what do women get out of islam?

[Michael]

Can you find honour killings in the Qur'an?

Anyone able to find a verse on that?

And so I agree and hence argument (B).

I’m still waiting for you to tell me another hypothesis on why countries with majority Muslim populations are presently bucking the tend? I do expect that as they become more accepting of other beliefs and more open to other ideas (like Sam’s notion on Muslim Homosexuals or her reinterpretation of Greek Gods to fit her beleif - ergo Greek Polytheism may fit with Islam) that Muslim societies will pluralize and someday open atheists, polytheists, Jews, Scientologists, ect.. will live in Saudi Arabia and women will be equal.

It will happen.

The “Islam” of the future will be nothing like the Islam you currently believe in Qa`Dark. Just wait until the first female Muslim Imam leads a wedding for a Atheist Muslim Jew marrying his Hindu polytheists homosexual partner in Mecca.

It is going to happen.

Michael

 

[Kadark]

Lets think about it another way. Suppose Slavery was legal. People wanted to have Slaves. It was a goal. The Religion said it was moral to own up to 4 Slaves. It’s OK to own humans. It’s OK for humans to be property. It’s OK to be a Master. Do you think that if this were the case, that even if only 1-3 people out of every 100 owned a coupe of Slaves, that this mentality would have a dramatic effect on society?

In Islam, you cannot have a slave for no reason. You can only have slaves through the aftermath of a war. Your example fails to understand this.

I don’t get your point.

Some dictators treat women unequally; some treat people of different regions on their land differently; some treat variation in skin colour differently. Most dictators treat some group of people unequally or unfairly in some way.

I’m sure that if there was a country where Samcdkey ran the show and Muslim homosexuals were fully accepted and integrated into the society you’d say “This is not a “true” Islamic society". Which is why it’s a pointless argument. And one I covered in argument (A) there has never ever existed a “truly” Islamic country - so it’s pointless to speculate. It makes equally as much sense to say there has never ever been a “true” Communist country and so the Chinese Communist Manifesto (which is a religous doctrine like the Qur'an) is still a brilliant peace of literature and we should all give Communism a try and why not worship Mao while we’re at.

I realize a truly Islamic society has never existed, nor never will. However, my point is that the ones who have followed Islam closest have succeeded.

They were hereditary Dynastic Empires that just happen to encompass Muslim populations. History shows they suffered the exact same fate every single Empire has suffered – founding, war and conquest, golden age and peace, corruption, a poor dictator and collapse. That’s a simple fact of history. The Ottomans didn’t do anything differently than any other Empires. See: Chinese, Japanese, Roman, Greek, English, French, etc.. etc.. etc...

The Ottomans didn't collapse from corruption and poor dictators. They collapsed from WW1. Do your homework. Besides, didn't America's democracy form like your example? The Europeans "founded" America, had war/spread diseases throughout the Native Americans, are living a golden age as we speak, and are slowly being corrupted by their leaders this very day.

I wouldn’t expect countries where there are a majority of Muslims to be any different than anywhere else. BUT, and this is the point, we live in a modern era. All countries of diverse belief and cultural normality are giving women legal equality with men - except (it seems) countries where there are a majority of Muslims. Why? Why are they bucking the tend? Do you think it has something to do with their religious belief or is that just a coincidence?

If it is due to a religious belief, why are you so hesitant to show where in the Qur'an they're ordered to be treated like trash? If it's true, it should be easy to prove.

This is reason I took the position “Islam in Practice”. You are trying to duck the argument by saying They aren’t is “real” Islamic. I say that this is a bogus argument OR we agree to (A)

I say women don't get treated like we see today in Muslim societies in the Qur'an. The title of this thread is self-explanatory - what do women get out of ISLAM.

If not then your argument is akin to saying we can not talk about Communist Russia or Communist China because they were never “truly” Communist. They never existed.

Who said I disagreed with this? Accordingly, we have yet to see communism executed properly.

Why is it that for the main it is “Islamic” counties that are treating women the most unequally?

Why is it that the Qur'an doesn't support their decisions?

Presently countries with majority Muslim populations have a record that is far worse than Communist countries, worse than Buddhist countries, worse than Hindu countries, worse than Democracies – well why is such the case? I gave (A) (B) and (C) in addition to the polygamy argument which I rehashed.

So I am asking you –Why? What do you think? (note: Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Lebanon, etc.. do not have a Dictators, they have elected officials)

Does Islam fund their decisions? Can you find verses in the Qur'an ordering women to be treated like this? If you cannot, then surely the answer isn't religious.

As they say: One gets the leaders One deserves.

So if I'm born into a corrupt society with money grubbing leaders who care only about their pockets, and I haven't the resources or money to leave, it's my fault? Wow.

Malaysia and Indonesia are democracies. It will be interesting to see if a separation of their Religion and their State will result in equality for women in those countries. If such should happen – I wonder how you will rationalize it? Will you still think an Islamic State is better than a secular Democratic one?

Are you forgetting the dirt poor nations in central america, south america, and Africa, that use democracy but run horrible nations? They have the highest rates of crime, drug pushing, prostitution, poverty, famine, disease, etc. What about these democracies?

 

[Michael]

In Islam, you cannot have a slave for no reason. You can only have slaves through the aftermath of a war. Your example fails to understand this.

The example asks the question: Do you think accepting Slavery as a legitimate Institution in society will affect said society – even if the ownership is at a low level?

I’d think so.

Well? Do you ???

The Ottomans didn't collapse from corruption and poor dictators. They collapsed from WW1.

I think it’s more complex. In a line up to a powerful Russia this is where one researcher puts the fall.
[ 1 ] 16th-10th c. commercial expansion overseas enriched Western Europe to the detriment of the Ottomans.
[ 2 ] The West improved agricultural methods while technology and industry advanced rapidly, all tied to the new scientific experimentation and rationalist attitudes stemming from the Renaissance and Reformation and culminating in the Enlightenment; only weak echoes of these events reached the East before 1800.
[ 3 ] Strong, centralized, national monarchies or bureaucratic empires appeared not only in Western Europe but also along the Ottoman frontiers in Central and Eastern Europe just when centrifugal forces were weakening the previously centralized Ottoman bureaucratic empire.
[ 4 ] A prosperous,enterprising bourgeoisie on the Western model failed to appear in the Ottoman Empire to back up the ruler; the wealthy bourgeoisie which did exist was small and composed largely of either non-Muslim merchants and bankers, who were not acceptable as the sultan’s allies, or bureaucrats, who were a part of the "establishment ” anxious to protect their own interests and often resisting change.

Besides, didn't America's democracy form like your example? The Europeans "founded" America, had war/spread diseases throughout the Native Americans, are living a golden age as we speak, and are slowly being corrupted by their leaders this very day.

There isn’t a History of Republics to look back on so it’s hard to say. If the Republic remains a Republic I think it will continue to advance. If the Republic becomes a Dictatorship it may do well for awhile but ultimately will collapse.

Having arse holes like GW Bush Junior in there once in awhile probably helps Americans see the ideals of Republic over Dictatorship much more clearly.

As for the USA, I think that the World will unite long before the USA would have collapsed. People with money like stability. They will ensure this comes to pass. BUT, little do they know, money and security degrades potential and even retards brain development. We need insecurity to develop potential. It's how we evolved. So We The People should have a continual renewal of the rich as the old ones die and are replaced by the clever new.

IMHO anyway.

If it is due to a religious belief, why are you so hesitant to show where in the Qur'an they're ordered to be treated like trash? If it's true, it should be easy to prove.

Qa`Dark, I laid out my argument that its due to accepting the fairness of polygamy (regardless if one personally has many wives) – you disagree with it.

I say women don't get treated like we see today in Muslim societies in the Qur'an. The title of this thread is self-explanatory - what do women get out of ISLAM.

OK, we have a problem here.
Qa`Dark, you will have to define the word Islam exactly. Explain how Sam’s homosexual Muslim friend fits into your definition of Islam. If not, then we will have to agree there is no two Muslims that totally agree on exactly what the word ISLAM means and thus replace the word with “countries where the majority of people are Muslim”
OR we agree to (A)

Why is it that the Qur'an doesn't support their decisions?

Again, which is why I said polygamy is supported by the Qur’an and I laid out my argument therein.

Does Islam fund their decisions? Can you find verses in the Qur'an ordering women to be treated like this? If you cannot, then surely the answer isn't religious.

again the most reasonable explanation I came to is polygamy.

There must be some reason why outside of dictators because Malaysia and Indonesia are not dictatorships and also many Dictators have given women equal rights.

What are your other ideas?

So if I'm born into a corrupt society with money grubbing leaders who care only about their pockets, and I haven't the resources or money to leave, it's my fault? Wow.

The statement is one about the society not the individual. The Japanese had an Emperor because that is what society wanted to have. Many Japanese wanted to have a modern Democracy with a ceremonial Imperial family. But, the majority of Society did not.

The Iranians supported the Islamic Republic and now they repeating the reward.

It’s a comment on society.

Are you forgetting the dirt poor nations in central America, south America, and Africa, that use democracy but run horrible nations? They have the highest rates of crime, drug pushing, prostitution, poverty, famine, disease, etc. What about these democracies?

Good question. Perhaps they do not have a culture conducive towards maintaining a Republic? I suppose we’ll see where it leads them. (i often think South America is too religous, too Catholic, to monotheistic - all of which in MHO is antithesis to democracy)

 

[Fugu-dono]

I think we are pushing into politics a little much more than religion guys. Perhaps we should get back into the main issue of the topic ne. By all means democracy is not perfect, and it's obvious that communism will never really work ever.

Michael it seems you have to quote examples relating to mistreatment of women following Islamic faith throughout different period as well as to relate them to key passages in the Qur'an.

Anyhow carry on. There's some very interesting arguments. I've personally put in my two cents a page back though they weren't exactly indepth.

I do want to ask Qa'Dark about why does the Islamic leaders allow family honour killing and such practise as FGM to exist today? If they condoning such acts and since the Qur'an don't promote it then why are many muslim people commiting them? Why are intelligent females not allowed powerful positioning in politics of most Islamic countries? Why are much general muslim females hesitant to speak about whatever they want out loud? Does majority of Islamic countries allow all internationally accepted human rights for women? Provide evidence that women of the Islamic faith truely have equal standing as men please. Recent examples and over different period would be appreciated. Thanks

 

[Kadark]

The example asks the question: Do you think accepting Slavery as a legitimate Institution in society will affect said society – even if the ownership is at a low level?

I’d think so.

Well? Do you ???

That depends. Will neighbouring territories start wars with you? If they do, then there will be slaves. If they are peaceful, slaves don't exist. What's unordinary in this picture?

[ 1 ] 16th-10th c. commercial expansion overseas enriched Western Europe to the detriment of the Ottomans.

[ 2 ] The West improved agricultural methods while technology and industry advanced rapidly, all tied to the new scientific experimentation and rationalist attitudes stemming from the Renaissance and Reformation and culminating in the Enlightenment; only weak echoes of these events reached the East before 1800.
[ 3 ] Strong, centralized, national monarchies or bureaucratic empires appeared not only in Western Europe but also along the Ottoman frontiers in Central and Eastern Europe just when centrifugal forces were weakening the previously centralized Ottoman bureaucratic empire.
[ 4 ] A prosperous,enterprising bourgeoisie on the Western model failed to appear in the Ottoman Empire to back up the ruler; the wealthy bourgeoisie which did exist was small and composed largely of either non-Muslim merchants and bankers, who were not acceptable as the sultan’s allies, or bureaucrats, who were a part of the "establishment ” anxious to protect their own interests and often resisting change.

The long period of Ottoman decline is typically broken by historians into an era of failed reforms and a subsequent era of modern times. The military and political details of this period are covered in three separate articles: the stagnation of the Ottoman Empire (1699–1827), when the empire began to lose territory along its western borders, but managed to maintain its stature as a great regional power; the decline of the Ottoman Empire (1828–1908), when the empire lost territory on all fronts, and there was administrative instability due to the breakdown of centralized government, despite efforts of reform and reorganization such as the Tanzimat; and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1908-1922), when the Ottoman state finally met its demise under the government of the Committee of Union and Progress which administered the country during the Italo-Turkish War of 1911-1912, the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, and the First World War of 1914-1918.

Starting from the occupation of Algeria by France in 1830, and the independence of Greece in 1832 — both of which followed the weakening of the Ottoman Navy after the Battle of Navarino in 1827 against the combined British-French-Russian fleets — the empire's territories in Europe, Asia and Africa began to gradually shrink. The process gained pace after the Ottoman defeat at the Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878), which caused the loss of a great deal of the Balkan provinces, some of which were recovered after the Congress of Berlin in 1878, particularly with the assistance of the British government of Benjamin Disraeli. In return, Britain rented Cyprus in 1878 and occupied Egypt in 1882 (Cyprus and Egypt remained Ottoman territories de jure until 1914, when the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers). France occupied Tunisia in 1881 and Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Hercegovina in 1908. Libya and the Dodecanese Islands were occupied by Italy after the Italo-Turkish War of 1911-1912, and the remaining Balkan provinces were lost with the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913. Finally, the non-Turkish Ottoman territories in the Middle East were lost in the aftermath of World War I. Large parts of Anatolia were also partitioned with the Treaty of Sèvres, which were later recovered with the Treaty of Lausanne following the Turkish War of Independence in 1919-1922.

There isn’t a History of Republics to look back on so it’s hard to say. If the Republic remains a Republic I think it will continue to advance. If the Republic becomes a Dictatorship it may do well for awhile but ultimately will collapse.

Having arse holes like GW Bush Junior in there once in awhile probably helps Americans see the ideals of Republic over Dictatorship much more clearly.

As for the USA, I think that the World will unite long before the USA would have collapsed. People with money like stability. They will ensure this comes to pass. BUT, little do they know, money and security degrades potential and even retards brain development. We need insecurity to develop potential. It's how we evolved. So We The People should have a continual renewal of the rich as the old ones die and are replaced by the clever new.

IMHO anyway.

You "think", speculate, predict, and assume far too much for my liking.

Qa`Dark, I laid out my argument that its due to accepting the fairness of polygamy (regardless if one personally has many wives) – you disagree with it.

Agree to disagree.

OK, we have a problem here.
Qa`Dark, you will have to define the word Islam exactly. Explain how Sam’s homosexual Muslim friend fits into your definition of Islam. If not, then we will have to agree there is no two Muslims that totally agree on exactly what the word ISLAM means and thus replace the word with “countries where the majority of people are Muslim”
OR we agree to (A)
Again, which is why I said polygamy is supported by the Qur’an and I laid out my argument therein.
again the most reasonable explanation I came to is polygamy.

Islam is submission to Allah. The primary belief of Islam, the thing that differentiates it from other faiths, is that God is one, and Muhammad is his messenger. You saw me and SAM argue homosexuality in Islam. You can agree with her or me, based on the debate. If you ask %99.9 of the people who study Islam extensively, and they'll say homosexuality isn't allowed. Read the Qur'an and form your own decision.

There must be some reason why outside of dictators because Malaysia and Indonesia are not dictatorships and also many Dictators have given women equal rights.

What are your other ideas?

And many dictators have slaughtered certain people of their lands, banished people of different faiths, displayed racism to different colours, etc. Why do these dictators do such things themselves?

Good question. Perhaps they do not have a culture conducive towards maintaining a Republic? I suppose we’ll see where it leads them. (i often think South America is too religous, too Catholic, to monotheistic - all of which in MHO is antithesis to democracy)

Oh, so you blame the public for faulty democracies? Why can't I blame the leaders for faulty theocracies?

 

[Michael]

That depends. Will neighbouring territories start wars with you? If they do, then there will be slaves. If they are peaceful, slaves don't exist. What's unordinary in this picture?

This isn't my point.

My specific question is:
Do you think that people living in a society that accepts Slavery as a legitimate Institution will in general have a different attitude towards Slaves (even if the ownership is at a low level) compared with a society that has banned Slavery and views Slavery as morally unacceptable? In essence does the acceptance of Slavery have a bearing on the manner in which Slaves are viewed by people living in that society?



Do you really think that the USA, Germany and Japan would have all been better off in the long run following WWII had the conquered Germans and Japanese been made into Slaves for the Americans?

You really think that Slavery is such a good thing? I find that hard to believe Qa`Dark.

The long period of Ottoman decline ….

From your own post I'd say WWI may have been the last nail in the coffin but the body was laid to rest well and truly before.

Oh, so you blame the public for faulty democracies? Why can't I blame the leaders for faulty theocracies?

So your answer as to why men in the general populous in Muslim societies accept the legal mistreatment of women is purely because they have poor dictators? The very poor state of female inequality in the entire Muslim World is purely to be blamed on dictators? The reason why Afghani women are covered tip to toe is because of Hamid Karzai? The reason why many Pakistani women live as second class citizens is purely to do with Pervez Musharraf?

Is this what you are saying?
Amnesty International

"The right to life of women in Pakistan is conditional on their obeying social norms and traditions." - Hina Jilani, lawyer and human rights activist
The lives of millions of women in Pakistan are circumscribed by traditions which enforce extreme seclusion and submission to men. Male relatives virtually own them and punish contraventions of their proprietary control with violence.

This is all the fault of Pervez Musharraf? You feel comfortable with this as your final conclusive answer? Pervez Musharraf is to blame for the sad state of women legal affairs in Pakistan?

The newly elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to blame for the inequality in between males and females in Iran?

And what of the democracies in Malaysia and Indonesia?

Michael

 

[Kadark]

Do you think that people living in a society that accepts Slavery as a legitimate Institution will in general have a different attitude towards Slaves (even if the ownership is at a low level) compared with a society that has banned Slavery and views Slavery as morally unacceptable? In essence does the acceptance of Slavery have a bearing on the manner in which Slaves are viewed by people living in that society?

Obviously it does.

Do you really think that the USA, Germany and Japan would have all been better off in the long run following WWII had the conquered Germans and Japanese been made into Slaves for the Americans?

It certainly would have been better for America.

You really think that Slavery is such a good thing? I find that hard to believe Qa`Dark.

By Islamic law, I wish there were no slaves. If there are no slaves, then there are no wars. I'd rather have my family members alive than a few slaves.

From your own post I'd say WWI may have been the last nail in the coffin but the body was laid to rest well and truly before.

It was, but rest assured, the Ottomans would surely have still remained if WW1 hadn't existed, at least until WW2.

So your answer as to why men in the general populous in Muslim societies accept the legal mistreatment of women is purely because they have poor dictators? The very poor state of female inequality in the entire Muslim World is purely to be blamed on dictators? The reason why Afghani women are covered tip to toe is because of Hamid Karzai? The reason why many Pakistani women live as second class citizens is purely to do with Pervez Musharraf?

Absolutely. The blame for problems in society starts at the top, to the people who are most responsible. If the dictators served harsh punishments for those who treated women unfairly, and actually removed the laws they themselves have created to hinder women, then you can bet your ass the treatment would improve.

Is this what you are saying?
Amnesty International

"The right to life of women in Pakistan is conditional on their obeying social norms and traditions." - Hina Jilani, lawyer and human rights activist
The lives of millions of women in Pakistan are circumscribed by traditions which enforce extreme seclusion and submission to men. Male relatives virtually own them and punish contraventions of their proprietary control with violence.

This is all the fault of Pervez Musharraf? You feel comfortable with this as your final conclusive answer? Pervez Musharraf is to blame for the sad state of women legal affairs in Pakistan?

The newly elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to blame for the inequality in between males and females in Iran?

And what of the democracies in Malaysia and Indonesia?

Absolutely. The people with the most power have the most responsibility. It is in their hands to make the punishments, use the law, use the police, etc, in making gender equality. When people start being punished for treating women unfairly, they slow down and start to stop.

 

[brigadeer rico]

Links please. And how is it different from just effing around?

It's a loophole for infidelity and prostitution in Islam. I believe this is not as widely practiced now, but it's certainly documented in Shi'ite doctrine, particularly the Ithna-Shris. I remember reading an Islamic Law book in a mosque a few years ago.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's a loophole for infidelity and prostitution in Islam. I believe this is not as widely practiced now, but it's certainly documented in Shi'ite doctrine, particularly the Ithna-Shris. I remember reading an Islamic Law book in a mosque a few years ago.

What about Sunnis, they are the majority of Muslims. (93.5%)

Also how many muta marriages does a woman generally go through?

 

[DiamondHearts]

What about Sunnis, they are the majority of Muslims. (93.5%)

Also how many muta marriages does a woman generally go through?

Even among Shiat, mutah is a point of contention. The vast majority of Shiat do not practice mutah any longer. It is extremely rare to find someone engaged in this, even then it is usually by the the choice of both individuals.

I'm surprised people on this forum bring this point up as most Westerners engage in this practice quite often (boyfriend/girlfriend relationships), yet they do not find this dishonorable? As a matter of fact, it is extremely rare to find an individual who is a virgin until marriage in the West.

 

[S.A.M.]

Even among Shiat, mutah is a point of contention. The vast majority of Shiat do not practice mutah any longer. It is extremely rare to find someone engaged in this, even then it is usually by the the choice of both individuals.

I'm surprised people on this forum bring this point up as most Westerners engage in this practice quite often (boyfriend/girlfriend relationships), yet they do not find this dishonorable? As a matter of fact, it is extremely rare to find an individual who is a virgin until marriage in the West.

Muslims are subject to higher standards than the West.

 

[Michael]

Obviously it does.

If the acceptance of Institutionalized Slavery in society taints their view on Slaves themselves (even if only a small number of people actually own any) then why wouldn’t the same be true for polygamy? Wouldn’t the acceptance of polygamy in society taint the view of women themselves in this society (even if only a small number of people actually have multiple wives).

It certainly would have been better for America.

Wow – we’ll have to agree to completely disagree with one another on this one. Slavery is heinous. Probably the main reason why the West entered the industrial revolution, whereas the Romans (while at a similar level of technology) didn’t, is because the West made Slavery illegal.

It wasn’t Slaves that built America – it was freeing them. Societies that accept Slave ownership have only ever advanced to just UNDER the technical achievements of the Greeks.

By Islamic law, I wish there were no slaves. If there are no slaves, then there are no wars. I'd rather have my family members alive than a few slaves.

Is it just me, or do you have a cultural inkling Slavery is wrong and seem to want to say that Slavery is evil and - but you can’t. To say Slavery is evil may imply that a Slave owner was evil. That's no good because Slavery is endorsed by the Qur'an - so you skirt around it by saying no war is good, no wars = no Slaves – a win win.

Sam dances to a similar tune all the time.

Absolutely. The blame for problems in society starts at the top, to the people who are most responsible. If the dictators served harsh punishments for those who treated women unfairly, and actually removed the laws they themselves have created to hinder women, then you can bet your ass the treatment would improve.

No the question is: Is it the Dictator that causes Muslim men to act like this? That is clearly not the question you answered. You instead answered your own question which was: Does a Dictator have the power to prevent Muslim men from acting as such? I agree, perhaps, if they were so inclined. Any man who has attained power in a Muslim country seems inclined to the exact opposite. Regardless, dictators are not Gods their power is maintained by those that believe in their rule. If they ordered the death of every child under 15, starting with their closest advisor's children, you can bet their days would quickly come to an end. Perhaps ordering the arrest and punishment of Muslim men for ill treatment of women would be similar? Maybe there are not enough police to enforce such an edict?

This still doesn’t answer the question of why in societies with majority Muslim populations the women are treated unequally by Muslim men. While I agree a strong and feared Dictator may address this – He certainly isn’t forcing Muslim men treat their women as second class citizens. They do that of their own accord.

It also doesn’t explain why women are not afforded equality with men in Muslim dominated democratic societies.

The answer for why Muslim men act as such can not logically be because of Dictators. He doesn’t force them to act like this, nor does he force them to support people who act like this. They do that themselves - so we will need to find another answer.

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Women were treated better in Afghanistan under the communists than under the Taliban. Women were treated better under Saddam than they will be under the Shiite regime in Iraq. Women were treated better under Mossadegh than under Khomeini.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Even among Shiat, mutah is a point of contention. The vast majority of Shiat do not practice mutah any longer. It is extremely rare to find someone engaged in this, even then it is usually by the the choice of both individuals..

Man, you are so lame as a liar, when 4 simple words in google will get you this:

Results 41 - 50 of about 74,800 for who does muta marriage

See here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-04-pleasure-marriage_x.htm
Posted 5/4/2005 8:05 PM
'Pleasure marriages' regain popularity in Iraq
By Rick Jervis, USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — In the days when it could land him in jail, Rahim Al-Zaidi would whisper details of his muta'a only to his closest confidants and the occasional cousin. Never his wife.
…
Al-Zaidi hopes to soon finalize his third muta'a, or "pleasure marriage," with a green-eyed neighbor. This time, he talks about it openly and with obvious relish. Even so, he says, he probably still won't tell his wife.
The 1,400-year-old practice of muta'a— "ecstasy" in Arabic — is as old as Islam itself. It was permitted by the prophet Mohammed as a way to ensure a respectable means of income for widowed women

& here:

http://www.samuslims.com/node/76
Another way it's being facilitated here in Saudi is through a clandestine marriage brokerage. Callers who dial any of five telephone numbers listed on a fax from such an office, get through to a taped message where a woman with an alluring voice tells them to punch in a secret code to learn more. "My dear brother," says the fax. "May God help you find a wife (in passing) to compensate you for your troubled life. Know that the broker charges these prices. Five thousand Riyals for a virgin. Three thousand Riyals for a non-virgin."
This is just the kind of offer that arouses intrigue in men, but unleashes fury among many women who say young Saudi males use the paperwork as a "license" to commit adultery or have sex outside of marriage (without bringing down the wrath of the religious establishment upon their heads). In fact, the service triggered a war of words in the newspapers as tales of marriage brokers luring thousands of Saudis spread in the Kingdom. "This is just like having a legalised mistress," said one female columnist who has lambasted al-misyar pacts as an insult to the institution of marriage. "This is terrible. They are deceiving women. It's like a man buying cows and sheep or watermelons," she said.

 

[S.A.M.]

Of course, Iraq is such a haven these days, all the journalists roam around collecting info freely all day everywhere.

And Saudis are so unpopular because of their money.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Man, you are so lame as a liar, when 4 simple words in google will get you this

My friend, you obviously are not acquainted with many Muslims. I have studied Islam for most of my life, and I know what I am talking about. Something which cannot be substituted by spending 5 minutes on google. Mutah is not translated as pleasure marriage (this point is quite laughable really), it is a temporary marriage.

For instance, if an individual has to journey to a far away place for, let's say 5 years, then he makes a marriage with one of the women in the area and lives there for a few years, then he has to leave by circumstances (ex. he is a trader or soldier). Also mutah is is a legally binding marriage with all the rights of a normal marriage and it provides the approval of both parties.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) allowed this practice once during a military campaign, but later it was revealed that this action is forbidden (according to Sunni belief), some Shiat scholars hold it was not forbidden.

Also, if you want to criticize mutah, why not criticize boyfriend/girlfriend relationships and the lack of virginity in Western teenagers before marriage? Mutah is a legal marriage, whereas the unchaste boyfriend/girlfriend relationships is not.

 

[Michael]

I don't understand what sex before marriage, a temporary marriage, or even prostitution for that matter, has to do with the topic?

I personally think it's perfectly fine to have sex before marriage or having a sex in a temporary marriage. So long as it's two consenting adults then it's their business.

Geesh,
Michael

Michael

 

[GeoffP]

For instance, if an individual has to journey to a far away place for, let's say 5 years, then he makes a marriage with one of the women in the area and lives there for a few years, then he has to leave by circumstances (ex. he is a trader or soldier). Also mutah is is a legally binding marriage with all the rights of a normal marriage and it provides the approval of both parties.

Then why can't he just marry the woman outright, and properly? Is he not able to control himself? Is he not expected to? If not, why not? Does this relate to women's liberation issues in islam?

Can a woman married in mutah attain a proper marriage later on? Is she considered 'damaged' in some way?

Also, if you want to criticize mutah, why not criticize boyfriend/girlfriend relationships and the lack of virginity in Western teenagers before marriage? Mutah is a legal marriage, whereas the unchaste boyfriend/girlfriend relationships is not.

Because mutah is hypocrisy in your context, and boyfriend/girlfriend is not.

 

[Michael]

I was thinking about Mormon communities that secretly practice polygamy. Are the Mormon women in such committees taught to have Civil equality with the men or are they taught to be subservient and obey the men?

What would society be like if polygamy was endorsed in the USA? Would it be conducive towards female equality or restrictive?

I'm thinking restrictive,
MII

 

[GeoffP]

Subservient. The male head of household is like the "priest stand-in" or something. Sort of a confused Levantine carryover. Bad, bad system. Male kids kicked out in the street; no women for them and not wanted.