Why are men allowed four wives in Islam?

[shaykh]

^^^ @ shaykh

You believe what you want and I'll do the same. Argue and debate with me as much as you like but don't judge me, as I will not judge you.

Resorting to name calling is demeaning to both the one who is doing so and the one against whom it is directed, but more so for the former than the latter. Some would even argue that resorting to name calling is a sign of starting to lose the argument.

Where have I resorted to name calling?...

The last thing I posted to you was:

Not really...

Is it rules that determine belief...or proof of the scripture?...

If you are happy with the proof regarding the authenticity of the scripture then you accept that which is within in...

If you believe the Quran to be the word of God then invariably you take everything within it to be from him and then correct...

Thats why the likes of AR Fan can state that they believe in slavery, concubinage etc...because they believe it is from Islam...

Even if things within the scripture disagree with you then you still believe in the legitimacy of the scripture...

So if you think something is the word of God then you feel you can disagree with his word?...

Can you please point out where exactly I have been rude to you or called you names?...

I am sorry to hear about your father...the issue of women visiting gravesites is an issue on which there is difference of opinion...

The point remains that the issue of 4 wives for the Muslim male is not an issue on which there is difference of opinion...

I have simply asked you to refute scripture...

“Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one.”
[Al-Qur’an 4:3]

This is the verse...

Now you have to prove that this verse was only applicable for a short period of time...its a the standard copout to presume that something that was allowed specifically for believers in scripture is now obsolete...

Why must the average Muslim not presume that about everything in the Quran...

You have simply offered your own personal opinions...and you have knocked scholars because they don't agree with your personal opinions...

There are so many things that can be argued to be irrational in Islam...but to Muslims who accept it as the word of God they look past that...

Then you have others who see stuff they don't like and with no basis whatsoever decide it isn't applicable today...

I'm not being rude to you when I say your perspectives are your own...they have nothing to do with Islam and thats just the reality of things...

 

[Yossarian]

I'm not being rude to you when I say your perspectives are your own...they have nothing to do with Islam and thats just the reality of things...

From your perspective perhaps, but not mine. You fail to understand that from your standpoint you think I'm wrong, but you overlook the fact that by the very same logic, the reverse also applies. You can't have one without the other.

You fail to undertand my fundamental arguement, which I could't care whether you agree or disagree with. ie Everything in Islam had a reason, a purpose for being, and that reason or purpose was/is rooted in trying to address real issues as they existed in that region, at that time, in that society. That is not to say that they are all out of date or that the principles do not still hold,

Take slavery for example.
Slavery existed for thousands of years before Islam. When Islam came the sharia addressed the reality of slavery that was prevalent at the time by bringing new legislation on the treatment of slaves. Although Islam did not condone slavery, neither did it ban it, unlike the banning of alcohol or other prohibitions.

Allah (swt) says:

وَٱعۡبُدُواْ ٱللَّهَ وَلَا تُشۡرِكُواْ بِهِۦ شَيۡـًٔ۬ا*ۖ وَبِٱلۡوَٲلِدَيۡنِ إِحۡسَـٰنً۬ا وَبِذِى ٱلۡقُرۡبَىٰ وَٱلۡيَتَـٰمَىٰ وَٱلۡمَسَـٰكِينِ وَٱلۡجَارِ ذِى ٱلۡقُرۡبَىٰ وَٱلۡجَارِ ٱلۡجُنُبِ وَٱلصَّاحِبِ بِٱلۡجَنۢبِ وَٱبۡنِ ٱلسَّبِيلِ وَمَا مَلَكَتۡ أَيۡمَـٰنُكُمۡ*ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ مَن ڪَانَ مُخۡتَالاً۬ فَخُورًا

“Worship Allah; join nothing with Him. Be good to your parents, to relatives, to orphans, to the needy, to neighbours near and far, to travellers in need and those whom your right hands possess. Allah does not like arrogant, boastful people.” [TMQ 4:36]

The meaning of “those whom your right hands possess” is your slaves.

http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/t...y/2764-the-islamic-view-on-slaves-and-slavery

" Those slaves are your brothers, only God gave you an upper hand over them. So let that who has his brother (i.e. slave) under him give him the same food he himself eats, and the same clothing as he himself wears. The master may not give his brother a task that is beyond his ability. If he does give him such task, let him lend him a hand."

Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29

ie Since Islam did not ban slavery outright it therefore means that it allowed it to be continued, albeit by demanding better treatment of slaves by their owners. Because slavery was an element of society at the time.

If fact slavery continued in Arabia, and other muslim lands, until very recent times, and arguably still continues in many areas under the guise of 'bonded labour'.

However, nowadays, no scholar or muslim, anywhere in the world, should/would use the argument that because Islam did not ban slavery outright 1400 years ago, and allowed slaves to be kept, it's also permissible to keep slaves in modern times. So why use similar arguments to condone or perpetuate the notion of having multiple wives?

 

[shaykh]

From your perspective perhaps, but not mine. You fail to understand that from your standpoint you think I'm wrong, but you overlook the fact that by the very same logic, the reverse also applies. You can't have one without the other.

You fail to undertand my fundamental arguement, which I could't care whether you agree or disagree with. ie Everything in Islam had a reason, a purpose for being, and that reason or purpose was/is rooted in trying to address real issues as they existed in that region, at that time, in that society. That is not to say that they are all out of date or that the principles do not still hold,

Take slavery for example.
Slavery existed for thousands of years before Islam. When Islam came the sharia addressed the reality of slavery that was prevalent at the time by bringing new legislation on the treatment of slaves. Although Islam did not condone slavery, neither did it ban it, unlike the banning of alcohol or other prohibitions.



ie Since Islam did not ban slavery outright it therefore means that it allowed it to be continued, albeit by demanding better treatment of slaves by their owners. Because slavery was an element of society at the time.

If fact slavery continued in Arabia, and other muslim lands, until very recent times, and arguably still continues in many areas under the guise of 'bonded labour'.

However, nowadays, no scholar or muslim, anywhere in the world, should/would use the argument that because Islam did not ban slavery outright 1400 years ago, and allowed slaves to be kept, it's also permissible to keep slaves in modern times. So why use similar arguments to condone or perpetuate the notion of having multiple wives?

Again not to be rude but you are clueless on the issue of slavery in Islam...

Islam suggested freeing slaves...and it forbade the enslavement of Muslims and dhimmis of the state...

It still hasn't forbidden the taking of concubines...and plenty of scholars agree with this...and it hasn't forbidden taking slaves in battle...

Nor is it forbidden to receive slaves as tribute...any scholars will make this argument...

Also if you are born a slave you can continue to be a slave...Islam has not forbidden this and scholarship supports this...

The Caliphate was happily engaging in taking on slaves well after the Prophets death...so when exactly have you decided that the Islamic legislation on slavery stopped being applicable?...again you have no basis for your argument...

Also there is an Islamic concept called 'illah'...where SPECIFIC reasons are provided for rules...many rules do not have illahs...

The process of wudu for instance is simply a ritual...it doesn't clean you...can you have a shower and then pray or do you have to do wudu...there is no illah on why pork is forbidden for instance or reptiles...Muslims just come up with their own logic for why Allah might have implemented the rule but Allah himself doesn't state it anywhere in the Quran...

And whilst we are on the topic of slavery...fornication and alcohol were also a strong part of Arabian culture prior to Islam yet Islam forbade these things outright...but slavery wasn't forbidden...why not?...because it was and is deemed an acceptable practice unlike drinking alcohol...

Your arguments is full of holes...

 

[Radiance Of Australis]

Haha. A bunch of men on this thread trying to explain how women feel about this by bringing in their own opinion. This is hilarious.

What's more hilarious is that some of these folks here are trying to convince others that 'lust' is a valid reason to get married (to more than one woman) and trying to use religion to back it up.
In this case I repeat myself, polygamy in Islam wasn't allowed so that playboys could benefit from it so stop using religion to justify your shoddy opinion.

 

[Yossarian]

And whilst we are on the topic of slavery...fornication and alcohol were also a strong part of Arabian culture prior to Islam yet Islam forbade these things outright...but slavery wasn't forbidden...why not?...because it was and is deemed an acceptable practice unlike drinking alcohol...

Your arguments is full of holes...

You my friend, and those who think like you, is exactly the reason why Islam is increasingly seen in such a negative light and perceived as being (incorrectly) a backward and medieval religion.

First you try and claim that "lust" is still a valid reason for polygamy and it is irrevelevant how the existing wive/wives feel about their husband taking on another woman, especially in the modern era.

Now you top it off by saying that it is still acceptable, even nowadays, to have slavery and for muslim men to have concubines, ie mistresses, outside of marriage.

What next? For a muslim man it's ok to father children out of wedlock, ie busstaaards?(-deliberate mis-spelling) - but, oh wait, there is every possibility of that occurring anyway since he's still permitted to have concubines/mistresses outside marriage!

With so called 'defenders of Islam' like you, Islam does'nt need any outsiders to drag it's name and ethos down the gutter - you're doing a fine job as it is.

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

Haha. A bunch of men on this thread trying to explain how women feel about this by bringing in their own opinion. This is hilarious.

What's more hilarious is that some of these folks here are trying to convince others that 'lust' is a valid reason to get married (to more than one woman) and trying to use religion to back it up.
In this case I repeat myself, polygamy in Islam wasn't allowed so that playboys could benefit from it so stop using religion to justify your shoddy opinion.

Then why not counter my 'shoddy' opinion from Islam and explain why it has allowed it? The fact is Islam allows polygamy unconditionally and no marriage first or second is devoid of man & woman wanting to fulfill their lust along with other reasons.

Also, playboys usually never marry because their interest in women is only one. But a man that usually marries, wants to take the responsibility and avoid falling into sin. To ridicule such a man with playboy tendencies is immature. This is not to say that men in polygamous marriages do not abuse this privilege, of course they do but this does not make polygamy haram and people shouldn't assume that everyone involved in it has shallow reasons & intentions. Monogamous marriages can also be equally bad. In the end of the day, it really boils down to the individuals involved and how they handle their situations.

Lastly, I have not tried to explain women's emotions other than saying that it's an extremely hurtful thing for them in the similar vain you shouldn't try and assume that men are wired the same way women are and that anyone who sees a legitimate side to this must be a playboy.

 

[Ims1]

Haha. A bunch of men on this thread trying to explain how women feel about this by bringing in their own opinion. This is hilarious.

What's more hilarious is that some of these folks here are trying to convince others that 'lust' is a valid reason to get married (to more than one woman) and trying to use religion to back it up.
In this case I repeat myself, polygamy in Islam wasn't allowed so that playboys could benefit from it so stop using religion to justify your shoddy opinion.

i cannot imagine 4 wives & 8 to 10 kids .Will be so stressful & pricey .

 

[DeadlyVenom]

) wth

Compares posters ideology with racists and rapists after whining about insults and ad homenims.

Only on PP.

 

[Yossarian]

Also, playboys usually never marry because their interest in women is only one. But a man that usually marries, wants to take the responsibility and avoid falling into sin. .

But, according to shaykh, it's still ok to have concubines/mistresses, even in the modern era, in which case he would'nt be 'falling into sin'. There's an inconsistency there don't you think?

 

[Yossarian]

) wth

Compares posters ideology with racists and rapists after whining about insults and ad homenims.

Only on PP.

So racism is bad but slavery is ok?

 

[shaykh]

You my friend, and those who think like you, is exactly the reason why Islam is increasingly seen in such a negative light and perceived as being (incorrectly) a backward and medieval religion.

First you try and claim that "lust" is still a valid reason for polygamy and it is irrevelevant how the existing wive/wives feel about their husband taking on another woman, especially in the modern era.

Now you top it off by saying that it is still acceptable, even nowadays, to have slavery and for muslim men to have concubines, ie mistresses, outside of marriage.

What next? For a muslim man it's ok to father children out of wedlock, ie busstaaards?(-deliberate mis-spelling) - but, oh wait, there is every possibility of that occurring anyway since he's still permitted to have concubines/mistresses outside marriage!

With so called 'defenders of Islam' like you, Islam does'nt need any outsiders to drag it's name and ethos down the gutter - you're doing a fine job as it is.

Again...you're replying using YOUR opinions...I am not expressing MY opinion...I am expressing Islam's opinion on matters...

The Prophet allowed his followers to have four wives and they don't have to specify a specific or noble reason for doing this...if you can refute this with anything other than your opinion then go ahead...

Islam permits slavery and it permits concubinage...if you can refute this with anything other than your opinion then go ahead...

I am not defending Islam...I am simply stating what it states...as I have already stated I find these practices disgusting...

If you remember it was me that was criticising these practices...and I still am...however what you seem to misunderstand is that I'm not endorsing these practices...what I am saying is Islam allows these practices...

This is what I mean about you creating your own faith...Islam says stuff you don't like so you prefer to pretend Islam doesn't say these things...you're lying to yourself frankly...

And if you think slavery, concubinage and polygamy make for a backward religion then maybe you actually think Islam is backward religion...

Atleast the likes of AR Fan believe in their faith...you just create your own...

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

But, according to shaykh, it's still ok to have concubines/mistresses, even in the modern era, in which case he would'nt be 'falling into sin'. There's an inconsistency there don't you think?

And he's correct. Concubines are allowed [only for those capturing them as POWs since that's the only way it's allowed and possible in current time], mistresses are not. You can read more about it here: http://islamicresponse.blogspot.ca/2011/06/islam-on-slave-girlsconcubines.html

 

[Radiance Of Australis]

Re: Why in Islam are Men allowed 4 Wives?

Then why not counter my 'shoddy' opinion from Islam and explain why it has allowed it? The fact is Islam allows polygamy unconditionally and no marriage first or second is devoid of man & woman wanting to fulfill their lust along with other reasons.

Also, playboys usually never marry because their interest in women is only one. But a man that usually marries, wants to take the responsibility and avoid falling into sin. To ridicule such a man with playboy tendencies is immature. This is not to say that men in polygamous marriages do not abuse this privilege, of course they do but this does not make polygamy haram and people shouldn't assume that everyone involved in it has shallow reasons & intentions. Monogamous marriages can also be equally bad. In the end of the day, it really boils down to the individuals involved and how they handle their situations.

Lastly, I have not tried to explain women's emotions other than saying that it's an extremely hurtful thing for them in the similar vain you shouldn't try and assume that men are wired the same way women are and that anyone who sees a legitimate side to this must be a playboy.

The first bit was directed at someone else so sorry if you got offended.

Look, I'm totally down for the explanation that Islam has given for polygamy. It's reasonable and completely fair as it clearly explains that someone should only marry multiple women if he can and will support them in every way possible.

And there are men who do marry multiple women out of sincerity and not merely lust. Good for them.

But what's problematic is that I have come across too many males who talk about having second wife like they are talking about the purchase of a second car. Especially young men. They think its a free pass for them to be with two women at once - a completely immature thinking. This thinking also stems from the fact that many people justify polygamy by saying 'its good because otherwise he would be cheating on his wife with another woman especially if he is in the west'. Basically that's what these people see polygamy as. And its wrong, insensitive and stupid. Marrying a second woman purely out of lust puts the first wife in such an awful position. Depending on her mentality, the first wife will have a million questions about herself starting from 'what was wrong with me?' and ranging from 'am I shallow or not beautiful enough or my personality has too many flaws?'. These men don't realize that they are basically devaluing the first wife when they marry the second out of lust. Islam may not have specified the reasons you can use to marry multiple women but then again there are certain things Islam does not spoonfeed you especially not common sense. Islam expects YOU to have common sense. Men think that as long as Islam has NOT specified that you cannot marry out of lust it suddenly makes it okay to completely disregard the feelings of your own wife.

What's gonna happen when a man says to his wife that he wants to marry again? Whether the wife permits it or not it doesn't really matter, she hasn't much of a choice left. She doesn't wanna say yes and what's the point of saying no? The husband has already expressed that he is bored of her. Its gonna cause further strain on their marriage. She is gonna keep wondering and be suspicious if he is secretly seeing that woman for the rest of their lives. Its gonna make her paranoid. She can't ask for divorce because she will be the loser in the situation because the minute they get divorced, the husband will run off to the other lady while the divorced wife will be all alone with the stigma of a divorcee attached to her.

And this is why I will never marry.

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 4

 

[Buffet]

The first bit was directed at someone else so sorry if you got offended.

Look, I'm totally down for the explanation that Islam has given for polygamy. It's reasonable and completely fair as it clearly explains that someone should only marry multiple women if he can and will support them in every way possible.

And there are men who do marry multiple women out of sincerity and not merely lust. Good for them.

But what's problematic is that I have come across too many males who talk about having second wife like they are talking about the purchase of a second car. Especially young men. They think its a free pass for them to be with two women at once - a completely immature thinking. This thinking also stems from the fact that many people justify polygamy by saying 'its good because otherwise he would be cheating on his wife with another woman especially if he is in the west'. Basically that's what these people see polygamy as. And its wrong, insensitive and stupid. Marrying a second woman purely out of lust puts the first wife in such an awful position. Depending on her mentality, the first wife will have a million questions about herself starting from 'what was wrong with me?' and ranging from 'am I shallow or not beautiful enough or my personality has too many flaws?'. These men don't realize that they are basically devaluing the first wife when they marry the second out of lust. Islam may not have specified the reasons you can use to marry multiple women but then again there are certain things Islam does not spoonfeed you especially not common sense. Islam expects YOU to have common sense. Men think that as long as Islam has NOT specified that you cannot marry out of lust it suddenly makes it okay to completely disregard the feelings of your own wife.

What's gonna happen when a man says to his wife that he wants to marry again? Whether the wife permits it or not it doesn't really matter, she hasn't much of a choice left. She doesn't wanna say yes and what's the point of saying no? The husband has already expressed that he is bored of her. Its gonna cause further strain on their marriage. She is gonna keep wondering and be suspicious if he is secretly seeing that woman for the rest of their lives. Its gonna make her paranoid. She can't ask for divorce because she will be the loser in the situation because the minute they get divorced, the husband will run off to the other lady while the divorced wife will be all alone with the stigma of a divorcee attached to her.

And this is why I will never marry.

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 4

Half of the world population is male. A large number of that population follows Islam in one form or another. But, a very tiny minority out of that will fit with your descriptions above. Why limits yourself to them? World is a much bigger place. Keep an open eye and you will find many wonderful men.

 

[KB-24]

@ Shaykh ... I've tried to explain the samething regarding an Illah to Javelin in previous thread, all in vain.

Problem with Javelin, Mamoon and others like them is that they want to rationalize everything in the Deen, or if they don't like something want to make it not applicable today when there's nothing in the texts which supports their arguments. They are posting nothing but conjecture at this point. And they love dealing in hypothetical scenarios.

At this point, no use in reiterating yourself over and over again. They just don't want to understand.

Meanwhile I continue to be befuddled how you can have such clear perspective on Islam yet not embrace the Deen.

 

[shaykh]

The first bit was directed at someone else so sorry if you got offended.

Look, I'm totally down for the explanation that Islam has given for polygamy. It's reasonable and completely fair as it clearly explains that someone should only marry multiple women if he can and will support them in every way possible.

And there are men who do marry multiple women out of sincerity and not merely lust. Good for them.

But what's problematic is that I have come across too many males who talk about having second wife like they are talking about the purchase of a second car. Especially young men. They think its a free pass for them to be with two women at once - a completely immature thinking. This thinking also stems from the fact that many people justify polygamy by saying 'its good because otherwise he would be cheating on his wife with another woman especially if he is in the west'. Basically that's what these people see polygamy as. And its wrong, insensitive and stupid. Marrying a second woman purely out of lust puts the first wife in such an awful position. Depending on her mentality, the first wife will have a million questions about herself starting from 'what was wrong with me?' and ranging from 'am I shallow or not beautiful enough or my personality has too many flaws?'. These men don't realize that they are basically devaluing the first wife when they marry the second out of lust. Islam may not have specified the reasons you can use to marry multiple women but then again there are certain things Islam does not spoonfeed you especially not common sense. Islam expects YOU to have common sense. Men think that as long as Islam has NOT specified that you cannot marry out of lust it suddenly makes it okay to completely disregard the feelings of your own wife.

What's gonna happen when a man says to his wife that he wants to marry again? Whether the wife permits it or not it doesn't really matter, she hasn't much of a choice left. She doesn't wanna say yes and what's the point of saying no? The husband has already expressed that he is bored of her. Its gonna cause further strain on their marriage. She is gonna keep wondering and be suspicious if he is secretly seeing that woman for the rest of their lives. Its gonna make her paranoid. She can't ask for divorce because she will be the loser in the situation because the minute they get divorced, the husband will run off to the other lady while the divorced wife will be all alone with the stigma of a divorcee attached to her.

And this is why I will never marry.

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 4

The point is many things are left to a mans discretion...so out of courtesy he should ask for permission for deciding to have a second wife...but the point I made earlier is he is not required to...

Its mubah...and I haven't championed marrying out of lust...frankly its a stupid thing to do for your first marriage...I haven't even championed polygamy...my posts have all pointed to how appalling I think it is as an institution...all I have stated is that Mamoon and Javelin are not stating Islamic opinions but their own...

It is NOT a requirement to marry your first wife for noble reasons...you CAN marry your first wife out of lust and you CAN do so again if you please...

Out of interest would you be happy in an 'equal' relationship if your husband married a woman for 'noble' reasons...

I am yet to meet a girl who gives a damn understandably what these noble reasons might be...saving a widow/orphan etc...they just don't want to share their man...does the fact that he says he isn't doing it for lust really soften the blow?...

I know if the shoe was on the other foot...I wouldn't want my wife to take up a second husband...there are limits to being nice and to me its unnecessary and if my permission wasn't required I would view it as infidelity...if she did it then i'd be bringing those divorce papers out quick...unfortunately as you rightly point out...that decision isn't nearly as easy for women...

 

[KB-24]

For Ahkam where there's no legal reason (illah) given we simply follow them as per our submission. There are laws where reasons are given but we can't speculate and come up with reasons when they don't exist within the text (Qur'an & Sunnah).

2 examples:

And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged. [Al Anfal: 60]

Here the legal reason is given as to why prepare against the enemy. It is to strike fear of Allah SWT in them.

“Allah has permitted bai’a (trading) and has forbidden Riba (interest).” [Al-Baqarah:275]

Here we can see no legal reason is given hence we are not allowed to seek one and must simply obey.


The Ahkam Shari’ah related to ibadat, morals, foodstuffs, and clothing are absolutely not reasoned, since there is no illah for these rules. They should be taken as they came in the text and should not be based upon an illah. As can be seen in example #2.

Many of us have become used to justifying all the Shari’ah rules according to benefit (maslahah) because we have been influenced by the Western ideology & culture, which views benefit alone as a criterion for actions. Such an understanding contradicts the Islamic intellectual leadership which considers spirit as the basis for all actions; and makes the mixing of the spirit with the material the regulator of all actions.

Benefit or interest should not be manifested in the ibadat and akhlaaq because such a manifestation is dangerous, causing hypocrisy in those who worship and those who are virtuous people. It will also lead to the abandonment of the ibadat and akhlaaq when their benefit or interest does not appear. So Salaah, fasting, the Hajj, zakaah, the method of praying the Salaah and the number of its rak’at, the rites of Hajj and the minimum amount of property liable to payment of zakaat and the like, should be taken, accepted and submitted to as they came in the text and no illah is sought for them.

The same thing applies to the prohibition of eating the meat of a dead animal, pork and the like. Seeking an illah for these rules is wrong and dangerous. This is because if an illah was sought the result would be that if the illah of the rule ceased to exist then the rule would no longer exist. The illah is connected to the rule in existence and absence. As an example, if we assumed cleanliness was the illah for the wudu, and physical exercise as the illah for salaah, and hygiene as the illah for fasting etc., then in these situations, whenever the illah does not exist, the rule would not exist either, though the matter is not like this. Therefore, seeking an illah is dangerous for the rule and its performance. Thus, it is obligatory to take rules of ibadat as they are, without seeking an illah for them.

However the Ahkam Shar’iah related to transactions and penal code are reasoned by an illah. This is because the Hukm Shar’ai in these matters are built upon an illah, which is the reason for legislating the rule as can be seen in example #1.

As for the Hikmah (wisdom) behind a rule, Allah SWT alone knows it since our mind cannot conceive the essence of Allah hence we cannot comprehend His Hikmah. As for the Hikmah mentioned in the texts, such as the saying of Allah SWT:

“Lo! Prayer (Salah) preserves from lewdness and iniquity.” [Al-’Ankabut: 45]

And other sorts of Hikmah that are stated in the texts, they should be taken literally as mentioned in the text without making comparison to them. Unless the Hikmah of the rule is mentioned in a text, neither Hikmah and nor an illah has to be sought for the rule.

That's my post from the other thread. This is the classical and authentic Islamic view based upon the texts & ijma.

 

[shaykh]

@ Shaykh ... I've tried to explain the samething regarding an Illah to Javelin in previous thread, all in vain.

Problem with Javelin, Mamoon and others like them is that they want to rationalize everything in the Deen, or if they don't like something want to make it not applicable today when there's nothing in the texts which supports their arguments. They are posting nothing but conjecture at this point. And they love dealing in hypothetical scenarios.

At this point, no use in reiterating yourself over and over again. They just don't want to understand.

Meanwhile I continue to be befuddled how you can have such clear perspective on Islam yet not embrace the Deen.

Its sort of what I said to DV earlier in the thread...

If I was convinced of the proofs then I would accept whatever even if I found it offensive to my sensibilities...

The issue is essentially that whilst I am aware of what Islam says I am not particularly convinced of the proof of its legitimacy...

Thus the things I find offending my sensibilities such as slavery, polygamy, concubinage, child brides, capital punishment etc...they offend my sensibilities while in the past I simply put down my feelings to my fallibility as a human being and not understanding the greater wisdom behind things I completely disagree with deep down...

If one doesn't believe in proofs then he naturally won't accept whats within the creed...

If one believes in proofs then he can accept anything even if it disgusts him...

 

[shaykh]

That's my post from the other thread. This is the classical and authentic Islamic view based upon the texts & ijma.

Unfortunately this will fall on death ears...you will have the same issue as you did with Khan Jee...the whole use your aql nonsense...and forget the scripture arguments...

Whilst I'm not convinced of the creed I am certainly convinced that you and AR Fan present a genuine version of it compared to the likes of Javelin and Mamoon who don't produce scripture or scholastic opinions but simply provide their own reason and not scripture based opinions...

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Whats key here though that we have a situation in the modern world where was have all of the nations of the world essentially get together and maintain laws of combat where taking of POWs and slaves is forbidden so those conditions cannot exist nowadays and the principles of those Ayat are not required.

These treaties with non muslims have to stand and essentially supercede the laws about slavery in Islam. An example would be before the conquest of Makkah that the Quraish asked for their men to be returned if they became muslim and fled to Madinah. The Prophet honoured that treaty.

 

[KB-24]

Its sort of what I said to DV earlier in the thread...

If I was convinced of the proofs then I would accept whatever even if I found it offensive to my sensibilities...

The issue is essentially that whilst I am aware of what Islam says I am not particularly convinced of the proof of its legitimacy...

Thus the things I find offending my sensibilities such as slavery, polygamy, concubinage, child brides, capital punishment etc...they offend my sensibilities while in the past I simply put down my feelings to my fallibility as a human being and not understanding the greater wisdom behind things I completely disagree with deep down...

If one doesn't believe in proofs then he naturally won't accept whats within the creed...

If one believes in proofs then he can accept anything even if it disgusts him...

I agree that having conviction in proofs is necessary. This is what the mind is given for, to reflect upon the creation around you which contain within them signs.

A logical deduction can also lead to conviction which then can be furthered strengthened (a lifetime process) by acquiring deep understanding of the scripture.

Qur'an was revealed in Arabic to the Arabs. None of them including Prophet Muhammad SAW could challenge it in speech, thus it could not be written by a human nor could be a product of human mind and simultaneously it also proves the Prophethood of the Last Messenger SAW. Where else would it come from except for Divine revelation?

Perhaps me and you should communicate elsewhere (facebook, skype?)

 

[KB-24]

Whats key here though that we have a situation in the modern world where was have all of the nations of the world essentially get together and maintain laws of combat where taking of POWs and slaves is forbidden so those conditions cannot exist nowadays and the principles of those Ayat are not required.

International law doesn't apply to Islam brother.

 

[kinventor]

Personally i don't know anyone who have 2 wives, i guess this is still considered taboo in Pakistani society.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

International law doesn't apply to Islam brother.

Yes it does. Since taking a slave etc is not fardh but an option in strict circumstances if a leader of the muslims makes a treaty with other nations then it is to be adhered to.

 

[King Cobra]

Its common sense.

perhaps you aren't married, but you have parents. Imagine your Dad doing this when you were a kid, how would you have taken it?

Maybe when kids grow up in an atmosphere where Dads are doing it more often , then it will become a norm and wouldnt look strange.

 

[shaykh]

Whats key here though that we have a situation in the modern world where was have all of the nations of the world essentially get together and maintain laws of combat where taking of POWs and slaves is forbidden so those conditions cannot exist nowadays and the principles of those Ayat are not required.

These treaties with non muslims have to stand and essentially supercede the laws about slavery in Islam. An example would be before the conquest of Makkah that the Quraish asked for their men to be returned if they became muslim and fled to Madinah. The Prophet honoured that treaty.

I agree with this to a degree...

Acquiring women through capture is less likely...you are more likely to see POW's exchanged or ransomed...

This isn't however the only way male and female slaves were acquired in the Islamic world...the other methods though are probably unlikely to be implemented...

Although the Ottomans contradicted this you can't enslave you dhimmis...these were conquered populations and traditionally it is incorrect to enslave anyone who pays their jizyah...

You could acquire a slave by tribute...Mariyah who was the Prophets concubine was a gift from an Egyptian king...its unlikely that such things would happen today in terms of determining agreements between states...

You could be a slave by birth and with the abolition of slavery in most countries this isn't really an option...

You could purchase a slave from a state you don't rule...but with slavery abolished...then again this is out of the question...Georgian women filled up Ottoman harems for instance and were acquired via purchase...Prior to the Ottomans Ethiopian women were said to be quite popular...

Concubinage may be permissable but avenues for it to exist have essentially been cut off...

Capture, tribute, offspring and purchase were the specified means of slave acquisition and its unlikely they would be used today...

 

[ElRaja]

That's my post from the other thread. This is the classical and authentic Islamic view based upon the texts & ijma.

just skimming through the thread that post is very informative and i thought id just say since i normally havnt spoken to u much since we mostly post in different topics, etc.

in laymens terms to summarise the text is about accepting certain commandments on blind faith as part of religious belief if im not mistaken and not justifying them, for if the justification no longer holds relevance the commandments themselves would ipso facto become irrelevant.

p.s. you say this is the classical view based on text and ijma, is this universal concensus amongst different religious or is there any minority opposition to this view?

 

[shaykh]

I agree that having conviction in proofs is necessary. This is what the mind is given for, to reflect upon the creation around you which contain within them signs.

A logical deduction can also lead to conviction which then can be furthered strengthened (a lifetime process) by acquiring deep understanding of the scripture.

Qur'an was revealed in Arabic to the Arabs. None of them including Prophet Muhammad SAW could challenge it in speech, thus it could not be written by a human nor could be a product of human mind and simultaneously it also proves the Prophethood of the Last Messenger SAW. Where else would it come from except for Divine revelation?

Perhaps me and you should communicate elsewhere (facebook, skype?)

Thanks for the offer but trust me when I tell you I have done plenty of reflection and have had plenty of discussion which is how I have reached the point im at now...

I would argue otherwise for your point in bold...but that would be for another thread...

 

[shaykh]

just skimming through the thread that post is very informative and i thought id just say since i normally havnt spoken to u much since we mostly post in different topics, etc.

in laymens terms to summarise the text is about accepting certain commandments on blind faith as part of religious belief if im not mistaken and not justifying them, for if the justification no longer holds relevance the commandments themselves would ipso facto become irrelevant.

p.s. you say this is the classical view based on text and ijma, is this universal concensus amongst different religious or is there any minority opposition to this view?

Its not blind faith...

The idea is simply that Allah doesn't provide US with a reason for every one of his rules...and essentially the reasoning behind a rule is actually irrelevant...

It shouldn't be the reason behind a rule that ensures you follow it...some rules make no rational sense to some cos essentially we are all products of our experience and some things may seem ludicrous to us...does that have any impact on the legitimacy of the rule?...no none at all...

Cos essentially the only important thing is you believe its legitimate based on scripture...illah shouldn't decide whether you do an action...your belief in the scripture should dictate that...

Thus if you believe Islam to be correct and from Allah then it really doesnt matter WHY he orders us to do anything...

The idea of reason is linked to accepting Islam not deciding which rules to follow if that makes sense?...

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

Whats key here though that we have a situation in the modern world where was have all of the nations of the world essentially get together and maintain laws of combat where taking of POWs and slaves is forbidden so those conditions cannot exist nowadays and the principles of those Ayat are not required.

These treaties with non muslims have to stand and essentially supercede the laws about slavery in Islam. An example would be before the conquest of Makkah that the Quraish asked for their men to be returned if they became muslim and fled to Madinah. The Prophet honoured that treaty.

Agree, and I should've mentioned this in my previous post. Muslim countries have to uphold the treaties that they have signed with UN until there is a Khalifa. So, this pretty much is irrelevant for our times.

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

The first bit was directed at someone else so sorry if you got offended.

Look, I'm totally down for the explanation that Islam has given for polygamy. It's reasonable and completely fair as it clearly explains that someone should only marry multiple women if he can and will support them in every way possible.

And there are men who do marry multiple women out of sincerity and not merely lust. Good for them.

But what's problematic is that I have come across too many males who talk about having second wife like they are talking about the purchase of a second car. Especially young men. They think its a free pass for them to be with two women at once - a completely immature thinking. This thinking also stems from the fact that many people justify polygamy by saying 'its good because otherwise he would be cheating on his wife with another woman especially if he is in the west'. Basically that's what these people see polygamy as. And its wrong, insensitive and stupid. Marrying a second woman purely out of lust puts the first wife in such an awful position. Depending on her mentality, the first wife will have a million questions about herself starting from 'what was wrong with me?' and ranging from 'am I shallow or not beautiful enough or my personality has too many flaws?'. These men don't realize that they are basically devaluing the first wife when they marry the second out of lust. Islam may not have specified the reasons you can use to marry multiple women but then again there are certain things Islam does not spoonfeed you especially not common sense. Islam expects YOU to have common sense. Men think that as long as Islam has NOT specified that you cannot marry out of lust it suddenly makes it okay to completely disregard the feelings of your own wife.

What's gonna happen when a man says to his wife that he wants to marry again? Whether the wife permits it or not it doesn't really matter, she hasn't much of a choice left. She doesn't wanna say yes and what's the point of saying no? The husband has already expressed that he is bored of her. Its gonna cause further strain on their marriage. She is gonna keep wondering and be suspicious if he is secretly seeing that woman for the rest of their lives. Its gonna make her paranoid. She can't ask for divorce because she will be the loser in the situation because the minute they get divorced, the husband will run off to the other lady while the divorced wife will be all alone with the stigma of a divorcee attached to her.

And this is why I will never marry.

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 4

Young guys often do not have much sense, maturity, and regard for women’s sensitivities, and this is true for all men from all cultures. They would say all sorts of nasty things about women especially in company of friends. You should simply ignore these men because eventually they do grow out of that phase and learn to better themselves with age and experience. Don’t take this as a yardstick to judge all men or men of all ages.

On topic, let me ask you this, if a married man has a friend who dies and leaves a widow and kids behind and this man out of deep sympathy decides that he will support the woman and the kids, thinking that the woman could have a companion and kids will have a father and his intention is only that, and he discusses this with his first wife, do you think the wife will be happy in this scenario? And what if this widow happens to be pretty? Would the first wife not second guess her husband’s intentions and feel the same way you’ve described above?

The point that I’m getting at is that the wife’s response will probably be identical, no matter what the reason for marriage is and too often people are ready to show disdain to something that Allah has allowed because our feelings are unsettled, but the deen is not based on feelings, it is based on faith. I understand that it is one of the greatest trials that women in the Ummah face and it is very easy for me as a male to say this but I think women too need to introspect and give a serious thought to this issue. How did the Muslimahs of the past dealt with it? What was their response to the issue? A simple cop-out answer like “they were arabs and accustomed to it” won’t suffice, because the ahadith that Shaykh posted on previous pages indicate, the element of jealousy even existed b/w Prophet saw’s wives, and these were the best women of the Ummah, so shouldn’t the response of Muslim women be the same as what it used to be of their predecessors – the women they should look upto?

To emphasise this point further, I will leave you with a beautiful saying of Prophet saw recorded in Imam al Nawawi’s famous forty hadith collection that:

“None of you truly believes until his desire or inclination is in accordance with what I have brought.”​

Lastly, irrespective of how men talk about our fantasies of having four wives, majority of us are content and deeply happy with just one, and even though it is allowed in our religion, we choose to remain monogamous. So, if it is an issue that deeply concerns you, then you should discuss it in detail with the potential suitor instead of taking an extreme route.

 

[ElRaja]

Cos essentially the only important thing is you believe its legitimate based on scripture...illah shouldn't decide whether you do an action...your belief in the scripture should dictate that...

Thus if you believe Islam to be correct and from Allah then it really doesnt matter WHY he orders us to do anything...

that is the definition of blind faith for mine mate, but i get where your coming from. cheers for elaborating

 

[Pakz]

Its not blind faith...

The idea is simply that Allah doesn't provide US with a reason for every one of his rules...and essentially the reasoning behind a rule is actually irrelevant...

It shouldn't be the reason behind a rule that ensures you follow it...some rules make no rational sense to some cos essentially we are all products of our experience and some things may seem ludicrous to us...does that have any impact on the legitimacy of the rule?...no none at all...

Cos essentially the only important thing is you believe its legitimate based on scripture...illah shouldn't decide whether you do an action...your belief in the scripture should dictate that...

Thus if you believe Islam to be correct and from Allah then it really doesnt matter WHY he orders us to do anything...

The idea of reason is linked to accepting Islam not deciding which rules to follow if that makes sense?...

Interesting. So it that your alternative for these such topics? I.e. the bold bit as a summary?

I haven't actually read the latest replies, so it might have been discussed. Overall I don't disagree with either view from both sides of the argument.

I'm just sitting on the fence.

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

Thanks for the offer but trust me when I tell you I have done plenty of reflection and have had plenty of discussion which is how I have reached the point im at now...

I would argue otherwise for your point in bold...but that would be for another thread...

This may not be true for you but I've often noticed that people that are struggling with doubt is because they are not close to the Quran. So, regardless of what anyone says about any given topic (evolution, women's rights, slavery, etc.), or how good of an argument they present, it would not sink in the other person's heart. Nothing that anyone can say/write can surpass the Quran in clearing confusion. Too many Muslims today, especially us young ones look for popular figures to answer existential questions. Meanwhile, the Quran collects dust on our shelves, or if we're reading it, we're not doing so with contemplation. In turn it collects dust in our hearts.

Allah says:

And when you recite the Quran, We place between you and those who do not believe in the hereafter a hidden barrier


And the Prophet says:

“The Book of Allah, in which there is news of those who came before you, news of what will happen after you have gone, rulings concerning matters between you. It is the distinguisher and is not jesting. If any overweening person abandons it Allah will break him, and if anyone seek guidance elsewhere Allah will lead him astray. It is the strong rope of Allah, it is the wise reminder, it is the straight path, it is that by which the desires do not swerve nor the tongues become confused, and the learned cannot grasp it completely. It does not become warn out by repetition and its wonders do not come to an end. Whoever speaks in accordance with it speaks the truth, whoever acts in accordance with it will be rewarded, whoever judges according to it will be just, and whoever calls people towards it calls them to the straight path”

 

[KB-24]

@ DV ... as per my knowledge, the Khilafah will not have any treaty with the UN for obvious reasons.

 

[KB-24]

just skimming through the thread that post is very informative and i thought id just say since i normally havnt spoken to u much since we mostly post in different topics, etc.

in laymens terms to summarise the text is about accepting certain commandments on blind faith as part of religious belief if im not mistaken and not justifying them, for if the justification no longer holds relevance the commandments themselves would ipso facto become irrelevant.

p.s. you say this is the classical view based on text and ijma, is this universal concensus amongst different religious or is there any minority opposition to this view?

It's not blind faith. You accept the commandments due to your conviction in Islam and conviction has to be acquired through sound reasoning of the mind. Commands would be irrelevant if you weren't convinced of Islam to begin with. And yes as per my knowledge this is universal consensus in fiqh.

 

[KB-24]

Thanks for the offer but trust me when I tell you I have done plenty of reflection and have had plenty of discussion which is how I have reached the point im at now...

I would argue otherwise for your point in bold...but that would be for another thread...

I recommend you check out Nidham ul Islam from Shaykh Taqqiuddin Nabhani (rha). English pdf is available on google.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

@ DV ... as per my knowledge, the Khilafah will not have any treaty with the UN for obvious reasons.

Why not? Considering a treaty was made with the worst of enemies of Islam?

 

[ElRaja]

It's not blind faith. You accept the commandments due to your conviction in Islam and conviction has to be acquired through sound reasoning of the mind. Commands would be irrelevant if you weren't convinced of Islam to begin with. And yes as per my knowledge this is universal consensus in fiqh.

okay i get where you are coming from and from shaykhs post, i was not implying blind faith in having a belief in islam, but following all islamic commandments not questioning or justifying those for which no legal reason is given ...

For Ahkam where there's no legal reason (illah) given we simply follow them as per our submission.

... having developed your belief in the religion as a pre requisite.

 

[shaykh]

okay i get where you are coming from and from shaykhs post, i was not implying blind faith in having a belief in islam, but following all islamic commandments not questioning or justifying those for which no legal reason is given ...



... having developed your belief in the religion as a pre requisite.

Yeh I get your point...

So based on your definition yeh you would follow all rules blindly without question because you are convinced of the wisdom of Allah over your own...of course getting to that stage means you have made a reasoned judgement about Islam which would convince you that there is wisdom to follow in the first place...

 

[shaykh]

Why not? Considering a treaty was made with the worst of enemies of Islam?

I agree with you...its completely unrealistic to have no treaties or no agreements with any nations...those existed during the Caliphate...

A Caliphate can't be isolationist like the Japan of the past...we live in a globalised world and for such a state to survive it needs to engage with other states in terms of trade, military etc...

 

[shaykh]

This may not be true for you but I've often noticed that people that are struggling with doubt is because they are not close to the Quran. So, regardless of what anyone says about any given topic (evolution, women's rights, slavery, etc.), or how good of an argument they present, it would not sink in the other person's heart. Nothing that anyone can say/write can surpass the Quran in clearing confusion. Too many Muslims today, especially us young ones look for popular figures to answer existential questions. Meanwhile, the Quran collects dust on our shelves, or if we're reading it, we're not doing so with contemplation. In turn it collects dust in our hearts.

Allah says:

And when you recite the Quran, We place between you and those who do not believe in the hereafter a hidden barrier


And the Prophet says:

“The Book of Allah, in which there is news of those who came before you, news of what will happen after you have gone, rulings concerning matters between you. It is the distinguisher and is not jesting. If any overweening person abandons it Allah will break him, and if anyone seek guidance elsewhere Allah will lead him astray. It is the strong rope of Allah, it is the wise reminder, it is the straight path, it is that by which the desires do not swerve nor the tongues become confused, and the learned cannot grasp it completely. It does not become warn out by repetition and its wonders do not come to an end. Whoever speaks in accordance with it speaks the truth, whoever acts in accordance with it will be rewarded, whoever judges according to it will be just, and whoever calls people towards it calls them to the straight path”

Thanks AR Fan and KB-24 for your suggestions...

 

[ElRaja]

Yeh I get your point...

So based on your definition yeh you would follow all rules blindly without question because you are convinced of the wisdom of Allah over your own...of course getting to that stage means you have made a reasoned judgement about Islam which would convince you that there is wisdom to follow in the first place...

yeah thats what i was getting at, i worded it sloppily, my bad bro.

 

[shaykh]

Interesting. So it that your alternative for these such topics? I.e. the bold bit as a summary?

I haven't actually read the latest replies, so it might have been discussed. Overall I don't disagree with either view from both sides of the argument.

I'm just sitting on the fence.

Well essentially yes...

If you judge any faith by its contents then you will most likely be appalled by some of the things you discover...

And if you judge a faith by its contents you do one of two things...you either lie to yourself and say the things that offend you are manipulations as Mamoon and Javelin have done...or you end up deciding the faith isn't for you...

If you judge a faith based on whether you believe it to be a legitimate source from God then you leave yourself in a position where you have no choice but to believe...people who decide on faith based on this route are more likely to stick to it...cos if you believe its from God then you believe he knows better than you do...

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I agree with you...its completely unrealistic to have no treaties or no agreements with any nations...those existed during the Caliphate...

A Caliphate can't be isolationist like the Japan of the past...we live in a globalised world and for such a state to survive it needs to engage with other states in terms of trade, military etc...

Yep.

Caliphs of the past have also modified or ammended shariah due to social circumstances. For instance Umar suspended the punishment for theft during a drought and later zoroastrians were also considered ahle kitab despite no mention of them in the Quran.

I feel that if social circumstances requife it then through ijma certain practices can be suspended. If we unanimously accept that attainment of puberty is no longer what is required for marriage then we can end child marriage by setting an age of content ( we already have ages for entering the army which are different from those of the past).

If we decide polygamy is detrimental to society we can end that too.

 

[Yossarian]

Yep.

Caliphs of the past have also modified or ammended shariah due to social circumstances. For instance Umar suspended the punishment for theft during a drought and later zoroastrians were also considered ahle kitab despite no mention of them in the Quran.

I feel that if social circumstances requife it then through ijma certain practices can be suspended. If we unanimously accept that attainment of puberty is no longer what is required for marriage then we can end child marriage by setting an age of content ( we already have ages for entering the army which are different from those of the past).

If we decide polygamy is detrimental to society we can end that too.

See the parts I've highlighted. How does that differ from my assertions that the rules and edicts within Islam need to be looked at in context in terms of the society's needs based upon the circumstances prevailing at the time?

 

[Pakz]

Well essentially yes...

If you judge any faith by its contents then you will most likely be appalled by some of the things you discover...

And if you judge a faith by its contents you do one of two things...you either lie to yourself and say the things that offend you are manipulations as Mamoon and Javelin have done...or you end up deciding the faith isn't for you...

If you judge a faith based on whether you believe it to be a legitimate source from God then you leave yourself in a position where you have no choice but to believe...people who decide on faith based on this route are more likely to stick to it...cos if you believe its from God then you believe he knows better than you do...

I understand your point. However didn't you apply that they might be right, but we should reason. It comes down to that statement of are the commends morally good or good because they've been commanded? I guess that's what you were applying and that blind faith is not what you were supporting?

I don't however see what would be wrong to understand context. If could help in understanding the ideas more accurately and then reason from looking at it this way, rather than leaving it.

Do you follow religion or just in the process of questioning it overall, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[shaykh]

Yep.

Caliphs of the past have also modified or ammended shariah due to social circumstances. For instance Umar suspended the punishment for theft during a drought and later zoroastrians were also considered ahle kitab despite no mention of them in the Quran.

I feel that if social circumstances requife it then through ijma certain practices can be suspended. If we unanimously accept that attainment of puberty is no longer what is required for marriage then we can end child marriage by setting an age of content ( we already have ages for entering the army which are different from those of the past).

If we decide polygamy is detrimental to society we can end that too.

In terms of the first example...the Caliphate is required to provide everyone provisions of food, clothing and shelter...when it was unable to do so then it lifted the rule on theft...the rule on theft is linked to another rule hence the amendment...

On the zorostrasian example I don't know to comment tbh...

In terms of polygamy the rule is that a man must be able to treat his wives equally...if men are unable to do this then the state can intervene and prevent that man from marrying again...its down to rules being linked to each other...

One can't simply remove a rule for the sake of it...on what basis do you envisage a Caliph removing the right to have upto four wives?...

 

[shaykh]

I understand your point. However didn't you apply that they might be right, but we should reason. It comes down to that statement of are the commends morally good or good because they've been commanded? I guess that's what you were applying and that blind faith is not what you were supporting?

I don't however see what would be wrong to understand context. If could help in understanding the ideas more accurately and then reason from looking at it this way, rather than leaving it.

Do you follow religion or just in the process of questioning it overall, if you don't mind me asking?

Well my position at present is I'm not really following anything...cos I'm not convinced of anything...

There is nothing wrong with understanding context but the point is that in Islam one decides context based on illah...illah being specific reasons provided by Allah...if he hasn't provided a reason then all one is doing is mere speculation...

What some are doing in this thread is analysing something that is clear cut in terms of its permissability and then deciding it is impermissable based on their own opinions...this has nothing to do with Islam...

I'm not supporting blind faith...but what I am saying is that if you are convinced that Islam is correct...then you accept it regardless of whether you rationally agree with the rules contained within it...

Morally right and wrong for the Muslim is determined by whether Allah has determined it right or wrong...ie polygamy is acceptable to him thus it should be acceptable to the Muslim if he truly believes in Islam...

 

[Yossarian]

Well my position at present is I'm not really following anything...cos I'm not convinced of anything...
...


I'm not supporting blind faith...but what I am saying is that if you are convinced that Islam is correct...then you accept it regardless of whether you rationally agree with the rules contained within it...

Morally right and wrong for the Muslim is determined by whether Allah has determined it right or wrong...ie polygamy is acceptable to him thus it should be acceptable to the Muslim if he truly believes in Islam...

Eh?... You are not convinced of anything, meaning of Islam, you find certain aspects of Islam, to use your own words, 'distasteful', which, taken together, means that you disagree with Islamic rules and values, and yet you feel you have the right to preach to others as to how Islam should be followed?

You're fast confirming my suspicions that your only goal appears to be to malign Islam and portray it in as much a negative way as possible so that you can justify, perhaps to yourself, that you are right in not following it, or worse, spread Islamophobia as much as you can.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Well my position at present is I'm not really following anything...cos I'm not convinced of anything...

There is nothing wrong with understanding context but the point is that in Islam one decides context based on illah...illah being specific reasons provided by Allah...if he hasn't provided a reason then all one is doing is mere speculation...

What some are doing in this thread is analysing something that is clear cut in terms of its permissability and then deciding it is impermissable based on their own opinions...this has nothing to do with Islam...

I'm not supporting blind faith...but what I am saying is that if you are convinced that Islam is correct...then you accept it regardless of whether you rationally agree with the rules contained within it...

Morally right and wrong for the Muslim is determined by whether Allah has determined it right or wrong...ie polygamy is acceptable to him thus it should be acceptable to the Muslim if he truly believes in Islam...

The main difference between the Muslim world and the rest of the world in regards to polygamy is that men taking more than one partner is legitimised. In reality it happens everywhere anyway.

 

[shaykh]

Eh?... You are not convinced of anything, meaning of Islam, you find certain aspects of Islam, to use your own words, 'distasteful', which, taken together, means that you disagree with Islamic rules and values, and yet you feel you have the right to preach to others as to how Islam should be followed?

You're fast confirming my suspicions that your only goal appears to be to malign Islam and portray it in as much a negative way as possible so that you can justify, perhaps to yourself, that you are right in not following it, or worse, spread Islamophobia as much as you can.

You can think whatever you like...

If someone was speaking about Marx and misrepresenting his ideas then I would also jump in and correct someone...do I need to be a Marxist to talk about Marxism...no...so your point holds absolutely no merit...

I am a previous revert and I actually know scripture...you have displayed that you know absolutely nothing...you pretend to speak about Islam but you simply express your own opinions...

I know what Islam says on specific matters...you evidently don't...and you misrepresent Islam...I may have negative opinions on Islam but I haven't misrepresented it...the fact is the Muslims on this thread have agreed with what I have said over Mamoon and your nonsense...

The simple answer to the question the thread has raised is Allah allows it...and I have produced Islamic sources to confirm that...

Your sources are simply your own thoughts...

You have been asked countless times to refute what I have said and all you did was create a story about how I had insulted you...

I haven't told anyone not to follow Islam...I have simply stated that if you are convinced that Islam is the truth then you follow whatever is contained within it...

Rules dont determine belief...Scripture does...and all you have done is disagree with rules that are clear cut in Islam cos you don't like them...

Lol to play your game what makes you feel you have the right to discuss Islam when your belief system is your own opinions and not Islam...

 

[Mamoon]

This is what I call a classic example of putting your foot in your mouth. Re-read your own post before you tell me that I misread it. This is the Post that I quoted.



So first you claim that it became NECASSARY during the time of war when there’s no such evidence found. Neither Quran nor Sunnah says that polygyny is NECESSARY under ANY circumstances, so it’s your own assertion. Then, you follow it up with a historical blunder claiming that “most” men died in the battle of Uhud, when the number was only 70-73 out of 700+ which is about 10%-12%. Then you further claim that “It is not applicable now” which to any neutral reader sounds like passing of a judgement for specificity of a time.

Your claim of it becoming a necessity during adverse or extreme times has no proof from history, Sunnah of the Prophet, or the Quran. It is just a claim that you have made up.



I don't know but the world's population ratio of men & women is almost even right now.



People marry for various reasons, I can;t give you a definitive answer.



In Islam, women are permitted to marry only one man at a time.



Who's encouraging it? I'm simply defending the position that second marriage without a 'noble' reason is a legitimate position in any given time. Assuming that the man will fulfill all the rights due on him for each wife.



Lust including love is a valid reason for some people to marry, it's not my problem you find it ridiculous.



I'm not married yet, but if I ever have a daughter then I will raise her upon Islamic values, inshallah. If an incident like that ever occurred in her life, then naturally seeing her sad would make me sad, but I won't object to it as long as my son-in-law continues to give her her due rights.



Just because women don't like it doesn't mean it never happens. I'm sure all of us here know someone who's cheated on their spouse or have carried multiple relationships. Hiding from the issue won't make it go awy.

Of course it was neccessary, and what about the women whose husbands died?

Let me rephrase, if you don't know the purpose of polygamy in Islam, you simply haven't thought deeply enough.

Why do you think the Prophet PBUH married multiple times? to provide shelter, protect women from misuse or for lust?

Why do you think men are allowed to marry more than once? If you think for lust, well that is exactly interpreting Islam to cater your personal needs, no offense.

Polygamy is applicable in circumstances where you have to provide shelter to another woman, if there is divorced lady or a widow who wants to marry again and there aren't any bachelor men interested, you can marry her.

Allowance of polygamy does not mean that you can simply jump from women to women, for fun.

Quran doesn't set the rules for polygamy but its a GUIDANCE book.

A guidance book gives you a point and its your job to interpret.

if Quran tells you to be considerate towards your parents, its your job to determine what considerate means.

To determine that, you ought to follow the sunnah.

Now tell me, how many women did the Prophet PBUH marry to for lust? if none, on what basis are you claiming that its okay to marry another woman to fulfill lust?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

See the parts I've highlighted. How does that differ from my assertions that the rules and edicts within Islam need to be looked at in context in terms of the society's needs based upon the circumstances prevailing at the time?

There is a subtle difference. You are interpreting scripture in the light of your biased views ( I dont mean biased as an insult but you are culturally biased, as we all are).

 

[DeadlyVenom]

In terms of the first example...the Caliphate is required to provide everyone provisions of food, clothing and shelter...when it was unable to do so then it lifted the rule on theft...the rule on theft is linked to another rule hence the amendment...

In terms of polygamy the rule is that a man must be able to treat his wives equally...if men are unable to do this then the state can intervene and prevent that man from marrying again...its down to rules being linked to each other...

One can't simply remove a rule for the sake of it...on what basis do you envisage a Caliph removing the right to have upto four wives?...

Population inequality and opposition from women who feel that they cannot be treated equally in a polygamous marriage.

I follow the school of thought where the first wifes permission is necessary for a second marriage. I imagine a future scenario that when an application for a second marriage is submitted to an Islamic court then the first wife must be a signatory.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Of course it was neccessary, and what about the women whose husbands died?

Let me rephrase, if you don't know the purpose of polygamy in Islam, you simply haven't thought deeply enough.

Why do you think the Prophet PBUH married multiple times? to provide shelter, protect women from misuse or for lust?

Why do you think men are allowed to marry more than once? If you think for lust, well that is exactly interpreting Islam to cater your personal needs, no offense.

Polygamy is applicable in circumstances where you have to provide shelter to another woman, if there is divorced lady or a widow who wants to marry again and there aren't any bachelor men interested, you can marry her.

Allowance of polygamy does not mean that you can simply jump from women to women, for fun.

Quran doesn't set the rules for polygamy but its a GUIDANCE book.

A guidance book gives you a point and its your job to interpret.

if Quran tells you to be considerate towards your parents, its your job to determine what considerate means.

To determine that, you ought to follow the sunnah.

Now tell me, how many women did the Prophet PBUH marry to for lust? if none, on what basis are you claiming that its okay to marry another woman to fulfill lust?

You clearly no little of the Sunnah either. Although the Prophet married to strengthen ties and give the example to future generations to aid sunnah he also married for other reasons too. I won't say much because I don't like talking about the Prophet and using words like lust etc and don't want to discuss his (saw) marital affairs.

He also oversaw the marriage of the Sahaba and didn't stop any of them from multiple marriages.

 

[Yossarian]

I am a previous revert ...

So let me get this right, you are a previous revert, meaning that at one point in time you were not a follower of Islam, but upon studying it, you became so convinced about it's merits that you decided to convert and become a Muslim?

And yet, despite being convinced to that extent (-since changing religion is such a massive step in one's life that it is not taken lightly, and converts/reverts are more often than not far more ardent in their new beliefs compared with those who were born into a family already following that faith), you found certain aspects of Islam as being 'distasteful', to such an extent that you are not convinced of Islam anymore meaning you don't consider yourself as being a muslim any longer? ie You've 'reversed, your 'reversion'?

However, in all that toing and froing, you feel that you have gained sufficient knowledge about Islam so as to judge whether or not another muslim is following Islam correctly or not, and have the audacity to preach to them?

You are so confused my friend that you don't know whether you are going or coming.

 

[Yossarian]

You clearly no little of the Sunnah either. Although the Prophet married to strengthen ties and give the example to future generations to aid sunnah he also married for other reasons too. I won't say much because I don't like talking about the Prophet and using words like lust etc and don't want to discuss his (saw) marital affairs.

He also oversaw the marriage of the Sahaba and didn't stop any of them from multiple marriages.

But surely the primary arguement used, even in this thread, for Islam permitting multiple wives is based around the fact the prophet (pbuh) also had multiple wives. In which case it's perfectly reasonable to discuss as to the possible reasons why he did so.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

But surely the primary arguement used, even in this thread, for Islam permitting multiple wives is based around the fact the prophet (pbuh) also had multiple wives. In which case it's perfectly reasonable to discuss as to the possible reasons why he did so.

Mamoon has a different interpretation of the word 'lust' to what mine is. He seems to see it as a dirty word.

 

[shaykh]

So let me get this right, you are a previous revert, meaning that at one point in time you were not a follower of Islam, but upon studying it, you became so convinced about it's merits that you decided to convert and become a Muslim?

And yet, despite being convinced to that extent (-since changing religion is such a massive step in one's life that it is not taken lightly, and converts/reverts are more often than not far more ardent in their new beliefs compared with those who were born into a family already following that faith), you found certain aspects of Islam as being 'distasteful', to such an extent that you are not convinced of Islam anymore meaning you don't consider yourself as being a muslim any longer? ie You've 'reversed, your 'reversion'?

However, in all that toing and froing, you feel that you have gained sufficient knowledge about Islam so as to judge whether or not another muslim is following Islam correctly or not, and have the audacity to preach to them?

You are so confused my friend that you don't know whether you are going or coming.

Not confused whatsoever actually...very clear on matters at present...

Reverted at 15...practiced for quite a while...studied a lot of Islam in terms of rules etc...

Now...after further research I am not convinced by Islams legitimacy...this has no impact on whether the rules exist or not...

I can agree or disagree with a book and still know whats in it...unfortunately you're too dim to understand that...

So as it stands...I still know what the rules are...and polygamy is a legitimate practice in Islam...as those who seem to have read some scripture have agreed with...you are yet to quote anything yet feel you have something to contribute...all you have contributed is your OPINIONS which have nothing to do with Islam...

Do I suddenly lose all the knowledge I have gained because I don't believe in something...does the former leftist no longer understand Marxism because he decides he doesn't agree with it...

And no I didn't reconsider Islam because of things I found distasteful...I practiced and believed in spite of things being distasteful to me...once I wasn't convinced of Islams legitimacy then I no longer had to believe in those practices either...

You meanwhile have yet to present a single argument which had an iota of Islamic relevance...your argument is this:

I don't like polygamy...so Islam must not like polygamy...this is the extent of your argument...

 

[Yossarian]

Mamoon has a different interpretation of the word 'lust' to what mine is. He seems to see it as a dirty word.

Please elaborate, ie as to your interpretation (- not being critical but simply inquisitive)

 

[shaykh]

Population inequality and opposition from women who feel that they cannot be treated equally in a polygamous marriage.

I follow the school of thought where the first wifes permission is necessary for a second marriage. I imagine a future scenario that when an application for a second marriage is submitted to an Islamic court then the first wife must be a signatory.

Fair comment on the idea of population inequality...

And I agreed on the idea of equality in my previous post...but as stated...one needs to define what equality is...and from whose perspective...

Aisha's quotes didn't say much for her happiness and El Raja correctly pointed out that equality is probably what women least desire...

And I guess it depends what school the state decides to adopt cos for the most part a wifes permission is a courtesy rather than a requirement...

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Please elaborate, ie as to your interpretation (- not being critical but simply inquisitive)

A natural feeling of desire to have sexual relations with a woman. Something that is part of the makeup of a man.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Fair comment on the idea of population inequality...

And I agreed on the idea of equality in my previous post...but as stated...one needs to define what equality is...and from whose perspective...

Aisha's quotes didn't say much for her happiness and El Raja correctly pointed out that equality is probably what women least desire...

And I guess it depends what school the state decides to adopt cos for the most part a wifes permission is a courtesy rather than a requirement...

I think your are mistaking Aishas 'jealously' with unhappiness.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Why are concubines allowed in Islam?

Shaykh - why are you adamant that muslims should take certain things on face value and never question them?

How can one ever be sure that hadith or stories told are 100% accurate.

 

[shaykh]

I think your are mistaking Aishas 'jealously' with unhappiness.

They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive...I've posted the hadith...do they make her sound happy?...

 

[ElRaja]

A natural feeling of desire to have sexual relations with a woman. Something that is part of the makeup of a man.

to add to this, it would be most disapointing to not lust after someone you are going to marry, as long as you dont let your balls do the thinking and respect women, its actually quite constructive to understand the mechanism of physical attraction and why its important genetically and in terms of a relationship to not attach negative connotations to what DV rightly describes as a natural desire.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive...I've posted the hadith...do they make her sound happy?...

They don't make her sound unhappy either at least in my opinion.

Anyways If I agree with you for the sake of it, people can't be happy 100% of the time. Its only natural to be unhappy sometimes.

There are countless hadith where Aisha displays her joy in marriage too.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

to add to this, it would be most disapointing to not lust after someone you are going to marry, as long as you dont let your balls do the thinking and respect women, its actually quite constructive to understand the mechanism of physical attraction and why its important genetically and in terms of a relationship.

Of course. These guys are desexualising marriage and reducing it to an act of charity and pity.

Islam is actually quite clear and open when it comes to sex. It is actually the duty of a man to satisfy his wife sexually ( or attempt to!). This obviously means that 'lust' is required.

 

[shaykh]

Why are concubines allowed in Islam?

Shaykh - why are you adamant that muslims should take certain things on face value and never question them?

How can one ever be sure that hadith or stories told are 100% accurate.

Because its an Islamic concept...Allah has provided specific reasons for certain things and has provided no reasons for others...all one is doing when questioning them is speculating...cos an answer isn't actually provided...and the point is...if you actually believe in Islam then frankly it doesn't actually matter WHY he asks you to do or not do something...or allows you to do something...you just follow the rules regardless...

Whys really don't matter if you are convinced of the creed...and as stated whys are often not provided...

The Quran requires Muslims to follow the Prophets Sunnah which is contained within the hadith...the legitimacy of which is determined by chains of narration etc..

 

[ElRaja]

Reverted at 15...practiced for quite a while...studied a lot of Islam in terms of rules etc...

off topic

you need an intro thread dude, all this time i thought you were joe average and turns out you have a back story, are you pakistani?

 

[Yossarian]

Not confused whatsoever actually...very clear on matters at present...

Reverted at 15...practiced for quite a while...studied a lot of Islam in terms of rules etc...

Now...after further research I am not convinced by Islams legitimacy...this has no impact on whether the rules exist or not...

I can agree or disagree with a book and still know whats in it...unfortunately you're too dim to understand that...

So as it stands...I still know what the rules are...and polygamy is a legitimate practice in Islam...as those who seem to have read some scripture have agreed with...you are yet to quote anything yet feel you have something to contribute...all you have contributed is your OPINIONS which have nothing to do with Islam...

Do I suddenly lose all the knowledge I have gained because I don't believe in something...does the former leftist no longer understand Marxism because he decides he doesn't agree with it...

And no I didn't reconsider Islam because of things I found distasteful...I practiced and believed in spite of things being distasteful to me...once I wasn't convinced of Islams legitimacy then I no longer had to believe in those practices either...

You meanwhile have yet to present a single argument which had an iota of Islamic relevance...your argument is this:

I don't like polygamy...so Islam must not like polygamy...this is the extent of your argument...

Since you claim to be 'knowledgeable', then you'd know that, in Islam, you can marry at 15, fight battles and if required, take lives at 15, ..etc. ... in which case you were certainly old enough at 15 to know what you were doing when you converted. your mere mention of your age at the time sounds as if you are claiming that you were too young and naive to know and converted to Islam without realising what you were doing.

As for continuing to practice Islam despite finding some aspects as being distasteful does'nt sound like a believer to me. As you have been stating over and over again, a believer must believe that everything in his religion is right, whereas common sence tells you that when one finds something as being distasteful it means they think it's wrong.

So simply put, no you don't know about Islam despite claiming otherwise, else you would not have decided to leave considering that you made a life changing decision to convert in the first place.

 

[Radiance Of Australis]

Out of interest would you be happy in an 'equal' relationship if your husband married a woman for 'noble' reasons...

Personally, no.

On topic, let me ask you this, if a married man has a friend who dies and leaves a widow and kids behind and this man out of deep sympathy decides that he will support the woman and the kids, thinking that the woman could have a companion and kids will have a father and his intention is only that, and he discusses this with his first wife, do you think the wife will be happy in this scenario? And what if this widow happens to be pretty? Would the first wife not second guess her husband’s intentions and feel the same way you’ve described above?

Honestly, some women would. But there will be many who will not be that insensitive to think in such way, considering that the friend has died.

The point that I’m getting at is that the wife’s response will probably be identical, no matter what the reason for marriage is and too often people are ready to show disdain to something that Allah has allowed because our feelings are unsettled, but the deen is not based on feelings, it is based on faith. I understand that it is one of the greatest trials that women in the Ummah face and it is very easy for me as a male to say this but I think women too need to introspect and give a serious thought to this issue. How did the Muslimahs of the past dealt with it? What was their response to the issue?

I understand what you are getting at but there is still a different kind of reaction when a guy says to his wife "The widow of my friend needs support and I think I hold the responsibility and so and so." as opposed to "I'm interested in someone else." Do you get what I mean?

Anyways, Islam has only allowed multiple marriages, it doesn't really encourage them. Muslim women get so much criticism from religious folk when they say that they will never be a part of such marriage, as if they are rejecting something basic like hijab when they're not. It's not right.

 

[shaykh]

Since you claim to be 'knowledgeable', then you'd know that, in Islam, you can marry at 15, fight battles and if required, take lives at 15, ..etc. ... in which case you were certainly old enough at 15 to know what you were doing when you converted. your mere mention of your age at the time sounds as if you are claiming that you were too young and naive to know and converted to Islam without realising what you were doing.

As for continuing to practice Islam despite finding some aspects as being distasteful does'nt sound like a believer to me. As you have been stating over and over again, a believer must believe that everything in his religion is right, whereas common sence tells you that when one finds something as being distasteful it means they think it's wrong.

So simply put, no you don't know about Islam despite claiming otherwise, else you would not have decided to leave considering that you made a life changing decision to convert in the first place.

Actually now your just making silly presumptions...the reason I mentioned my age was in reply to your comment about me toing and froing...I reverted a long time ago hence the mention of my age...I knew what I was doing but I didn't have the questions that I invariably asked myself afterwards...

As for finding things distasteful...its a natural reaction...I found things like concubinage, slavery etc disturbing...I found things like prevention of free mixing irrational...but the fact is I also believed in Islam hence I believed these things I didn't necessarily agree with to be correct nevertheless...unlike yourself I didn't deny their existence or their legitimacy...

You don't like something then you deny its Islamic...I didn't like something and I told myself Allah knows better than I do what is correct...

Now as for now...the issue isn't with rules...its to do with core questions about belief...and rather than toing and froing it was a very long process with a lot of research and a lot of reading and discussion...and these are core ideas...proof of Quran etc...and I realised I wasn't convinced with the arguments...changes occur over time at how you analyse things and how you question things...

What didn't change is my understanding of what Islam is...if I disagree with an ideology that I have studied then that doesn't mean my knowledge disappears...it simply means I don't agree with it anymore...Islam doesn't seek to be Islam because I disagree with it...

I can see how that might be a difficult concept for you to understand considering you define Islam by your own whims and desires rather than based on scripture itself...

 

[shaykh]

off topic

you need an intro thread dude, all this time i thought you were joe average and turns out you have a back story, are you pakistani?

I'm of mixed heritage...Pakistani, Iranian and Ugandan Asian...but identify with my Pakistani part the most...

Cool will open an intro thread

 

[shaykh]

They don't make her sound unhappy either at least in my opinion.

Anyways If I agree with you for the sake of it, people can't be happy 100% of the time. Its only natural to be unhappy sometimes.

There are countless hadith where Aisha displays her joy in marriage too.

Fair comment...its just I find it hard to believe that any woman could be happy sharing their partner...and on this aspect it certainly seems evident that she was unhappy...not unhappy enough to leave...and of course she loved the Prophet which from my interpretation makes her even more unhappy and jealous about the fact that she had to share...

 

[Maaya]

The first bit was directed at someone else so sorry if you got offended.

Look, I'm totally down for the explanation that Islam has given for polygamy. It's reasonable and completely fair as it clearly explains that someone should only marry multiple women if he can and will support them in every way possible.

And there are men who do marry multiple women out of sincerity and not merely lust. Good for them.

But what's problematic is that I have come across too many males who talk about having second wife like they are talking about the purchase of a second car. Especially young men. They think its a free pass for them to be with two women at once - a completely immature thinking. This thinking also stems from the fact that many people justify polygamy by saying 'its good because otherwise he would be cheating on his wife with another woman especially if he is in the west'. Basically that's what these people see polygamy as. And its wrong, insensitive and stupid. Marrying a second woman purely out of lust puts the first wife in such an awful position. Depending on her mentality, the first wife will have a million questions about herself starting from 'what was wrong with me?' and ranging from 'am I shallow or not beautiful enough or my personality has too many flaws?'. These men don't realize that they are basically devaluing the first wife when they marry the second out of lust. Islam may not have specified the reasons you can use to marry multiple women but then again there are certain things Islam does not spoonfeed you especially not common sense. Islam expects YOU to have common sense. Men think that as long as Islam has NOT specified that you cannot marry out of lust it suddenly makes it okay to completely disregard the feelings of your own wife.

What's gonna happen when a man says to his wife that he wants to marry again? Whether the wife permits it or not it doesn't really matter, she hasn't much of a choice left. She doesn't wanna say yes and what's the point of saying no? The husband has already expressed that he is bored of her. Its gonna cause further strain on their marriage. She is gonna keep wondering and be suspicious if he is secretly seeing that woman for the rest of their lives. Its gonna make her paranoid. She can't ask for divorce because she will be the loser in the situation because the minute they get divorced, the husband will run off to the other lady while the divorced wife will be all alone with the stigma of a divorcee attached to her.

And this is why I will never marry.

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 4

engouraging to see the female perspective on this.

you say you´ll never marry, wont your parents disallow this? Wont they go against your decision?

 

[Maaya]

also if all islamic rules etc are applicable in this age as well, will you all allow a muslim man to marry a minor aging under 10?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

engouraging to see the female perspective on this.

you say you´ll never marry, wont your parents disallow this? Wont they go against your decision?

If she's living in Australia she can marry whoever she likes rather than become one of four wives to a Muslim. I would suggest she break out of her protective parental cocoon and learn to live on her own wits like most other Aussie women.

 

[Yossarian]

Actually now your just making silly presumptions...the reason I mentioned my age was in reply to your comment about me toing and froing...I reverted a long time ago hence the mention of my age...I knew what I was doing but I didn't have the questions that I invariably asked myself afterwards...

As for finding things distasteful...its a natural reaction...I found things like concubinage, slavery etc disturbing...I found things like prevention of free mixing irrational...but the fact is I also believed in Islam hence I believed these things I didn't necessarily agree with to be correct nevertheless...unlike yourself I didn't deny their existence or their legitimacy...

You don't like something then you deny its Islamic...I didn't like something and I told myself Allah knows better than I do what is correct...

Now as for now...the issue isn't with rules...its to do with core questions about belief...and rather than toing and froing it was a very long process with a lot of research and a lot of reading and discussion...and these are core ideas...proof of Quran etc...and I realised I wasn't convinced with the arguments...changes occur over time at how you analyse things and how you question things...

What didn't change is my understanding of what Islam is...if I disagree with an ideology that I have studied then that doesn't mean my knowledge disappears...it simply means I don't agree with it anymore...Islam doesn't seek to be Islam because I disagree with it...

I can see how that might be a difficult concept for you to understand considering you define Islam by your own whims and desires rather than based on scripture itself...

Silly presumptions?

An ex-non-muslim ex-muslim (or is it the other way around ) trying to justify his decision to leave on the pretext that he found certain aspects of his former (newfound) religion to be 'distasteful', 'disturbing' and 'irrational', and then goes around maligning that religion, spreading Islamophobia whilst claiming to be an expert on the subject. When did you join the BNP?

It reminds one of footballers.

Happy and ecstatic at joinging a new club. To show his fellow footballers and the clubs fans of his loyalty and committment, delves into learning about the history and past achievements of the club, including it's styles of play, coaching structures and the like. After a while, becomes dissatisfied with life at the club and decides to move on, and joins another club. In order to justify his move and ingratiate himself with his new colleagues and the fans of his new club, starts dissing his previous club, it's coach, it's training methods et al whilst claiming to be an expert due to his previous stint there.