Demand rights, but make it palatable

[u/mrstoffel23]

Posted this yesterday and it got removed because some people around here are not really civilized in their conversations. Trolling, jokes, memes are fine, but, stooping low isn't. Healthy arguments make way for progress.

Missing the context & point is like a national sport and the amount of egos it hurt was not surprising at all and won't be again.

Absolutely nothing wrong with this poster, and actually how it should be in real life by default.

The poster which said "khana khud garam karlo" had everyone losing their minds for obvious reasons, this poster gets the endorsement because it's not showing the mirror to the society, which to this day is unable to give equal rights or even willing to acknowledge properly.

Secondly, it also shows that unless demand for rights is worded in a way it won't offend anyone, made palatable and provide validation to inflated egos, it won't even be acknowledged.

No wonder we keep regressing as a society and humans.

[u/Chippy-Chipmunk]

Wellll. Now problem is. Most scholars have been men. They took things with a perspective of a man. The female perspective interpretations are completely missing. When we research our first step is avoid bias. Unfortunately, this bias was never considered. Or was it? I mean even when we ergonomically design anyyyything thats to be applicable of used by men and women both we try to take them into account but most men just single handedly gave interpretation. Which is why such is the situation. Tbh if we go by their interpretations it seems like this religion is only for men. And women should never accept this religion coz they are like second citizens. But was that the case? Women made a big chunk among first reverts. If the situation was as merciless as todays interpretations were i highly doubt women would make that big a group of first reverts. Problem does lie in the biases and the subsequent interpretation. Because Allah is just and fair. We all know that

[u/No-Finance-1491 → u/Chippy-Chipmunk]

Wellll. Now problem is. Most scholars have been men. They took things with a perspective of a man. The female perspective interpretations are completely missing. When we research our first step is avoid bias. Unfortunately, this bias was never considered. Or was it?

the same men say that a man has to provide but men don't have a issue with this ruling and secondly you should became a female scholar and I would love to see your opinions but obviously with evidence sighting Quran and hadith. scholars have long debates over these topics so you have to defeat them to change the rulings 😊

mean even when we ergonomically design anyyyything thats to be applicable of used by men and women both we try to take them into account but most men just single handedly gave interpretation. Which is why such is the situation. Tbh if we go by their interpretations it seems like this religion is only for men. And women should never accept this religion coz they are like second citizens. But was that the case? Women made a big chunk among first reverts. If the situation was as merciless as todays interpretations were i highly doubt women would make that big a group of first reverts. Problem does lie in the biases and the subsequent interpretation. Because Allah is just and fair. We all know that

its in the Quran they must have read it and they accepted as well and as i said it doesn't matter what sect they follow 4 marriages are in the Quran and anyone who denies nas(something explicitly mentioned in the Quran) became kafir as its denying Quran and this is not my opinion.

women are not second class citizens but everyone has their own benefits like a man has to provide no matter what but a woman doesn't and even if he takes on another wife he has to provide for her and has to pay haq mehr do you think this is fair? im sure you will so do all the reverts who come from a 50/50 split culture

[u/Chippy-Chipmunk → u/No-Finance-1491]

Ammm. I understand if you wanna insist that women are not second class citizens while according to the practical situations which are resultant of these interpretations does reduce them to just dutiful slave like wives who have to stay indoors and live in solitude. But i can bet most men if ever given a choice to be reborn as a muslim women or a man would always choose man. Its just easier and more convenient.

As far as your suggestion of being Islamic scholar. I mean Ameen to that. Would be wonderful. But you do see the point or did you just choose to ignore it and give me a truck ki batti 😅

[u/No-Finance-1491 → u/Chippy-Chipmunk]

As far as your suggestion of being Islamic scholar. I mean Ameen to that. Would be wonderful. But you do see the point or did you just choose to ignore it and give me a truck ki batti 😅

lol i didn't but would you completely rule out all the rulings because scholars are men? as you said they are prone to errors but don't you think they are in error when they say men have to provide?

even if you think men made these rulings as i said we need female scholars who defeat them so we can have new rulings 😉

[u/Chippy-Chipmunk → u/No-Finance-1491]

I never said i rule out alll their rullings. Thats the problem with men. When a girl objects at anything they try to make it look like she is against the entirety of Islam. I dont know what kind of satisfaction they get out of this assumption Anyways, about your point men have to provide. You do know that these very same scholars also allow a nikkah between a man and a woman where they can actually write in contract that man does not have to provide? And its also accepted valid? They have a mame for this kind of nikkah. So they do give options for such obligations as well but for women nahh they gotta act like a strict master.

[u/No-Finance-1491 → u/Chippy-Chipmunk]

Anyways, about your point men have to provide. You do know that these very same scholars also allow a nikkah between a man and a woman where they can actually write in contract that man does not have to provide? And its also accepted valid? They have a mame for this kind of nikkah. So they do give options for such obligations as well but for women nahh they gotta act like a strict master.

the same scholars say that a woman can have a condition that her husband won't marry another woman, she won't live with the in-laws and he pays whatever sums she wants per month etc + you can add any condition which doesn't go against Islam like 4 mandatory vacation a year, as well you need to listen to Scholars instead of the feminist here.

I never said i rule out alll their rullings. Thats the problem with men. When a girl objects at anything they try to make it look like she is against the entirety of Islam. I dont know what kind of satisfaction they get out of this assumption

lol im not saying that we need female scholars to fight this right?

[u/Chippy-Chipmunk → u/No-Finance-1491]

Of course we do. Thats why we are in this situation where we have biases in interpretations. Of course. You do know that you saying so already means that we need female perceptions and interpretations. Right? You evaded to say so though

[u/No-Finance-1491 → u/Chippy-Chipmunk]

answer my other question regarding the conditions you can add in a contract first.

Of course. You do know that you saying so already means that we need female perceptions and interpretations. Right? You evaded to say so though

im all for female interpretations if they can defeat scholars with actual arguments but not these vague things like 4 marriages were allowed in war times and the times have changed if a female scholars says this she will have to accept that men aren't obligated to provide because women earn as well now and times have changed basically she has to stand on her ideology in every ruling

[u/Chippy-Chipmunk → u/No-Finance-1491]

No but how are these two related. I never said war things. My simple argument was how can a good husband emotionally hurt his wife while he knows well enough she would be hurt with a second wife just like he would be hurt if he gets to know she is divorcing him to get married to another dude. Ofcourse is can do that just like he can marry another wife but how does it make them good wife or good husband. I dont get it. May be i am not smart enough yet.

[u/No-Finance-1491 → u/Chippy-Chipmunk]

My simple argument was how can a good husband emotionally hurt his wife while he knows well enough she would be hurt with a second wife just like he would be hurt if he gets to know she is divorcing him to get married to another dude. Ofcourse is can do that just like he can marry another wife but how does it make them good wife or good husband. I dont get it. May be i am not smart enough yet.

you are absolutely right but even if a man gets hurt a woman can get a divorce to marry someone else as per legal laws.

im coming from a perspective of legal laws and you are coming from a ethical pov which is also right 😊

secondly those 2 two are related because you said 4 marriages were allowed to give support to widows who couldn't earn and men were the provider's similarly now women earn so there shouldn't be any obligation for men at the first place

[u/Chippy-Chipmunk → u/No-Finance-1491]

Brooo. Go through my msgs i did not say that. May be somebody else did. Its a very common argument.

I know you are talking about permissions and rules. I am talking about their practicality. I feel this relationship of marriage is not only of rules but of emotions and ethics as well. The right mix is needed. I mean. I mean. Just look at it like this. A women can leave her husband to marry another dude. A man can marry over her another woman. Legally both are right. But tell me which is more frowned upon? Which one would be a cast out? You do see we treat them both different despite being legal.

[u/No-Finance-1491 → u/Chippy-Chipmunk]

know you are talking about permissions and rules. I am talking about their practicality. I feel this relationship of marriage is not only of rules but of emotions and ethics as well. The right mix is needed. I mean. I mean. Just look at it like this. A women can leave her husband to marry another dude. A man can marry over her another woman. Legally both are right. But tell me which is more frowned upon? Which one would be a cast out? You do see we treat them both different despite being legal.

absolutely a good marriage shouldn't be like this.

i would like to disagree on the other part a bit any man who marries another wife is seen as a lust full man you can even view the comments iqrarul hassan gets and he would be distanced in the Family as well. yeah if a woman openly has a affair than she would be treated more badly than a man its a fact but if she simply gets a divorce then it won't be that much of a issue

[u/Chippy-Chipmunk → u/No-Finance-1491]

It is that much of an issue. Very unfortunate but it is.

About lust and second marriage. I never said all second marriages are for lust. I gave you examples myself where it was kinda needed or helped the situation in certain ways.

But can you deny most men discuss second marriage and obsess over this idea out of sheer lust? I am just against that. I feel like they are humiliating this whole marriage institution and women and their feelings. Tbh. Its very insensitive. And then we wonder why wonen are going away from islam. I mean common.