The negative impacts of feminism

[anonimo]

I'm always current. I have my ear to the streets.

You?

You ain't never been on the wrong side of the tracks, Masha Allah.

Lost count of the number of times I was stopped and searched, those were the days. Some of the PoPo were sound though, they let me keep my Food.

The above is obviously a tall tale, never been involved in any illicit activity that involved the use of banned substances or engaged in anti-social behaviour that runs contrary to the norms of civilised society.

Anywho Soph. Been procrastinating lately so I gotta stay clear of the vice that is the General section. The search for a Nirvana continues.


Adieu!

 

[Sophisticate]

You?

You ain't never been on the wrong side of the tracks, Masha Allah.

Lost count of the number of times I was stopped and searched, those were the days. Some of the PoPo were sound though, they let me keep my Food.

The above is obviously a tall tale, never been involved in any illicit activity that involved the use of banned substances or engaged in anti-social behaviour that runs contrary to the norms of civilised society.

Anywho Soph. Been procrastinating lately so I gotta stay clear of the vice that is the General section. The search for a Nirvana continues.


Adieu!

Ear to the streets implies awareness of the lingo used by the youth. It means I have a pulse on the evolution of the jargon of the day. You're almost as law-abiding. Who are you kidding?
Generals is actually an amusing place, feel free to linger.

 

[Man with a garuun]

This debate isn't about whether polygamy is halal or not. We're simply talking about conditions. A man who signs a condition is simply giving up that privilege, no one is saying it is haram for him.

Answer this question:

1. So basically you believe Imam Hanbali was wrong?

2.Is ibn Taymiya wrong?

I concur with Imam Hanafi (ra) amd Imam Shaafici (ra). If the topic is not polygamy, then why raise issue on it? As both scholars stated, "that a woman may not add such conditions to a marriage contract. However, if such were added to a marriage contract, they are not binding while the marriage contract itself remains valid otherwise (separability of clauses)."

So since at least 2 scholars opposed to what you're preaching, and polygamy is halal provided the Muslim men fulfill the conditions attached, Imam Hanbali (ra)'s views can be viewed as daciif.

FYI, Ibn Tamiya follows the Hanbali madhab, so using him separately is not right.

3.Were they questioning Allah's degree?

No, their reasoning was not as strong as the Hanafi (ra) and Shafi'i as far as I can see.

4.Do you belive that founders of madhabs had problems with polygamy?

Nope. The scholars never had a problem with polygamy. Allah (swt) already made it halal. What they all opposed was Muslim men abusing it. There is a difference between polygamy itself and the conduct of some Muslim men who abused it. Scholars were adamant that if you can't do justice to your wives on equitable basis, stick with 1 wife. The issue was treating your wives justly on equitable basis.

Becauase at the end of the day I follow their opinion.

You followed their opinion because you're using it to reinforce your preconceived notions. And I said that because if your interest in this topic was genuine, you would've researched the reasoning of each scholar, you would've valued the verse in the Holy Qur'an that allowed polygamy, and then would've seen the complexity of this topic. In the beginning of the topic, you didn't even know whether it was Hanbali or Maliki who agreed with adding clause to the nikaax contract that nullified the marriage in the event that Muslim man marries a second, 3rd, or 4th wife. It was after google search that you come across Islamqa topic and use that as a reasoning. Thus, your reasoning here isn't based on Islamic jurisprudence and where each scholar stood. It is all about which scholar supports your preconceived notions.

 

[Man with a garuun]

Nah, he simply thinks he knows better than scholars. He is literally saying I have issues with polygamy for following the Hanbali opinion that women can put in a polygamy clause.

So now, he is accusing Imam Hanbali of being wrong like he knows more than them. He doesn't understand that fiqh isn't black and white and that Muslims are free to have that opinion.

Ahlul-Sunna should follow one of the 4th madhabs. For me, the opinions of 2 major Islamic scholars - Hanafi (ra) and Shaafici (ra) busted that little clause that you're running with in the marriage contract. Imam Hanbali (ra)'s views on this topic can't come against what is already been allowed in the Noble Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet (scw).

I would end it by stating you and many of your fellow feminists can run with that "polygamous" clause, but it has no religious basis. You can run to Islamqa and other literalists' sites, but the words and the figh knowledge of Imam Hanafi (ra) and Imam Shaafi'i are dead set against for this little clause that you're running with.

Good night.

 

[Man with a garuun]

I see why, although I disagree with their stance of belittling people that are strict with madhabs. That can come across as arrogant indeed.

But I'll tell you why I see their point at times, although people definitely have a right to follow their madhab:

Example, in the Hanafi school of thought, not marrying without a Wali is seen as acceptable. We know there are hadiths in which we're told such marriages are invalid. Even though, I would never berate someone for following their madhab, marrying with out a Wali when there is a blatant hadith warning against it does seem a bit well.... risky. So in certain situations I can see why people do have issues with strict following of madhabs, but to be honest as Laymen we all follow someone.

So its a tricky one Wallahi. Its something that has got me thinking. @anonimo what are your views on the matter?

The only time Hanafi school of thought allows a Muslim woman to marry without her Wali is if he is unfit and unable to safeguard the lady's rights. In that case, the Hanafi school of thought argues that the Qadi or a judge who is entrusted with Islamic duties should act as her weli. So having all of the facts helps everyone to understand why some of the learned Muslim scholars took that stand.

 

[Angelina]

The only time Hanafi school of thought allows a Muslim woman to marry without her Wali is if he is unfit and unable to safeguard the lady's rights. In that case, the Hanafi school of thought argues that the Qadi or a judge who is entrusted with Islamic duties should act as her weli. So having all of the facts helps everyone to understand why some of the learned Muslim scholars took that stand.

'So having all of the facts helps'. Talk about embarrassingly patronising. I rarely make an Islamic point without having the facts:



The renowned Hanafi jurist, Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states:

“The marriage of a free and legally responsible (i.e. adult and sane) woman is valid (even) without the permission of her guardian (wali)…..and the Fatwa issued in her marrying someone who is not her legal match is of invalidity, and this is the chosen Fatwa due to corrupt times…” (See: Radd al-Muhtar ala al-Durr 3/56-57.

At this point, you can't be trusted.

It is well known fact that in the Hanafi school a sane Muslim woman can be her own wali. Whilst it might not be recommended, her marriage however is still valid. The only times is if the man is deemed very unsuitable.
You want more proof?

Shaykh Muhammad Qudri Basha states in his al-Akham al-Shar’iyya fi al-Ahwal al-Shakhsiyya:

Item no 51:

“…It is the right of a free and legally responsible woman to marry herself without the approval of her guardian, whether she is a virgin or non-virgin. This marriage will stand as valid if the husband whom she married is a legal match to her…”


So please, stop talking about what you don't know. What you're talking about is the the three other madhabs who argue that a Qadi can be a woman's Wali if her father/family are being unreasonable. In the Hanifi school of thought she can be her own Wali and conduct her own marriage.

Also, before you come for me, no I don't personally agree with their stance. But you're literally lying and saying 'I don't have the facts'.

 

[Angelina]

I concur with Imam Hanafi (ra) amd Imam Shaafici (ra). If the topic is not polygamy, then why raise issue on it? As both scholars stated, "that a woman may not add such conditions to a marriage contract. However, if such were added to a marriage contract, they are not binding while the marriage contract itself remains valid otherwise (separability of clauses)."

So since at least 2 scholars opposed to what you're preaching, and polygamy is halal provided the Muslim men fulfill the conditions attached, Imam Hanbali (ra)'s views can be viewed as daciif.

FYI, Ibn Tamiya follows the Hanbali madhab, so using him separately is not right.




No, their reasoning was not as strong as the Hanafi (ra) and Shafi'i as far as I can see.



Nope. The scholars never had a problem with polygamy. Allah (swt) already made it halal. What they all opposed was Muslim men abusing it. There is a difference between polygamy itself and the conduct of some Muslim men who abused it. Scholars were adamant that if you can't do justice to your wives on equitable basis, stick with 1 wife. The issue was treating your wives justly on equitable basis.



You followed their opinion because you're using it to reinforce your preconceived notions. And I said that because if your interest in this topic was genuine, you would've researched the reasoning of each scholar, you would've valued the verse in the Holy Qur'an that allowed polygamy, and then would've seen the complexity of this topic. In the beginning of the topic, you didn't even know whether it was Hanbali or Maliki who agreed with adding clause to the nikaax contract that nullified the marriage in the event that Muslim man marries a second, 3rd, or 4th wife. It was after google search that you come across Islamqa topic and use that as a reasoning. Thus, your reasoning here isn't based on Islamic jurisprudence and where each scholar stood. It is all about which scholar supports your preconceived notions.

No one cares.
I follow the views of Imam Hanbal and usually take my fatwas from Sh. Fawzan and Ibn Uthaymeen. My current Islamic teacher is Hanbali as well.
I'm going to follow their opinions rather than you. Accept that it is a valid opinion and be on your way.

Your whole argument is low IQ and to sum it up it follows:

'I follow the Hanafi/Shafi madhab when it comes to this and so should you. I believe that Imam Hanbali and the Maliki school of thought had a dhaciif view'

With all due respect, that is YOUR view and to say such a contract isn't binding is laughable. I live in the Middle East and sorry to break it you but this contract happens here in the Sharia courts and is most definitely something scholars here take into account. You can debate with them if you like.

 

[Angelina]

I agree.

I am not into Factionalism hence why I don't get along with the blind following found among some Salafis who quote their Culuma like they are Christ reincarnated.

Spoiler

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

 

[anonimo]

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

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

 

[liya]

I don’t understand how this thread turned from an interesting debate on feminism and the affects it has on young Muslim girls, into.. I’m not even sure wallahi

You could just make a new thread for that, but hey. Not my thread.

 

[IstarZ]

This has turn into a polygamy thread but I want to address the OP.

Feminism is often thrown around when Muslim women choose to be more vocal about their issues because it is clear that most men aren’t going to address them.

The knowledgeable few who make the effort are drowned out by the ones who go out of their way to ensure that the discussions always centre around the most futile and mundane issues, or they themselves choose to focus more on dress-code than on domestic violence or rape.

‘Feminism’ is used as a knee-jerk accusation to make a woman feel she’s being a less-than-ideal Muslimah. It’s thrown around as a curse word even if the label doesn’t fit.

Even women who do not identify as feminists are labelled as such because they choose to speak out against the troubling misogynistic behaviours in their communities.

So it’s essentially used to silence women when they support certain (Islamic) positions regarding women’s rights.

There are comments on this forum vilifying women who aren’t married past a certain age, single mothers and divorced women. There are troubling comments made about the exploitation of maids back home, not to mention the plethora of topics of women doing xyz thing wrong.

Islam covers all the bases, but Muslims certainly don’t, and when the balance is off, there must be something to correct it. That’s all there is to it. The labels are pretty much irrelevant.

Instead of listening and addressing the concerns of Muslim women, Muslims would rather shut their eyes and ignore what they are being told.

Some Muslim men think Islam has given them free reign to limit and subjugate the women in their lives but they have little understanding of qawwama and the huge responsibility it entails. In his last sermon, the Prophet SAW emphasised kind treatment to women for a reason.

 

[Angelina]

This has turn into a polygamy thread but I want to address the OP.

Feminism is often thrown around when Muslim women choose to be more vocal about their issues because it is clear that most men aren’t going to address them.

The knowledgeable few who make the effort are drowned out by the ones who go out of their way to ensure that the discussions always centre around the most futile and mundane issues, or they themselves choose to focus more on dress-code than on domestic violence or rape.

‘Feminism’ is used as a knee-jerk accusation to make a woman feel she’s being a less-than-ideal Muslimah. It’s thrown around as a curse word even if the label doesn’t fit.

Even women who do not identify as feminists are labelled as such because they choose to speak out against the troubling misogynistic behaviours in their communities.

So it’s essentially used to silence women when they support certain (Islamic) positions regarding women’s rights.

There are comments on this forum vilifying women who aren’t married past a certain age, single mothers and divorced women. There are troubling comments made about the exploitation of maids back home, not to mention the plethora of topics of women doing xyz thing wrong.

Islam covers all the bases, but Muslims certainly don’t, and when the balance is off, there must be something to correct it. That’s all there is to it. The labels are pretty much irrelevant.

Instead of listening and addressing the concerns of Muslim women, Muslims would rather shut their eyes and ignore what they are being told.

Some Muslim men think Islam has given them free reign to limit and subjugate the women in their lives but they have little understanding of qawwama and the huge responsibility it entails. In his last sermon, the Prophet SAW emphasised kind treatment to women for a reason.

A perfect example is someone calling me a feminist for believing in the polygamy clauses which is a legitimate Islamic position held by two madhabs with extensive texts surrounding the issue since the Medieval period.

Any woman whom they disagree with, who can even show scholarly proof is still vilified and called feminist, if what they believe doesn't fit their narrative.

I'm convinced they believe Islam is a tool in which they can insert their male supremist beliefs.

 

[En_Sabah Nur]

This has turn into a polygamy thread but I want to address the OP.

Feminism is often thrown around when Muslim women choose to be more vocal about their issues because it is clear that most men aren’t going to address them.

The knowledgeable few who make the effort are drowned out by the ones who go out of their way to ensure that the discussions always centre around the most futile and mundane issues, or they themselves choose to focus more on dress-code than on domestic violence or rape.

‘Feminism’ is used as a knee-jerk accusation to make a woman feel she’s being a less-than-ideal Muslimah. It’s thrown around as a curse word even if the label doesn’t fit.

Even women who do not identify as feminists are labelled as such because they choose to speak out against the troubling misogynistic behaviours in their communities.

So it’s essentially used to silence women when they support certain (Islamic) positions regarding women’s rights.

There are comments on this forum vilifying women who aren’t married past a certain age, single mothers and divorced women. There are troubling comments made about the exploitation of maids back home, not to mention the plethora of topics of women doing xyz thing wrong.

Islam covers all the bases, but Muslims certainly don’t, and when the balance is off, there must be something to correct it. That’s all there is to it. The labels are pretty much irrelevant.

Instead of listening and addressing the concerns of Muslim women, Muslims would rather shut their eyes and ignore what they are being told.

Some Muslim men think Islam has given them free reign to limit and subjugate the women in their lives but they have little understanding of qawwama and the huge responsibility it entails. In his last sermon, the Prophet SAW emphasised kind treatment to women for a reason.

This is fair. But there are women (some here) who argue against things which are clearly halal in Islam and want to make them haram because they want to modernize the religion.

 

[IstarZ]

This is fair. But there are women (some here) who argue against things which are clearly halal in Islam and want to make them haram because they want to modernize the religion.

Granted. It could be out of ignorance, lack of understanding or sometimes misguidance. Most of the women here aren’t opposed to the rulings of Islam.

 

[Amk]

Granted. It could be out of ignorance, lack of understanding or sometimes misguidance. Most of the women here aren’t opposed to the rulings of Islam.

From wat Ive seen there is a large amount that does

 

[IstarZ]

From wat Ive seen there is a large amount that does

That’s your experience but not mine.

 

[Amk]

That’s your experience but not mine.

shush.

 

[IstarZ]

---

shush.

 

[Man with a garuun]

No one cares.
I follow the views of Imam Hanbal and usually take my fatwas from Sh. Fawzan and Ibn Uthaymeen. My current Islamic teacher is Hanbali as well.
I'm going to follow their opinions rather than you. Accept that it is a valid opinion and be on your way.

Your whole argument is low IQ and to sum it up it follows:

'I follow the Hanafi/Shafi madhab when it comes to this and so should you. I believe that Imam Hanbali and the Maliki school of thought had a dhaciif view'

With all due respect, that is YOUR view and to say such a contract isn't binding is laughable. I live in the Middle East and sorry to break it you but this contract happens here in the Sharia courts and is most definitely something scholars here take into account. You can debate with them if you like.

No one cares.
I follow the views of Imam Hanbal and usually take my fatwas from Sh. Fawzan and Ibn Uthaymeen. My current Islamic teacher is Hanbali as well.
I'm going to follow their opinions rather than you. Accept that it is a valid opinion and be on your way.

Your whole argument is low IQ and to sum it up it follows:

So Imam Hanafi (ra) and Imam Shafici making a stand against what you and others before you preached is a low IQ now?

Let me repeat their stand on the so-called marriage clause that some women are running with where they want to divorce their husbands if they take a second, 3rd, or 4th wife:

"that a woman may not add such conditions to a marriage contract. However, if such were added to a marriage contract, they are not binding while the marriage contract itself remains valid otherwise (separability of clauses)."

'I follow the Hanafi/Shafi madhab when it comes to this and so should you. I believe that Imam Hanbali and the Maliki school of thought had a dhaciif view'

With all due respect, that is YOUR view and to say such a contract isn't binding is laughable. I live in the Middle East and sorry to break it you but this contract happens here in the Sharia courts and is most definitely something scholars here take into account. You can debate with them if you like.

Two major Muslim jurists have taken a stand against the so-called marriage clause that you're preaching here. My views on this topic are based on their views and also on the verse 4:3 that ordained polygamy. I have solid argument against on what you're running with here. That pretty much sums up for me.

 

[Amk]

So Imam Hanafi (ra) and Imam Shafici making a stand against what you and others before you preached is a low IQ now?

Let me repeat their stand on the so-called marriage clause that some women are running with where they want to divorce their husbands if they take a second, 3rd, or 4th wife:

"that a woman may not add such conditions to a marriage contract. However, if such were added to a marriage contract, they are not binding while the marriage contract itself remains valid otherwise (separability of clauses)."



Two major Muslim jurists have taken a stand against the so-called marriage clause that you're preaching here. My views on this topic are based on their views and also on the verse 4:3 that ordained polygamy. I have solid argument against on what you're running with here. That pretty much sums up for me.

Shuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuush