Precisely why Hareem’s statistics leave out quite a bit. The highlighted portion simply regurgitates what I just said. I am not attacking Hareem, I am trying to explain the error in the statistic. Statistics get quoted left and right, and many times, there are factors that weren’t all looked at.
Yes, Hareem, can you post a source where you get your statistic from, and how the study was done, where it was done, and what statistical parameters were used, and what biases the study cited?
USResident, your posts are inflammatory in themselves. Hareem’s responses are inflammatory with her “hahahahah” and I don’t see you targeting her. Thankfully, I don’t care who comes to her rescue, as her comments usually stand to be illogical and unfounded upon true data and more upon a traditionalistic approach to Islam, which stands out very clearly in her writing.
This cat fight can easily be avoided and ended if everyone reads my take on it( Post # 13 )and criticise or agree with it . Then it will not be a catfight anymore it will tun into an all out war.
This cat fight can easily be avoided and ended if everyone reads my take on it( Post # 13 )and criticise or agree with it . Then it will not be a catfight anymore it will tun into an all out war.
Br. Mirch, I think you maybe be new however the Hareem vs PCG saga is never-ending. I just the two sisters to calm down and have some constructive talk for once. They have to disagree.
I agree with your post and think pretty much the same way. Times/circumstances change and so should rulings accordingly.
Precisely why Hareem's statistics leave out quite a bit. The highlighted portion simply regurgitates what I just said. I am not attacking Hareem, I am trying to explain the error in the statistic. Statistics get quoted left and right, and many times, there are factors that weren't all looked at.
Yes, Hareem, can you post a source where you get your statistic from, and how the study was done, where it was done, and what statistical parameters were used, and what biases the study cited?
USResident, your posts are inflammatory in themselves. Hareem's responses are inflammatory with her "hahahahah" and I don't see you targeting her. Thankfully, I don't care who comes to her rescue, as her comments usually stand to be illogical and unfounded upon true data and more upon a traditionalistic approach to Islam, which stands out very clearly in her writing.
Aray Pyari se behna, to you everyone is inflammatory. You should take TUMs before you come to post on this forum. Now be nice and let Hareem come up with her statistics. And I'm not out here to defend her but rather see the two of you get along and discuss things not disagree all the time.
I personaly think, if this is the case then reason is to relieve mom from Kid's responsibilty .. so if she want to go back and remarry, or is already re-married, than she can take care of her new kids (from new marriage)
Islam definitely sees the importance of mother, that is why Islam wants earlier years to be spent with mom so kids get good upbringing.
I see it as a good thing for mother.
and at the end, its not a requirement, if both ex-spuses agree that kids are better off with mother, then it will be that way
I guess this also sort of answers the thread question … However, the best way to answer the question for sister … AnGeL EyEs
Tell them that neither of the parents are allowed to give up their rights nor are they allowed to take the rights of custody from either parent. So the question is wrong. Clarify by saying that Islam requires involvement of both mother and father but emphasises their roles and responsibility to varying degrees over the growth of the child.
Financial = Father always has to provide this, 100% upkeep
For disciplinary years for boys = father needs to be there
For disciplinary years for girls = mother needs to be there
Mother must always have access to children even if father does not wish it, but not if the mother is dangerous.
Custody in Islam is seen as a responsiblity in the legal sense, it is not a method of removing the children from either parent. The questioners need to understand this. Divorce in Islam is also intended to be a parting in ‘good terms’ which is a concept alien to most Westerners. They view the court as a battle ground for custody, but in Islam the sense of Divorce is a merely a parting of ways and the legal end to wife-husband responsibilities but maintaining the parental ones as much as possible.
Its not very often Br. Psyah that I disagree with you but however here I must in response to your post.
I may not recall (or have not done my research properly) however the Quran does not lay down any absolute laws regarding custody. If there are verses which I do not recall at the moment please point me to them. Most societies formulated their custody laws based on the societal structure and it must be the same for us.
I can agree that 1400 years ago the financial responsibility of maintaining a household belonged to the man and rightly so as well. Even though today it still follows suit but women being earning members of their household is no longer a rarity or may even become a necessity. Therefore IMO we cannot attribute this as an absolute responsibility to the man though it is the prefered responsibility.
The disciplinary role is not segregated in a household i.e. Males for males and females for females. Though that is probably the best approach. The children should not be separated on such grounds from either parent for extended periods of time especially for reasons that prevent the parents from getting along. A vital responsibility the parents have whether divorced or not is to not victimize the children for their inability to compromise with each other.
When a couple divorces due to the mans inability to support the household (drunkards, a very common case today), the financial responsibility falls to the mother as well as the custody. We cannot make hard anf fast rules when it comes to custody, there are many angles to consider which affect all parties to the divorce i.e. spouses and offspring.
The ideal divorce does not exist today as described in your last para, maybe but exceptionally. Though this is the spirit in which we are supposed to part ways.
^ thanks…that pretty much sums it up. makes sense and is quite logical.
JazakAllah to all that have contributed constuctively…I believe that I am now able to give a strong answer to any questions that may come my way about this issue.
Code_Red, thanks for pointing out the difference b/w rights and responsibilty. You are absolutely right. Unlike in the west…rights of a parents are not denied in Islam after divorce. A mother is free to see her children whenever she wants and can continue to be involved in their life. Your clarification b/w these two terms alone made it easier to explain.
It brings up another interesting point that occurred to me. 1400 years ago, people would get married and start working soon after puberty anyway. There was no concept of "teenagers" or "college life" or "young single adults". So, if Angel Eyes' theory is correct, then 1400 years ago, the kids really didn't necessarily spend much time with the father if they're handed off to him at puberty.
If the Quran demands that the man be financially responsible over his family and that the wife doesn’t have these duties, then how do you expect a whole society of unemployed married women to start contributing financially if and when they get divorced??? You can’t tell a woman - its your right to stay at home. But then she divorces and now she has to get a job to pay 50-50 for the kids???
YOUR lot is the one that always talks about how a woman’s rightful place is at home, and even today if a woman decides to stay at home, muslim men would be the first to champion those rights, of all people. Yet, divorce ke mamlay mein, tables are turned? When will you people start seeing women as human beings. Her worth and her rights don’t end when she doesn’t play your game of womanly obedience.
USResident, your post 23 and 24 : you keep buk-buking about me and this woman. No one is inciting a cat fight here except for you. If you truly wouldn't want a catfight you would not keep egging the situaion on. Methinks you just like to see people fight, hai na?
My argument stems from the angle of responsibility. Though it is never the mothers responsibilty to proivde financial support for her children it is her right to opt for that if she can provide for them. For example widowed women with families are either re-married or the Islamic state supports them until that eventuality. What I mean is the responsibility can never be on the mother, even if she has the means and her ex-husband is a money waster drop-out the religious responsibility will always be on him, by not providing for his children he will be getting sin and by the mother providing she will be getting a double reward for doing more than that is required of her. This should answer the concerns of PyariCgudia also.
Furthermore I agree and my initial post should reflect this that both parents should be there, but a bit of common sense suggests more involvement of one parent at certain times are necessary for different gender children.
I also said that the mother should not be kept from he children … she has a 3:1 ratio of greater importance to her children than their father, in the general sense. But when specifics are being talked about yes, there are exceptions that need to be exercised.
If the Quran demands that the man be financially responsible over his family and that the wife doesn't have these duties, then how do you expect a whole society of unemployed married women to start contributing financially if and when they get divorced?????? You can't tell a woman - its your right to stay at home. But then she divorces and now she has to get a job to pay 50-50 for the kids???
YOUR lot is the one that always talks about how a woman's rightful place is at home, and even today if a woman decides to stay at home, muslim men would be the first to champion those rights, of all people. Yet, divorce ke mamlay mein, tables are turned? When will you people start seeing women as human beings. Her worth and her rights don't end when she doesn't play your game of womanly obedience.
Peace Sister PyariCgudia
Bro. USResident didn't actually claim that a woman must stay at home, rather he is suggesting that in an atmosphere where women are now working then rulings in the legal sense should also extend to them. I somewhat disgree with this, because though women have come in to financial/legal circles Islam never obliges them to do so and therefore they are not obliged for the rest either.
If the Quran demands that the man be financially responsible over his family and that the wife doesn't have these duties, then how do you expect a whole society of unemployed married women to start contributing financially if and when they get divorced?????? You can't tell a woman - its your right to stay at home. But then she divorces and now she has to get a job to pay 50-50 for the kids???
I can see your reading comprehension has not improved even a bit since I last requested you. Did I (meaning ME, USR and I) ever say that women are forbidden to earn money or work or volunteer? Kindly direct me to the explicit statement detached from your own assumptions.
YOUR lot is the one that always talks about how a woman's rightful place is at home, and even today if a woman decides to stay at home, muslim men would be the first to champion those rights, of all people. Yet, divorce ke mamlay mein, tables are turned? When will you people start seeing women as human beings. Her worth and her rights don't end when she doesn't play your game of womanly obedience.
Again show me which people I threw my lot in with. Maybe its raisin brained people like you who cannot understand what others say beyond your own comprehension of things. I can hardly recall I was ever against womens rights. Can you please come out of your myopia. I see women as equals with equal human rights but with different responsibilities than men, that however does not mean responsibilities cannot be shared or swapped at times or both agree to their own shared responsibilities as they please. Now make this statement of mine remain in your pea-sized intellect once and for all.
USResident, your post 23 and 24 : you keep buk-buking about me and this woman. No one is inciting a cat fight here except for you. If you truly wouldn't want a catfight you would not keep egging the situaion on. Methinks you just like to see people fight, hai na?
Aray bhens ke aagay been bajana bekaar hai ... if you get my drift ....
My argument stems from the angle of responsibility. Though it is never the mothers responsibilty to proivde financial support for her children it is her right to opt for that if she can provide for them.
Agreed and men should not object to that if it makes sense or there is a rationale behind it.
For example widowed women with families are either re-married or the Islamic state supports them until that eventuality.
Not today. Widows have a very low re-marriage rate especially in south asian societies. They become dependents of their family most of the time. Again there are no Islamic countries in my knowledge that provide welfare for the unemployed leave alone widows. I do not know about all Arabic states in this respect though. This is the ideal we should strive for though to alleviate the plight that afflicts widows.
What I mean is the responsibility can never be on the mother, even if she has the means and her ex-husband is a money waster drop-out the religious responsibility will always be on him, by not providing for his children he will be getting sin and by the mother providing she will be getting a double reward for doing more than that is required of her. This should answer the concerns of PyariCgudia also.
Agreed. I think I understand your stance now. Women are not accountable for providing for the family in religion. However if a mans income is not sufficient it is not to say that he is sinning or not doing his job.
Furthermore I agree and my initial post should reflect this that both parents should be there, but a bit of common sense suggests more involvement of one parent at certain times are necessary for different gender children.
Agreed.
I also said that the mother should not be kept from he children ... she has a 3:1 ratio of greater importance to her children than their father, in the general sense. But when specifics are being talked about yes, there are exceptions that need to be exercised.
