only well-off families to breed, procreate, and honour us with their progeny whilst neutering parents of the said giants.

Simple question, do you think the advise to very poor men to fast and wait instead of marrying is one that goes against divine Qadr? How does someone still keep the view that they have whilst also believing in women’s right to provision and kids not being left starved?

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

Simple question, do you think the advise to very poor men to fast and wait instead of marrying is one that goes against divine Qadr? How does someone still keep the view that they have whilst also believing in women’s right to provision and kids not being left starved?

A good question, but before I answer it permit me to pontificate for a rejoinder. Almost all prophets, with the exception of a few, were poor, starting with Adam & Hawa, who had nothing to their name not even a grab to cover their privates. Imagine had we applied that rule to Adam advising Hawa not to marry a naked, poor man?

Closer to our times, let us look at Prophet Mohamed pbuh, when he was courting Khadija, if memory serves me right, and my sirah timelines are accurate, he was of a humble beginnings, a shephard moonlighting as a struggling trader of the banu Hashin of Quraysh in his extended family not known for being well-off; should lady Khadija married poor Mohamed? A established, wealthy lady, Khadija found his honesty and wisdom more attractive, and not his economic stature. I digress.​

​

A poor man could still raise a family, look after his wife and progeny, like many have done, still do in developing nations with the support of family, community, and environment.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

In Greek mythology, Agamemnon summoned his top Counsel ordering them to find the happiest man in Greece; dejected, if disheartened, after a lengthy quest within the gentry circles in Athenia and elsewhere in the empire, with no success, they decided to retire unto the beach, as they could not face returning to the palace sans finding the object of their quest, till they came upon an old man, with nothing on his back, frolicking on the beach in deep hum, whistle, and tune. They enquired as to his jolly good mood to which he retorted mirthfully: I am jolly happy, for the night is still young, my dinner is almost ready pointing to freshly-caught bait roasting on fire, and with a glass of fine ale in his right hand. Needless to say, amongst all the gentry classes in Athenia, the happiest man in the whole of Greece was an aging, impoverished tramp, a hapless slave.

More importantly, with respect to Rizq as it pertains to al Qadr, let us inspect what the Qu'ran says:

In surah al Tabari:
وَمَا مِن دَآبَّةٖ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ إِلَّا عَلَى ٱللَّهِ رِزۡقُهَا وَيَعۡلَمُ مُسۡتَقَرَّهَا وَمُسۡتَوۡدَعَهَاۚ كُلّٞ فِي كِتَٰبٖ مُّبِينٖ

In surah al Ra'ad:
ٱللَّهُ يَبۡسُطُ ٱلرِّزۡقَ لِمَن يَشَآءُ وَيَقۡدِرُۚ وَفَرِحُواْ بِٱلۡحَيَوٰةِ ٱلدُّنۡيَا وَمَا ٱلۡحَيَوٰةُ ٱلدُّنۡيَا فِي ٱلۡأٓخِرَةِ إِلَّا مَتَٰعٞ

Allah extends provision for whom He wills and restricts [it]. And they rejoice in the worldly life, while the worldly life is not, compared to the Hereafter, except [brief] enjoyment.​

In surah Ibrahim:
ٱللَّهُ ٱلَّذِي خَلَقَ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضَ وَأَنزَلَ مِنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ مَآءٗ فَأَخۡرَجَ بِهِۦ مِنَ ٱلثَّمَرَٰتِ رِزۡقٗا لَّكُمۡۖ وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمُ ٱلۡفُلۡكَ لِتَجۡرِيَ فِي ٱلۡبَحۡرِ بِأَمۡرِهِۦۖ وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمُ ٱلۡأَنۡهَٰرَ

It is Allah who created the heavens and the earth and sent down rain from the sky and produced thereby some fruits as provision for you and subjected for you the ships to sail through the sea by His command and subjected for you the rivers.​

In surah al 3imran?
تُولِجُ ٱلَّيۡلَ فِي ٱلنَّهَارِ وَتُولِجُ ٱلنَّهَارَ فِي ٱلَّيۡلِۖ وَتُخۡرِجُ ٱلۡحَيَّ مِنَ ٱلۡمَيِّتِ وَتُخۡرِجُ ٱلۡمَيِّتَ مِنَ ٱلۡحَيِّۖ وَتَرۡزُقُ مَن تَشَآءُ بِغَيۡرِ حِسَابٖ

'You cause the night to enter the day, and You cause the day to enter the night; and You bring the living out of the dead, and You bring the dead out of the living. And You give provision to whom You will without account'.​

In surah al Ma'idah:
وَكُلُواْ مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمُ ٱللَّهُ حَلَٰلٗا طَيِّبٗاۚ وَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَ ٱلَّذِيٓ أَنتُم بِهِۦ مُؤۡمِنُونَ

And eat of what Allah has provided for you [which is] lawful and good. And fear Allah, in whom you are believers.​

In surah al An3am:
قَدۡ خَسِرَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَتَلُوٓاْ أَوۡلَٰدَهُمۡ سَفَهَۢا بِغَيۡرِ عِلۡمٖ وَحَرَّمُواْ مَا رَزَقَهُمُ ٱللَّهُ ٱفۡتِرَآءً عَلَى ٱللَّهِۚ قَدۡ ضَلُّواْ وَمَا كَانُواْ مُهۡتَدِ
ينَ

Those will have lost who killed their children in foolishness without knowledge and prohibited what Allah had provided for them, inventing untruth about Allah. They have gone astray and were not [rightly] guided.​

In surah Yunus:
قُلۡ مَن يَرۡزُقُكُم مِّنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضِ أَمَّن يَمۡلِكُ ٱلسَّمۡعَ وَٱلۡأَبۡصَٰرَ وَمَن يُخۡرِجُ ٱلۡحَيَّ مِنَ ٱلۡمَيِّتِ وَيُخۡرِجُ ٱلۡمَيِّتَ مِنَ ٱلۡحَيِّ وَمَن يُدَبِّرُ ٱلۡأَمۡرَۚ فَسَيَقُولُونَ ٱللَّهُۚ فَقُلۡ أَفَلَا تَتَّقُونَ

Say, "Who provides for you from the heaven and the earth? Or who controls hearing and sight and who brings the living out of the dead and brings the dead out of the living and who arranges [every] matter?" They will say, "Allah," so say, "Then will you not fear Him?"​

Postscript:
What are your thoughts on voluntary poverty?

 

[Angelina]

A good question, but before I answer it permit me to pontificate for a rejoinder. Almost all prophets, with the exception of a few, were poor, starting with Adam & Hawa, who had nothing to their name not even a grab to cover their privates. Imagine had we applied that rule to Adam advising Hawa not to marry a naked, poor man?

They were Jannah and had everything. Very mad comparison walal.

Closer to our times, let us look at Prophet Mohamed pbuh, when he was courting Khadija, if memory serves me right, and my sirah timelines are accurate, he was of a humble beginnings, a shephard moonlighting as a struggling trader of the banu Hashin of Quraysh in his extended family not known for being well-off; should lady Khadija married poor Mohamed? A established, wealthy lady, Khadija found his honesty and wisdom more attractive, and not his economic stature. I digress.​

They clearly mostly all had jobs and whilst poor could all provide the very basics. The Prophet s.a.w wasn’t poor.

​

A poor man could still raise a family, look after his wife and progeny, like many have done, still do in developing nations with the support of family, community, and environment.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

They had meals and a roof over their heads. I’m talking about a man that can’t provide that

In Greek mythology, Agamemnon summoned his top Counsel ordering them to find the happiest man in Greece; dejected, if disheartened, after a lengthy quest within the gentry circles in Athenia and elsewhere in the empire, with no success, they decided to retire unto the beach, as they could not face returning to the palace sans finding the object of their quest, till they came upon an old man, with nothing on his back, frolicking on the beach in deep hum, whistle, and tune. They enquired as to his jolly good mood to which he retorted mirthfully: I am jolly happy, for the night is still young, my dinner is almost ready pointing to freshly-caught bait roasting on fire, and with a glass of fine ale in his right hand. Needless to say, amongst all the gentry classes in Athenia, the happiest man in the whole of Greece was an aging, impoverished tramp, a hapless slave.

More importantly, with respect to Rizq as it pertains to al Qadr, let us inspect what the Qu'ran says:

In surah al Tabari:
وَمَا مِن دَآبَّةٖ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ إِلَّا عَلَى ٱللَّهِ رِزۡقُهَا وَيَعۡلَمُ مُسۡتَقَرَّهَا وَمُسۡتَوۡدَعَهَاۚ كُلّٞ فِي كِتَٰبٖ مُّبِينٖ

In surah al Ra'ad:
ٱللَّهُ يَبۡسُطُ ٱلرِّزۡقَ لِمَن يَشَآءُ وَيَقۡدِرُۚ وَفَرِحُواْ بِٱلۡحَيَوٰةِ ٱلدُّنۡيَا وَمَا ٱلۡحَيَوٰةُ ٱلدُّنۡيَا فِي ٱلۡأٓخِرَةِ إِلَّا مَتَٰعٞ

Allah extends provision for whom He wills and restricts [it]. And they rejoice in the worldly life, while the worldly life is not, compared to the Hereafter, except [brief] enjoyment.​

In surah Ibrahim:
ٱللَّهُ ٱلَّذِي خَلَقَ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضَ وَأَنزَلَ مِنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ مَآءٗ فَأَخۡرَجَ بِهِۦ مِنَ ٱلثَّمَرَٰتِ رِزۡقٗا لَّكُمۡۖ وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمُ ٱلۡفُلۡكَ لِتَجۡرِيَ فِي ٱلۡبَحۡرِ بِأَمۡرِهِۦۖ وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمُ ٱلۡأَنۡهَٰرَ

It is Allah who created the heavens and the earth and sent down rain from the sky and produced thereby some fruits as provision for you and subjected for you the ships to sail through the sea by His command and subjected for you the rivers.​

In surah al 3imran?
تُولِجُ ٱلَّيۡلَ فِي ٱلنَّهَارِ وَتُولِجُ ٱلنَّهَارَ فِي ٱلَّيۡلِۖ وَتُخۡرِجُ ٱلۡحَيَّ مِنَ ٱلۡمَيِّتِ وَتُخۡرِجُ ٱلۡمَيِّتَ مِنَ ٱلۡحَيِّۖ وَتَرۡزُقُ مَن تَشَآءُ بِغَيۡرِ حِسَابٖ

'You cause the night to enter the day, and You cause the day to enter the night; and You bring the living out of the dead, and You bring the dead out of the living. And You give provision to whom You will without account'.​

In surah al Ma'idah:
وَكُلُواْ مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمُ ٱللَّهُ حَلَٰلٗا طَيِّبٗاۚ وَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَ ٱلَّذِيٓ أَنتُم بِهِۦ مُؤۡمِنُونَ

And eat of what Allah has provided for you [which is] lawful and good. And fear Allah, in whom you are believers.​

In surah al An3am:
قَدۡ خَسِرَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَتَلُوٓاْ أَوۡلَٰدَهُمۡ سَفَهَۢا بِغَيۡرِ عِلۡمٖ وَحَرَّمُواْ مَا رَزَقَهُمُ ٱللَّهُ ٱفۡتِرَآءً عَلَى ٱللَّهِۚ قَدۡ ضَلُّواْ وَمَا كَانُواْ مُهۡتَدِ
ينَ

Those will have lost who killed their children in foolishness without knowledge and prohibited what Allah had provided for them, inventing untruth about Allah. They have gone astray and were not [rightly] guided.​

In surah Yunus:
قُلۡ مَن يَرۡزُقُكُم مِّنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضِ أَمَّن يَمۡلِكُ ٱلسَّمۡعَ وَٱلۡأَبۡصَٰرَ وَمَن يُخۡرِجُ ٱلۡحَيَّ مِنَ ٱلۡمَيِّتِ وَيُخۡرِجُ ٱلۡمَيِّتَ مِنَ ٱلۡحَيِّ وَمَن يُدَبِّرُ ٱلۡأَمۡرَۚ فَسَيَقُولُونَ ٱللَّهُۚ فَقُلۡ أَفَلَا تَتَّقُونَ

Say, "Who provides for you from the heaven and the earth? Or who controls hearing and sight and who brings the living out of the dead and brings the dead out of the living and who arranges [every] matter?" They will say, "Allah," so say, "Then will you not fear Him?"​

Postscript:
What are your thoughts on voluntary poverty?

I’m talking about a poor man that doesn’t have a penny. No roof over their heads. Where does the wife give birth?

Also, do you expect people to ignore the Prophet’s advise? Furthermore there is different kinds of poverty I’m talking about the type that can’t look after a wife and kids.

As for voluntary poverty that isn’t part of our deen. One should strive for their family and Allah rewards the men and women who do this.

 

[Journey.]

It does, and in principle, we agree, but divergence on a critical tangent arises, where I am an ardent apostle of the Divine providence (al qadr) with at its heart a) freewill, and b) free of pseudo elite dictum, and interference. Let me explain, and to do so, let me introduce a new, if relevant strand to the discussion; to float a requisite seeking to require poor people to neither marry nor to reproduce, just 'cos they are poor in a nation, where its population is dearth poor, is a rather myopic, if Machiavellian, check the origins of India's male preference indoctrination, or China's one child policy, or dare I suggest, Nazi's eugenics programme in seeking to outbreed the poor, sickly, and unsightly souls. Pushing it to the extreme boundary, I know, but you get the gist of it. In nature, such desires take in a benign shape only to grow malignant in no time.

As a libertarian, who embraces freewill to the core, as bestowed by the Almighty, I do not wish flawed elites or willy agents to dictate citizens' desires, and instead I am a fervent believer of letting adults choose as they wish departing from the principle of: within means of al qadr, and with Rizq from the Almighty. Does that clarify the divergence?

As examples, I generally out the likes of Dongbi, Spinoza, Abdul kalam, Ms Devi etc., all of whom are of impoverished upbringings, yet contributed a great deal to human advancement more than children of well-off families. Imagine had we applied out lofty, if draconian ideals of requiring only well-off families to breed, procreate, and honour us with their progeny whilst neutering parents of the said giants.

If a young man with excellent akhlaaq whom you were impressed with came and asked for your daughter's hand, would you overlook the fact that he has nothing to his name, no place to stay, and no means to look after a family, and marry your daughter to him?

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

They were Jannah and had everything. Very mad comparison walal.

Walaal, you are dodging the obvious; I mean post their exile from Jannah, and upon their arrival of Masr along the Nile, as some books indicate, instructed to cultivate, and feed themselves from the land, both naked with nigh to nought in their possession, and well before 'bayaan' has been afforded.

They clearly mostly all had jobs and whilst poor could all provide the very basics. The Prophet s.a.w wasn’t poor.

They had meals and a roof over their heads. I’m talking about a man that can’t provide that

I’m talking about a poor man that doesn’t have a penny. No roof over their heads. Where does the wife give birth?

Amongst others, was not Prophet Ilyas desperately poor, as documented in the Bible (story of Elijah)?

In some parts of the world, ladies still give birth under a tree, in the barn (I even read in some African cultures ladies give birth walking (NastagfirAllah) ), as was common in the old days, not that I would want a Somali / Muslim lady to even attempt that. Here is a scenaria: a young man, in his prime, resides in a Council estate or in a rental property paid for by the Council, is unemployed collecting the dole, harldy speaks the local language to seek employment, with no family or community support, and he wishes to tie the knot; would you advise him to wait? Or seek extracurricular release in perhaps Soho? Or find a fine lady to form a partnership, grow, and build a future together?

Also, do you expect people to ignore the Prophet’s advise? Furthermore there is different kinds of poverty I’m talking about the type that can’t look after a wife and kids.

Surely, we do not want to ignore the good counsel of the Prophet pbuh, but we want to consider applicability by case, pertinence by case, and conditions by case. Now, considering extended family and community support, what would you say is the percentage of people in .So in said category?

If a young man with excellent akhlaaq whom you were impressed with came and asked for your daughter's hand, would you overlook the fact that he has nothing to his name, no place to stay, and no means to look after a family, and marry your daughter to him?

Absolutely, and would do even one better: set them up, and invest in his / their future. My grandfather had actually done that exact thing with one of my aunts, and Al7amdulillah their family is now affluent living the good life in UK, .So, and Abu Dubi.

 

[Journey.]

Absolutely, and would do even one better: set them up, and invest in his / their future. My grandfather had actually done that exact thing with one of my aunts, and Al7amdulillah their family is now affluent living the good life in UK, .So, and Abu Dubi.

Alhamdulillah, that's great for them. I guess you could do that if you had the means and also saw potential in the young man (alongside his good character). I would say it's a bit of a risk but that's where your judgement comes into play.

If a father rejected such a proposal would you consider him wrong for that?

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

Alhamdulillah, that's great for them. I guess you could do that if you had the means and also saw potential in the young man (alongside his good character). I would say it's a bit of a risk but that's where your judgement comes into play.

True, yet young men of great character are scarce commodity, and the ability to recognise their value even more so; it is common in the Muslim culture, and some other cultures, to support young couples with promise and potential, help them grow till they could fetch for themselves.

If a father rejected such a proposal would you consider him wrong for that?

Not at all, it is up to the family with the final 'ikhtiyar' resting with the lady; further, I am more in favour of maintaining strong family ties, and am against of the ladies, or sons for that matter, if more so for the former, going it alone against the wishes of the family, for doing so weakens, if potentially sever, the family fabric, hardly benefiting any, if most injurious to the children.

 

[Journey.]

Not at all, it is up to the family with the final 'ikhtiyar' resting with the lady; further, I am more in favour of maintaining strong family ties, and am against of the ladies, or sons for that matter, if more so for the former, going it alone against the wishes of the family, for doing so weakens, if potentially sever, the family fabric, hardly benefiting any, if most injurious to the children.

Yes, it would be his place as the Wali to approve/disapprove a proposal for his daughter (and the daughter later either accepts/rejects the potential), but in this case do you find his reasoning valid?

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

Yes, it would be his place as the Wali to approve/disapprove a proposal for his daughter (and the daughter later either accepts/rejects the potential), but in this case do you find his reasoning valid?

Purely on the basis of his (suitor) being poor, albeit his being a 'good', upstanding young man? Yes, I would find father's rationale flawed, in that he attaches greater value with affordability than virtue, but would not condemn him for it, after all it is a matter of choice. Put it differently, if it were my siblings, cousins, close relations, or if I had a daughter, I would opt for 'akhlaq', decency, sound character (I must admit I do not warm to people with unsightly features, not their choosing, I know but a flaw on my part nonetheless), and not one's economic standing in the least.
Bear the following in mind: a 'good' wo(man) whether rich or poor, young or old, sick or healthy, is forever 'good' whereas a cad, in every possible sense, is forever that. Let not farthings, ill-gotten or otherwise, titillate your tasty buds.

Postscript:
As I ruminate, I am beginning to wonder if this could be 'cos, at first hand, I have not experienced poverty, or what it entails outside of observing it from a distance, and being a Dickensian of course, which might be the reason @Angelina is frustrated by my stance.

 

[Cambar]

They were Jannah and had everything. Very mad comparison walal.

They clearly mostly all had jobs and whilst poor could all provide the very basics. The Prophet s.a.w wasn’t poor.

They had meals and a roof over their heads. I’m talking about a man that can’t provide that

I’m talking about a poor man that doesn’t have a penny. No roof over their heads. Where does the wife give birth?

Also, do you expect people to ignore the Prophet’s advise? Furthermore there is different kinds of poverty I’m talking about the type that can’t look after a wife and kids.

As for voluntary poverty that isn’t part of our deen. One should strive for their family and Allah rewards the men and women who do this.

can i just say, i'm a big fan @Angelina

 

[Journey.]

Purely on the basis of his (suitor) being poor, albeit his being a 'good', upstanding young man? Yes, I would find father's rationale flawed, in that he attaches greater value with affordability than virtue, but would not condemn him for it, after all it is a matter of choice. Put it differently, if it were my siblings, cousins, close relations, or if I had a daughter, I would opt for 'akhlaq', decency, sound character (I must admit I do not warm to people with unsightly features, not their choosing, I know but a flaw on my part nonetheless), and not one's economic standing in the least.
Bear the following in mind: a 'good' wo(man) whether rich or poor, young or old, sick or healthy, is forever 'good' whereas a cad, in every possible sense, is forever that. Let not farthings, ill-gotten or otherwise, titillate your tasty buds.

Postscript:
As I ruminate, I am beginning to wonder if this could be 'cos, at first hand, I have not experienced poverty, or what it entails outside of observing it from a distance, and being a Dickensian of course, which might be the reason @Angelina is frustrated by my stance.

I think we've gotten to the bottom of our disagreement: you don't think a man's financial standing is consequential when seeking to marry. I think it's misleading to talk about "greater" value as you don't place any value on "riches", as you call it. Your problem, really, is with people placing value on this matter at all. Your position is that a man's finances should not matter if he has good character. I don't see this as a practical position to have. You may have the means to provide for and set up a penniless son-in-law, but many other father's don't. Would it be responsible on their part to marry their daughters into poverty?

It's good that the potential has good akhlaaq but he should also have the means to take care of a family, the Shari'ah outlines this because our religion is a practical one. And this depends on customs, class, circumstances, etc. What is expected from a reer miyi man back home is going to be different to what is expected from an upper middle-class man in a developed nation. The bottom line is that there is still an expectation to provide, whether his means is limited or vast.

At-Talaq 65:7

لِيُنفِقْ ذُو سَعَةٍ مِّن سَعَتِهِۦۖ وَمَن قُدِرَ عَلَيْهِ رِزْقُهُۥ فَلْيُنفِقْ مِمَّآ ءَاتَىٰهُ ٱللَّهُۚ لَا يُكَلِّفُ ٱللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا مَآ ءَاتَىٰهَاۚ سَيَجْعَلُ ٱللَّهُ بَعْدَ عُسْرٍ يُسْرًا

English - Mohsin Khan/Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali

Let the rich man spend according to his means; and the man whose resources are restricted, let him spend according to what Allah has given him. Allah puts no burden on any person beyond what He has given him. Allah will grant after hardship, ease.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

@Angelina @Journey.
Two simple, if leading questions with intent:
a) Whom would you choose:
i) A dashing, handsome pauper, or
ii) A well-off, unsightly cad?

b) A fountain:
i) Minting rolls of banknotes, or
ii) Bearing scrolls of wisdom?

@Journey.
Sorry walaal, I did not realise you were a lass, for your writing style comes across as if that of an emblematic, passive-aggressive geezer. A tiny peccadillo on my part, no offence intended!

 

[Angelina]

@Angelina @Journey.
Two simple, if leading questions with intent:
a) Whom would you choose:
i) A dashing, handsome pauper, or
ii) A well-off, unsightly cad?

b) A fountain:
i) Minting rolls of banknotes, or
ii) Bearing scrolls of wisdom?

@Journey.
Sorry walaal, I did not realise you were a lass, for your writing style comes across as if that of an emblematic, passive-aggressive geezer. A tiny peccadillo on my part, no offence intended!

I don’t think you understand the immense sacrifices a woman makes when in poverty compared to a man and the fact that it has more health issues on a woman, hence why Islamically a woman needs to be provided for. I think you need to ask yourself why did Allah legislate that a man needs to look after a family and why the Islamic marriage contract is tied to provision?I agree with Journey, you don’t seem to value it, in fact you ignore it and see it as a something to be placed in the background and it’s rather dangerous advise for any woman with sense, especially when the type of poverty we’re talking about is pauper level, not being able to or provide a shelter, food ect.

You've not thought of child birth? You've not thought of the healthcare aspects like the infections and the like that comes with it without any shelter, medicine ect.

Apart from maybe lack of nutrition, what specific dangers does a poor man face? Does he birth? Bleed for 40 days straight, sorry to be crude here but I feel you need a reality check. What about what a new born needs like clothing, a bed? What does a handsome face mean when when you’re too poor and weak to mother your own children? In the past, poor mothers would usually die in child birth.

You down play all of that and don’t seem to understand what a woman that is child birthing needs that for her survival? She needs provision, especially when not in the West where there isn’t free health care or the like. Why should a woman go through all of that if she can help it? What does the poor husband go through? How can we justify this walal?

Thats why I said I’ll never see eyes to eyes with you in this subject and I definitely think a so called ‘handsome’ pauper is selfish for trying to marry in such dire conditions. A good man will at least fast and try to marry when can afford the very basics. You place a man’s wants of getting married straight away and his satisfactions over a woman’s survival. You might not see it this way, but that’s what you’re essentially doing. Instead of waiting to at least being able to feed his wife and kids, he’d much rather it now? But what about the very survival of the woman who bears the brunt of this satisfaction?

I don’t understand what we’re normalizing here? A woman providing for a man? Or a father in law sheltering a near enough homeless man? Or a daughter birthing in the streets? All of that screams a lack of care for one’s daughter.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

I don’t think you understand the immense sacrifices a woman makes when in poverty compared to a man and the fact that it has more health issues on a woman, hence why Islamically a woman needs to be provided for. I think you need to ask yourself why did Allah legislate that a man needs to look after a family and why the Islamic marriage contract is tied to provision?I agree with Journey, you don’t seem to value it, in fact you ignore it and see it as a something to be placed in the background and it’s rather dangerous advise for any woman with sense, especially when the type of poverty we’re talking about is pauper level, not being able to or provide a shelter, food ect.

You've not thought of child birth? You've not thought of the healthcare aspects like the infections and the like that comes with it without any shelter, medicine ect.

Apart from maybe lack of nutrition, what specific dangers does a poor man face? Does he birth? Bleed for 40 days straight, sorry to be crude here but I feel you need a reality check. What about what a new born needs like clothing, a bed? What does a handsome face mean when when you’re too poor and weak to mother your own children? In the past, poor mothers would usually die in child birth.

You down play all of that and don’t seem to understand what a woman that is child birthing needs that for her survival? She needs provision, especially when not in the West where there isn’t free health care or the like. Why should a woman go through all of that if she can help it? What does the poor husband go through? How can we justify this walal?

Thats why I said I’ll never see eyes to eyes with you in this subject and I definitely think a so called ‘handsome’ pauper is selfish for trying to marry in such dire conditions. A good man will at least fast and try to marry when can afford the very basics. You place a man’s wants of getting married straight away and his satisfactions over a woman’s survival. You might not see it this way, but that’s what you’re essentially doing. Instead of waiting to at least being able to feed his wife and kids, he’d much rather it now? But what about the very survival of the woman who bears the brunt of this satisfaction?

I don’t understand what we’re normalizing here? A woman providing for a man? Or a father in law sheltering a near enough homeless man? Or a daughter birthing in the streets? All of that screams a lack of care for one’s daughter.

Walaal, you raise valid points, and as a bloke, I could neither fathom nor ponder what other men go through, let alone what a woman goes through in all aspects of her life, however, I do have females in my family, relatives, and friends, and am somewhat clued in as to what women go through, at birth, corporate corridors of power, or otherwise. One of my cousins is a OBGYN, another campaigns for young women, who survived fgm butchery and so forth. Needless to say, we have had many conversations at the dinner table, some heated, others not so much. So I am not on an Eiffel tower on a remote island.

Now, could you pause for a second, and honestly answer aforesaid questions?

 

[Angelina]

Walaal, you raise valid points, and as a bloke, I could neither fathom nor ponder what other men go through, let alone what a woman goes through in all aspects of her life, however, I do have females in my family, relatives, and friends, and am somewhat clued in as to what women go through, at birth, corporate corridors of power, or otherwise. One of my cousins is a OBGYN, another campaigns for young women, who survived fgm butchery and so forth. Needless to say, we have had many conversations at the dinner table, some heated, others not so much. So I am not on an Eiffel tower on a remote island.

I don’t know Saxib, because it seems to me you’re not adding any of that to your thinking. There is a reason why fathers who have their wits about them care about a man’s provision because after years of being married and raising their daughters, they are able to see everything I’ve mentioned. Hardly any father with sense would want their daughter with a literal pauper. I mean what’s the end goal? Finance another man’s son who should be looking after your daughter as you reach retirement age or your daughter to live like a single mother, being the breadwinner and birthing kids as she tries to cover all angles due to her husband having nothing?

Now, could you pause for a second, and honestly answer aforesaid questions?

No, because if I had to choose, I’ll choose survival and I don’t think a good man will marry if he has literally nothing and I mean nothing to his name.

Women have rights and the biggest rights a woman has over her husband is provision. Furthermore, when a woman is suffering under poverty, his face means nothing. It’s one thing if you married a relatively poor man but could afford the basics and then he became poorer, the love you’ve sustained in the marriage will help you ride it out, but marrying such a man in the beginning when there is no real love since love happens after marriage is foolish. Better to be with the unattractive man that can feed you and your children. As a person, your kids should a priority not a fleeting handsome face!

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

I don’t know Saxib, because it seems to me you’re not adding any of that to your thinking. There is a reason why fathers who have their wits about them care about a man’s provision because after years of being married and raising their daughters, they are able to see everything I’ve mentioned. Hardly any father with sense would want their daughter with a literal pauper. I mean what’s the end goal? Finance another man’s son who should be looking after your daughter as you reach retirement age or your daughter to live like a single mother, being the breadwinner and birthing kids as she tries to cover all angles due to her husband having nothing?

No, because if I had to choose, I’ll choose survival and I don’t think a good man will marry if he has literally nothing and I mean nothing to his name.

Women have rights and the biggest rights a woman has over her husband is provision. Furthermore, when a woman is suffering under poverty, his face means nothing. It’s one thing if you married a relatively poor man but could afford the basics and then he became poorer, the love you’ve sustained in the marriage will help you ride it out, but marrying such a man in the beginning when there is no real love since love happens after marriage is foolish. Better to be with the unattractive man that can feed you and your children. As a person, your kids should a priority not a fleeting handsome face!

Haye walaal, I shall rest my camel there. Thanks for the engagement.

 

[Journey.]

@Angelina @Journey.
Two simple, if leading questions with intent:
a) Whom would you choose:
i) A dashing, handsome pauper, or
ii) A well-off, unsightly cad?

b) A fountain:
i) Minting rolls of banknotes, or
ii) Bearing scrolls of wisdom?

Which would you choose if you were one missed meal away from starvation? What will all that wisdom do for you if you may not live to see tomorrow? Wealth can be superficial and excessive but don't forget that it's also necessary for survival. It seems like you've taken the saying, "money is the root of all evil" to extremes. You're unreasonably dismissive of it and consider placing any value on it materialistic, superficial and possibly immoral. This is a very extreme stance to take and at odds with our religion which is balanced, favouring neither extremes.

@Journey.
Sorry walaal, I did not realise you were a lass, for your writing style comes across as if that of an emblematic, passive-aggressive geezer. A tiny peccadillo on my part, no offence intended!

This sounds like a cheap shot which I didn't expect from you.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

Which would you choose if you were one missed meal away from starvation? What will all that wisdom do for you if you may not live to see tomorrow? Wealth can be superficial and excessive but don't forget that it's also necessary for survival. It seems like you've taken the saying, "money is the root of all evil" to extremes. You're unreasonably dismissive of it and consider placing any value on it materialistic, superficial and possibly immoral. This is a very extreme stance to take and at odds with our religion which is balanced, favouring neither extremes.

Haye walaal, let us leave it there for now.

This sounds like a cheap shot which I didn't expect from you.

My apologies, that was a poor attempt at humour on my part, which unfortunately did not quite find its intended target, Sorry, walaal.