₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Mr.Olai]Allah(SWT) says in Qur'an “marry those that please you of women, TWO or THREE or FOUR. But if you fear that you will not be just, then marry only ONE.... That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice.” (Q. 4:3)

In Islam, it is permissible for a man to marry two, three or a maximum of four wives at a time. This is permissible with the conditions of being able to cater for the needs of the wives without being bias to any of them. On the other side, it is not permissible for a woman to marry more than one husband at a time.[/quote]

Homosexuality

Some comments have surfaced so far addressing the list, supporting execution or punishing homosexuals. Here is where these comments err.

1. However immoral homosexuality may be, killing homosexuals is more immoral. Death sentence is justifiable only for murder, an homosexual has not even hurt anyone.

2. Common logic dictates a lesser crime like homosexuality befit a penalty lesser than the penalty for a greater crime like murder. A homosexual under a system founded on justice shouldn't face the same penalty as a murderer.

Antispambot banned me while addressing homosexuality yesterday. I've decided to repost my position.

1. Low standard

Picking women mostly based on physical features.

Men need to stop obscessing about looks and demand more from women in terms of personality, personal achievement and growth.

Let women put effort in building themselves beyond the genes they were blessed with. Women are not trophies.

2. Chasing women:

Don't chase. Unless you're really sure she likes you but don't want to seem 'cheap', chasing women will waste your time.

You don't have to prove your love and commitment by texts and calls after her 'No'. Just move on.

Abdulbasit9:
I got this response a few times. I think it is a difficult question and if you're still Muslim you will understand me. But even though I do not get everything Abaqir explained, I feel his answer gives me more patience.

I figured. This is a very critical subject as far as theism is concerned. Don't let anyone guilt-trip you or judge your intent for speaking out. Be objective.

Take nothing on faith, take everything on evidences, there is no better rule.

true2god:
No one denies the fact that sharia law is archaic and grossly violates the human right of non-Muslims (in Muslim lands), and even Muslims themselves. I have spoken with several Muslims who told me that no country on earth implements sharia law fully because they understood the medieval natures of most of the laws.

I wonder which Muslims you were fortunate to talk to. But I have met Muslims even within my family that want sharia laws like amputation. For them it is Allah's law, and its medieval nature changes nothing.

But forget about common Muslims. Rather, find one popular Muslim scholar with gut to admit sharia is flawed and archaic, and amputating thieves is not acceptable, and criticism of Islam is not punishable or censorable.

You won't find any. At best, they'll tell you that none in the above list is sharia and that sharia is 5 daily salat, zakat, fasting, love thy neighbor, shun fornication and other half-truth or lies that they've been telling stupid Muslim and non-Muslim listeners especially outside the Muslim world. I will state here, that this obvious deceit and dishonesty partly motivated my compilling the above list.

true2god:
No one denies the fact that sharia law is archaic and grossly violates the human right of non-Muslims (in Muslim lands), and even Muslims themselves. I have spoken with several Muslims who told me that no country on earth implements sharia law fully because they understood the medieval natures of most of the laws. If however to take a holistic view of 'sharia law' and the chain effect it has globally, both on Muslims and non-Muslims, you will appreciate the engagement I have been having with 'Empire', especially in the area of what Muslims define as 'hate speech' (speech critical to Islamic beliefs and many aspects of sharia) and 'free-speech'.

I do appreciate on some level but I wished your engagement were focused on the rational or moral justification of the laws I've listed. Sharia law is supposed to be perfect, because it is divine law. There shouldn't be any need to draw sloppy parallels with fallible decisions or policies in the US in order to justify sharia.

You see, when you drag US into this, it becomes a contest between 'Sharia vs U.S. policies'. And the crucial question of the morality or immorality behind sharia is ignored.

I want a conversation on what is so morally just in offensive jihad or amputating a thief, or forbidding inheritance for non-Muslim relatives from a deceased Muslim. Enough Trump and Ilham.

What else is WRONG with Sharia

Apart from breaching human rights, there is another problem with sharia. And that is it hinder human progress and cause stagnation. For instance;

1. Alcohol is haram for consumption and Hadith express that it is NOT a medicine but a disease.

But alcohol has medicinal properties whether alone or in combination with other chemicals.

2. Delaying burials of Muslim corpse is frowned upon. The corpse should be buried immediately.

This is an hindrance to postmortem examination. Also, this leaves no room for the study of human cadaver which we can all admit serve(d) well for Anatomy, Physiology and Medicine.

IN SHORT
Sharia is archaic and backward, it is what condemned the Muslim world to backwardness for the past 500 years. The only thing keeping the Muslim world still relevant in the global sphere is oil. You don't need to be non-Muslim to see this.

Since contributors of this thread have rather deviated from the bone of contention- a critical view of sharia, I'll create another thread in future concerning sharia and human progress.

AlBaqir:
First, below is so far what science knows about rhesus disease:

Rhesus disease is caused by a specific mix of blood types between a pregnant mother and her unborn baby.

Rhesus disease can only occur in cases where all of the following happen:

* the mother has a rhesus negative (RhD negative) blood type

* the baby has a rhesus positive (RhD positive) blood type

* the mother has previously been exposed to RhD positive blood and has developed an immune response to it (known as sensitisation)


# How does sensitisation occur?

During pregnancy, sensitisation can happen if:
small numbers of foetal blood cells cross into the mother's blood

* the mother is exposed to her baby's blood during delivery

* there's been bleeding during the pregnancy
an invasive procedure has been necessary during pregnancy – such as amniocentesis, or chorionic villus sampling (CVS)

* the mother injures her abdomen (tummy)
Sensitisation can also occur after a previous miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, or if a RhD negative woman has received a transfusion of RhD positive blood by mistake (although this is extremely rare).

How sensitisation leads to rhesus disease
If sensitisation occurs, the next time the woman is exposed to RhD positive blood her body will produce antibodies immediately.
If she's pregnant with an RhD positive baby, the antibodies can lead to rhesus disease when they cross the placenta and start attacking the baby's red blood cells.
 https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/rhesus-disease/causes/

Rhesus disease can largely be prevented by having an injection of a medication called anti-D immunoglobulin.

Second, answer to your question lies in the Islamic philosophy of Evil. Rhesus D is just one example of "evil". Understanding this subject will help answer your micro question. Kindly read on this thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/5158036/evil-important-subject-islamic-philosophy

The first answer I suppose in bold is not sound. We didn't get the anti-D immunoglobulin until recently. You can only imagine the babies that were lost and blood transfusion recipients that suffered before recent times.

So you're basically saying;

No such thing as absolute evil, there is good in all.

Evil is the absence of good.

Evil is relative term.

Evil and good have to exist together for the world to exist.

I think you will have a problem defending some of these under theism. I have seen your critique of my view on theism and Rh factor and I find it very one sided and unidimensional. You will have a hard time convincing atheists and even some theists, that despite all the hindrances and harms this antigen have posed in pregnancy and blood transfusion, it is definitely the product of an all Wise.

Your analogy on the good and bad of fire is agreeable. It won't fit for Rh factor though because whatever good this antigen serve, a case can be made that an all wise creator should have modified it to nullify any potential for harm. Pharmacists, Engineer etc do it all the time, they manufacture and continue to modify their products till the highest benefit to risk ratio in utility is attained.

tintingz:
Faith is not a logical answer.

Did you assume Allah planned everything or you know?

And lastly, can we say Allah is malevolent?

Faith is not logical but faith adherents have never been keen for logic. I didnt believe this myself until I started scrutinizing Qur'an verses on the nature or cosmos.

Once you believe in God, there are certain things that you just accept regardless of evidences.

tintingz:
Why not answer the OP main question here? In summary.

There is no answer. Not the type that will convince everyone. Remember when I told you faith is blind.

The response that OP will get here is that Allah knows best why he created Rhesus factor, and no baby dies except by His will, and He will compensate the mother and baby for any loss due to the blood incompatibility, with exception when He wills to punish the mother.

Me, I can't think of any other response in support of an all intelligent creator. But this response you will notice is only admissible on faith alone. We have to assume that Allah planned everything, all the miscarriages and failed blood transfusion common before modern medicine. By creating men of different blood antigen instead of same antigen, or by designing human cell to react to another human cell no different from a bacteria.

I shall look further into this. It seem as it is that without the the blood grouping(A, B, O, AB, Rh+, Rh-) also blood transfusion will be easier and an instant success when it was first conceived in the 1800s.

Where no formal law enforce headscarf, family and culture pressure women to wear it & so oppresses women who don't want to wear it. There are then Muslim women that dislike constant wearing of headscarf, but continue to wear it because they are afraid of going to hell if they take it off.

Testimonies of those Muslim women who feel empowered by the headscarf abound, but there are Muslim women feeling oppressed by it and the speaker cannot deny this. So, is TC hateful here? I don't think so. But the fanatic Muslim and politically correct/regressive Left think so.

PLUS: Let's not forget that even non-Muslim women are forced by state law to wear Muslim headscarf in regions like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Today, the daughters and grand-daughters of those Iran women keep protesting in less overt manner. In 2018, Soumya S, former Indian chess champion declined invitation to participate in chess tournament in Iran, in objection to the requirement that all female participant must wear the headscarf.

US Women Chess champion, Nazi Paikdze boycotted the competition in Iran for the same reason, in 2017. In Iran and other parts of Muslim world, #NoHijabday is now a phenomenon.

Misinformation 3: Muslim headscarf has not oppressed women

Next, the speaker cites American news reporter Tucker Carlson, whom he berates for saying that the Muslim headscarf has oppressed millions of women.

I hate to admit T.C is right. If you have a state law or culture that pressures women to cover their hair, is it not logical that women who do not want to cover will be oppressed? In Iran women took to the streets in protest after the headscarf was imposed post revolution.

As any woman, they may lie, cheat, be greedy, be obnoxious, date, smoke, wear nail polish and skinny jeans. These are flawed women that shouldn't be put on pedestal as the speaker does.

For many, the headscarf is just a cloth imposed by family, peers, culture or government, an apparel that they wear out of conditioning rather than conscious preference. It is not a big deal. And these women couldn't care less of 'dedicating to pleasing God'.

Misinformation 2: Muslim Wearing headscarf = Dedication to pleasing God.

Speaker: Now, ask Christians why these women are wearing hijab, their answer would be; "because they are dedicated to serving God". And we can agree this is noble, righteous. A Muslim woman wearing hijab is doing the same, dedicating her life to pleasing God. So, why the double standard & hypocrisy?

So once a woman wears hijab, she's dedicated to pleasing God? Probably the speaker haven't met many Muslim women in hijab. I'll tell you what. I live in a place where 75-80% of women wear hijab. Know what these Muslim women are like?

Misinformation 1: Comparing Muslim women in headscarf to Mary or Nuns

Speaker: Then type in Mary, mother of Jesus(on Google), tell me what you see. You see her in hijab, that modest non-revealing apparel.

So? Mary or the nuns cover their hair supposedly in service to God, but these women are not like any Muslim woman in hijab. Far more than the Muslim woman, they give up more than just uncovering their hair. This is as poor analogy as analogy between Characters and Cosplayers.

The speaker opens thus;

Speaker: I am going to take a few moments commenting on Christian women in the church. This video is important for those who hate Muslim woman just because she wears hijab. Look at this clip.

The clip is a video record of Church service with Christian nuns in their attires.

Needless to say, I denounce hate crimes anywhere, against anyone for wearing anything - headscarf, face-veil, tank top or bikini. What I denounce even as much is the extent of misinformation by the speaker and the headscarf propaganda being his motive & focus for nearly all of the monologue.

We've now address the fair point in the message, the rest of it as you'll see is laden with misinformation.

In this thread, I've picked none but the below video, forwarded to me in 2018; a colossal misinformation and melodramatic appeal and another propaganda for traditional Muslim headscarf.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NkLHsTJWSI&t

Introduction

I'm not a Muslim in the traditional sense but most of my family and friends are. A consequence of this is that I have to put up with influx of pro-Muslim, preachy & propagandist, electronic messages circulating in the Muslim community and relayed to me from my loved ones.

Though I never bother opening the messages, as I can tell from experience the height of ignorance, dishonesty and sometimes stupidity that await me. I still read them now and then. To remind myself of the depth of follies and fallacies that man-made beliefs and traditions predisposes even the smartest of minds.

Table of Content

Thenceforth, I'll refer to the term 'hijab' as 'headscarf' or 'Muslim headscarf'. In the Qur'an or Hadith, the term is never used for an head/hair/neck-cover as worn by traditional Muslim women today.

Introduction

Oppose Hate Crimes on Muslim women for Wearing headscarf

Muslim women in headscarf is not good analogy for Nun

Muslim Women wearing headscarf not necessarily Dedicated to Pleasing God

Headscarf indeed oppresses as much Muslim women as it may empower

New Testament does not ordain headscarf for women except in prayers

Headscarf is no determinant of degree of 'modesty' of women

With or without headscarf women can be valuable, dignified and graced

Women wearing the headscarf is not the height of modesty and morality

There is nothing really respectable about a woman wearing the headscarf

Muslim women wearing the headscarf may as well be superficial and obsessed with fashion indiustry

sarahade:
Op don't bother yourself they will ignore this thread like a plague.

Who are they and why should I care? My writings are for the sake of truth and fairness.

true2god:
I am equally confused. I don't know where 'usermane' stands; for the ummah or for the kafir. 'usemane' was initially sympathetic to Islam going by his old threads but seems to have drifted to the left; maybe more knowledge has taken hold of him but as I said earlier, it is very difficult to judge a man's intention. He is however close to Islamic 'apostasy' if he is not an apostate yet. I might be wrong though, I might have judged him wrongly; no man is perfect.

You have unwittingly helped derail this thread by entertaining the Empyree's logical fallacy of Whataboutism.

Don't you see? Ngasky tried it with the Bible and Empyree's doing the same with US policies. Please, stick to the topic of the thread.

The connection between the orphan and the women to be married is significant, whether verse 3 understood alone or in association with the nearest verses. The condition for this marriage, is the care and protection of the orphans.

It thus can't be too far-fetched to take these women as widows, and the orphans to be the children of these widows.

And it is bad that the starting phrase of the verse; "If you fear you cannot deal justly with the orphans" have been overlooked, this condition for the marriage have been overlooked; to derive an half baked interpretation of the verse, and coerce or coax women into gratuitous polygamy.

This alone, proves this verse is not open invitation for men to take more second wife if they are interested or capable. But let's explore the context of the previous and later verses.

Verse 2; giving orphans their properties. Verse 3; the marriage, IF you fear you can't deal fairly with the orphans. Verse 4; dowry for the aforementioned marriage. Verse 5; the orphans' clothing and feeding. Verse 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 all speaks of orphans.

Qur'an 4:3: Contextual Meaning

Qur'an 4:3

And if you fear that not you will be able to do justice with the orphans, then marry what seem suitable to you from the women, 2, 3 or 4.

The kind of polygamy that Qur'an 4:3 cover pertain to orphans. The phrase, "And if you fear that you will not be able to do justice with orphans" precedes the instruction to marry in the same sentence of the verse 3, chapter 4. In short, "marry two, three or four" is directive that is conditioned by orphans.