Authenticity of Religious Books

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Thank you Muslimwoman,

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I am happy and grateful to engage with you in these questions as it is a rare muslim who can get past the defensiveness our times foster. I have read some of your other posts and the way that you justify your faith is very noble in that you always hold true to the justice within the Quran and condemn the perverions of it. This is very sadly uncommon amongst those that are passionate enough either way to join a forum like this. And i dont limit that to muslims.

as salaam aleykum TE

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread, I was suffering from blonde syndrome and didn’t know how to look up threads I posted on – oops.

Thank you for your kind words. I simply and I hope humbly (ok sometimes I throw my teddy out of the pram) try to represent my love and servitude of G-d and the religion I have chosen to follow in the way I believe it was intended. I accept that Islam has a lot to answer for but I truly believe that in many ways it is misrepresented and misinterpreted by some Muslims and the outside world. I too am unbaptised. It was only with advancing years that I began to develop patience and understanding of others views and beliefs.

Thank you for filling me in on your beliefs and thought processes, most interesting. One day we must discuss horses, one of my great passions.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

First off it is important to bare in mind that Mohammad himself was from a leading wealthy merchant family, a 5%ter, that was a part of the political ruling class in

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Mecca at that time. It is argued by some scholars that coming from such a background it is extremely unlikely he was unable to read and write. Literacy was the norm for his his class at that time. It is possible he was dyslexic or for some reason he was never schooled but that would not be normal.

Oh no TE do I really have to start at the very beginning? Only kidding.

Correct, it would not be normal, however:

570CE Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was born. His father had died a few weeks before his birth. His mother died when he was 6. His grandfather died when he was 8. He then went to live with his paternal uncle Abu Talib, a good but POOR man. Because Abu Talib was a poor man Mohammad had to work from an early age so never learned to read or write. I have yet to read a history book (either Muslim or non-Muslim) that does not agree with this account of his early years. Please let me know if you have. When he was 25 he went to work for Khadija (his first wife, and only wife for 25 years), she was a wealthy businesswoman. This was how he ‘came into money’.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Mohammad is said to have got his visitations from Gabrial, (he would immediately be labled schizophrenic if he were to claim this today), during fits or seizures. Afterward he would tell them to a scribe, there were around 60 in total, who would write them down on parchment, palm leaves or whatever was available. Often these visions would include changes or additions to previous revelations.

Well TE I wasn’t there so can’t comment on how many scribes there were but considering the number of Muslims that went to Medina totalled approximately 70 and less than 5% of the population was literate (remember a vast majority of the ummah were from the poor families) my logic and reasoning suggests 60 is a bit of an overstatement. One of the other problems is that we are discussing a period of 23 years, not a few weeks so much changed during that time. One would imagine that at first there would be 1 or 2 scribes and as time passed this may well have grown considerably in number.

Some of the books I have read on the Prophets life have said he believed himself to be going mad when he started to receive the revelations, as the soothsayers in the town square would go into a trance and babble. I accept as a non believer you cannot accept that his revelations were truly from G-d and that’s fine but when I listen to the Quran in Arabic I have no doubts.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Suppose for a moment that Mohammad was literate and up until he was 40 had spent much time reading the different scriptures circulating at that time. (even this is not required however, he could have been read them or listened to them from a number of sources). Then there is very little in what he later claimed that cannot be found in the Christian and Jewish holy books. Infact much of it could be called plagarism .

I accept as he lived in Mecca he probably had heard both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Is this proof of plagurism or proof G-d continued to send a recurring message to mankind? We also know that he had heard the Christian scriptures through Waraqa ibn Nawfal, a Christian that acknowledged him as a true Prophet.

Of course as a non believer I should think you don’t believe any of the Books are from G-d. My view is that all the Books were from G-d and the common threads running through them are because G-d doesn’t change His mind.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Yes I know they were close, Muhammad married one of his daughters so they were family. But he was also a judge and a highly placed member in the power structure of the day. Factionalism led to him and Mohammad to flee

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Mecca, for Medina, where they built an army. They were both warlords toying for power and influence at any means. A very important part of effective powerplay then, as now, was control of a mans soul. You can look on it they were powerful warlords who employed the claim of divinity and I do. .

Factionalism led them to flee? No, no, no. The rift was with the Quaraysh, his own tribe. They had been living happily together until Prophet Mohammad declared there is Only one G-d and accused the Quaraysh of idolatry. Remember here that loyalty to tribe was absolutely paramount at that time. This was not a message he had pushed with the Quaraysh (think that demonstrates his sanity) in the very early days of Islam. Once he made this an issue life became unbearable for Muslims in Mecca, some were tortured and killed, others ridiculed, etc. There were no factions in Islam at that time.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

So all of Muhammads visions had not been collected and assembled in any order by the time of his death. (But I have read that in his last visions he recieved instruction on how they should be ordered.) Also by this time and after several bloody battles they, the Muslims headed now by Abu Bakr, had killed their way to the top. I believe this was also the time that the Shia/Sunni schizm took place and happened because Abu Bakr took control, with not inconsiderable violence, of both the written legacy of Muhammad's visions and that part of

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Arabia. Abu Bakr commanded that anything that he did not like should be destroyed, all disenters killed. His new right hand man Umar, another father in law of Muhammad and who succeeded to power after Abu Bakr's death, carried on this quest and with the expansionist philosophies espoused, the Muslims went on to conquer the whole region.

Wow we really do read different history books. I try to be honest with myself and read books both by Muslims and non Muslims but my understanding of the history is quite different from yours. Am not saying who’s right or wrong, the truth is invariable in the middle somewhere.

May I quote Karen Armstrong (she was a Catholic nun for 7 years so is hardly an Islamic apologist). This is from her book A History of G-d, looking into the origins of a number of religions.

“Muhammad has often been presented as a warlord, who forced Islam on a reluctant world by force of arms. The reality was quite different. Muhammad was fighting for his life, was evolving a theology of the just war in the Koran with which most Christians would agree, and never forced anybody to convert to his religion.” “Muhammad had political gifts of a very high order.”

This is the Mohammad (pbuh) that I know of. As for those that came after, they are another story.

When Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) died there was a power struggle (no big surprise there really). Even Ali ibn Talib accepted Abu Bakr as the first Caliph but there were mutterings from those who believed the prophet would have wanted Ali to lead the ummah. Over the period of the first three Caliphs these mutterings grew, the rift was political rather than doctrinal. Uthman, then Ali (the 4th Caliph) were assassinated and things got a teeny weeny bit nasty, oh ok all hell broke loose. There were 3 competing groups, those who wanted the Prophets family to retain the caliphate, those that wanted a Caliph elected by the ummah and those, the smallest minority by far, that had political ambition and big swords. The big sword group won (as they tend to do) (it's a good job I don't earn my living writing history books ). So after Ali ibn Talib came Muawiyah from Syria, then his son Yazid. The successionists decided they were having none of it and rebelled under the leadership of Husain (Ali’s son). Yazid slaughtered Husain, his family and all his followers in the battle Karbala in 680. This solidified the rift between Sunni & Shia.


So we can pretty much say that after the first 4 Caliphs it all became about political power. Sorry but from what I read I can’t agree with your portrait of Abu Bakr, the loonies that fit that description come later in history. Maybe we should swap books then have this conversation again.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

It is also to be noted that history is written by the conquerors, and if this is their version how much darker is the whole truth.

Absolutely, you get no argument from me there.

[Muslimwoman]

I am so so so so sorry this is such a big post. I promise not to say another for 24 hours.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Offers? Amazing? With the utmost respect I feel more like you try to convince yourself here than

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

me.

I am not talking about the engineered oppression that came later but about the first 800 years of Islam. I in no way delude myself that Islam is now into womens rights, quite the opposite but I know that the original Islam was because it’s there in the Quran. Please think about it for a moment, 1500 years ago women were given rights to choose their own husband, to own property, to inheritance, to divorce, to work, to education, even to abortion where necessary but these rights didn’t come to European women until the 19th century. Doesn’t that just blow your mind a little? Well obviously not but it blows mine.

May we explore for a moment. The Quran states over and over again “tell the believing men and the believing women”. These verses refer to dress, behaviour, mode of life, etc, etc. Let us take a small issue, that of dress. The Quran has not changed yet women are now required to dress as nuns while men largely dress as they please. Why? This is what I try to get across in my posts, the life of many Muslims in 2007 bears little resemblance to the life offered by the true Islam – the Quran. Why? Because of men, they hijacked Islam, only men interpret the Quran, traditions and culture play a major role in the decisions that are made. I am delighted that Islam has grown so far beyond the Middle East because now we have more and more open minded scholars that are not limited by tradition, culture or having the Quran beaten into them from an early age. Hurray. G-d said there should be no compulsion in religion, so why beat 7 year olds to learn the Quran. Would it not make a better Muslim to teach them slowly at their own pace?

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I have read most of the Quran, the only book I ever read from the last page back, but did not make notes on it. My lasting impression tho is that it is as a whole condescending, manipulative and controlling. Not all of it of course, but a significant enough of it to leave that impression with me. As for the Hadiths, well I can only call them political tools.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Your referrence to chinese whispers tho, have you ever applied that logic to the 60+ scribes who were working for political master with an undisputable agenda.?

You read it from the last page back. Did you read it in Arabic? I find the English translation rather repetitive so prefer to listen to it recited in Arabic but I love the Quran, I think it is at best the word of G-d at worst, if I am wrong about it, a very noble attempt to create a decent, moral and forward thinking society.

I would have to agree with your assessment of hadiths (they can chop my head off tomorrow but it’s what I believe too).

I have certainly considered the Chinese whispers and the scribes but I decided against it because I would imagine the scribes willing to do this work would be believers and would therefore be afraid to make errors. I have nothing to base that opinion on, just my own thought process and the knowledge that people were much more G-d fearing in those days. There is also the issue of the Arabic, it flows so perfectly, which cannot be achieved in other writings (anti Islamic Arabs have been trying for centuries so they can prove us wrong but have failed so far).

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Very sage words indeed. May I be so arrogant to say that they are all a part of the way I approach things? Well I do try but after all I am only human.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

In what I have said above I present an evaluation of the history I can deduce from written records written by victors, Muslims themselves. I do not think it any more unreasonable an interpretation than that of Islams adherants. But neither do I know it to be the truth. Just the best guess of sceptic me.

We are all only human. I am glad you liked the sage words. I included them not to annoy my fellow Muslims but because I love the scholars from this period of Islam, they truly studied the world around them and I could cry when I think of the millions of scrolls burnt in Baghdad – that’s another story.

What I find very interesting is when you read Arabic history books, ie the books of the victors, they tend to be full of blood thirsty battles and great victories, yet when you read western history books of Islam a much more timid story is told as far as the beginnings of Islam are concerned. I prefer the western version but as I said above, the truth is often somewhere in the middle.

Hope I haven’t bored you to sleep.
Salaam

[Tao_Equus]

Thank you for your replies Muslimwoman,

First, I love reading your replies, you write well. And believe me if I was not such a slow, (2 finger), typist my posts would be a lot longer. Unfortunately my brain works way faster than I am able to put down and this leads to my small concise posts being not always true to my thoughts.

We do come at this question from different angles and as I have said I respect and enjoy how you convey your love for Islam. You are right in saying I do not believe any words written down by mankind to be the word of God, that is unless you consider Mankind to be a facet of God.

All the good that is in the various Holy books of the world are basicly moral codes for the peaceful conduct and mutual respect of mankind. No more. No less. But for that alone they have great value.
But these are the product of good and sagacious humans and not some detatched ethereal super being. That many of these people felt a deep spirituality cannot confer the existance of an external entity, to my mind, and my own belief is that this sense of the spirit we all feel is our collective soul. For me that is not limited to mankind either but is the collective of all life here on Earth. And, again, to me we are this super-organisms sentience. The greater organism may also be sentient but acts/thinks on a time frame beyond our comprehension. It is not a God of retribution and judgement, nor of compassion and forgiveness. It is an organism like any other that is concerned with its own survival and reproduction. Anyhow I digress from the point.. The thread "Gaia theory and its relationship to faiths" discussed this subject at length last year should you be interested.

You say that because you believe the Q'uran to be the word of Allah it is impossible to edit out the disagreeable parts of it. I maintain my contention that, at best, the written narrative is the work of Abu Bakr and Usman. There is no extant Q'uran in existance dating even from their time though so we cannot prove it was written in the lifetime of anyone who ever met Mohammad. So you cannot prove it is even authentic to Muhammad let alone Allah. Its a matter of faith alone.

Even if Muhammad did narate every word, was the Shakespeare of his day and had this wonderful talent for giving great poetic justice to his words, that is all it is, great writing. This often cited statement that the Q'uran becomes something of great beauty when rendered in the Arabic tounge does not suprise me. Listening to the everyday conversation of arabic speakers is hypnotic in itself, it is that kind of language. I only understand a few words, the basic pleasantries, but find it a beautiful musical tounge to hear. And thats when they discuss what to have for dinner. If Muhammad, Bakr or (most likely) Usman were a great poet then of course the Q'uran would be special.

As you ellucidated on another thread in a reply to Niranjan, there is no Religion that is not tainted by attrocities carried out in its name. The Islam you love I understand and believe to condem the now countless acts of savagery carried out in its name. And while your Islam may be true and just and compassionate to all, that is not the Islam so often preached either now or historicly. We do live in a world where generalisations form our perceptions and generaly that perception is that Islam foments attrocity. The voice of moderate, peacful Islam is lost in the tearing roar from the blast of a suicide vest.
Even the words of the Q'uran are lost in an endless stream of hate-filled, inflammatory hadiths espoused by self-important insane Imans. Islam is sick. Very very sick. The close to silent majority of peaceful muslims seem powerless to stop the rot and I cannot blame them for they face torture and death not only for them but for their families if they dare raise their voices.

Also, I am fully aware of the debt 'civilisation' owes to the muslim scholars of the middle ages. They alone kept alive the sciences, arts, mathematics etc that europe lost during the dark ages. The world is indebted to them for this. It is a shame that this golden age of Islam is now being so forcefully forgotten by the likes of the Talliban.

I may not have covered every point in your last post and if there is anything particular you would have me clarify please just ask. Unfortunately I am not really a note taker, I have tried but soon they get jumbled and lost, I am not very organised you see I thus sometimes struggle to quote sources but if you really need I will do my utmost to track them down.

Regards

TE

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I am not talking about the engineered oppression that came later but about the first 800 years of Islam. I in no way delude myself that Islam is now into womens rights, quite the opposite but I know that the original Islam was because it’s there in the Quran. Please think about it for a moment, 1500 years ago women were given rights to choose their own husband, to own property, to inheritance, to divorce, to work, to education, even to abortion where necessary but these rights didn’t come to European women until the 19th century. Doesn’t that just blow your mind a little? Well obviously not but it blows mine.

Hope you don't mind my asking this. But Islam permits polygamy. Would you like to share your husband with other women ?

[Tao_Equus]

Niranjan if you have a look I think you will find that are already 2 or 3 threads dedicated to that subject.

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Niranjan if you have a look I think you will find that are already 2 or 3 threads dedicated to that subject.

And which forum and which thread is it ? I am interested.

I am a bit curious because my lover gets visibly annoyed when I even mention about other goodlooking girls, and is very possessive about me.

So I am a bit curious about how muslim women can be very ' self-denying' in this matter .

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by niranjan

[/color]

Hope you don't mind my asking this. But Islam permits polygamy. Would you like to share your husband with other women ?

In the context of the Quran I would not mind it at all but only in the context of the Quran. If you read the verse allowing polygamy the first word are "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans". Some Muslims (generally men) interpret this verse as permission to marry 4 wives but the scholars I adhere to state that the verse refers to times in history when women (for reasons of war or major sickness) are left with children to bring up and no husband (because he is dead). If my husband married one of these women, for these reasons and not for love or lust, I would have no problem with it, in fact I would support the decision completely and help her to bring the children up.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by niranjan

And which forum and which thread is it ? I am interested.

I am a bit curious because my lover gets visibly annoyed when I even mention about other goodlooking girls, and is very possessive about me.

So I am a bit curious about how muslim women can be very ' self-denying' in this matter .

The Muslim women that adhere to this do it because they believe they are commanded by Allah to accept this and they will receive their reward in heaven. That does not stop them being jealous, I have had women hysterical with jealousy in my home because their husband wants to take a second wife (usually because the second woman has money I hasten to add).

I don't get jealous if my husband has a quick look, he has blood in his veins after all but I do get jealous if he comments or stares like he's in a trance. Well, I am only human. The problem Niranjan is that woman want to be the only one that you love, they want you to believe that they are the most beautiful woman in the world - our self esteem and confidence relies on it. So please just glance and keep your girlfriend happy.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You say that because you believe the Q'uran to be the word of Allah it is impossible to edit out the disagreeable parts of it. I maintain my contention that, at best, the written narrative is the work of Abu Bakr and Usman. There is no extant Q'uran in existance dating even from their time though so we cannot prove it was written in the lifetime of anyone who ever met Mohammad. So you cannot prove it is even authentic to Muhammad let alone Allah. Its a matter of faith alone.

As salaam aleykum TE

Everything is a matter of faith. If you don't believe in G-d then we (the ones that do) are in need of therapy, I accept that. However, I do believe in G-d and He said in the Quran that He would protect it throughout the ages. Now, your argument is Abu Bakr could have written this. My argument is he couldn't, many Arabic non-muslims over centuries have tried to produce something anything like the Quran to prove it cannot be from G-d and all, thus far, have failed. Why? To be honest I accept it on faith because my Arabic is not good enough to understand the difference but many scholars Muslim and non-muslim have spoken of the unusual beauty of the Quran when recited. It simply cannot be reproduced (meaning something similar).

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I only understand a few words, the basic pleasantries, but find it a beautiful musical tounge to hear. And thats when they discuss what to have for dinner. If Muhammad, Bakr or (most likely) Usman were a great poet then of course the Q'uran would be special.

Are you joking? I listen to Arabic everyday and it is full of spitting, some of the music is really good though. As I said above, for this to be true then they would have to a poet to a degree that has never been seen since - how likely is that really? (ok I am leaving myself open to you saying how likely is G-d - VERY).

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

As you ellucidated on another thread in a reply to Niranjan, there is no Religion that is not tainted by attrocities carried out in its name. The Islam you love I understand and believe to condem the now countless acts of savagery carried out in its name. And while your Islam may be true and just and compassionate to all, that is not the Islam so often preached either now or historicly. We do live in a world where generalisations form our perceptions and generaly that perception is that Islam foments attrocity. The voice of moderate, peacful Islam is lost in the tearing roar from the blast of a suicide vest.

So should I just give up my belief? Of course not, Islam is changing, slowly but still changing, look at the reaction of the Sheikhs in Saudi after 9/11 - even the head guy came out and said it was totally against Islam. Ok so that sounds like a small thing in comparison to what happened but things are starting to change. More and more Muslims are turning to the more moderate scholars. More and more hard line scholars are speaking out about terrorism. I must stick to my faith and trust my faith to return to its roots.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Even the words of the Q'uran are lost in an endless stream of hate-filled, inflammatory hadiths espoused by self-important insane Imans. Islam is sick. Very very sick. The close to silent majority of peaceful muslims seem powerless to stop the rot and I cannot blame them for they face torture and death not only for them but for their families if they dare raise their voices.

There are sick people in every walk of life, religious and none religious but it is the people that are sick not the religion itself. Look at the country I live in and trust me, the wheels of change are slowly grinding into motion.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Also, I am fully aware of the debt 'civilisation' owes to the muslim scholars of the middle ages. They alone kept alive the sciences, arts, mathematics etc that europe lost during the dark ages. The world is indebted to them for this. It is a shame that this golden age of Islam is now being so forcefully forgotten by the likes of the Talliban.

I could not have said it better myself. Really it makes me weep.

I am much happier just reading your thoughts, we can all quote books and articles but I find it much nicer and more interesting to read peoples own thoughts.

Best wishes

Salaam

[Francis king]

well, thanks for enlightening me again, all, but especially dauer and muslimwoman... quite jealous that I do not know my faith so well... lol

...as has been said, authenticity is a difficult subject to prove, and it makes me think of all the elements of christianity that have changed over the years... jesus as man, now God, mary's role as the mother of jesus, deciding which books of the bible were legitimate and worth keeping, all decided by the whims of a few powerful men...

just hope we all don't throw the baby away with the bathwater, though...

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

In the context of the Quran I would not mind it at all but only in the context of the Quran. If you read the verse allowing polygamy the first word are "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans". Some Muslims (generally men) interpret this verse as permission to marry 4 wives but the scholars I adhere to state that the verse refers to times in history when women (for reasons of war or major sickness) are left with children to bring up and no husband (because he is dead). If my husband married one of these women, for these reasons and not for love or lust, I would have no problem with it, in fact I would support the decision completely and help her to bring the children up.

And then how come I know of many arabs and Indian muslims and muslims of other nations who have more than one wife in the present era ? There is no dearth of eligible men in their society due to war or sickness .

Also does your husband have to marry the woman ? He can easily take care of them without marrying her as well. Also would you like it if your husband has sex with this second wife and other wives as well ? Just curious.

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

The Muslim women that adhere to this do it because they believe they are commanded by Allah to accept this and they will receive their reward in heaven. That does not stop them being jealous, I have had women hysterical with jealousy in my home because their husband wants to take a second wife (usually because the second woman has money I hasten to add).

Except for Indian muslims who do not follow the common civil code, we don't have the above stuff in our society among hindus, buddhists, sikhs , jains, zoroastrians, jews , bahais.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I don't get jealous if my husband has a quick look, he has blood in his veins after all but I do get jealous if he comments or stares like he's in a trance. Well, I am only human. The problem Niranjan is that woman want to be the only one that you love, they want you to believe that they are the most beautiful woman in the world - our self esteem and confidence relies on it. So please just glance and keep your girlfriend happy.

I definetely intend to do that. My lover is the only girl in the world for me.

However I must say that muslim women in Islamic society seems to be lacking confidence , assertiveness and self-esteem. Perhaps violence against them by their husbands and bullying,the easy talaq divorce and the fact that their husband marries other women must be factors in it.

I honestly do not mean to offend you when I state this, as I really appreciate your comments above which touched my heart a bit . I only feel sorry for muslim women. I had a good muslim lady friend of mine when I was a child who was older to me, and whom I called bhaji ( meaning aunt or elder sister, thats what she taught me to address her ). They were my neighbors and I used to play badminton with her. She was very dignified and cultured and unmarried.She left after a few years as she became married . I hope she is safe and sound and happy.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Francis king

well, thanks for enlightening me again, all, but especially dauer and muslimwoman... quite jealous that I do not know my faith so well... lol

...as has been said, authenticity is a difficult subject to prove, and it makes me think of all the elements of christianity that have changed over the years... jesus as man, now God, mary's role as the mother of jesus, deciding which books of the bible were legitimate and worth keeping, all decided by the whims of a few powerful men...

just hope we all don't throw the baby away with the bathwater, though...

as salaam aleykum Francis

I know very little of my chosen religion, I just speak from my heart. I believe that all humans are born with an instinctive and deep knowledge of G-d and it is our upbringing and choices that keep that with us or see it fall away.

I accept completely what you say about Christianity, I feel the same way about Islam, men corrupt the good because of greed - fact of life. However, what I do is choose to ignore those people and go back to the roots of Islam, I believe in the Islam taught by the Prophet Mohammad and only G-d will tell me if I have followed the right path or not. So can you not do the same with Christianity and study where it came from, find out what scholars say it was before the changes and then believe in that?

I sall give one small example, there are so many verses of the Quran and hadiths stating the equality of women with men. Yet over time hadiths have appeared that say women are the scurge of the earth, so I simply reject these and not because they don't sit well with me but because they go completely against the Quran and what I have learned of how the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) lived his life.

Sometimes it is a hard road to travel, you must go against the masses but what I remind myself every day is that one day I must stand before G-d himself and answer for everything that I do and I don't want to be in a position where He says "your heart knew this was wrong so why did you follow" and my feeble reply would be "because they said I should". No sorry that is not the path for me so I shall struggle on the one I have chosen thankyou.

What do you think, could this work for you?

Salaam

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by niranjan

And then how come I know of many arabs and Indian muslims and muslims of other nations who have more than one wife in the present era ? There is no dearth of eligible men in their society due to war or sickness.

Because they believe they can have four wives just because they want to. As you seem genuinely interested I shall give you the 3 verses that refer to polygamy and the view of those that believe it must be under strict circumstances. Perhaps a brother of the school that agrees in polygamy for lust can give their thoughts. Please note that culture plays a very large roll in the issue of interpreting these verses. It is interesting to note that in some towns there is a majority of young men from poorer families without wives, yet men from wealthier families have 2 or 3 wives.

Before we start may I point out that the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was married to his first wife Kadijah for 25 years. He only practiced polygamy after her death and that was for political reasons (as proof of this statement look at who each of his later wives were related to)

Before I married I knew this would be a problem for me so my husband to be took me to see the local sheikh (he speaks not one word of English and has never left the middle east so cannot be accused of holding westerised ideas). He showed me the verses and told me which scholars to read – his view was very strict about meeting the conditions for polygamy and said it can only be condoned “when women are without protectors”.

Point 1, it is permissible, not ordained.

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, 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, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. (4:3)

This verse was revealed after the battle of Uhud. In that battle, many Muslim men died and as such a great social problem for the protection of widows and orphans arose, necessitating an institutionalized polygamy for a convenient solution of the problem. The number was limited to 4 wives from the accepted ‘as many as you like’ in those days. How many men with more than one wife now married to protect the women and orphans? When you ask these men about the fact that the verse starts with the issue of orphans, they stutter a lot and then tell me I am a woman so cannot understand the Quran. When my husband asks them they say he is not a scholar so cannot understand. When you point to the scholars that state conditions apply, they reply these scholars are misguided. Perhaps they believe Allah is misguided too?

Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire: But turn not away (from a woman) altogether, so as to leave her (as it were) hanging (in the air). If ye come to a friendly understanding, and practise self-restraint, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (4:129)

Now go back to versse 4:3 does it not say if you cannot be just then marry only one? This verse refers obviously to man’s inability to be just between two wives. Some scholars say that it deals only with matters of the heart and no man can love 2 women the same. Others disagree and say it says what it says and should not be used as an excuse to extinguish your desires. All seem to agree it states clearly you are not permitted to ignore one wife because your new wife is preferable to you.

You will note that those that state polygamy is allowed as and when you feel like it always refer to it in purely sexual terms as can be seen here and rarely refer to the moral obligations of verse 4:3

IslamonLine.net

This is a comment by a traditional scholar: There are some men who may have strong physical desires, for whom one wife is not enough. If the door is closed to such a man and he is told, you are not allowed more than one wife, this will cause great hardship to him, and his desire may find outlets in forbidden ways.

And of course women just have to cross their legs.

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Whosoever had two wives and treats one of them more favorably than the other will come on the Day of Judgment bent to one side.” (Reported by Ahmad, Abu Dawud, An-Nasa'i and Ibn Majah) This hadith warns against polygamy should the man not be able to practice equality amongst his wives." Now read again verse 4:129.

It is because of silly views like this that men now take more than one wife, it is assumed that men are not capable of ‘keeping it in their pants’. Having said this I would not want polygamy to be prohibited, so it may be used in times when it is needed and if it is never needed fine but at least it is an option if the situation arises.

This is by Dr Badawi, I find his lectures quite balanced but a little long winded, skip the first sections and go to the bit where he states the verses and their interpretations.

Polygamy in Islamic Law

I don’t agree with everything in here (the figures of 95 males to 100 females hardly calls for some men to have 4 wives and others none – defeats the objective)

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/poly.htm

This is a short article but a good insight by the wisdom fund:

http://www.twf.org/Library/Polygamy.html

Originally Posted by niranjan

Also does your husband have to marry the woman ? He can easily take care of them without marrying her as well. Also would you like it if your husband has sex with this second wife and other wives as well ? Just curious.

No he would have to marry her. Muslims are very modest, it would be wrong for my husband to simply visit her to give her money unless someone was there. What if a child got sick and my husband wanted to help? He could not spend the night with the sick child if the mother was there and they were not married. And this is just one example.

The answer to your second question is obviously no I would not like this nor would I accept it, I would get divorced and return to the west because I have the option to do that. I have mulled over the question of what would be fair to the other wife, should she spend her whole life alone without intimate relations? I still don’t have an answer and would have to deal with that issue if it ever arose but I tend to think a woman in that situation would be grateful just to have the protection for herself and her children, without the nookie. Anyway lets be honest women tend to go off it somewhat after having children, it is less important to women than men. (I know that is a generalisation and possibly bad news to men who have not had kids yet).

Originally Posted by niranjan

I definetely intend to do that. My lover is the only girl in the world for

Originally Posted by niranjan

me.

Maabruk, I am so happy to hear that. I hope you tell her so often and I await with anticipation seeing photos of your wedding. Is she Indian? Indian girls are sooooo beautiful.